hello, valentine

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.In the context of Singapore's multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

I think Szilagyi's view should be adopted. Singapore is a multi-racial country where many people of different races and religion live together. It is necessary to ensure peace and harmony so as to avoid any racial tension. To do so, we as citizens of Singapore should have social responsibility. Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. I agree that the people should have the freedom of expression as stated in the European Covention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, i disagree with the part in which he said that this freedom of expression should not be limited. Imagine if people in Singapore are allowed to express themselves freely or make comments on any race or religion, Singapore would be in turmoil. There will be discrimination and racial riots etc.

The issue raised in the articles about the cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, is an excellent example showing the Muslims offended by the Danish paper that claims their publication was justified under freedom of speech principles. It has caused many strong reactions from the Muslims from countries all over the world. We could learn from this example, the importance and significance of social reposibility that should be exercised by every citizen so as to ensure peace and harmony within the country. Szilagyi's idea of balancing freedom of expression of the citizens and protecting the interests of the society is relative to Singapore. The crux of this idea is that people should respect each other's race, religion and culture and not be critical.

In conclusion, people must always bear in mind the dire consequences that might arise from their criticism. If unlimited freedom of expression is given at the expense of the country's peace and security, is it worth it?

change your sig. xoxo.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree? (group blogging)

In this media-intensive age, where we are bombarded with magazines, newspapers, periodicals, television and radio programmes, advertisements, and what-not, the issue of censorship inevitably comes into play. Censorship, has been practiced by governments and the press since the beginning of time. Yet, is censorship ever justified? Can it ever be justified?
Importance of a free media in civil societyThe information role of a free press is disseminating knowledge and allowing critical scrutiny. A free press provides us with the news. Information and warnings we need to make informed decisions. They gather and pass on information we would unlikely or unable to make on our own. They also inform us about conditions or happenings that they determine could threaten our day-to-day existence. The media balances perspective and give voice to the neglected and disadvantaged, thus providing greater human security- but a compromised news media cannot serve its function to enlighten the public, so citizens can intelligently exercise their responsibilities in a democratic society.
When censorship leads to propagandaPropaganda can serve to rally people behind a cause, but often at the cost of exaggerating, misrepresenting, or even lying about the issues in order to gain that support. Those who promote the negative image of the “enemy” may often reinforce it with rhetoric about the righteousness of themselves. Often, the principles used to demonise the other is not used to judge the self, leading to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.The threat of censorship is never greater than in wartime when governments exploit the pull of patriotism to suppress unwelcoming news. The military often manipulates the mainstream media, by restricting or managing what information is presented and hence what the public are told. This has happened throughout the 20th century. Over time then, the way that the media covers conflicts degrades in quality, critique and objectiveness. The military throughout most recent conflicts then have tried hard to control media in subtle ways, either through organizing media sessions and daily press briefings, or through providing managed access to war zones and so forth.

Problematics of implementation
There are also practical reasons as to why censorship doesn’t work. It is difficult for people to agree on what should be censored and to define it in terms that are clear enough to put publishers and distributors on notice of what is banned. Compounding the difficulties of censorship are the inherent contradictions of a secular democratic society that recognizes no one group above the other. For example, those who think that media violence is bad for kids acknowledge that they don’t mean to include televisioned versions of Shakespeare or Saving Private Ryan. In some countries, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of public hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults. For example, when it comes to hard-core pornography, much of what’s illegal here in Germany is legal and normal in Scandinavia.

Censorship is the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. Censorship can be achieved through the examination of books, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent; heretical; or treasonous. Unjustified means that it is not right or proper"

Example of censorship being unjustified is the incident which happened on 4 Feb 2005King Gyanendra has sacked the government, declared a state of emergency and imposed media censorship saying it had failed to tackle the Maoist rebel uprising.This results in Media having to promise not to pose a "threat" to the security situation. Their correspondent says that, with phone lines cut for a lot of the time and media censorship, there has been almost no flow of information.Being citizen of Nepal, they should be kept aware of all the happenings in Nepal. By censoring facts, people will not be able to have a full picture of the incident and will have a biased view and in times to come for decision making, they might not make the wise choice. Making the wrong choice might affect many other people, not only one self.Censorship doesn't conclusively resolve the problems it claims toAdvocates of censorship claim that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills. But how true is this? Despite research showing that the average child sees about 8000 television murders by the time he is 21, the link between entertainment and behaviour is as complex as the human mind. In investigating the effects of television on children, Wilbur Schramm, a professor of communication, concluded that under some conditions, violent programmes could effect some children. But most of the time, most television is neither helpful nor harmful to most kids under most circumstances. Since this conclusion is quite vague, how can one say that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills? As such, censorship is not the panacea to these problems; it is not justified. Blaming media is merely the simplest, most convenient way to explain what cannot be explained.

Moreover, censorship tends to create the forbidden fruit effect. It creates taboos that make the forbidden material more attractive. Banning a film, therefore, increases people's desire to see it. If violent films are removed from mainstream cinema, audience demand might be met by an unregulated "underground" industry. Curious youngsters will defy the ban - making their way into R-rated movies, de-programming Internet filters, sneaking looks at Playboy orFHM. Censorship in the media is more about sending people a message of social disapproval than about actually preventing them from reading or viewing everything that might be thought age-inappropriate or psychologically damaging.

Lastly, censorship strategies also create the false impression that the problem has been solved. For example: the use of parental discretion warnings and advisories: it presumes the presence of a parent to catch the warnings and to switch the channel, and ignores the fact the millions of children of working parents watch television unsupervised. Hence, censorship is not a solution to other significant cuss of violence, such as drugs, inadequate parenting, availability of weapons and unemployment. The solution has to take into consideration a large number of factors. It is going to take a lot more than rating, advisories, and cleaning up the TV schedule to deal and prevent the problem of violence. Thus, censorship is not justified, as such problems will only get worse because people are under the impression that something has been done already.
In conclusion, censorship can never be justified. The media should be a technology by which we are entertained and informed, although it is necessary to discern what one considers appropriate. Personal accountability and responsibility are the cornerstones to healthy media viewing habits, not potentially violating free speech. As Henry Steele Commager said, "The fact is that censorship always defeats for its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion."

Some may argue that there’s a need for censorship so as to protect public morals. For example, if the freedom of speech conflicts with another individual’s right to privacy, quality of life or even life itself, censorship is not only justified but a duty of any society. However, by censoring what people claim to be “inappropriate” material, it only causes the public to have stronger desire to get hold of these explicit materials. With today’s technology, is it possible for the government to censor anything not in their favour? Who is to decide what appropriate or inappropriate materials are? What defines good and bad information? Public should have their own freedom to choose what they want to read or hear news that they want to hear. They have to read and gain information from more sources in order to make a judgment. It should not be controlled by the government with intentions to “maintain stability” within the country.

change your sig. xoxo.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

The problem with the modern media is they do not have a sense of social justice.
Do you agree?

Social justice refers to conceptions of a just society, where "justice" refers to more than just the administration of laws. Modern media such as movies and news reach out to the public through medium of entertainment such as television and radio. The reason why it is able to make a huge impact on the people and efficient in conveying it’s message is because in this modern affluent society, many families and homes own at least a television, radio or read newspapers. Through these means, the media is able to influence people’s mind widely in one way or another. The media has such vast audience from the young to the old, it is no wonder it has the ability to manipulate one’s mind.

Certain content printed in the newspaper sometimes may discriminate a particular religion, race or country. When these contents are printed, it tends to intensify racial or religion conflicts. Have the person who published such content ever thought of the consequences of doing so? Have he or she ever thought that conflicts between certain countries may intensify? One example will be the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy that began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30/09/2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship. However, the controversy deepens when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence, including setting fire to the Norwegian and Danish Embassies in Syria, and the storming European buildings and desecration of the Danish and German flags in Gaza City. Whether the cartoons were printed intentionally or not in the fifty other countries, the media should have known better of the consequences. How is this socially just?

The media may resort to certain means to generate sales. Such means includes advertisement in the newspapers and televisions. This leads to the advertising world altering our reality and twisting the truth. Our desire for status, wealth and beauty made us vulnerable to the consumerist culture that most new economies have adopted while progressing. Women’s perception of beauty and self-image is influenced by slimming center and beauty product advertisements. This gave rise to the increasing number of girls becoming anorexic and bulimic in hope to slim down to look like those models depicted in the advertisements. Just a mere advertisement could have such effect. Shouldn’t this be a wakeup call to the media that they should not be too driven by profit making?

Televisions and the movies promote violence and sexuality, makes it excessive and glamourous. The psychological impact of film and television cannot be underestimated. A picture is able to convey all sorts of meaning (left to the imagination). In this era, people are more visual. Research has shown that if a news report on television differs from a newspaper account, more than twice as many people will believe the televised version that the newspaper one. Gory movies such as Saw and The Hills Have Eyes have gory scenes like a man chopping another person’s hand and there are movies showing excessive use of guns or planes crashing, so much that people are numb to such scenes). This explains why there are homicides involving gun shots, terrorist bombings incurring casualties and kidnappings. And who knows, maybe the terrorist involved in the 9-11 attack got the idea from some movie he had seen.

The media tend to produce materials in the mindset of making profit hence ignoring the dire consequences that may arise from their action. On the other hand, the basis of what is socially just and what is not, is arguable. Different ideologies and religions will have different conceptions of what a ‘just’ society is.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6213032.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm

change your sig. xoxo.

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?

I agree to a large extent. Censorship has several effects on the community which may not be positive. Censorship in the dictionary is defined as the act of repressing ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms. Government often uses censorship to remove or withhold any information that discredits them from the public. Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.

Censorship will create social barrier among countries especially when the countries has different ideology. Differences in ideologies/religions/races maybe emphasized in the different countries if the government influences the public with ideas that the country is superior as compared to other countries. This will cause the people to have biased views in global issues since they are being “brainwash” since young. Such situation may arise from censorship of educational resources which aims to remove critical or comment. Information on military atrocities in history in the textbooks is extremely controversial, as in the case of the Nanking Massacre and the Holocaust. The representation of every society's flaws is typically downplayed in favor of a more nationalist, favorable or patriotic view.

In countries with more extreme measures, public may have limited knowledge in global issues. An example would be North Korea. For decades North Korea has been one of the world's most secretive societies. It is one of the few countries still under communist rule. It is a totalitarian state whereby the power of the ruler is absolute. The leader, Kim Jong-il, has absolute control over the people, controlling their minds by manipulating the media and education system. Students in North Korea are taught about his great works, speeches and to pledge loyalty to the country. This causes the people of North Korea to be oblivious to what’s happening in the world. The cultural and political ideas that the people have are different from people in the outside world. The North Koreans may not keep up with current global issues.

I believe that the public should have their own freedom to choose what they want to read or hear news that they want to hear. It should not be controlled by the government with intentions to “maintain stability” within the country. Singapore is ranked poorly in terms of media’s freedom to operate. In April 2005, Reporters Without Borders (Paris-based international media watchdog) ranked Singapore 147th out of the 167 countries on the issue of press freedom. Though Singaporeans do not face any riots or protests from activists, it is unfortunate that government press officers assiduously shepherd domestic news through the local news channels, effectively shaping what is reported. What mindset will the young grow up having if they read newspapers that come under the umbrella of Singapore Press Holdings which is under the control of the government?

Small dose of censorship may be necessary to ensure national security, however, extreme cases may bring about undesirable consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_without_borders
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1131421.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Censorship_of_educational_sources

change your sig. xoxo.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Gun control?

Recently, a tragedy had occurred in Virginia at Virginia Tech University. A 23 year old South Korean student gunman had killed 32 people. Two months ago, he had purchased a .22-calibre Walther P22 gun and a month later, a Glock 9mm handgun and a box of ammunition. He presented required identifications: a Virginia driver’s licence, cheques that matched the address on the licence and a federal immigration card to prove he is a legal US resident. He passed a background check and left Roanoke Firearms with his gun. It was this easy for Cho to purchase a gun in Virginia, resulting in an episode that no one expected would happen.
This massacre has revived the gun control debate once again. In USA, the minimum requirements for buying a gun are a clean track record, above the age of 18 and must be an American citizen. Virginia’s gun laws were more lax as the legal age of purchasing a gun was 12 with parental supervision. This clearly meant that there are chances of a student carrying a gun with him/her. To make things worse, by allowing students to carry guns, it promotes the use of gun as self-defense under certain circumstances. Even children of age 12 is allowed to possess a gun, I would not be surprised if there are cases whereby children shoot parents dead with guns. With such lax gun laws, it is no wondered how the South Korean student Cho was able to purchase the guns so easily, leading to the deaths of 32 other people.
Despite this incident, the American leaders are in no hurry to ban guns. There are calls for gun control but we don’t get as much asking for armed self-defense. Have the massacre not taught the country a bitter lesson? Have the shooting not serve as a wake up call to the American government to impose stricter gun laws to prevent such tragedy from happening? In Singapore, people are not allowed to carry guns unless authorized. The possibilities of homicides involving gun shoots are rare. Singaporean citizens live in peace and safe environment. The streets are much safer as compared to countries that allow their citizens to purchase guns. If we are able to maintain peace without guns, why not ban the use of guns?
The reason used by Americans for allowing the possession of guns is for self-defence. It is not an adequate reason to possess a gun. Gun is a lethal weapon, by allowing citizens to purchase guns for “self-defence” merely promotes violence and use of armaments. What kind of mindset would the young grow up with in an environment which is pro-gun? It’s appalling that a student like Cho whom the Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell claim was as clean cut a kid as you would ever want to see, was capable of committing such act. Never judge a book by its cover, even the most unexpected person around you may carry a gun with him/her. Although Cho was mentally unstable but the whole episode could have been avoided if the gun laws were much stricter or even better, guns were banned in the state.

change your sig. xoxo.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.Discuss this with references to recent events.

The mass media is means of communication like televisions that reach a large audience. There are so many media channels available nowadays that people have access to easily like radio, magazines and newspapers. They provide both entertainment and news for the public. People assimilate news through newspapers, news reported live on television or reporters reporting news over the radio. In the recent years, media bias in free societies has become an observable occurrence. Although the mass media has claimed to be impartial when reporting news, however when it comes to competition between journalist from different newspapers or television stations, what claims to be news may not seem so.

This is evident in the recent events that had occurred. For example, in Taiwan where the media market is grossly over-saturated, a popular TV station (TVBS) filmed and broadcast a gangster video that showed a gangster, Chou Cheng-bao sitting behind a table laden with rifles, brandishing a pistol and was threatening to kill his rival. One of its reporters admitted helping an armed gangster shoot a video. The station’s broadcast of the video before alerting the police sparked a huge outcry. This scandal had cast the spotlight on Taiwan’s free-wheeling media, which has long been criticized for sensationalizing news to shore up ratings. This incident is one good example to show how desperate these reporters are in getting firsthand “news” by using such methods.

TV stations in Taiwan have used many means to boost ratings even with news that were not verified or investigated properly. Just last year, the TV station had wrongly reported that farmers used asphalt to remove duck feathers, causing a panic among consumers and duck sales to plunge. The report was then later proven to be wrong. The power of the mass media to affect one’s thinking is so great. People just read newspapers blindly, thinking that the news reported is all true. Consumers should read news from different sources so as to judge for themselves how true or unbiased the text is.
(Source: Straits times)

Another instance is the recent news about the British sailors being captured by Iranians. British sailors were captured by Iranians and were accused of entering Iran’s territorial waters. When the sailors were released, Defence Secretary Des Browne allowed the sailors to sell their stories to the media. Different TV stations offered high price to buy their stories. Leading Seaman Faye Turney sold her story to ITV1's Tonight with Trevor Macdonald and the Sun newspaper - reportedly for a six-figure sum.
“They have been courted by the media, they have been the subject of massive media speculation, and the media have been camped outside each and every single one of their houses desperate to hear the stories.”
John Nichol
This goes to show that reporters will do anything to get stories, publish it and make profit.
(Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6537555.stm)

In this media age, the only way that the public can be access to information is through mass media. It’s appalling how facts can be twisted or slanted just to create news.

change your sig. xoxo.

Monday, April 09, 2007

“YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?

I agree to a large extent. YouTube is a popular free video sharing website which allows users upload, view, and share video clips. Videos can be rated, and the average rating and the number of times a video has been watched are both published. There are a wide variety of videos being uploaded, from comedy to cartoon shows. Since there are no restrictions to what kind and type of video content is uploaded on the site, arguments and critiscism arises.

Youtube has social impact on the society. As a welll-known site, Youtube has a wide range of viewers aging from young to old. The most frequent visitors of the site are probably youngsters. Inappropriate materials such as ponography videos maybe posted up on the website. Youngsters are able to watch these videos without being stopped. This is worrying as juvenile delinquents are on the rise. These videos are not meant for these teenagers to watch since they are not mature enough. There are also cases whereby videos depicting violence are uploaded. On June 1 2006, the evening ITV News bulletin reported that YouTube and sites like it were encouraging violence and bullying amongst teenagers, who were filming fights on their mobile phones, and then uploading them to YouTube. While the site provides a function for reporting excessively violent videos, the news report stated that communication with the company was difficult.(source: wikipedia) Although the videos may be flagged as inappropriate, can all obscene or violent videos be removed? Will Youtube ignore the social impact that these videos have on the society and just continue to allow such videos to be uploaded? There are too many videos being uploaded on the site, YouTube can only discover such video when someone flags the video as inappropriate material.

There are also issues pertaining to copyright infringement and bans of YouTube in certain countries such as Iran and Thailand. Youtube policy does not allow content not allowed by the United States copyight law to be uploaded. Even so, there are still large numbers of videos that violates the copyright law begin uploaded. Youtube management is unable to ensure and guarantee that all videos do not violate the law. Established company, Viacom demanded Youtube to remove 100,000 clips that contain copyrighted material owned by the company. It then went on to sue Youtube when terms could not be reached. There are certain videos that sparks conflicts between countries or videos that insult a country’s leader for example in the recent news, Thailand has banned Youtube ever since a video against King Bhumibol Adulyadej was uploaded. It was considered an insult to the Thais. Thus thailand has responded by banning Youtube. Videos may contain sensitive images or ideas that will spark religious conflicts or conflicts between countries. For example, Youtube was banned once in Turkey for hosting videos that insult the Turks and

With all these incidents, it is evident that Youtube does not do enough to stop certain videos from being uploaded. Although it is also the viewers responsibility to flagged any inappropraite materials uploaded, I believe Youtube could do a better job at preventing such incidents. Youtube is a site where people are able to enjoy and entertain themselves through the various videos but when it comes to legal matters, things can turn ugly.

change your sig. xoxo.