While censorship can protect society from harmful content, its importance is often overrated as it can also suppress freedom of expression and hinder societal progress.
Outline:
I. Introduction
Hook: Censorship is a controversial topic in today's digital age.
Background: Brief overview of censorship's role and its impact on society.
Thesis Statement: While censorship can protect society from harmful content, its importance is often overrated as it can also suppress freedom of expression and hinder societal progress.
II. Supporting View 1: Protection from Harmful Content
Topic Sentence: Censorship protects society from harmful and dangerous content.
Example 1: In 2020, the Indian government banned TikTok to prevent harmful and inappropriate content.
Example 2: In 2021, the UK’s Online Safety Bill aimed to protect children from online abuse.
Example 3: In 2018, Australia introduced laws to censor violent video content.
Analysis: These examples show how censorship can safeguard the public from harmful materials.
III. Supporting View 2: Maintaining Social Order
Topic Sentence: Censorship helps maintain social order and prevent unrest.
Example 1: In 2019, Sri Lanka temporarily blocked social media to prevent violence after bombings.
Example 2: In 2021, Uganda restricted social media during elections to maintain peace.
Example 3: In 2020, Iran censored internet access during protests to control dissent.
Analysis: These cases illustrate how censorship can help maintain stability and public order.
IV. Opposing View 1: Suppression of Freedom of Expression
Topic Sentence: Censorship suppresses freedom of expression and democratic values.
Example 1: In 2020, Thailand's censorship of pro-democracy protests limited free speech.
Example 2: In 2021, Russia restricted access to opposition websites, stifling political dissent.
Example 3: In 2019, China's censorship of Hong Kong protests curtailed citizens' voices.
Analysis: These instances highlight how censorship undermines fundamental democratic principles.
V. Opposing View 2: Hindrance to Societal Progress
Topic Sentence: Censorship hinders societal progress and innovation.
Example 1: In 2021, Turkey's restrictions on social media stifled political and social discourse.
Example 2: In 2020, Egypt's censorship of media restricted investigative journalism and transparency.
Example 3: In 2018, Saudi Arabia's control over artistic expression limited cultural development.
Analysis: These examples demonstrate how censorship can impede progress and innovation in society.
V. Opposing View 2: Hindrance to Societal Progress
Topic Sentence: Censorship hinders societal progress and innovation.
Example 1: In 2021, Turkey's restrictions on social media stifled political and social discourse.
Example 2: In 2020, Egypt's censorship of media restricted investigative journalism and transparency.
Example 3: In 2018, Saudi Arabia's control over artistic expression limited cultural development.
Analysis: These examples demonstrate how censorship can impede progress and innovation in society.
Read about:
1. The Digital Silk Road “has been just as much about promoting China’s tech industry and developing digital infrastructure as it has about reshaping standards and internet governance norms away from a free, open, and interoperable internet in favour of a fragmented digital ecosystem, built on censorship and surveillance, where China and other networked autocracies can prosper."
2. An order by the Singaporean authorities to remove a cigarette from a Chinatown mural has sparked public criticism over censorship and historical revisionism.
3. In 2023, CPJ registered 320 imprisoned journalists worldwide. The Erased uses a unique font that links every single one of these 320 journalists to a censored word, and erases these words from participating (news) websites around the world. This symbolises the importance of free and independent journalism, and the danger of censorship: it takes away our right to know.
Category: Media
The world today has diluted the concept of good and bad. Discuss.
I. Introduction
- Hook: In an era marked by rapid social change and technological advancement, traditional notions of good and bad are often questioned.
- Background: Overview of how moral and ethical standards have evolved over time, particularly in the context of globalization and digital media.
- Thesis Statement: In the contemporary world, the concepts of good and bad have become increasingly diluted due to cultural relativism and media influence, yet some argue that these changes reflect a more nuanced understanding of morality and ethical complexity.
II. Supporting View 1: Cultural Relativism
- Topic Sentence: The rise of cultural relativism has led to a dilution of universal moral standards.
- Example 1: The varying attitudes towards practices such as arranged marriages or corporal punishment across different cultures, which challenge the idea of a single moral truth.
- Example 2: The global debate on LGBTQ+ rights, where acceptance and legality vary widely, demonstrating conflicting views on what is considered “good” or “bad.”
- Analysis: Discuss how these examples illustrate the impact of cultural relativism on diluting clear-cut moral judgments.
III. Supporting View 2: Media Influence
- Topic Sentence: Media influence has contributed to the blurring of the lines between good and bad.
- Example 1: The portrayal of anti-heroes in popular TV shows and movies, like Walter White in “Breaking Bad,” which complicates the audience’s sense of morality.
- Example 2: The spread of misinformation and fake news through social media platforms, making it difficult to discern truth from falsehood and good intentions from bad.
- Analysis: Examine how media representations and the digital information landscape have complicated traditional moral categories.
IV. Opposing View 1: Nuanced Understanding of Morality
- Topic Sentence: The perceived dilution of good and bad reflects a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of morality.
- Example 1: The increasing recognition of mental health issues, leading to more compassionate responses to behaviors previously judged harshly, such as addiction or crime.
- Example 2: The rise of restorative justice practices, which focus on rehabilitation and reconciliation rather than punishment, promoting a more complex view of justice.
- Analysis: Discuss how these developments indicate a shift towards a more sophisticated and empathetic approach to moral judgments.
V. Opposing View 2: Ethical Complexity in Globalization
- Topic Sentence: Globalization has introduced ethical complexities that necessitate a reevaluation of good and bad.
- Example 1: The ethical dilemmas surrounding global trade practices, such as the use of sweatshops or exploitation of labor in developing countries.
- Example 2: The environmental impact of technological advancements, where progress and innovation often come at the cost of ecological harm, creating complex moral decisions.
- Analysis: Explore how these global issues require a more detailed consideration of ethics, challenging simplistic notions of good and bad.
VI. Conclusion
- Restate Thesis: While it appears that the concepts of good and bad have become diluted in today’s world due to cultural relativism and media influence, this can also be seen as a progression towards a more nuanced and complex understanding of morality.
- Summary of Key Points: Recap the main supporting and opposing views discussed.
- Final Thought: Emphasize the importance of continuous dialogue and critical thinking in navigating moral and ethical challenges in the contemporary world.
News media must always tell the truth. To what extent do you agree?
Possible points for discussing news media must always tell the truth
- show an understanding of the concept of truth in what we read, hear and see
- discuss circumstances where the media might be justified in not telling the whole truth
- make a judgement, based on consideration of the evidence and argument put forward about news media must always tell the truth.
- versions of the truth may depend upon the political and social attitudes of those involved in the media
- sensationalism and rumour-mongering being the economic mainstay of many media outlets
- untruthful/partial news should be condemned as likely to limit people’s access to facts and their understanding of issues
- accurate news being important in keeping people safe and informed
- facts and figures reported can be checked objectively using other sources
- opinion and analysis being subjective appeal to people of different persuasions
- popular morale may be upheld if the whole truth is not revealed by governments under certain circumstances
- it being, to a degree, up to consumers of news to develop a critical approach to sources and fact-checking.
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.
‘Censorship does more harm than good.’ How far is this true today?
The contemporary discourse surrounding censorship has sparked intense debates, questioned its merits, and highlighted the potential hazards it poses. This analysis aims to shed light on the significant risks associated with censorship, supporting the notion that censorship does more harm than good in today’s context. By examining the perils it brings and evaluating its claimed advantages, this essay underscores the dangers inherent in censorship. It undermines individual freedoms, impedes progress, and hinders the development of an enlightened and democratic society. It becomes increasingly apparent that the benefits of censorship are limited, while its negative impacts are far-reaching and detrimental to the fabric of society.
Censorship encroaches upon the fundamental rights of individuals, curtailing their freedom of expression, speech, and access to information. Censorship hampers critical thinking and informed decision-making by controlling and limiting the flow of information. For instance, in many authoritarian regimes, governments impose strict censorship measures, blocking websites, censoring social media platforms, and suppressing dissenting voices. In countries like China and North Korea, internet censorship is pervasive, limiting citizens’ access to information and stifling their freedom of expression. By curtailing individual freedoms, censorship infringes upon the basic rights of individuals and inhibits their ability to participate fully in public discourse, engage in critical thinking, and contribute to the democratic process. Thus, the argument that censorship does more harm than good holds true in contemporary society.
Censorship hinders progress and stifles innovation. Censorship acts as a barrier to progress by restricting the free flow of ideas, knowledge, and information. When certain viewpoints, opinions, or creative expressions are censored, it limits the ability of individuals and society as a whole to explore new perspectives, challenge existing norms, and innovate. For instance, during the Renaissance period in Europe, the Catholic Church’s strict censorship policies limited the dissemination of scientific and philosophical ideas that contradicted religious beliefs. This hindered the progress of scientific understanding and delayed advancements in various fields. It was only when censorship loosened, and new ideas were allowed to flourish, that significant breakthroughs occurred, leading to remarkable progress in areas such as astronomy, anatomy, and mathematics. Therefore, by impeding the free exchange of ideas and suppressing intellectual exploration, censorship poses a significant obstacle to progress and innovation, hindering society’s ability to develop and evolve.
Censorship hinders the development of an enlightened and democratic society. Censorship restricts the free flow of information and suppresses critical voices, obstructing the development of an enlightened and democratic society. By imposing restrictions on free speech and journalism, censorship undermines transparency, accountability, and the principles of democracy. For example, In Turkey, a controversial social media law grants authorities the right to control and restrict online free speech. The new legislation, known as the “disinformation law,” criminalises the spread of misinformation according to the government’s definition and regulates content. The law even empowers the government to block social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook when deemed necessary or compel them to share data with authorities. Similarly, in India, the ruling government banned the BBC documentary, “The Modi Question” which critically examined Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s governance and his treatment of the country’s Muslim minority. The ban extended to social media platforms, in-person screenings, and television airwaves, effectively limiting any form of public engagement with the documentary. These examples from Turkey and India demonstrate how censorship obstructs the development of an enlightened and democratic society by restricting access to diverse viewpoints, impeding public discourse, and hindering the pursuit of truth. Therefore, Censorship not only curtails individual freedoms but also undermines the fundamental values necessary for the progress and well-being of society as a whole.
Plato’s argument for censorship’s role in shaping young minds remains relevant today. Advocates maintain that the content children are exposed to during their formative years can have a lasting impact, making it crucial to present them with virtuous narratives. For instance, numerous countries have implemented age restrictions and content ratings for movies, TV shows, and video games to safeguard young audiences from explicit or inappropriate material. In 2019, the film “Joker” faced scrutiny for its violent and dark themes, resulting in age limitations in several nations. Similarly, platforms like Netflix and YouTube Kids provide parental control settings to filter out potentially harmful content for young viewers.
In the debate surrounding censorship’s impact on young minds, the effectiveness of relying solely on this method is questionable. While censoring “harmful content” for children is supported by regulations and parental controls, it may not be the most effective approach. Overly restrictive censorship measures can limit freedom of expression, stifle creativity, and impede the free flow of information and ideas in a society. For example, Both “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “And Tango Makes Three” were banned due to their controversial themes of racism and same-sex relationships, respectively. Banning such books can limit intellectual freedom, suppresses important conversations about social issues, and denies readers access to diverse perspectives, inhibiting the growth of an enlightened and inclusive society. Thus, it is true that censorship does more harm than good.
In conclusion, the examination and evaluation of censorship, particularly in today’s context, reveal its perilous nature. The potential dangers it poses to free expression, individual liberties, and societal progress outweigh any claimed benefits showing that censorship does more harm than good. Censorship restricts information flow, stifles diverse perspectives, and hinders critical thinking. While there may be instances where censorship is deemed necessary to protect social order and vulnerable groups, it is crucial to strike a balance. This requires careful consideration and democratic processes to avoid overreach and ensure the preservation of fundamental rights. As society embraces freedom and openness, the risks associated with censorship make it increasingly outdated and hazardous.
The media has become a dangerous part of daily life. To what extent do you agree?
Possible points for discussing if media has become a dangerous part of daily life
- examine the role that media in its various forms must play in daily life
- explore the extent to which media has become dangerous
- make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward.
- the media benefits daily life in many ways as it is an instant form of communication
- media can inform, educate and inspire people of all ages
- it allows for the showcasing of talents and gives great entertainment
- it being a simple means of promoting awareness of products, services, views and ideals
- media isolating people resulting in various social and health problems
- the promotion of extreme views can have a damaging impact on society
- media can be one-sided and give narrow viewpoints on important issues
- inappropriate media having a damaging impact on children and other vulnerable people
To what extent do films have to be realistic to be enjoyable?
Possible points for discussing if films have to be realistic to be enjoyable
- explore what constitutes realism in films
- assess whether films need to be realistic to be enjoyable
- make a judgement, based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward.
- films that are realistic in terms of drawing on real life
- the need for realistic places and locations to engage the audience
- the need for believable characters in believable scenarios to whom we can relate
- the importance of realism in documentary films and their impact on the audience
- escapism being the main reason for watching a film for many
- a film may be more unpleasant to view if it is too realistic
- some people watch films in order to view extraordinary people or situations
- too much emphasis on real-life could render a film as dull.
Evaluate the need for censorship in films and television.
• examine who might censor films and television and why
• consider the necessity for censorship on society and its potential impacts
• make a judgement based on the consideration of the evidence and argument put forward.
• the prevention of hate speech and subversion before it is aired
• parents limiting access to some television channels to protect their children
• the effectiveness of the ratings system used in films and music
• the exclusion of offensive and explicit scenes which may offend
• how regimes can control what the entertainment that is available to the people
• the avoidance of creating narratives that are untrue as a form of entertainment
• the management of censorship is fallible with many ways of breaching the laws
• any form of censorship being seen as the stifling of creativity and freedom.
With the rise of the Internet, has conventional media become obsolete?
Despite the pervasive influence of the Internet, traditional media still has a growing role. Conventional media continues to stay very popular and important in the daily lives of citizens. Many individuals still listen to the radio while driving to work, read the newspapers on their commute and of course, watch TV while cooking or during dinner with their family. But, over the last 20 years, the Internet and its ecosystem have taken up an important part within our society. This is particularly prominent amongst Generation Y and Z consumers. It would be a stretch to say that conventional media is obsolete. It may be perhaps a tad underused.
Interestingly, the number of hours spent watching television has gone up even in the age of the Internet. Cable TV has exploded with the number of programme offerings and reality TV shows that have captivated audiences for over 20 seasons. While it can be argued that Netflix and Amazon Prime have an increasing following, but these entertainment channels do not offer news, travel and other current affairs programmes. That said, most people prefer to watch Netflix on a large TV screen rather than a tablet or smartphone.
The Internet has changed direct mail quite significantly. Various service providers can provide targeted advertising online and payment only is made when a potential consumer clicks through. There are more avenues to track advertisements through built-in tools that track demographics, location and even the type of device through which the advertisement was seen. Brands are specifically targeting their ideal buyer rather selecting a broad market to bombard with their message. These brands are building relationships with these ideal buyers through increasingly powerful marketing strategies that foster trust in their product or service.
Blogs such as Daily Kos and The Huffington Post have gained credibility and large readerships over the past decade, forcing traditional journalists to blog and tweet in order to keep pace with the flow of the story. Traditional newspapers are also losing out to news aggregators such as Google News, which profit from providing links to journalists’ stories at major newspapers without offering financial compensation to either the journalists or the news organizations. Many newspapers have adapted to the Internet out of necessity, fighting falling circulation figures and slumping advertising sales by offering websites, blogs, and podcasts. The relative success of new media companies such as Vice, Buzzfeed, and Vox – and the fact that some of their largest backers are from the old guard.
The power and influence of conventional media is slowing waning. But a lot of work needs to be put in place to ensure that new media can eclipse old media and create a shining pathway for governments, businesses and consumers. One vital aspect is ensuring proper laws are in place to prevent fake news and to protect free speech. Secondly, censorship and regulation of content has to be more acceptable as a way of producing quality content that helps society grow. While these issues may create some set-backs for new media, it is nevertheless increasing in popularity and accessibility by leaps and bounds.
Television is detrimental to our ability to think critically. Discuss.
There is no denying that television has entertained us and educated us. Many consider it essential to the development of mass media. However, there are others who believe that television affects our critical thinking. Critical thinking is the ability to look at things from various perspectives to reach a balanced conclusion. When people watch television, they passively absorb the information without questioning its reliability. Thus, in this sense, it can be contended that television is detrimental to our ability to think critically.
Television is responsible for showing information that is biased in nature. Television is responsible for portraying reality from only one perspective. This is particularly true in today’s society where people are surrounded by fake news or half-truths. For example, in the United States, the Fox News Channel has been taken to task for practising biased reporting by favouring Republican Party and portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. The biased reporting of can be detrimental to the integrity of news and can also affect the thinking ability of the people. Another case in point is China. China’s state-sponsored channel, CGTN, has been under investigation by the United Kingdom for only representing the point of view of the Communist Party of China. Biased news on TV has the ability to inhibit our critical thinking, especially when everything is accepted without question. Thus, television affects our ability to think critically as it shows a biased perspective.
[The paragraph does not answer how critical thinking is impacted. Rather than focusing on giving two examples, it would be better to show how the ability to make good choices is impacted.]
People are influenced by celebrities who they see on TV channels. Many people are obsessed with celebrities and try to follow whatever their idols do. When celebrities give their opinion on a matter or promote products or causes, their fans are bound to follow their advice. For example, Pierce Bronson received a lot of flak for promoting a mouth freshener which was deemed carcinogenic in nature. This was due to the fact that celebrities’ influences consumer choices as they believe everything that they say. The popularity of shows like Dr.Phil, Dr.Oz and The Oprah Show is a testament to the fact that celebrities on TV have the power to influence people. Therefore, television is detrimental to thinking critically by both inviting an erosion of critical thinking and promoting what is popular rather than what is true.
[Still not answering the question. The paragraph does not show the key terms in the last sentence].
Television is also responsible for presenting reality in an oversimplified way and promoting violence. Many people view television and accept that as reality, television has the power to influence the world view of people. For example, shows like Criminal Minds, Grey’s Anatomy and Station 19 do not depict accurately portray the life of a policeman, FBI agent, doctor or a firefighter. Watching these shows does not enable critical thinking as they cause disillusionment and unrealistic expectations. Shows like are aired in a time span of 30-60 minutes but in the process, people form opinions without allowing the information to first be filtered through their minds. Furthermore, violent tv shows impact rational thinking in young people. For example, Dexter, a tv show about a serial killer inspired Mark Twitchell to commit first-degree murder. Similarly, a teenager obsessed with TV killer Dexter stabbed and dismembered his girlfriend. These examples illustrate that watching crime shows can lead to irrational thoughts and also lead to violent behaviour. Therefore, television is detrimental to thinking critically because it portrays reality in a less accurate way and also encourages people to act irrationally on impulse.
[Still not answering the question. The paragraph does not show the key terms in the last sentence. Mark Twitchell is an isolated example].
Despite its flaws, it cannot be denied that television, if used in a proper manner, can enable critical thinking. Documentaries on channels like National Geographic and Discovery enable critical thinking in people. Moreover, unbiased news channels like Channel News Asia and PBS present facts that showcase reality from various perspectives. Moreover, topical debate shows like Question Time on BBC enables audiences to listen to various opinions and form one of their own. Such shows enable people to form their opinions through critical thinking and not being influenced by reporters or celebrities. Therefore, watching correct forms of media can help people thinking critically.
In conclusion, television to a large extent is detrimental to critical thinking. However, to enable critical thinking people to need to be more careful about what they want to consume on television. If they choose to watch some violent show instead of an informative documentary, we cannot blame the television but the choice of the audience. Therefore, the audience is responsible for enabling critical thinking by discerning what to watch and what not to watch.
[Unfortunately, this essay is largely NAQ. Grammar fluctuates between third person, and first-person plural.]