Category: Media

The pen is mightier than the sword. Do you agree?

Words have become the balm that has been used to soothe the masses, not violent intervention.

The pen is mightier than the sword is a metonymic adage that has been used for centuries. While many have advocated the power of the sword, it cannot be denied that the pen holds significant power as well. The written word has transformed socioeconomic and political landscapes. Thus, it remains true that the written word is more powerful than the strength of weapons. 

Forceful or armed intervention helps a totalitarian or dictatorial government to intimidate the masses into submission.  The use of force or intimidation does not require deep reasoning. According to supporters of violence, violence is better because it gives immediate results and destroys opponents. An example of this can be Jamal Khashoggi who was killed in a rogue operation because he criticised the policies of Saudi Crown Prince, Prince Mohammed, through his column in the Washington Post. Similarly, in Northwest China, libraries burnt books that did not align religiously and politically to the communist ideologies of the PRC party. These incidents show how people fear the power of the pen and use the “sword” mercilessly to silence them.

Though it might seem that the “sword” holds significant power, the profound impact of the pen should not be forgotten. For example, in China, Mao Zedong was deeply influenced by the writings of Karl Marx. The impact of Marx’s view led to the communist revolution in China. Similarly, many books and written words have provided us look into deeper ideas like colonialism and post-colonialism. For example, Edward Said’s book Orientalism evaluated and criticised western beliefs about oriental people and formed an important ground for post-colonial studies. Adolf Hitler’s autobiographical book, Mein Kampf, disseminated his ideologies to a large audience. Therefore, the pen has the power to influence human thought and behaviour inefficient ways without violence.

Supporters of violence often argue that words mean nothing if a nation cannot protect itself from external military forces. For example, literature did not help to stop violence against Black Americans. Thinking retrospectively, literature was of little use when the German military invaded Poland or when Malaysia was attacked by the Japanese forces.  One could surmise that when military power is strong, words are of little use. Military forces in this instance can destroy societies and culture and also replace the existing literature with something new.

The power of the pen has morphed into the power of social media. Governments have been formed and finished by the swift stroke of the keyboard. In modern times, the pen manifests itself as Twitter feeds, Instagram posts and some even suggest, Tik Tok videos. The power of the pen is seen in hashtags that give further boost to causes and challenges that societies want to surmount. The Arab Sping, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and the MeToo movement area all examples of how the pen has been able to show its mettle in the form of words, and actions. The world is less violent now and conflicts mostly regional.

Even today, the pen is mightier than the sword. Many problems of the world find a solution in the written word and do not require the display of might. In the end, might can only oppresses and can only lead to superficial success and sooner or later will find itself challenged by the written word.  Words have become the balm that has been used to soothe the masses, not violent intervention.

Why should we be concerned with current affairs when most of them will soon be forgotten?

After all, ignorance is not always bliss. In the words of Dalai Lama, “Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.”

People spend hours watching news and debates on CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera, in an effort to keep abreast of the current socioeconomic issues. Current news provides us with much needed information about the issues people are facing around the world. The news of today can also help us in understanding the incidents which may happen in the future. Thus, it is important that people follow the current affairs because if we do not pay attention about the decisions which are taken around the world it will have a negative impact on countries, economies and common people.

People who hold the view that people should not be concerned about current affairs often suggest that it is a waste of time. These news pieces are short-lived and may not influence the people on a global level. In a world of technology, we are bombarded with news that is transient and short-lived in nature. However, just because, a current event might not have relevance in the future it does not mean that it is not important today. Being aware of current affairs is necessary because some issues can affect us as well and can also pose a threat. For example, the coronavirus (COVID-19) threat is something one needs to be aware of. That is because only awareness can help in prevention of the disease. If people are not aware of the coronavirus news, then they might risk their lives as well as the lives of others. Current news can help us to take precautionary messages and can save hundreds of lives. An example of this can be the news about Ukrainian Airlines plane being accidentally shot down by Iran which prompted other airlines to avoid airspace near Iran and Iraq. Thus, current affairs news can be a life saviour for many and people should keep themselves updated about current affairs.

Current world news not only makes people aware about threats but also about opportunity. In a globalised world, current affairs can also open up avenues for people to understand current market trends. One example of this is companies profiting from selling masks and hand sanitisers at exorbitant prices because of the ongoing, coronavirus threat. Another example can be of Just Inc., a food and beverage company which makes plant-based egg products which received multiple inquiries and from Chinese food companies seeking animal-free protein sources amid the coronavirus outbreak. The impasse between Russia and Saudi Arabia over the price and production of oil or the ongoing spat between India and Malaysia regarding the palm oil  create opportunities for forex and commodity traders as well as businessmen. Thus, by keeping in touch with current news, people can profit and succeed in life.

Though most of the current events would be forgotten in the future, it does not mean all news will meet a similar fate. The events that affect people today can also have a lasting impact on people and the world. For example, Indian mission of Chandrayaan-2 of sending an orbiter, lander, and rover to Moon’s southern hemisphere will be remembered by many in the future. Similarly, Joseph Schooling winning Singapore’s first-ever Olympic gold would always be remembered even by the future generations. People who are sceptical of following current may argue that today’s current news does not have much significance. However, if people do not follow current news then they might remain unaware about significant events that occur around the world.

In conclusion, people should be interested and concerned about current affairs because these news pieces inform, alert and raise awareness among millions of people.  If people follow current news, then they can also exploit opportunities to gain profits and make informed choices.  One has to be aware about the surroundings around the world. After all, ignorance is not always bliss. In the words of Dalai Lama, “Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace.”

Is regulation of the press desirable?

In the last two decades or so, the growing reach of the Internet and exponential growth in related mobile communications technology has brought seismic changes to the way in which information is disseminated and views exchanged. News generation has become decentralised – once newspapers, TV and radio stations fed the news to their consumers, but now anyone can be a journalist by writing or posting videos on his blog or social media account. Thus, in the current context, it is my view that the only meaningful definition of “the press” would be all forms of media old and new seen as a collective whole. Today social media often has greater influence over the public than traditional media, and so any discussion of the regulation of information cannot exclude social media. For this essay, desirability shall be defined in terms of both positive practical outcomes and ethical considerations. I hold the position that the regulation of the press by means of rules or restrictions is desirable only insofar as it provides a reasonable balance between conflicting human rights and aspects of the public interest, and only if regulation is carried out by truly independent entities.

At times journalists and media outlets, in their zeal to obtain information and gain an edge over their competitors, carry out actions that are illegal, unethical or both. This can lead to the violation of the rights of individuals and lower the moral character of a society. A prominent example is a phone-hacking scandal that brought down British tabloid The News of the World in 2011. Reporters from the paper were found to have hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians and members of the British royal family. What shocked the country and world, even more, was the revelation that the newspaper had even intruded into the phones of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler and victims of the 7 July 2005 terror attacks on the London Underground train network. The freedom of the press cannot be allowed to extend so far that it eviscerates the fundamental right of individuals to privacy, which is also integral to a person’s dignity. For a society to enjoy dignity and happiness, a reasonable balance needs to be struck between rights and freedoms that conflict with one another. Furthermore, the total lack of respect shown by the journalists for the deceased was also appalling and, if left unchecked, would cause the moral degradation of society. Thus regulations to bar the press from carrying out such aggressive and unethical information-gathering activities are not only necessary but desirable as well.

Another human right that can be encroached upon by excessive press freedom would be the right to safety. Media outlets that choose to incite violence can bring about large-scale violence and harm to life and limb. For this reason, many countries have restrictions on such content. For instance, the United States prohibits speech that is designed to incite immediate violence or unlawful activity. In a court decision, an American judge likened such speech to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, creating a clear and present danger. In another case, the Court ruled that such speech has no social value and can thus be curtailed. I concur with the reasoning of the American courts and argue that the right of the press to express itself cannot override the right of the individual to safety, and therefore regulation of the media in this regard is to be welcomed. Having said that, one should note that just as no right is absolute, the circumscription of any right may also not hold water under some circumstances. For instance, if a newspaper incites violence to overthrow an egregiously unjust, tyrannical and murderous regime, it may be justifiable for the greater good of the country and of humanity. In prosecuting such a case, it is hoped that an impartial court would take the context and unique moral and legal calculus into due consideration.

Constraints on press freedom can also be warranted by national security considerations, an important facet of the public interest. It is reasonable to sacrifice a limited amount of press freedom in order to ensure national security, which is vital to the very survival of the state – without which no human rights or happiness is even possible. While the First Amendment of the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, the Supreme Court has also recognised that in certain situations, the government is allowed to limit the liberty of the press. One of these is when a confidential source violates federal law in leaking information to the press. In such a case, the reporter can be subpoenaed and be required to name her source. In 2005, New York Times reporter Judith Miller served 85 days in jail for contempt of court when she refused to disclose the source who leaked the identity of undercover Central Intelligence Agency agent Valerie Plame. Except in the most extraordinary of circumstances, for instance, if it was crucial to violate federal secrecy laws to protect the survival of the state or to correct a gross injustice against the people, journalists cannot be allowed to undermine national security in the name of press freedom. In recent times, a particularly notable example of the media undermining (or being used to undermine) national security is the alleged Russian manipulation of the US presidential election in 2016 by spreading fake news on Facebook using highly sophisticated programs such as “bots” or autonomous programs designed to behave like humans online. Such disinformation campaigns, if not regulated, can undermine not only national security but even the sovereignty of a state itself.

Certainly however, legitimate concerns are raised by opponents of press regulation that it can be misused by governments to stifle criticism, dissent and even political opposition. Differing views exist as to what the role of the media should be. In western nations, the media is widely recognised as the fourth estate or fourth power, the latter term referring to an unofficial fourth branch of government in addition to the executive, legislative and judiciary. In this paradigm the media act as a public check on the official branches of government. In other countries, however, the role of the media is defined very differently. For instance in Singapore, the founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew delineated the media’s function as providing “nation-building journalism”: assisting the government in implementing policies and the general governance of the country. In this school of thought, the press should faithfully inform the masses about the work of the government. I subscribe to the former conception of the media as the fourth power, as it is crucial to have alternative sources of information, in particular by professional journalists or truth-seekers, in order for the people to make wise choices in the exercise of their political choices. For this reason, I am sympathetic to the view that press regulation can be used as a tool of oppression or partisan political interests by governments. It is conceivable, for instance, that a government-controlled regulator could fabricate charges and allegations against a newspaper or blog that is critical of it, just to silence it. However, the need for press regulation as outlined earlier is so compelling that it overrides concerns of governmental abuse, the problem of which can be resolved or at least mitigated by having strongly independent regulatory bodies which are not allied to the government or any political party.

In conclusion, it is my conviction that it is sensible and wise to have a rules-based system to govern the press, but only to the extent that a judicious balance is struck between competing rights and conflicting aspects of the public interest, and only if the regulation is carried out by a body that is nonpartisan and independent of the government. As with most other issues of society, a delicate balance needs to be struck through a thorough engagement between all stakeholders – taking into account the constant changes in the landscape of media, technology, politics, culture and society. While a vibrant, robust press is vital to a healthy democracy and good governance, we must also hold the fourth estate to account and ensure that it remains a responsible and constructive actor in society.

The only way to save journalism is to make readers direct participants in making, and paying for, the media.

Growing rates of global internet access have made countless sources of information readily available but with few checks and balances and widely varying levels of credibility. Unprecedented access to all kinds of media has not only increased competition among news providers, but it has also led to the extreme proliferation of low-quality yet plausible-looking sources of information—making it easier for political players to manipulate public opinion and to do so while denigrating established news brands. Social media can bring local communities back into journalism, boosting transparency, accountability, accuracy, and quality.

The world’s new, digital, and highly competitive media environment has created fundamental problems in the business models that journalism relies on. Print products are in terminal decline; television audiences are plummeting. Advertising around the news is no longer attractive when internet giants like Google, Facebook, and Amazon offer far more effective ways to target consumers. These new financial realities have led many news organizations to adopt problematic techniques for survival: prioritizing quantity over quality and running so-called clickbait headlines. Each of these developments, combined with a lack of transparency within news organizations and the increased use of unfiltered social media platforms as news sources, contributes to a further drop in trust in the media.

The decline of news organizations may seem unstoppable. But while the internet has permanently disrupted traditional media, it also presents several ways to fix it. Social media can bring local communities back into journalism, boosting transparency, accountability, accuracy, and quality. Harnessing the reach of the internet can help neutralize bias in the news industry and fix problems relating to a lack of representation and diversity. Information providers can achieve these advances in a financially viable way—by making readers direct participants and stakeholders. To do all this, however, journalism must adapt to the era of connectivity and information.

Social media users can today access information with a few taps on a smartphone, but in many cases, they either lack the skills or the time to properly assess the reliability of that information.

Emerging platforms have enabled mere news enthusiasts—and propagandists—to compete with professional journalists on an equal footing. On these platforms, what makes a news report successful is its level of virality: The articles and videos that are most popular are the ones that attract the most immediate and radical emotional reactions, even if they contain factual errors. Current advertising-only business models rely on this fact for survival, prioritizing content that is addictive and shareable rather than reliable and important.

For all their flaws, however, social media platforms contain important solutions to declining levels of trust in the news industry. Emerging media have dramatically expanded the global audience of news consumers, and information providers should see that reach not as a problem but as an opportunity. The global online community, if properly harnessed, can increase accountability in news organizations by identifying biases and improving neutrality in reporting: Having the oversight of countless diverse online users can be beneficial.

Transparency is the bedrock of restoring public trust in the media; eliciting greater involvement among consumers will naturally lead to an increased demand for media transparency in sources of funding, the involvement of advertisers, and political pressure.

Beyond a supervisory role, an important step would be to regard the online community as an active participant in the process of producing news. Given the chance, internet users can carve out a crucial role in assembling and curating accurate information. The key is to view social media users as a huge community of fact-checkers and news producers, instead of passive recipients of unreliable news.

The theory of turning readers into active resources is not merely hypothetical—it is a concept found in WikiTribune as a news platform supported by professional journalists but controlled by an online community. Devoid of any traditional hierarchy, the organization encourages the highest levels of neutrality and transparency. WikiTribune’s volunteers and professional journalists will share the same editing rights: Each one of them can initiate or edit any article on the platform. Moderators emerge naturally from within the community. Making readers active participants in the production of news can also help organizations save money. Fact-checking and editing, for example, can be delegated to communities of volunteers using the vast database of the internet. Traditional news editors may find this notion difficult to accept, but the concept comes naturally to people who have grown up using the internet. Passive consumption is no longer the dominant feature in news; we are all creators of content, and we should all get a chance to participate in how information is disseminated.

The wiki model—defined as any website that allows collaborative editing—also provides an effective solution to bias in reporting. If everyone has equal power, no one can control a narrative. Bias often comes from hierarchical news models in which senior editors can mould the news to fit their views—or those of their publishers or financial backers. Collaborative editing platforms allow and encourage an open discussion on every article by a variety of participants from different backgrounds. Any disputes over opposing narratives are constructively resolved by the community, avoiding the problems in traditional journalism.

A community-driven news product does not have to be restricted to English. Most new internet users read Hindi, Bengali, Arabic, or Chinese; Wikipedia, for example, allows users of any language to document their news and events on its online encyclopedia, and it does so despite local government restrictions on journalism, leading a global battle against censorship.

Of course, collaborative models are not without their problems. It can be a struggle to create a thoughtful and varied community dedicated to the goal of producing high-quality news. Bad actors such as online trolls and politically motivated participants are threats requiring clear systems of identification, moderation, and removal. Constant efforts must be made to include as much variety of culture, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, geography, and political inclination to prevent biases. Creating standards and practices can take time, but the success of the worldwide Wikipedia community, which has faced similar challenges, proves that community models can provide an effective public good—with a high level of trust and engagement.

The first priority of any news outlet must be the quality and credibility of its journalistic work. Those that depend on advertising-only business models may find it hard to sustain this priority: Eventually, a push for more traffic, and therefore revenue, will conflict with the mission for high-quality and reliable journalism.

News organisations interested to provide credible news can consider with a business model driven by voluntary subscriptions to avoid the need for advertising revenue and steer clear of shady corporate interests. Users who find its content meaningful and important are welcome to support the project with a one-time contribution or a monthly subscription. Such fundraising campaigns can reveal the public thirst for new models of journalism. Business models based on the direct financial support of the public represent the most sustainable strategy for global media.

Wikipedia, again, is fully supported by millions of users who appreciate the added value that the online encyclopedia brings to their lives every day. Public support comes in the form of not just money but also the time spent by volunteers contributing content and fixing errors.

Some traditional media are actively moving away from strategies dependent on online traffic and advertising. In the United Kingdom, for example, the Guardian has made a successful transition to a business model based on financial contributions from readers. In 2016, after suffering tens of millions of dollars in losses, the Guardian appealed directly to its readers for support: Instead of calling for transactional subscriptions, it asked for patronage and participation. This humble, transparent strategy encouraged readers to support the Guardian for the greater cause of sustaining high-quality journalism, rather than merely treating their monthly contributions as a detached move to purchase content. By May 2019, the Guardian reported an annual operating profit of more than $1 million. And its success will likely be sustainable since it now has more than 655,000 regular monthly supporters. The transition from a membership-driven business to one based on voluntary support echoes the Wikipedia model, where users choose to support a project not necessarily for the content that they personally use but for its greater benefit to the world.

The Dutch publication De Correspondent presents another successful example of journalism funded by readers. Launched in Amsterdam in 2013 after its founders raised $1.7 million from 19,000 supporters, De Correspondent sought to provide ethical journalism without relying on advertising, which appealed to people who wished to support a more transparent business model of news. Today, De Correspondent enjoys the support of more than 60,000 members—yet more evidence that there is, in fact, a public appetite to fund high-quality sources of information.

New funding models are critical in order to keep journalism strong, independent, and sustainable. Not all news organizations may be able or willing to adopt a patronage model. However, the more models that successfully coexist, the higher the chances that journalism will remain independent. Subscription models—as opposed to voluntary contributions—tend to be better suited to financial or other niche publications, such as the Wall Street Journal or the Information, because they offer a more transactional service with access to time-sensitive business news. Those somewhat customized services are made available only to those who are willing to pay premium fees for business advantage. General news services, however, are more widely available and as such do not lend themselves as clearly to transactional revenue models (unless they achieve the scale of a marquee newspaper like the New York Times).

Strong and independent journalism is at the heart of any healthy, functioning democracy. It is the gatekeeper against corruption and plays a vital role in communicating the facts that allow people to make informed decisions about their lives. Statements by politicians delegitimizing the media resonate with the public only if they are already in doubt of its validity. Quality journalism that involves the news community in the process of producing it creates a transparent operation that can gain the public’s trust. This kind of collaborative, responsive media has a greater likelihood of attracting the direct support of people who believe in the importance of sustaining it. To save itself, journalism now needs to go back to the people.

Social media divides more than it unites. Do you agree?

Social media has enabled people to make friends from all over the world. Social media can take various form, from photo-sharing apps like Instagram and Tumblr to user-generated content platforms like Twitter and YouTube. Social media has become widespread and has a lot of influence on people today. Some quarters opine that social media divides. But it is more of a uniting force because it can go beyond boundaries, share different opinions that can lead to a healthy debate and has the power to highlight issues which have not come to light due to various reason. In these aspects, social media is more of a uniting force.

Detractors to the view suggest that social media enables people to make friends from various social classes and cultural backgrounds. People can connect with each other from across the world and also maintain a relationship with friends and families who have moved abroad. For example, through websites like Facebook, people can send a friend request to people with similar likes and interests. Furthermore, sites like Tumblr enable a person living in Singapore to become friends with a person living in Paris. When people form friendships with people from other cultures than they can become sensitive and understanding of other cultures. Additionally, video calling and live streaming services on apps like Instagram, Facebook and Skype can allow people to connect with people through video calls. This can allow them to witness events like New Years Eve fireworks, Weddings and Graduation ceremonies if one cannot be present physically. Thus, social media has indeed made the world a small place and has also reduced the gap between people.

Another positive view is that social media also allows healthy debates by ensuring that people can express their varying opinions. Many people have access to social media apps today. People can use these apps to offer their different views. Social media empowers people to put forth their opinions and views and comment on various social and political issues.  For example, many governments understanding the rising use of social media have started putting polls and asking for feedback on various issues. Singaporean government created a website called eGov2015 in a bid to ensure that feedback from Singaporeans from all walks of life can be heard and to facilitate greater co-creation and collaboration between the government and the people. Thus, it can be said that social media acts as a unifying force in bringing people together by means of differing opinions.

Social media has helped in shedding light on issues that otherwise would not have come to the front. As social media is used globally, it can spread the news on a global level and make people aware of the situation around the world. For example, The Ice Bucket Challenge brought forth to the issue of ALS and successfully raised $100 million for the ALS association. Another example can be the Me-Too movement, which became a worldwide phenomenon. Started by actress Alyssa Milano, it became a simple yet powerful way to express solidarity with victims of sexual harassment and shed light on the power imbalance that exists between men and women within societies across the world. The more recent Trashtag challenge also brought to the front the issue of plastic pollution. People from across the world have participated in the challenge from children in Congo to adults and teenagers cleaning beaches in Mumbai. Thus, social media unites people and brings them together by striking a chord between them to work for the greater good of society.

Despite all the benefits, social media has created a bubble for the youth of today. Social media significantly influences their impressionable minds and help them find information that supports their political or social views. It also makes them blind to look at the issue objectively and make decisions based on facts and reasoning. Third-party cookies and algorithms of apps like Instagram and Facebook present only that information to people that they are interested in seeing.  For example, people are more likely to follow and like pages which align with their views and ideologies rather than pages that show facts. This trend of streamlining and showing information based on online behaviour may have a negative impact in the long run. This is because it may give rise to confirmation bias and may give people the false beliefs that their views are correct while the opposing views are wrong or skewed. Moreover, if they do come across counter-views they might become defensive of their own views and would not accept the truth. In this respect, social media divides.

In conclusion, social media is more of a uniting force rather than a dividing force. Though it might create rifts between the young and the old, the older generations are catching up to using social media. The social media also helps people to connect with friends and family and form new friendships with people from different cultural backgrounds. Moreover, social media holds great power in influencing people to take action on various issues and in this sense becomes a uniting force than a dividing force.

Entertainment, not truth, is the priority of the media today. Discuss.

In the middle of the 20th century, media houses believed that providing news was a public service. The news was not expected to prioritise entertainment but bring true narratives to the audiences. In today’s time, however, the majority of the people believe that the media is biased and just caters to the entertainment needs of the society. However, it can be contended that media today comes in diverse forms and it depends on which media is being consumed. Mainstream media, para-journalism and introduction of new media all prioritise truth or entertainment based on what is preferred and serves the desires of the target audience.

Mainstream media at times does obscure the facts but it cannot be said that the media does it just for entertainment value. At times mainstream media does give more time to telecast or publish entertainment news rather than news that deals with issues that affect the public. For example, many newspapers today publish news related to lifestyle or the relationship status of celebrities whilst ignoring social issues.  Newspapers like The Independent publish news of squirrels storing walnuts in cars or the Straits Times publishing news of TV celebrities getting engaged and married shows that the media today only tries to entertain people. Often, the media also uses sensationalism to sell its stories but that does not mean that entertainment is prioritised and truth completely ignored. In fact, there have been instances where media professionals have tried to bring truth to the forefront. For example, newspapers like the New York Times and The Washington Post have always tried to report honestly and present news as it is. It can be said however that the media tries to fulfil their own agendas and mainstream media prioritizes entertainment and truth based on the agendas they want to fulfil. 

Parajournalism, however, does try to present their own opinions on the matter instead of preventing the truth. It can thus be said that this form of news does prioritise entertainment over truth. For example, tabloids like the Sun and the Mirror UK always present news that is pointless but piques the interest of the public. The Sun, for example, gives intense coverage to the royal family from what they wore to what they ate. Similar is the case with NY Post which showcases news about celebrities’ lifestyles and what they wore at the red carpet. This evidently shows that parajournalism in the form of tabloids show little effort in publishing news that is relevant to social issues and of importance. Rather they are obsessed with featuring news which is trivial and frivolous. Unlike mainstream media which tries to fulfil their own political agendas, parajournalists completely obscure the truth to gain readership by publishing baseless gossip. Thus, it can be said that such forms of media prioritise entertainment over truth.

With the advent of technology people, today have access to new media.  New media through interaction and debate leads to debunking of myths and prioritizes truth over entertainment. An example of this can be Wikileaks and new whistle-blower website Distributed Denial of Secrets. These websites have insisted on transparency and present truth that would otherwise remain hidden. However, social media which is included under the term can be held responsible for prioritising entertainment over the truth. For example, many websites like Facebook and Instagram based on algorithms showcase posts and news based on the preferences of the individual. A Pew research study also proved that websites like Facebook only show posts that align with the user’s view on the issue. However, new media is a broad term and which platform prioritises truth over entertainment depends on the type of new media being used.

In conclusion, it can be said that not all forms of media prioritise entertainment over truth because it serves the bottom line of the company. Entertainment value is prioritised by some types of media but there are other forms that believe in promoting the truth. In the end, it is totally dependent on the readers what type of media they like to consume. Truth has to be analysed and accepted. It cannot be blindly accepted or for that matter, expect it to come without cost.

How far do you agree that music is an important aspect of a film?

Keywords: ‘How far’ and ‘agree’ and ‘music’ and ‘important’ and ‘film’.

  • Highlight emotion
  • Excitement/suspense
  • Entertainment (e.g. musicals)
  • Indicate period (e.g. the Sixties)
  • Draws audience in – pitch/tempo/melody (especially opening/closing credits)
  • Shapes character
  • Intensifies action scenes
  • Big role in silent movies (e.g. The Artist)
  • Accompanies visual comedy
  • Helps with continuity
  • Can distract and be overbearing
  • Dialogue/drama without music is more naturalistic
  • Too much manipulation
  • Needs to be discrete/sensitive/balanced

Contemporary music has no artistic value. Comment.

While the wholesome songs of John Denver, Kenny Rogers, or Stevie Wonder do not attract young audiences, they have John Legend, Kanye West and Selena Gomez to keep them entertained and grounded to modern day dilemmas.

Traditionalists hold the view that contemporary music spreads violent messages, citing Watain and other black heavy metal bands besides gangta rappers like Easy-E, Tupac and Ice Cube. Contemporary music, though rambunctious and eclactic, does not lack artistic value because it connects with people in today’s society. It would be superflous to say that it lacks originality and creativity. It is incorrect to accuse contemporary music for not having any artistic value.

Today’s music does not lack creativity.  Many musicians create music which has a lot of artistic value.  Singers like Adele,  Nick Jonas and less known Rachel Yamagata and Angie Mattson are musicians who create music which is original and artistically of high-quality. The music created by them is touching and can connect with people on an emotional level.  Today’s music does have artistic value in many ways.

Today’s music also has lyrics which are highly poetic, crafted in a unique style. An example of this can be Nerina Pallot’s Idaho which is beautifully crafted and has a melodious rhyme. The song is often considered as a representation of life.  Contemporary musicians have also used their music to touch the souls of many individuals. For example, Taylor Swift’s song ‘You need to calm down’ raised awareness about social media trolling and the LGBTQ community.  Therefore, if the artistic value is equated with meaning, then-contemporary songs are equally artistic to folk music.

Even mainstream commercial artists create music that is meaningful and incredible. Contemporary music also provides a unique spiritual and emotional experience.  An example of this can be Lady Gaga, who uses the word ugly in multiple ways in her music. Similarly, contemporary K-pop music like the music by Korean boy-band, BTS, have songs with social messages. It is considered that their music emphasises on sound songcraft rather than experimentation for the sake of it. Thus, it proves that contemporary music is meaningful in an artistic way.

Contemporary music is also driver of social change. In the majority of the cases, the success rate might be very slow but we cannot deny their artistic value in moving masses with their songs and music into action. For example, Beyoncé has one of the largest platforms in the world and frequently uses it to champion the polarising Black Lives Matter movement. Similarly, pop stars like Lil Dicky and Grimes are using their music and their huge followings to gain vital coverage of climate change.  Contemporary music is a medium through which people expresses their feelings, aspirations and fears. As music can very broadly be defined as a means to convey an artist’s message to the audience. Under this definition, contemporary music has artistic value.

There is no denying that there is music that is meaningless and distasteful. Some artists are purposeful in their choice of song, so that media can create the buzz for them to stay relevant. For example, various songs by Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus can come under this category. Avril Lavigne’s song “Dark Blonde” is a failed attempt at a girl-power anthem and proof of artistic snobbery. All these issues may result in the belief that there is a lack of artistic merit in contemporary music. However, not all songs can be judged on the basis of a few bad songs. Therefore, though there are songs that lack in artistic value, not all contemporary songs are similar. Modern people also want to be entertained by music. They are not different from the people of the past; they too crave for music that feeds their soul and connects with them on an emotional level based on present world challenges.  The good part about contemporary music is that it has songs that cater to varying tastes and moods of people. Contemporary music has artistic value.

Music is about evolution of social issues and dreams of people. While the wholesome songs of John Denver, Kenny Rogers,  or Stevie Wonder do not attract young audiences, they have John Legend, Kanye West and Selena Gomez to keep them entertained and grounded to modern day dilemmas. Contemporary music has artistic value.

A picture is more powerful than words. Discuss.

Though many might believe that pictures hold a greater power, the claim is not completely justified. This is because words tend to be more influential as it has the power to influence people mentally and emotionally.

Technological advancements in the modern age have allowed people to have access to media more than ever before. Through apps like Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and Tumblr, people can share and view images which are mundane to the mind-boggling. A picture is more powerful than words.

Critics of words suggest that images have more power than words because they capture the imagination of society in an impactful manner. There is little doubt that images are considered more creative than words and have contributed largely to the society in positive ways. For example, the artist Banksy is known to highlight powerful messages through his art. Similarly, in the earlier times many artists like Goya, Picasso and Jacques Louis David had tried to revolutionize the world through their art. Photographs like A Man on the Moon or Steve McCurry’s Afghan Girl are considered important images that has changed the course of history. Photographs have also captured the horrors of war which has led to huge emotional response. Notable photographs include the Napalm Girl, which showed the impact of American war in Vietnam. Thus, it can be said that images have exposed the horrors that exist in the world. As such, a picture is more powerful than words.

Critics  of pictures valiantly promote the view that despite the allure of pictures and videos, words still hold a significant place. They explify their stand by citing the ever increasing sales of novels, books and magazines. For example, J.K Rowling’s Harry Potter is still popular; books like 1984 by George Orwell and Killing a Mockingbird by Harper Lee continue to leave a lasting impact on new audiences. Words are a powerful medium is also evident from the fact that, people continue to buy self-help books. For example books like “You can heal your Life” by Louise Hay and “The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho have sold millions of copies and continue to inspire people and guide them to live a successful and happy life. Words are an elixer that soothes the mind and soul. Hence, pictures are not always more powerful.

However, pictures do not always convey the intended meaning and sometimes the people fail to connect with pictures on an emotional level. Words have a more lasting impact and can stand the test of time. For example, Shakespeare’s plays like Hamlet, The Last Lear and As you Like, use words that evoke a series of emotions that people can still relate to in present times. The mastery of his words continues to inspire and impress people around the world even today. In fact, many phrases used by people in daily life are actually from Shakespeare’s plays. His dialogues like “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players” are repeated and considered a metaphor for life even today.

Images of Mahatma Gandhi exemplify peaceful resistance. The famed head portrait of Che Guevera subliminally depict the fight against oppression. When Malala Yousufzai’s or Greta Thunberg’s stand to deliver the views, it is images that we first connect to, not words. Historically, the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima is still etched in all our minds. In more contemporary times, the incessant media coverage on Trump has painted in our minds a certain view of him. It is pictures that move and mould our thinking. Not words. A picture is more powerful than words.

No single word has changed the world, but a single picture has.

‘Today, the content of what is written is more important than grammatical accuracy.’ To what extent is this true?

  • Social media is often about the conversation so a ‘chatty’ style might be more appropriate
  • Understanding the code in texting abbreviations is more important than grammatical accuracy
  • Writing is disposable (emails can be a series of notes giving information which are then deleted; grammatical accuracy is unimportant)
  • Some forms of social media reduce commentary and conversations to brief phrases
  • No time for punctuation or capital letters as it is quick exchanges which are important
  • Understanding does require correct grammar
  • Depends on the audience and degree of formality (newspapers tend to be accurate so as not to distract from the content