Category: Media

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.]

Public figures have to behave well at all times. Do you agree?

The 24×7 media today has placed public figures and celebrities constantly in the public eye. Their every move and action is scrutinized and analysed. This constant analysis of their life has a huge impact on the people who follow and sometimes worship them. Thus, it is fair to say that public figures should behave well most of the time as their actions have the power to influence people particularly when sections of the public look up to them as role models.

Public figures have to behave responsibly because they are accountable for the reputation of the body they represent. In political scenarios, this is extremely true because any misconduct can lead to public distrusting the political party. For example, in the United States, Senator Al Franken had to resign when several women accused him of behaving inappropriately with them. After the allegations surfaced, more than two dozen Democratic senators called on Franken to resign. Similarly, United States politician, Tim Murphy, an outspoken opponent of abortion was revealed to have strongly encouraged his mistress to get an abortion when she became pregnant. This accusation led him to resign from the party he was representing. These examples illustrate how inappropriate behaviour even in private lives can wreak havoc on their credibility and integrity. Public figures should not forget that their actions can have severe consequences as even a small detail can become big news. Thus, it is true that public figures should behave well all the time as their mistakes can damage the reputation of a political party and raise questions about their credibility. 

Public figures also need to behave well all the time as they need to develop mutual trust. Successful public figures in the public eye need to build an image that shows they support family values. For example, the duke and duchess of Cambridge are always seen together with their kids. Many believe that the family is the picture of perfection, always upholding royal standards where even their kids have likely never been photographed crying. Despite being royals, their down to earth nature has made them famous among the commoners. On the same note, Leonardo DiCaprio has gained a huge fan following because of his image as a celebrity who takes care of the environment and animals. Even at the Oscars, DiCaprio chose to talk about environmental issues and won the hearts of millions. These examples illustrate how society expects public figures to be worthy and standing for all the right issues. Thus, public figures need to behave well all the time because they need to gain the trust of millions.

Public figures are looked up to by followers as role models and they need to behave well to set a good example. Public figures have a huge influence on people’s behaviour. Many look up to sportspersons, singers and actors as role models and emulate their behaviour. In such a case it is a moral duty of public figures to behave in an appropriate manner all the time so that they can have a positive impact on society. Singer Lorde, for instance, called out a Photoshopped image of herself on Twitter. With the image, she tweeted that it is important to remember that flaws are okay. Through this tweet, she influenced the body-image discussion for the better and promoted body positivity. On the other hand, celebrities like Kim Kardashian have faced severe backlash for selling and promoting products like, Appetite Suppressant Lollipops and have been accused of being a ‘toxic influence’ on youngsters who are impressionable and face the constant pressure of looking a certain way. Public figures need to realise that they have a responsibility towards society, as their followers would want to dress, act, be like them. Therefore, it is necessary for public figures to behave well all the time because they can influence the behaviour and actions of people in society.

In conclusion, it can be said that celebrities should behave well most of the time because their behaviour can have positive and negative impacts. Public figures who seek the benefits of fame must be able to take the downside of public interrogation. Public figures hold huge power and thus are accountable for their behaviour which can negatively influence people around them and society at large. To say a celebrity is not responsible for his or her actions is saying that as human beings, our lives aren’t all somehow connected.