Singapore, an increasingly democratic country, is becoming more open over the years as the country loosens its laws and allow more freedom for its citizens. With the recent loosening of censorship laws and the greater emphasis on citizen's choice, it is evident that the republic is moving towards a more free society.
However, the island nation must also remember its multi-racial and multi-ethnic nature and that the peace between the different races is vulnerable and short-lived. The Singapore government must take note of the volatility of the situation to prevent potential outbreak of racial conflict.
Hence the government is once again faced with the question: whether to liberalise society or protect and restrict freedom to protect groups of people who are victims of criticism.
In context of Singapore's multi-ethnicality, the upholding of social responsibility is clearly a more feasible approach than allowing total freedom of society. With Singapore's history laden with racial conflicts, it is no wonder that many say Singapore's racial harmony is to be cherished. Coupled with the recent terrorist scare and sensitive issues such as the caricature of Prophet Muhadmad by a Danish newspaper, Singapore government has gone down hard on racist statements and inflamatory remarks that may spark off ethnic conflicts.
No doubt Singapore wishes to be seen as a democratic country on the rise, but racial conflicts is something it cannot afford. With large proportions of its 4.4 million population belonging to so many differnt races, any racial conflict will severely handicap the country and adversely affect its economy.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Debate Question: Opposition to Media Corrupting our Society
Media is not corrupting our society
The main reason why people feel that the media corrupts our society is due to our disgust and anger in its displays of violence and pornography, which are often accused of corrupting the minds of children and the young.
However, they fail to even clearly state the form in which the media corrupts the public. Some people feel that media’s corruption is more in the form of violence, killing and massacre. Others may see pornography as a greater form of corruption. Political party members may even claim corruption as the dissemination of information that do not adhere to their political aims, such as introducing communism in a democratic state or vice versa. With such a poor definition of the way in which media corrupts society, we can never be certain about what in the media is corrupting. What appears to be corrupting to one person may be seen as by another as a way to a way in educating the people of the harsh realities of life.
Furthermore, the media is not necessarily the one responsible for the corruption of society. Ironically, it is actually the changing of opinions and the creation of a more "open" society that has caused this "corruption". As more people in the world become more open to new trends and practices, the control over the media has also loosened. There is an increasing airing of shows and movies on violence, bloodshed and gore such as SAW and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which actually enjoyed large viewership. The very fact that there is an increasing demand for such shows means that society is actually encouraging the airing of such shows. This brings about the controversial question: is it the society or the media that is corrupting?
The actual fact is that the decline of morality in the society has caused the decline of media morality and it is not the other way round. Furthermore, the statistics obtained from a survey entitled "Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won't Stop Violence" have demonstrated that while research indicates numerous causes for violence, none of them link directly to media violence.
"When violent crimes hit the headlines, people want to lash out at something, anything, and assign blame," said David Horowitz, Executive Director of the Media Coalition. "The media is too often that something, even though, as our report found, there is no causal link between the violent content in the media and real violence."
While the accessibility to violence depicted in various forms of the media, such as books, magazines, movies, music, TV and video games have risen during the 1990s, violent crime has, instead, fallen to its lowest level in nearly 30 years.
The survey also notes that even research linking media with violent content to an increase in aggressive play, such as children's wrestling, as opposed to actual violence, is contradictory.
It should also be considered that television viewers are watching out of their own accord. They have a choice of whether or not to watch. If someone feels that a program has inappropriate content, he can simply change the channel or shut off the television. It is ridiculous to accuse the media of corrupting society when people can fix the problem by this simple act of discretion, assuming they themselves are not corrupt. If we were to ignore the fact that the media is not an entity independent of human control and treat it as another being with the ability to corrupt, then the situation can be seen as a willing speaker conveying ideas to a willing listener, the keyword in this case being "willing". Is the speaker at fault for speaking, even though the listener has a choice that can be easily exercised to not listen to the speaker? Or should be listener be blamed instead, for actively listening so that he may be corrupted by the ideals put forward by the speaker?
Furthermore, most people blame the mass media for the increasingly violent nature of the society, which contributes to the corruption of our children. We believe that the media are not the sole or even the primary cause of those problems. Blaming media for changes in childhood and social problems has shifted our public conversation away from addressing the real problems that impact child’s lives.
The main reason is that politicians are using the media rather than budgeting the money to address these problems. Lower-income people ‘have more experiences with the reality of problems like violence’; they know the media are not a big part of the equation in their struggles to keep their children safe in troubled communities
Media does not reach children in a vacuum. Children process the messages they receive in the context of their value systems. By giving children the tools they need to understand what they are seeing and hearing, parents can help their children absorb a wide range of media and messages consistent with the positive values taught by parents, teachers and peers.
In conclusion, we have to note that the very idea of "media” is formed by the society. Thus, how is it that the knife is blamed for the murderer’s deed?
The main reason why people feel that the media corrupts our society is due to our disgust and anger in its displays of violence and pornography, which are often accused of corrupting the minds of children and the young.
However, they fail to even clearly state the form in which the media corrupts the public. Some people feel that media’s corruption is more in the form of violence, killing and massacre. Others may see pornography as a greater form of corruption. Political party members may even claim corruption as the dissemination of information that do not adhere to their political aims, such as introducing communism in a democratic state or vice versa. With such a poor definition of the way in which media corrupts society, we can never be certain about what in the media is corrupting. What appears to be corrupting to one person may be seen as by another as a way to a way in educating the people of the harsh realities of life.
Furthermore, the media is not necessarily the one responsible for the corruption of society. Ironically, it is actually the changing of opinions and the creation of a more "open" society that has caused this "corruption". As more people in the world become more open to new trends and practices, the control over the media has also loosened. There is an increasing airing of shows and movies on violence, bloodshed and gore such as SAW and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which actually enjoyed large viewership. The very fact that there is an increasing demand for such shows means that society is actually encouraging the airing of such shows. This brings about the controversial question: is it the society or the media that is corrupting?
The actual fact is that the decline of morality in the society has caused the decline of media morality and it is not the other way round. Furthermore, the statistics obtained from a survey entitled "Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won't Stop Violence" have demonstrated that while research indicates numerous causes for violence, none of them link directly to media violence.
"When violent crimes hit the headlines, people want to lash out at something, anything, and assign blame," said David Horowitz, Executive Director of the Media Coalition. "The media is too often that something, even though, as our report found, there is no causal link between the violent content in the media and real violence."
While the accessibility to violence depicted in various forms of the media, such as books, magazines, movies, music, TV and video games have risen during the 1990s, violent crime has, instead, fallen to its lowest level in nearly 30 years.
The survey also notes that even research linking media with violent content to an increase in aggressive play, such as children's wrestling, as opposed to actual violence, is contradictory.
It should also be considered that television viewers are watching out of their own accord. They have a choice of whether or not to watch. If someone feels that a program has inappropriate content, he can simply change the channel or shut off the television. It is ridiculous to accuse the media of corrupting society when people can fix the problem by this simple act of discretion, assuming they themselves are not corrupt. If we were to ignore the fact that the media is not an entity independent of human control and treat it as another being with the ability to corrupt, then the situation can be seen as a willing speaker conveying ideas to a willing listener, the keyword in this case being "willing". Is the speaker at fault for speaking, even though the listener has a choice that can be easily exercised to not listen to the speaker? Or should be listener be blamed instead, for actively listening so that he may be corrupted by the ideals put forward by the speaker?
Furthermore, most people blame the mass media for the increasingly violent nature of the society, which contributes to the corruption of our children. We believe that the media are not the sole or even the primary cause of those problems. Blaming media for changes in childhood and social problems has shifted our public conversation away from addressing the real problems that impact child’s lives.
The main reason is that politicians are using the media rather than budgeting the money to address these problems. Lower-income people ‘have more experiences with the reality of problems like violence’; they know the media are not a big part of the equation in their struggles to keep their children safe in troubled communities
Media does not reach children in a vacuum. Children process the messages they receive in the context of their value systems. By giving children the tools they need to understand what they are seeing and hearing, parents can help their children absorb a wide range of media and messages consistent with the positive values taught by parents, teachers and peers.
In conclusion, we have to note that the very idea of "media” is formed by the society. Thus, how is it that the knife is blamed for the murderer’s deed?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The media has a great impact on politics in the world. Do you agree?
Often we see media as a form of freedom of expression of ideas and an offset from the most widely practiced ideology, democracy. However, little did we know that media is actually influencing the politics of different countries governments all over the world - completely contradicting its role in ensuring the freedom of the people is protected.
There are several instances where media played a dominant role in influencing and even shaping the political world. One such incident was during the 2004 elections in America where 41% voters received news about the 2004 election online and 21% of voters relying on the Internet for most of their election news. These information sources on the Internet may be biased, inaccurate or even manipulated by other people with ill intentions. However, the very fact that so many voters merely accepted the information online goes to show how the media has indeed affected the way we make political decisions.
Another instance of how the media affects politics is the impact on foreign media on the censorship laws in South Africa. In the past, there were strict censorship laws in South Africa where the government tracks down reporters that publish news that are deemed inappropriate by the authorities. But when foreign media was introduced to the country, people all over the world began to see the lack of respect for human rights in the country and South Africans, themselves, saw what they were deprived of for years. This led to violence and aggression in the form of rioting and uprisings causing political instability in the country. Furthermore, other countries began to pass economic sanctions on South Africa to pressurize the government to stop the abuse of human rights in the country.
There are several reasons why media has such a powerful impact on politics. As people become more exposed to politics through media, they are more aware of the political world around them. However, this knowledge is restricted by the media and the news sources that the people are in touch with. What the people lack is first-hand information of the political issues around the world. With information all over the world flowing so freely, there is a high possibility that news actually come from several different sources. As information is transferred from one source to another, the meaning and ideas will be inevitably changed as different news agencies give their view on the matter. Only by checking with several news sources can we truly get an accurate picture of the issue raised. The problem is that most people make themselves content with only one source that may be biased or inaccurate. This becomes extremely serious when the issue concerns political decisions such as voting.
As mentioned above, there will be several serious implications if we just allow media to influence the way we choose our leaders. Hence to prevent such problems from ever arising, we must always try to obtain first-hand knowledge about political issues around the world through footages or recordings of legislative debates, political rallies and speeches by the different parties.
Links
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:ksBh1hVJsWwJ:americandemocracy.nd.edu/speaker_series/files/SnyderPaper.pdf+media+impact+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=sg
http://www.cybercollege.com/intmed.htm
http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2004/12/bennett-nails-new-medias-impact-on.html
There are several instances where media played a dominant role in influencing and even shaping the political world. One such incident was during the 2004 elections in America where 41% voters received news about the 2004 election online and 21% of voters relying on the Internet for most of their election news. These information sources on the Internet may be biased, inaccurate or even manipulated by other people with ill intentions. However, the very fact that so many voters merely accepted the information online goes to show how the media has indeed affected the way we make political decisions.
Another instance of how the media affects politics is the impact on foreign media on the censorship laws in South Africa. In the past, there were strict censorship laws in South Africa where the government tracks down reporters that publish news that are deemed inappropriate by the authorities. But when foreign media was introduced to the country, people all over the world began to see the lack of respect for human rights in the country and South Africans, themselves, saw what they were deprived of for years. This led to violence and aggression in the form of rioting and uprisings causing political instability in the country. Furthermore, other countries began to pass economic sanctions on South Africa to pressurize the government to stop the abuse of human rights in the country.
There are several reasons why media has such a powerful impact on politics. As people become more exposed to politics through media, they are more aware of the political world around them. However, this knowledge is restricted by the media and the news sources that the people are in touch with. What the people lack is first-hand information of the political issues around the world. With information all over the world flowing so freely, there is a high possibility that news actually come from several different sources. As information is transferred from one source to another, the meaning and ideas will be inevitably changed as different news agencies give their view on the matter. Only by checking with several news sources can we truly get an accurate picture of the issue raised. The problem is that most people make themselves content with only one source that may be biased or inaccurate. This becomes extremely serious when the issue concerns political decisions such as voting.
As mentioned above, there will be several serious implications if we just allow media to influence the way we choose our leaders. Hence to prevent such problems from ever arising, we must always try to obtain first-hand knowledge about political issues around the world through footages or recordings of legislative debates, political rallies and speeches by the different parties.
Links
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:ksBh1hVJsWwJ:americandemocracy.nd.edu/speaker_series/files/SnyderPaper.pdf+media+impact+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=sg
http://www.cybercollege.com/intmed.htm
http://tapscottscopydesk.blogspot.com/2004/12/bennett-nails-new-medias-impact-on.html
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
2. The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
Corruption has become rife in the media. Today, the main objective of news and media agencies is no longer reporting the news, but rather reporting the news that will earn them the greatest profit.
The media has undergone a form of "metamorphosis" that has altered the role of the media - from a reliable source of information to a biased source of altered facts which main aim is to earn money from people who trust the news. It seems that the very source of information that everyone placed their trust on has became corrupted itself.
This can be seen in the recent events where the media resorted to the twisting of facts and spinning of stories to create popular articles to earn more profit. Even large news companies such as the CNN, BBC and Reuters are not completely innocent of such corruption. For an example, last year, there was a case in which a Reuters photographer manipulated images to make Israeli air attacks on Lebanon seem more serious than it was. It pictured a digitally altered picture of a Red Cross ambulance "wrecked" by an Israeli missile. However, it was only after several days that people began to realize the deception. Worse still, several news agencies such as ITV News, Time Magazine, The Age, NBC News, the New York Times and many other news agencies were already spreading the false information to people worldwide, giving the false impression that the Hizbollah intentionally attacked a Red Cross ambulance.
Another example is the favoritism of news agencies towards certain government bodies, countries and organizations. There is a great tendency of the media to report more about local news and close neighbors or allies rather than a general report of world news. The media also tends to side people or organizations in power rather than the underdog. Different news agencies will in one way or another, show favoritism in the news they report. CNN usually reports business news and is more centered on American news. The BBC, on the other hand, reports world news but concentrates more on news about the European Union and its allies. Due to this, there is a great tendency for media agencies to take sides and become biased in their reports.
Media has also become corrupted because of the loosening of control over the media. As society becomes more open to change, more countries are doing away with laws that control the media and the freedom of the press. However, contrary to the popular belief that the loosening of media control allows more freedom, the relaxing of media laws have allowed the media to gain enormous power. It is this immense power that corrupts the media. The very power to control the knowledge of the people and make them believe whatever the media reports without question has caused the corruption of society
Sources of Information
http://messageinamatrix.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/globalisation-and-the-media/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_holey_ambulance_the_backside_covering_begins/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1316
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/27/150207.php
The media has undergone a form of "metamorphosis" that has altered the role of the media - from a reliable source of information to a biased source of altered facts which main aim is to earn money from people who trust the news. It seems that the very source of information that everyone placed their trust on has became corrupted itself.
This can be seen in the recent events where the media resorted to the twisting of facts and spinning of stories to create popular articles to earn more profit. Even large news companies such as the CNN, BBC and Reuters are not completely innocent of such corruption. For an example, last year, there was a case in which a Reuters photographer manipulated images to make Israeli air attacks on Lebanon seem more serious than it was. It pictured a digitally altered picture of a Red Cross ambulance "wrecked" by an Israeli missile. However, it was only after several days that people began to realize the deception. Worse still, several news agencies such as ITV News, Time Magazine, The Age, NBC News, the New York Times and many other news agencies were already spreading the false information to people worldwide, giving the false impression that the Hizbollah intentionally attacked a Red Cross ambulance.
Another example is the favoritism of news agencies towards certain government bodies, countries and organizations. There is a great tendency of the media to report more about local news and close neighbors or allies rather than a general report of world news. The media also tends to side people or organizations in power rather than the underdog. Different news agencies will in one way or another, show favoritism in the news they report. CNN usually reports business news and is more centered on American news. The BBC, on the other hand, reports world news but concentrates more on news about the European Union and its allies. Due to this, there is a great tendency for media agencies to take sides and become biased in their reports.
Media has also become corrupted because of the loosening of control over the media. As society becomes more open to change, more countries are doing away with laws that control the media and the freedom of the press. However, contrary to the popular belief that the loosening of media control allows more freedom, the relaxing of media laws have allowed the media to gain enormous power. It is this immense power that corrupts the media. The very power to control the knowledge of the people and make them believe whatever the media reports without question has caused the corruption of society
Sources of Information
http://messageinamatrix.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/globalisation-and-the-media/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_holey_ambulance_the_backside_covering_begins/
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1316
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/27/150207.php
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Gun Control isn't the Answer
With the recent tragedy of the Virginia Tech Killings, more and more people in the world are asking for stricter laws restricting the availability of guns and tighter gun control. But the real questions is: is gun control really effective?
In America, a large number of the population own a gun licence that entitles them to purchase their own guns. The country is also famed to have the most gun violence in the world. Even in schools, students smuggle guns into the premises and turn them onto their classmates and teachers. There is no wonder people are calling for stricter gun control.
However, gun control is not as effective as you think. Many countries still continue to face problems of gun violence despite laws put in place to ban the possession of guns. Smuggling and the rise of the lucrative black market is one of the main reasons of this problem. It seems that for anything the government bans, there will always be a form of black market that will supply such goods to the one that offers the highest price. It has been this way for cigarettes, drug and even pirated video CDs; so why not guns. The truth is that even with more restrictions on gun ownership, there is no way to completely stamp out the problem of a black market and illegal peddling of goods.
Another fallback in gun control is that it encourages would-be criminals to use guns to rob or steal from people. With stricter gun control, people will be left defenceless against robbers armed with firearms. This is especially important in places where the security is thin and the crime rate is high. Without a weapon to defend oneself, the residents will become easy targets for robbers.
Most importantly, though, is that gun control is not nipping the problem in the bud. There are cases of gun violence where the brutality of the attacker is more due to mental instability rather than the possession of a gun. Consider this, would any sane person use a gun and attack and kill so many people just because he has a gun? The answer is obvious.
Most gun rampages are committed by mentally disturbed individuals that either have a undesirable family background or suffered from bad experiences. Such is the case of the Virginia Tech Killings where the mass murderer was said to have been mentally unstable during the shootings.
Even if we restrict the availability of guns, the problem will arise again as these psychologically unstable people will continue to use different methods to vent their frustrations. What we have to concentrate now is on how to deal with people and not trying to restrict gun ownership. Teachers and parents should help spot such problem cases and report them immediately. Counselling and psychiatric treatment should be administered to such cases before they erupt to violence. Hotlines and volunteer services should also be provided to help them cope with their problems.
In America, a large number of the population own a gun licence that entitles them to purchase their own guns. The country is also famed to have the most gun violence in the world. Even in schools, students smuggle guns into the premises and turn them onto their classmates and teachers. There is no wonder people are calling for stricter gun control.
However, gun control is not as effective as you think. Many countries still continue to face problems of gun violence despite laws put in place to ban the possession of guns. Smuggling and the rise of the lucrative black market is one of the main reasons of this problem. It seems that for anything the government bans, there will always be a form of black market that will supply such goods to the one that offers the highest price. It has been this way for cigarettes, drug and even pirated video CDs; so why not guns. The truth is that even with more restrictions on gun ownership, there is no way to completely stamp out the problem of a black market and illegal peddling of goods.
Another fallback in gun control is that it encourages would-be criminals to use guns to rob or steal from people. With stricter gun control, people will be left defenceless against robbers armed with firearms. This is especially important in places where the security is thin and the crime rate is high. Without a weapon to defend oneself, the residents will become easy targets for robbers.
Most importantly, though, is that gun control is not nipping the problem in the bud. There are cases of gun violence where the brutality of the attacker is more due to mental instability rather than the possession of a gun. Consider this, would any sane person use a gun and attack and kill so many people just because he has a gun? The answer is obvious.
Most gun rampages are committed by mentally disturbed individuals that either have a undesirable family background or suffered from bad experiences. Such is the case of the Virginia Tech Killings where the mass murderer was said to have been mentally unstable during the shootings.
Even if we restrict the availability of guns, the problem will arise again as these psychologically unstable people will continue to use different methods to vent their frustrations. What we have to concentrate now is on how to deal with people and not trying to restrict gun ownership. Teachers and parents should help spot such problem cases and report them immediately. Counselling and psychiatric treatment should be administered to such cases before they erupt to violence. Hotlines and volunteer services should also be provided to help them cope with their problems.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.
Mass media, "our window" to which we are able to "peer through" at recent events happening all over the world. But the questions is are we able to trust our media? Is the media reporting the news in its purest form or is it twisting and making the news as they want it to be interpreted as?
What we know as "recent" is defined by the Merriam's dictionary as "having lately come into existence" and "events" are "noteworthy happenings". In other words, "recent events" are the latest things that happened or occurred. News is all about recent events as obviously anything way back in the past is not "new" and anything far off in the future cannot be confirmed. Recent events must happen during a time close to the present day.
However, news about recent events are always unreliable as the media usually do not report the news but rather "tweak" it to achieve their objectives.
One such example of the media altering news is the widely debated topic of the ex-US president, Bill Clinton and his scandals.
The reports of Clinton's affairs were so aggressive that it even caused his own government to become labelled as "corrupt", "incompetent" and "untrustworthy" and eventually caused his massive loss of support. Ironically, there was actually no concrete evidence of Clinton's scandals but it was the heat of debate as it involved sex. One reporter even admitted that they went overboard but said that they continued to report the story as "sex sells".
On the other hand, the same new organisations paid no notice to the present US president, George Bush's controversial sale of the Harken energy stocks. Bush, one of the head of the Harken company, "dumped more than 200,000 shares of the company's stock " when he heard that the company was facing a financial crisis. This caused the company to plummet and it would have lost millions.
However, top news agencies, including New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and many others, all completely ignored the incident, simply because it would not attract interest and that insider-trading was "difficult" to report. News agencies report more news that they feel will attract readers and leave out the more "boring" ones. Clearly, this shows how the media bases the news broadcasts on the profits they will earn form the increased viewership.
Another example is the huge extent of media coverage when the hurricane Katrina stormed the USA, one of the most developed countries in the world. The large extent of media coverage was astounding - ranging from actual footages of the disaster to websites and online commentaries based solely on getting more donors and support to Katrina victims.
However, the hurricane took about only 1,836 lives, which is by-far a small sum compared to the millions that die from AIDS every year in Africa. Surprisingly, the Katrina event was given more media attention than the African AIDS situation that was far more severe and deadly. This only spells one thing - the media is definitely not reporting the news but rather choosing and altering the news based on their profits.
Even our very own local media is not innocent of such altering of information. The case of Hwuang Na's murder is evidence enough how the media can blow up a single murder case to a large issue.
In conclusion, the altering and tweaking of information in the media will always continue as new agencies like any other company is profit-centered and will aim to maximise their earnings. It is up to us to decide which news information is reliable and which is just pure fiction.
Bibliography
Definition :
http://www.webster.com/dictionary
Bush info :
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605260016
Katrina info:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/katrina/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
Aids in Africa info:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/11/safrica.aids.reut/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids_in_Africa
What we know as "recent" is defined by the Merriam's dictionary as "having lately come into existence" and "events" are "noteworthy happenings". In other words, "recent events" are the latest things that happened or occurred. News is all about recent events as obviously anything way back in the past is not "new" and anything far off in the future cannot be confirmed. Recent events must happen during a time close to the present day.
However, news about recent events are always unreliable as the media usually do not report the news but rather "tweak" it to achieve their objectives.
One such example of the media altering news is the widely debated topic of the ex-US president, Bill Clinton and his scandals.
The reports of Clinton's affairs were so aggressive that it even caused his own government to become labelled as "corrupt", "incompetent" and "untrustworthy" and eventually caused his massive loss of support. Ironically, there was actually no concrete evidence of Clinton's scandals but it was the heat of debate as it involved sex. One reporter even admitted that they went overboard but said that they continued to report the story as "sex sells".
On the other hand, the same new organisations paid no notice to the present US president, George Bush's controversial sale of the Harken energy stocks. Bush, one of the head of the Harken company, "dumped more than 200,000 shares of the company's stock " when he heard that the company was facing a financial crisis. This caused the company to plummet and it would have lost millions.
However, top news agencies, including New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and many others, all completely ignored the incident, simply because it would not attract interest and that insider-trading was "difficult" to report. News agencies report more news that they feel will attract readers and leave out the more "boring" ones. Clearly, this shows how the media bases the news broadcasts on the profits they will earn form the increased viewership.
Another example is the huge extent of media coverage when the hurricane Katrina stormed the USA, one of the most developed countries in the world. The large extent of media coverage was astounding - ranging from actual footages of the disaster to websites and online commentaries based solely on getting more donors and support to Katrina victims.
However, the hurricane took about only 1,836 lives, which is by-far a small sum compared to the millions that die from AIDS every year in Africa. Surprisingly, the Katrina event was given more media attention than the African AIDS situation that was far more severe and deadly. This only spells one thing - the media is definitely not reporting the news but rather choosing and altering the news based on their profits.
Even our very own local media is not innocent of such altering of information. The case of Hwuang Na's murder is evidence enough how the media can blow up a single murder case to a large issue.
In conclusion, the altering and tweaking of information in the media will always continue as new agencies like any other company is profit-centered and will aim to maximise their earnings. It is up to us to decide which news information is reliable and which is just pure fiction.
Bibliography
Definition :
http://www.webster.com/dictionary
Bush info :
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605260016
Katrina info:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/katrina/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
Aids in Africa info:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/11/safrica.aids.reut/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aids_in_Africa
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
1.“YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?
Youtube, the popular site which provides free online viewing of videos, has become a hot topic for debate today. Every day, more and more videos are posted on Youtube to satisfy the millions of viewers that frequent the site.
There comes to a point that people start to ignore ethics and post inappropriate material, in order to satisfy such a large demand for new and innovative videos. It is this offensive material and irresponsible behavior that cause outrage.
Celebrities and people of authority are often victims of satires, criticism and paparazzi. Youtube is one place where one can find videos that criticise and deface these famous people. One such case is the video where a poster of the Thai King was vandalised and even stepped on. Such irresponsible and thoughtless behaviour time and again sparks off fury that lead to lawsuits and even political violence. What is worse is that Youtube is encouraging such behaviour by condoning such insensitive postings without any checks.
To make things worse, Youtube is also accused of copyright infringement. The site have been reported to have used material from companies such as Viacom without complying to the copyright laws and regulations. By illegally exhibiting the videos from other companies, Youtube has in fact promoted piracy. This lack of respect for intellectual property causes one to think twice about whether Youtube is ethical.
Offensive and vulgar clips are also rampant on Youtube. It is not uncommon to find clips containing material inappropriate for children. Despite this, Youtube has no form of censoring or viewer control.
What is saddening is that Youtube has not taken any action on any of its problems. In contrast, it continues to allow these problems worsen. Although viewers do tag videos that they deem inappropriate for removal, there is still no official checking system to prevent this continuous influx of unsuitable clips from entering the site.
Up till now, Youtube gives one the impression that it spares no thought to ethics. As long as people remain glued to the clips on the site and it continues to earn millions from advertising, the company will remain profit-centered and will not take action for such problems.
There comes to a point that people start to ignore ethics and post inappropriate material, in order to satisfy such a large demand for new and innovative videos. It is this offensive material and irresponsible behavior that cause outrage.
Celebrities and people of authority are often victims of satires, criticism and paparazzi. Youtube is one place where one can find videos that criticise and deface these famous people. One such case is the video where a poster of the Thai King was vandalised and even stepped on. Such irresponsible and thoughtless behaviour time and again sparks off fury that lead to lawsuits and even political violence. What is worse is that Youtube is encouraging such behaviour by condoning such insensitive postings without any checks.
To make things worse, Youtube is also accused of copyright infringement. The site have been reported to have used material from companies such as Viacom without complying to the copyright laws and regulations. By illegally exhibiting the videos from other companies, Youtube has in fact promoted piracy. This lack of respect for intellectual property causes one to think twice about whether Youtube is ethical.
Offensive and vulgar clips are also rampant on Youtube. It is not uncommon to find clips containing material inappropriate for children. Despite this, Youtube has no form of censoring or viewer control.
What is saddening is that Youtube has not taken any action on any of its problems. In contrast, it continues to allow these problems worsen. Although viewers do tag videos that they deem inappropriate for removal, there is still no official checking system to prevent this continuous influx of unsuitable clips from entering the site.
Up till now, Youtube gives one the impression that it spares no thought to ethics. As long as people remain glued to the clips on the site and it continues to earn millions from advertising, the company will remain profit-centered and will not take action for such problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)