Virginia Tech: Who is to be blamed?
What is it that makes men, and in some cases boys get up in the morning, slaughter innocent civilians in a place of learning and then end their own lives?
I believe this question has been on the minds of the public ever since the breaking news of the Virginia Tech Shootings. The aftermath of every school shooting is somewhat similar in the rituals and tributes given to victims of the tragedy. Every tragedy is however different and full of baffling details. A recent article in the times magazine reported detailed statistics on campus deaths, trying to make sense of this massacre. Despite a decreasing trend in violent crimes being spotting in campus, a generally rare incident the Virginia Tech shooting is by far the most tragic with the highest number of deaths recorded. Who is to be blamed for this outburst of violence?
Let us first take a look at the two semi-automatic pistols used in his rampage. Virginia law restricts customers to buying one gun a month and does not require any licensing such as permits or safety certificates. Cho Seung-Hui had followed all federal and Virginia laws when he made his purchases; he had proper identification and had no criminal records. The use of guns in crimes against college students attributed to 9% of the various weapons of assault, while 65% comes without weapons. Throw a stone in America and the chances of you hitting some one who owns a pistol will be relatively high. It is an American culture to be adequately armed against assaults. Owning a pistol may alter the course of a tragedy. In a Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Perhaps an armed teacher or student present in Virginia tech could have prevented the resultant of so many deaths.
Focusing on the identity of the killer. A young South Korean-born man who, according to fellow students, teachers, counselors and even his own family, was incapable of communicating with others personally. The media has in many ways emphasized Cho’s ethnicity and economic background by wondering what would set off a hardworking, quiet, South Korean immigrant from a middle class dry-cleaner-owning family. This behavior was unexpected from South Korean immigrants with much more expected from Middle Easterners and Muslims after the 911 incident. According to Cho's grand aunt in South Korea, Cho's parents had offered autism as an explanation for his behavior. Cho's flat emotional affect was evident through middle and high school years, during which he was bullied for speech difficulties. Relatives thought he might be a mute. Or mentally ill," reported the New York Times. Cho's underlying psychological diagnosis remains a matter of speculation.
Technology has played a huge part in the Virginia Tech mass murder, from Cho’s chilling videos to the memorials downloaded on Youtube. According to an early report in the Washington Post, the Virginia Tech shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, was a fan of violent video games, especially Counter-strike, which Microsoft publishes for the Xbox. As much as we all think games are fine, the truth is that games can be very disturbing and quite visceral. Are kidding ourselves if we ignore the fact that immersion in violence doesn't somewhat desensitize us to it. And if you can become desensitized to violence being in your right mind, is it such a great leap to accept that a person who is already suffering a mental illness would not be more affected? People like Cho are usually depressed, rejected or bullied with psychotic/sociopathic tendencies to begin with. It wouldn't matter if they were playing violent games, they are already a ball of fire building up to explode.
We cannot really pinpoint who is to be held responsible for this tragic happening. Neither should we spend too much effort in trying to hold someone responsible. The key takeaway here is that we have to prevent these unstable personalities to start work again. School attacks are rarely impulsive, teachers and parents should be alert to certain warning signs that a student is succumbing to violent urges.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Media
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.
Discuss this with references to recent events.
Mass media has, for the past few decades, severed as a resource to provide information readily. Mass media in this aspect would consist of the television, radio, newspapers, magazines, or simply any means of providing information. It brings the world closer to our field of vision, to allow us to be more well armed to make our own judgments on certain events. However, there is just one minor detail that we have seemingly forgotten, that is mass media is a business by itself. The main agenda of a business is to make profit. What is a TV station without viewers? What is a magazine without readers? The world of media has evolved over the years, failing to attract readers or viewers would be deemed as a failed business. Quite often nowadays, the media cannot be totally relied upon to tell the whole truth. In their eagerness to gain patrons, media agencies have slanted the truth or published selectively. There are many examples of manufactured truth just make their reports more attractive. Tabloids especially have committed blunders and hastily publish information which is later found out to be untrue.
Celebrities have been victimized by the media very much too often. It is true they are often the subject of new hounds, but should a line be drawn to separate their public and private lives? How many times have we heard of celebrity’s marriages or divorces which later turn out to be fictional? The media portray themselves as a watchdog over celebrities, to report any misconduct in behavior, as such; they live under the watchful eye of the public. Due to their overzealous attempt to bring news to the public, media has at points created news either intentionally or unintentionally. One recent example from the past week is the death of Nina Wang. Yes, this public figure has led a high profile life being the famously frugal tycoon. Media is at work here to inform the public about her sudden death, but media is at the same time making use of this event to draw readers. Why is her death reported in such depth? Extensive reports about her past lifestyle and lavish funeral, the media has chosen to blow up the death of this celebrity and not simply anyone else because a celebrity’s death will cause readers to pick up the newspapers and the 4 other ‘W’s come into play.
Another example of media at work will be the detaining of the British Navy crew in Iran. British sailors have claimed of being mistreated, however clips were aired on Iran’s satellite TV showing the sailors playing chess and table tennis, proving that the have been treated with respect and were leading comfortably. Media in this case has not created news as the video clips are from a reliable source of the Iran government. However, media is at work by selecting to showcase the video, tensions will rise in Iran felling wrongly accused by the British sailors. The media might have also chose not to broadcast certain videos, censorship is thus present. Seeds of discord have been sown between these 2 countries due to the usage of the media.
Last but not least, charity has always been regarded as an act from the heart. Recent articles about generous donations from organizations or over rated reports of volunteers going all way out to help the needy has caused doubts about the real meaning behind charity. Do not get me wrong by saying that we should not help those in need. However, apart from reporting that little bit of truth involved, the media has chosen to blow up the issue as there articles attract readers. Humanitarian acts as such have been proven to be able to attract readers. Therefore, the media has taken advantage of our humanity to sell this news.
Clearly, the media has spoiled its own reputation by performing certain unethical acts. In my opinion, the media is not entirely to blame. Having said before that mass media is a business, it is necessary to cater to their buyers which are us, if we are in demand for news on the private lives of celebrities, the media creates this news to prevent disappointment. We are actually dictators of media where the clichéd and over used phrased of “consumer is king” comes into play. The mass media is merely catering to the needs of consumers to make even more profit. To a certain extent, we can prevent the media from creating news if we stop being in demand for our so called “juicy” news. The media can be relied upon to tell the truth, but two things have to be kept in play. We as consumers cannot expect too much from the media to be full of entertaining news all the time. The mass media themselves should not be too cooped up with trying to earn more profits or try to compete with each other, instead strive to uphold the true meaning of media – to provide the truth to readers.
Discuss this with references to recent events.
Mass media has, for the past few decades, severed as a resource to provide information readily. Mass media in this aspect would consist of the television, radio, newspapers, magazines, or simply any means of providing information. It brings the world closer to our field of vision, to allow us to be more well armed to make our own judgments on certain events. However, there is just one minor detail that we have seemingly forgotten, that is mass media is a business by itself. The main agenda of a business is to make profit. What is a TV station without viewers? What is a magazine without readers? The world of media has evolved over the years, failing to attract readers or viewers would be deemed as a failed business. Quite often nowadays, the media cannot be totally relied upon to tell the whole truth. In their eagerness to gain patrons, media agencies have slanted the truth or published selectively. There are many examples of manufactured truth just make their reports more attractive. Tabloids especially have committed blunders and hastily publish information which is later found out to be untrue.
Celebrities have been victimized by the media very much too often. It is true they are often the subject of new hounds, but should a line be drawn to separate their public and private lives? How many times have we heard of celebrity’s marriages or divorces which later turn out to be fictional? The media portray themselves as a watchdog over celebrities, to report any misconduct in behavior, as such; they live under the watchful eye of the public. Due to their overzealous attempt to bring news to the public, media has at points created news either intentionally or unintentionally. One recent example from the past week is the death of Nina Wang. Yes, this public figure has led a high profile life being the famously frugal tycoon. Media is at work here to inform the public about her sudden death, but media is at the same time making use of this event to draw readers. Why is her death reported in such depth? Extensive reports about her past lifestyle and lavish funeral, the media has chosen to blow up the death of this celebrity and not simply anyone else because a celebrity’s death will cause readers to pick up the newspapers and the 4 other ‘W’s come into play.
Another example of media at work will be the detaining of the British Navy crew in Iran. British sailors have claimed of being mistreated, however clips were aired on Iran’s satellite TV showing the sailors playing chess and table tennis, proving that the have been treated with respect and were leading comfortably. Media in this case has not created news as the video clips are from a reliable source of the Iran government. However, media is at work by selecting to showcase the video, tensions will rise in Iran felling wrongly accused by the British sailors. The media might have also chose not to broadcast certain videos, censorship is thus present. Seeds of discord have been sown between these 2 countries due to the usage of the media.
Last but not least, charity has always been regarded as an act from the heart. Recent articles about generous donations from organizations or over rated reports of volunteers going all way out to help the needy has caused doubts about the real meaning behind charity. Do not get me wrong by saying that we should not help those in need. However, apart from reporting that little bit of truth involved, the media has chosen to blow up the issue as there articles attract readers. Humanitarian acts as such have been proven to be able to attract readers. Therefore, the media has taken advantage of our humanity to sell this news.
Clearly, the media has spoiled its own reputation by performing certain unethical acts. In my opinion, the media is not entirely to blame. Having said before that mass media is a business, it is necessary to cater to their buyers which are us, if we are in demand for news on the private lives of celebrities, the media creates this news to prevent disappointment. We are actually dictators of media where the clichéd and over used phrased of “consumer is king” comes into play. The mass media is merely catering to the needs of consumers to make even more profit. To a certain extent, we can prevent the media from creating news if we stop being in demand for our so called “juicy” news. The media can be relied upon to tell the truth, but two things have to be kept in play. We as consumers cannot expect too much from the media to be full of entertaining news all the time. The mass media themselves should not be too cooped up with trying to earn more profits or try to compete with each other, instead strive to uphold the true meaning of media – to provide the truth to readers.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
YouTube outrage
“The real innovation that Youtube provides is that --- individuals and groups can produce entertainment. The lawsuit is one of the Great Battles over who controls or provides access.” Do you agree?
Founded in February 2005, YouTube aimed to allow free video sharing which allows users to upload and share their video clips. These videos can be viewed by the public and members are allowed to give comments and rate them. The site gradually grew and now consists of a wide range of videos including movie and TV clips and music videos, as well as amateur content such as videoblogging and short original videos. The company was named TIME magazine's "Invention of the Year" for 2006 as well as voted one of the most user friendly websites by users.
Such an advanced novelty may very well be the new media of entertainment in future. So why is there such uproar about this website? Countries including Iran, US and Australia have been banning specific video clips or imposing bans to disallow students to visit YouTube in campus. Other countries namely Thailand and Brazil have engaged in lawsuits either due to political reasons or overly exposing videos. Even as such, many people are still strong supporters of this website, looking at it as a source of diversion and amusement apart from this hectic lifestyle that we live. Thus, I believe that YouTube exist to produce mainly entertainment or as a channel for broadcasting yourself, to promote more interaction in this shrinking world. It is the acts of violation that destroys this mean of modern entertainment, the real issue that we should be looking at is who should be allowed to run this site for it to function effectively, without invading the privacy of others or insult the belief of others unknowingly.
YouTube has created a new way for millions of people to entertain, educate, shock, rock and mock one another on a scale we've never seen before. Few years back, this would not have been possible, but the world has changed. In the past 24 months, thousands of ordinary people have become famous. Famous people have been embarrassed. What happened? YouTube's creators had produced a revolution. First, the revolution in video production made possible by cheap camcorders and easy-to-use video software. Second, a cultural revolution of people creating and sharing videos with one another. The third revolution is a cultural one, consumers are impatient with the mainstream media. Where audience are only fed with what the media chooses to broadcast, propaganda, what the media wants us to think, not being able to share their view pertaining issues they disagree with. People want unfiltered video from Iraq, Lebanon and Darfur—not from journalists who visit there but from soldiers who fight there and people who live and die there.
YouTube is ultimately more interesting as a community and a culture, however, than as a cash cow. The way blogs made regular folks into journalists, YouTube makes them into celebrities. The real challenge old media face isn't protecting their precious copyrighted material. Now that people have the ability to entertain themselves, it is more vital of how should the modern talented artist still continue to win the battle for fame against these others.
Facing the charges by various companies and countries YouTube sure has a lot to answer to these people. But let us first take a look at what did it all begin with. Just last month, Viacom demanded that YouTube ore than 100,000 of its video clips, but remove earlier this week, Viacom moved the fight to court: it sued Google in federal court in Manhattan for “massive intentional copyright infringement” and demanded $1 billion in damages. The problem is that copyright law—like so many other areas of the law—doesn’t provide clear answers. Therefore to say there was copyright infringement may be subjective.
From what I feel, YouTube is a form of entertainment and nothing else. Users are the ones who violate the laws by posting illegal or unethical materials online. Then again, one may argue that where are the employees of YouTube? True enough, the YouTube staff have to be the one to control all these violations. Should we just conclude that there are not doing their job? YouTube appeals to the mass as a mean of entertainment, to promote themselves to be made known to the public as many videos have been posted. Little thought has been given to who can control or post materials. As such I think that using etiquette control over what is posted on YouTube can still allow it to function and continue to bring enjoyment to the lives of others, whether it is mocking oneself or sharing interesting videos, the issue should not be whether YouTube produces entertainment, but rather who gets to operate this large company.
Founded in February 2005, YouTube aimed to allow free video sharing which allows users to upload and share their video clips. These videos can be viewed by the public and members are allowed to give comments and rate them. The site gradually grew and now consists of a wide range of videos including movie and TV clips and music videos, as well as amateur content such as videoblogging and short original videos. The company was named TIME magazine's "Invention of the Year" for 2006 as well as voted one of the most user friendly websites by users.
Such an advanced novelty may very well be the new media of entertainment in future. So why is there such uproar about this website? Countries including Iran, US and Australia have been banning specific video clips or imposing bans to disallow students to visit YouTube in campus. Other countries namely Thailand and Brazil have engaged in lawsuits either due to political reasons or overly exposing videos. Even as such, many people are still strong supporters of this website, looking at it as a source of diversion and amusement apart from this hectic lifestyle that we live. Thus, I believe that YouTube exist to produce mainly entertainment or as a channel for broadcasting yourself, to promote more interaction in this shrinking world. It is the acts of violation that destroys this mean of modern entertainment, the real issue that we should be looking at is who should be allowed to run this site for it to function effectively, without invading the privacy of others or insult the belief of others unknowingly.
YouTube has created a new way for millions of people to entertain, educate, shock, rock and mock one another on a scale we've never seen before. Few years back, this would not have been possible, but the world has changed. In the past 24 months, thousands of ordinary people have become famous. Famous people have been embarrassed. What happened? YouTube's creators had produced a revolution. First, the revolution in video production made possible by cheap camcorders and easy-to-use video software. Second, a cultural revolution of people creating and sharing videos with one another. The third revolution is a cultural one, consumers are impatient with the mainstream media. Where audience are only fed with what the media chooses to broadcast, propaganda, what the media wants us to think, not being able to share their view pertaining issues they disagree with. People want unfiltered video from Iraq, Lebanon and Darfur—not from journalists who visit there but from soldiers who fight there and people who live and die there.
YouTube is ultimately more interesting as a community and a culture, however, than as a cash cow. The way blogs made regular folks into journalists, YouTube makes them into celebrities. The real challenge old media face isn't protecting their precious copyrighted material. Now that people have the ability to entertain themselves, it is more vital of how should the modern talented artist still continue to win the battle for fame against these others.
Facing the charges by various companies and countries YouTube sure has a lot to answer to these people. But let us first take a look at what did it all begin with. Just last month, Viacom demanded that YouTube ore than 100,000 of its video clips, but remove earlier this week, Viacom moved the fight to court: it sued Google in federal court in Manhattan for “massive intentional copyright infringement” and demanded $1 billion in damages. The problem is that copyright law—like so many other areas of the law—doesn’t provide clear answers. Therefore to say there was copyright infringement may be subjective.
From what I feel, YouTube is a form of entertainment and nothing else. Users are the ones who violate the laws by posting illegal or unethical materials online. Then again, one may argue that where are the employees of YouTube? True enough, the YouTube staff have to be the one to control all these violations. Should we just conclude that there are not doing their job? YouTube appeals to the mass as a mean of entertainment, to promote themselves to be made known to the public as many videos have been posted. Little thought has been given to who can control or post materials. As such I think that using etiquette control over what is posted on YouTube can still allow it to function and continue to bring enjoyment to the lives of others, whether it is mocking oneself or sharing interesting videos, the issue should not be whether YouTube produces entertainment, but rather who gets to operate this large company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)