Attending a live performance is the best way to experience music. Evaluate this statement.

Possible points about whether attending a life performance is the best way to experience music.

  • refer to experiences from live performances in their own lives
  • assess whether live performance is preferable to other forms of performing
  • make a judgement based on the consideration of evidence and argument put forward.
  • the atmosphere of a live venue making the experience more memorable
  • the opportunity for artists to perform a ‘one-off’ moment that is unique, like an improvisation
  • the mutual opportunity for fans and musicians to connect with one another during live performances
  • live performances and music festivals are events enjoyed by friends and family together
  • attending a live performance takes up a lot of time and being in one place
  • preferring to listen in private rather than having the distractions that are present in a live performance
  • listeners of recorded music have the choice of which track and order it is played in, for them that could be the best way to experience music
  • the relative cost of attending a live performance is high compared to the cost of a recording.

To what extent do television programmes have a negative influence on people?

Possible points discussing the negative impacts of television programmes

  • discuss the role of television programmes in society
  • consider the extent to which the influence of television programmes has been detrimental
  • make a judgement, based on considering the evidence and argument put forward.
  • television programmes make people lazy and replace more active leisure pursuits
  • some television programmes are essentially escapist and have little cultural value
  • Illegal and inappropriate actions are ‘normalised’ in many programmes
  • causing people to interact less and stay in their own homes more
  • television is responsible for high-quality programmes and making them available around the world
  • television becoming an important medium for news and current affairs
  • in many countries, regulatory bodies monitor the negative or controversial content of television programmes
  • recent developments in digital television and streaming improving the
  • range and diversity of programmes.

How far should a state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders?

People oppose the idea of state-sponsored surveillance as it violates their privacy. There are others who believe that state monitoring is necessary to protect the well-being of its people. One could argue that the state should have the right to monitor the actions of its people, as long as the monitoring does not impinge on their privacy and curb their mobility.

Many people use the internet to express their views and opinions on social media websites and forums. If the right of privacy is snatched away from people and their every action is monitored, it would impinge upon the freedom of people. State monitoring endangers self-expression as individuals are implicitly forced to make decisions and voice out opinions that align with the policies and interests of the state. For example, in China, state-sponsored surveillance is widespread. When people choose to use social media, they cannot criticise the government. Similarly, people cannot move around freely without being monitored by the state. Facial–recognition software is used to access office buildings, streets and even residential areas. China exactly illustrates what can a society become if state sponsored monitoring is used without any constraints. When the state decides to monitor people, it can use several measures that eventually take infringe individual privacy who are not even imminent threats to the society. Therefore, state the right to monitor every action of people within its borders can have repercussions as the individual may lose all their privacy and the voice to express disappointment eventually.

However, surveillance is necessary to protect people from crime and violent attacks. When it comes to protecting the lives of individuals the state definitely should have the authority to monitor the action of its people. In many countries like the United States and the UK, surveillance has helped police to avert crimes. Surveillance cameras, for example, can help police pinpoint the time of a crime, trace criminal activity and get information about vehicles like descriptions and license plates. In Brazil, facial recognition has helped the police arrest a drug-traffickers. Thus, information from monitoring helps in narrowing down areas where crime is most prevalent. Israel too was able to avert more than 200 terrorist attacks from Palestine by monitoring social media activity. Surveillance not only helps in averting crimes and attacks but also helps to rescue victims of crime. If people are willing to sacrifice their privacy, then the state can better protect them from violent crimes and be a step ahead of criminals and terrorists. State monitoring action of its people is an efficient way to thwart criminal activities and address complex crimes and terrorist threats that surround many societies today. Thus, the state should have the right to monitor the actions of people within its border as it is necessary to keep national security in mind.

On the flip side, surveillance of the state can worsen issues because of people’s tendency to stereotype. Profiling based on religion, race and gender can lead to snap judgements. Racial profiling is a harsh reality which is prevalent in Western democracies. Biased profiling can be used to suppress the minority communities that are detained because of suspicion. Thus, enhanced surveillance like facial recognition can deeply impact and escalate behaviour that is prejudiced. An example of this can be seen in countries like Turkey, Israel and China. Thus, surveillance can be used by state authorities to target certain social groups and consequently reinforce stereotypes which may lead to oppression and conflict within the society. Therefore, the state should not monitor the activities of the people as it can lead to stereotyping and oppression.

In conclusion, state monitoring is essential for maintaining the well-being of people. However, the power of monitoring should be used responsibly and should not be used to establish dominance over people. Surveillance using technology is simply a new way to determine the safety of all people.