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.