The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
As much as we do not want to hear it, media has been blamed for every violent behavior or unhealthy images portrayed to the public. The recent Virginia tech shootings, serves as a great example, much of the responsibility has been pushed to the media, youtube has been criticized for allowing such violent and disturbing scenes to be viewed by the public. Another evident example is the banning of models who are too skinny as they are blamed for encouraging anorexic behavior. I beg to differ in this opinion as I believe that humans are strong-willed and will not simply accept whatever is being shown by the media, with education, we are able to differentiate what is right and wrong, and this can only be done by ourselves, we cannot depend on others to decide for us.
Anyway from what I have seen of the movies coming around over the past few years, apart from the blood looking more real, along with the better choreography and special effects, it doesn’t make them any more violent than in the 70’s or before. Since the amount of violence in media has not shown an increase, why is there a significance in the amount of violence in our everyday lives? There must be other factors other than media itself that triggers such a reaction.
Growing up as a child, I remember my parents disallowing me to watch certain television shows which are too violent or gory in nature. When asked why, they simply said that I was too young and had to wait till I was older. That was 10 years ago. Parents nowadays are a lot busier and do not even know what their children are watching, let alone ban them from watching these shows. The media simply provides what the viewers want, if more violence is demanded, more violence will be provided. My point here is to highlight, who are the real role models of children? Children get role models from what their parents do, not based on what’s popular on television or music. Parents should not shriek the responsibility and push the blame to the media for every bad thing that happens for being an influence.
People just use movies and TV to cover up the real issues involved in things like this. Most of those who shoot up schools or become extremely promiscuous come from terrible home lives. Parents who walked out on them or separated families or were imprisoned are common, although parents who are never there can be just as detrimental in these cases. Mental disorders and psychopaths also have to be taken into consideration; even if they aren't evident before they act out, psychoses can severely alter a person's sense of reality and fiction, and psychopath can deaden them to the wrongness and consequences of what they do. Also, the real role models need to be taken into consideration.
Much as I have commented on the role models in the lives of children, who is to be role models of these role models. Well, the answer is simple, education. Education will enable us to differentiate between what’s right and what’s wrong. So instead of blaming the media for corrupting our society, we should take it in our stride that all things cannot go the way we want. The only best thing we can do it do in cultivate individual censorship, to only take in what is right, based on moral education that we have received.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
“Media will be the death of sport.” Do you agree?
“Media will be the death of sport.” Do you agree?
Sport is physical activity of any kind which is carried out to exercise the body and as recreation. Nowadays however, it is not unusual to hear of millionaire sportsmen who are raking in the dollars with endorsement contract, some even before they have truly proven their worth in the sport they specialize in. Turn on ESPN and you’ll see athletes moving around, wearing name-brand outfits supplied by their sponsors. Today the value of a sportsman is less likely to be measured by their performance but the amount they are worth in the modeling field.
Television is a branch out of media. With live-telecast of matches, people are now able to sit in the comfort of their homes to enjoy the match on that plasma TV just in front of them. If everyone thinks that watching the match is much more interesting than playing the game, the sport will soon “die” as there isn’t anyone interested to participate in the action but choose to remain passive. I personally think that this is highly unlikely as since ancient times in Greece, sports have always exist as a form of entertainment, there are other things that distract sportsmen and their fans. In all ages, there have been people who watched and people who played. People just have a different attitude towards sports, it is their decision whether to participate in it physically. People who are interested will get off their arm-chairs and be off to play the games without any prompting.
On the other hand, televisions can actually promote interest in sports. Couch potatoes love thrills and will watch anything thrilling over television. Sports programs will be broadcast and this may rouse the idle ones to go into action. In fact, during the world cup, you will find youngsters pestering their parents to buy football equipment, trying to imitate their favorite football stars, player football in school fields and open public spaces.
Despite the media attention some well known sportsmen get, there are still some who desire more than just the extrinsic rewards, those who truly stick to the game. A sport is a challenge that sportsmen hope to conquer. There are sportsmen who give up well paying jobs just to pursue the heart of the sport.
Trough it all, media and sports are two different issues all together. It is due to our imagination that leads to suggest that one will be the death of the other. Sport has undergone greater threats to its annihilation than mere television and has lived through them all. Therefore I believe the true spirit of sports will stay on forever.
Sport is physical activity of any kind which is carried out to exercise the body and as recreation. Nowadays however, it is not unusual to hear of millionaire sportsmen who are raking in the dollars with endorsement contract, some even before they have truly proven their worth in the sport they specialize in. Turn on ESPN and you’ll see athletes moving around, wearing name-brand outfits supplied by their sponsors. Today the value of a sportsman is less likely to be measured by their performance but the amount they are worth in the modeling field.
Television is a branch out of media. With live-telecast of matches, people are now able to sit in the comfort of their homes to enjoy the match on that plasma TV just in front of them. If everyone thinks that watching the match is much more interesting than playing the game, the sport will soon “die” as there isn’t anyone interested to participate in the action but choose to remain passive. I personally think that this is highly unlikely as since ancient times in Greece, sports have always exist as a form of entertainment, there are other things that distract sportsmen and their fans. In all ages, there have been people who watched and people who played. People just have a different attitude towards sports, it is their decision whether to participate in it physically. People who are interested will get off their arm-chairs and be off to play the games without any prompting.
On the other hand, televisions can actually promote interest in sports. Couch potatoes love thrills and will watch anything thrilling over television. Sports programs will be broadcast and this may rouse the idle ones to go into action. In fact, during the world cup, you will find youngsters pestering their parents to buy football equipment, trying to imitate their favorite football stars, player football in school fields and open public spaces.
Despite the media attention some well known sportsmen get, there are still some who desire more than just the extrinsic rewards, those who truly stick to the game. A sport is a challenge that sportsmen hope to conquer. There are sportsmen who give up well paying jobs just to pursue the heart of the sport.
Trough it all, media and sports are two different issues all together. It is due to our imagination that leads to suggest that one will be the death of the other. Sport has undergone greater threats to its annihilation than mere television and has lived through them all. Therefore I believe the true spirit of sports will stay on forever.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Censorship can never be justified, do you agree?
Censorship can never be justified, do you agree?
In a democratic society like ours, it is believed that every man should have the freedom of saying whatever he wants to, it seems so important that the press should be given complete freedom. Complete freedom here being the press should not be restricted in any manner, to be allowed to publish anything the wish, without the implementation of censorship. The press has been fighting for completed freedom right from a start to make do with censorship, but before we make a decision, we should consider whether censorship is justified.
In some parts of the world, the press has more freedom than other parts due difference in censorship. In communist countries such as China, the press belongs to the state and can publish anything they wish to, as long as it is on the side of the state – nothing more. Whereas in democratic countries such as the US, the press has a certain measure of freedom. It can raise its voice against the government or even take the stand of the opposition party and attack the government – as long as they keep within the law.
Having explained freedom and censorship, here is the real catch. It is the government which decides what the law is. Therefore, following this line of argument, the press’s freedom can be curbed by just passing new laws. This is very possible in the case of Singapore where despite growing power of the opposition parties, the government still holds higher power. It is possible for the government to ban papers which they feel are against them. Then again, as Singapore is a democratic society, citizens are supreme and can always vote the government out if any unfair practices are made.
The government giving complete freedom to the press without having censorship may not necessarily be the most desirable situation. In a society where absolute freedom is given to only a particular group of persons, it is as good as giving permission to write anything about any issue or on anyone. This will lead to a fear of the press. Newspapers have already been known to destroy public figures by prying into their private lives and publishing news about them. Much of there tabloids contain sensational news but serve little purpose. Being a business itself, newspapers will publish anything to sell copies, to gain profit as the expense of the lives of others. People’s lives may be destroyed from such harassment.
In conclusion, my view is that the press can only be given freedom up to a point where it does not encroach on the freedom or the good of the state. No one, including the press should be given so much freedom that he is able to cause damage to others. Perhaps in future, when the press becomes absolutely responsible, this situation can be reviewed. For now, censorship is not only justified but also necessary as there are tendencies of misusage of freedom.
Links to articles:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-11-10/47995.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZk4PpIue2s
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0857225.html
In a democratic society like ours, it is believed that every man should have the freedom of saying whatever he wants to, it seems so important that the press should be given complete freedom. Complete freedom here being the press should not be restricted in any manner, to be allowed to publish anything the wish, without the implementation of censorship. The press has been fighting for completed freedom right from a start to make do with censorship, but before we make a decision, we should consider whether censorship is justified.
In some parts of the world, the press has more freedom than other parts due difference in censorship. In communist countries such as China, the press belongs to the state and can publish anything they wish to, as long as it is on the side of the state – nothing more. Whereas in democratic countries such as the US, the press has a certain measure of freedom. It can raise its voice against the government or even take the stand of the opposition party and attack the government – as long as they keep within the law.
Having explained freedom and censorship, here is the real catch. It is the government which decides what the law is. Therefore, following this line of argument, the press’s freedom can be curbed by just passing new laws. This is very possible in the case of Singapore where despite growing power of the opposition parties, the government still holds higher power. It is possible for the government to ban papers which they feel are against them. Then again, as Singapore is a democratic society, citizens are supreme and can always vote the government out if any unfair practices are made.
The government giving complete freedom to the press without having censorship may not necessarily be the most desirable situation. In a society where absolute freedom is given to only a particular group of persons, it is as good as giving permission to write anything about any issue or on anyone. This will lead to a fear of the press. Newspapers have already been known to destroy public figures by prying into their private lives and publishing news about them. Much of there tabloids contain sensational news but serve little purpose. Being a business itself, newspapers will publish anything to sell copies, to gain profit as the expense of the lives of others. People’s lives may be destroyed from such harassment.
In conclusion, my view is that the press can only be given freedom up to a point where it does not encroach on the freedom or the good of the state. No one, including the press should be given so much freedom that he is able to cause damage to others. Perhaps in future, when the press becomes absolutely responsible, this situation can be reviewed. For now, censorship is not only justified but also necessary as there are tendencies of misusage of freedom.
Links to articles:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-11-10/47995.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZk4PpIue2s
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0857225.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)