Category: Media

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?

Censorship is not a new process in the world. It has been around for centuries. Back in 398 BC, Plato was a leading advocate of censorship. The birth of new media and social media has brought the topic of censorship to greater heights. However, according to the United Nations, human rights include freedom of speech and expression. Thus, any form of censorship is deemed to be a flagrant infringement of human rights and cannot be tolerated. However, to say that censorship can never be justified is not a prudent statement because it comes with benefits as well as costs. Thus, I disagree to a large extent that censorship can never be justified.

Primarily, censorship is mostly used to protect a nation’s security. This is one of the reasons why censorship is still being practised. A nation’s progress cannot be totally transparent to the citizens, let alone reporting it to the whole world. This is for the fear that some information that carries sensitive material will hurt and jeopardize economic security or internal security and benefit potential aggressors. The censored material includes the state’s build-up of weapons and the government’s plan with regards to defence. Hence, in times of war, censorship is stricter than before because the state not only wants to prevent the enemy from getting information on military value, it also wants to sustain the morale of its people. Given that censorship is a way to protect people and countries well-being, censorship is justified.

While it is true that the public should make an informed choice where religion, race issues are concerned so as to make the right choice, in a society with people of varying viewpoints and backgrounds, it is highly myopic to assume that everyone is entirely sensible to make the right choices, uniformly. Racially insensitive material can create misgivings, misunderstandings and misinformation among the various ratio and religious group resulting in civil unrest and disorder. Firms of publications that slander or lampoon a particular race or religion should be censored. The Charlie Hebdo attack on 7 January 2015 in France has taken away at least 12 lives. The fatal incident occurred due to racist cover page of the magazine on the Muslim community. As the media portrayed the minority group in the negative light, it is extremely necessary to censor certain religious sensitive material to maintain the stability of a certain belief.

However, while it is true that censorship can largely be justified, one cannot dispute the fact that censorship violates humanity’s natural autonomy as it denies an individual an unbiased choice in formulating his or her beliefs.  By not giving mass media the liberty and responsibility to function freely in order to provide free access to information and ideas to the public, the people are not well informed on current affairs and will not be mentally prepared for any major disturbances in the country. North Korea, the most censored country in the world (according to the Committee to Protect Journalists) has no independent journalists and all radio and television receivers sold in the country are locked to government-specified frequencies. For many North Korean the lies that the government presents as truths are considered the truth because people have no alternative source of information to compare allegations of facts. The conservative mindset of governments has led to censorship often being abused by repressive regimes which effectively decides what the population processes by restricting information, leading to a society that is ignorant, thus, censorship is not justified.

Nevertheless, while audiences are more discerning and not likely to be corrupted by access to certain questionable materials, it is only moral to censor materials to prevent those from the unsuitable age group – children and teenagers from viewing it. The prevalence of such materials may erode the moral fabric of society as such material affects the basic moral values of people. For instance, pornography perverts the young, impressionable minds, encourages promiscuity and undermines the general morality of the public. As such the movies are often rated and regulated with movie classification parental guidance to NC 16, M18 and R21, to protect viewers from using dangerous material unsuitable for their age. Thus, censorship is justified as it is necessary to bar the young from being exposed to harmful materials.

In conclusion, censorship is justified in many cases. As William Westmorland said, “Without censorship, things can get confused in the public mind”. Since we citizens have entrusted our lives and countries to the government we voted for, we have also relinquished some of our freedom and the government has a duty to ensure the citizens’ well-being is not compromised at the expense of censorship.

‘The media today has no interest in telling the truth.’ Do you agree?

The scores of fake news circulating the internet on various social media websites and forums such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit during the 2016 American presidential election are a sobering reminder to us that perhaps it is time to start questioning the veracity of the news that our venerated news outlets churn out each day. Headlines such as “Ted Cruz caught in yet another scandal” and “Sanders condemned of slander” were widely seen across the Internet; yet when one clicked on the link to view the “latest scoop”, the story turned out to be fabricated and sometimes utterly fictional. Before the advent of new media, the vast majority often believed that the press delivered the truth and nothing but the truth. And a few decades ago, most traditional news outlets were actually reputable and reliable. That is a far cry from what the media industry is today. The issue definitely begs the question of whether the media today is even the slightest it interested in delivering the truth anymore. Personally, I believe that amidst all the complaints of fake news and “alternative facts”, the media has no interest in telling the truth

 To begin with, believe the media today is often deliberate in delivering the truth to the public because of the fear of being caught and condemned if it doe otherwise. The invention of the Internet in the 90s gave individuals who owned a technological device the opportunity to get their news from various sources, trawl through all the facts presented about an issue and gain access to a trove of information about current affairs. Since the early to mid-2000s, when the Internet was further developed and more information could be circulated on it, people began to perform fact checks on various traditional and new media news sources to ensure that whatever they reported was reliable and factual. Thus began the rise of the online vigilante, who lurks on the Internet and has the power to mobilise hundreds or even thousands of netizens to criticize a media platform for its poor and inaccurate reporting when need be. For instance, when the renowned news company the British Broadcasting Corporation(BBC) inaccurately reported on the Palestinian conflict, online vigilantes and other netizens were quick to notice the biased news headline and cause an uproar on social media websites such as Twitter and Reddit. The BBC swiftly took down the article and replaced it with one with a more neutral standpoint. This indubitable bruised the BBC’s reputation and credibility and shook the faith of many of the BBC’s loyal listeners. Many media corporations fear the same or a worse consequence the BBC suffered due to the inaccurate reporting, and thus it is this fear that makes them ever so deliberate in getting the truth out to the masses.

          Some cynics will disagree with my stand and argue that the media today lacks any interest in telling the truth because the media has been known for delivering sensationalistic news instead of the cold hard facts. These critics will assert that the rise of the internet has resulted in new media outlets, namely social media platforms, profiting more than traditional media outlets due to greater accessibility and social media being a cheaper alternative. The decrease in revenue of traditional news sources over the years has caused many of them to resort to, as some call it, the most disgusting and low-grade news reporting: sensationalistic news reporting. Sensationalistic media outlets such as Vice and the Sun have the same ethos: “If it bleeds, it leads; if it roars, it scores”. These media outlets rarely deliver the truth, rather, they exploit real news by exaggerating stories, adding extra juicy information and most often highlighting only the violent, raunchy and eye-popping bits. For example, the Breitbart News, one of the most biased and sensationalistic media corporations, cooked up a story of thousands of Muslims burning a church and chanting “Allahu Akbar” on the streets on New Year’s day in Dortmund, Germany. They gravely exaggerate the news and delivered only what their viewers wanted to read, instead of delivering the truth of the matter. Hence, some cynics will argue that the media today has no interest in telling the truth.

          Although I concede that many media outlets have adopted sensationalistic reporting to boost viewership, I believe that the vast majority of media outlets still believe in delivering the truth because ultimately, the truth is what will make them reputable and recognized globally. Everybody wants to know the truth behind an issue, some say the facts of a matter are a valuable commodity. And I believe that there is truth in this saying. A multitude of media corporations such as the BBC and The New York Times still engage in investigating journalism and shun sensationalistic reporting because everyone, even those who partake in sensationalistic news, still wants a place where they can find the facts of a matter and the truth of an event that has occurred. This desire to differentiate fact from fiction keeps many media corporations up and running. Furthermore, delivering the truth will propel media companies onto the global stage and garner them recognition and respect instead of infamy like sensationalistic media corporations.

           In conclusion, I believe that the media today still holds an interest in telling the truth. Ultimately, we all have to be discerning and be cautious of what we read.

Should freedom of speech be protected no matter the cost?

Singapore has always been criticised for the lack of freedom of speech, being notorious for its many instances of punishing citizens who have expressed openly some opinions that others may find displeasing. To have freedom of speech is to be able to express one’s own opinions and viewpoints, no matter how offensive, at one’s own will without facing any lawful consequences. To protect freedom of speech would be to uphold and to advocate it. Some possible consequences or the cost of protecting freedom of speech include potential conflicts and disharmony between the parties involved – the perpetrator and the victim, some that may even escalate to physical violence. Freedom of speech should be protected to uphold basic human rights, but in racially and religiously diverse societies, the cost may outweigh the benefits of restricted speech. Additionally, with interconnectivity and technological advances, there is a risk of greater backlash. In my view, freedom of speech should not be completely protected.

Freedom of speech should be protected and advocated to preserve and uphold human rights, which should come first in terms of importance above all else. As in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as drawn up by the United Nations, every individual should have the right to express their views and opinions. It should be respected that every individual is entitled to their own views and opinions and to freely communicate them. Considering that freedom of speech is a basic human right, it should definitely be of utmost importance, despite the potential impact or cost these views and opinions may bring. Many people, especially those in the West, advocate freedom of speech. In the Charlie Hebdo shooting incident in 2015 where journalists were killed in an act of vengeance by Al-Qaeda terrorists over the publishing of a comic containing offensive material that could hurt the Muslim community, family and friends had shown support for the protection of freedom of speech. This was significant as in the phrase “Je Suis Charlie” or “I Am Charlie” where many stood in solidarity with the French magazine and emphasised their support for freedom of speech despite the cost – the numerous lives lost as a result of the terrorists’ resentment of the journalists. As evident from this incident, many are of the opinion that the basic human right of freedom of speech should be upheld above all else, despite the costs in the aftermath.

In racially and religiously diverse societies, however, it may be too costly to grant absolute freedom of speech to all individuals. In societies made up of many individuals of different cultures, ethnicities and even nationalities, the offensive opinions of some may hurt the feelings of the victims or others that may disagree with the opinion. This may bring about conflict between the groups involved, resulting in disharmony among the people. This would be extremely harmful when larger groups of people are involved, such as the large racial majority of a certain society. In order to maintain harmony in an extremely diverse society, Singapore’s law includes the Sedition Act that allows individuals who release potentially offensive and sensitive material that may harm the feelings of certain groups or individuals to be charged and dealt with by the court. This Act has been subjected to criticism globally especially by groups and organisations that support the freedom of speech. Amos Yee, a 17-year-old teenager who had sparked debate for his offensive videos insulting Christianity and the nation’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, has been facing charges under the Sedition Act. The imprisonment of Amos Yee had gained international attention, where organisations like Amnesty International criticised the country’s lack of freedom of speech, and even students in Hong Kong had protested and demanded his release. The cost of freedom of speech is deemed to be too much for the Singapore government, citing disharmony among the people to be a major detrimental consequence. The success of the restriction of freedom of speech is as evident in the low number of racially or religiously-driven crime, and the ability of the people to live together in harmony despite their differences. This is significant as in other countries, Islamophobia is rampant, while in Singapore, racism is relatively minimal. Islamophobia in other countries such as the United States has brought about great displeasure and disharmony among the people of diverse groups, with many terrorist attacks being motivated by their differences as brought to light by openly expressed racism and discrimination. As such, the costs may be too overbearing, making the restriction of freedom of speech more crucial.

Especially with globalisation where people of different cultures are often being brought together, being sensitive to one another’s differences would be crucial to the harmony of society. In countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, the society is made up of people of many different ethnicities, making mutual respect more significant and important. Freedom of speech may potentially harm the peace of the country. Additionally, with the extensive use of the Internet and social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, people tend to express their opinions online. Such opinions may have a great reach as anyone with access to the Internet despite being on the other side of the globe would be able to view and respond to such opinions both positively and negatively. The cost is that there may not be only domestic conflict, but also an international conflict that may be potentially destructive to political harmony and peace among countries. Hence the restriction of freedom of speech is crucial. While the costs of freedom of speech may be hefty, it should not be completely restricted. People should be entitled to their opinions, but to verbalise them especially if they are sensitive could be harmful. There are of course benefits to the freedom of speech such as offering alternative viewpoints that may well be absent especially in authoritarian regimes. In my opinion, however, the freedom of being able to have a peace of mind and to feel respected in society triumphs over freedom of speech as freedom of speech can often twist views and opinions to become offensive, making misunderstandings extremely common. With certain restrictions placed on speech freedom, there will be greater peace and unity for all. Freedom of speech hence should be protected only to a small extent due to the great consequences and impact it may bring.

The popularity of a leader is necessary. How far do you agree?

In the wake of 2016’s Trump’s road to the Presidency of the United States, many are now left questioning whether a good leader should always be popular as populism has shown us that popularity can result in decisions that are likely to be deemed as unwise in the future. Whether or not a leader is deemed to be good should be measured by their popularity but by the actions the individual display and his or her own conduct. Hence, I am a strong believer the popularity of a leader is necessary and do not agree with the statement.

            Opponents of my view would argue that popularity reflects the will of the people and the leader is thus considered good because he is their voice. They even exclaim that a good leader needs to be popular to push forth their agenda against dissent from other sections of society. In the case of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his popularity allowed him to stand firm against the backdrop of an ever-increasing dissent towards migrants and even push through with his desire to welcome more migrants into Canada. Of course, the fact that his father was also a former Prime Minister surely also helped elevate his position against opponents calling for a more conservative approach to their immigration policy after witnessing the backlash in other western countries as a result of a lax immigration policy. Yet his popularity with the masses not only ensured his policy is not jeopardised but it also reflects the warm welcoming attitude of Canadians towards migrants. In this aspect, he is a clear example of a popular good leader as his actions are not affected by xenophobia and also represents the will of the people who elected his party into power. Henceforth one can see why these opponents would argue that a good leader should always be popular.

            However, Trudeau is a rare case of a popular good leader in the world today as populism tends to pick candidates that much differ from the definition of good, let alone a leader. While a good leader may have been popular at the start, changing sentiments during the leader’s time in power may result in their popularity dipping. Yet it would be unfair to brand them as poor leaders simply because they were not as popular as before. When former US President Obama came into power, he was very popular among the majority of Americans, even among Republicans, as he was the first black President which symbolised a new era where politics is not dominated by white males. During his governance however, he enacted bills such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and blocked the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL. His decisions made him fall out with certain members of society as many did not like the idea of having to pay more premiums on insurance due to the ACA and subsequently led to his popularity diminishing from those who, otherwise, would have paid less on insurance. Even though this act was not popular, it has helped to insure many Americans, so much so that by the end of his Presidency the number of uninsured Americans were at its lowest ever in history, at around 7%. He also saved the American economy from the brink of collapse in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis by increasing government spending and thus national debt, something many fiscal conservatives such as Bill O’Reilly detested and lost popularity within these segments. His actions may not have appreciated by the rich who would have been able to weather through the storm but it helped millions of Americans to get back into the workforce. He is, in this case, undoubtedly a good leader as the forsaken his popularity in exchange for policies that helped the people. The effects of his decisions may not have been appreciated then but surely in the future we would look back and say he has done well. In fact, the recent rejection of ‘Trumpcare’ by Republicans themselves shows that they understand how beneficial the ACA is to their voters. Hence a good leader need not always be popular as some of their decisions to do the right thing will inevitably rile up certain segments of society despite these decisions being done in the best interest of the people.

             A good leader should also demonstrate valued qualities such as empathy and being determined, and popularity in this case would be relative to whoever is being asked an opinion of the leader. A local example would be that of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Yes, he is a figure worshipped back here as he is someone seen by many as the sole person who oversaw the rapid transformation of Singapore into the metropolis it is today. However, on the international stage opinions differ as to ensure the smooth transformation of the country, he and his party stifled political dissent and created a one-party state to rule over the masses. This is something frowned upon by many foreigners and critics overseas, especially in liberal western countries, as they value the freedom of speech. Although these critics may condemn his for such atrocities against the right to free speech, they cannot deny that he has been an effective leader as his iron-fist rule helped him to push forth is will for a corruption-free governing body while also one that seeks to include rather than exclude. The government he set up and ran focused on racial cohesion and the betterment of the lives of Singaporeans and made sure leaders are held accountable through being as transparent as possible. It is these qualities and policies that defined him as a good leader for not only was he responsible but also planned for a future without him in control and ensured successive leaders as equally good as he were, if not better. Thus, good leadership is not defined by popularity as it is the quintessential traits of integrity, empathy, and transparency – and the ability to turn words into action – that defines a good leader.

            Finally, a good leader could be one which may not need to be popular at all. These are leaders a society needs rather than wants as they would push forth reforms that other would shy away from for it could jeopardise their careers. These are leaders that may go against certain conventions deeply embedded in society. For example, President Xi Jinping is one feared by many political elites for stamping out corruption in the Chinese Communist Party, something many officials benefitted from before he came into power. He further irritates the affluent in China by criticising their extravagant lifestyle. His governance is one which started out as highly unpopular for the incumbents in the politburo as many elites who benefitted from corruption were under close scrutiny. His strongman persona is one feared by the many other countries contesting in the South China Sea. This level of unpopularity does not mean his is a bad leader, rather the converse as he sought to stamp out corruption internally while externally pushed forth China’s national interest with unwavering might. He could be unpopular now with both outsiders and insiders alike but his actions surely benefitted China and is going to further benefit China in the future. Outsiders could potentially come to like him as he started many initiations such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank aimed to support the building of infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region. Insiders will find that a less corrupt government is one which offers more opportunities that one can grab based on merit rather than based on connections. Hence through this example we can see that a good leader need not be one who is popular at all now.

In conclusion, although there are cases of good leaders being popular with the masses, these cases are far and few. This is simply because the desire to do good would inflict short term pain on those who have been wrong all this time and many would resist change, even if it is for the better. However, given time and greater understanding, I am sure we can come to appreciate just how good these leaders were and can disagree with the statement that ‘a good leader should always be popular’.

Do you agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation?

The United States of America is the shining beacon and bastion of liberal democracy and has successfully exported this very ideology to most countries around the world who chose freedom of expression instead of oppression as their way of governance. The freedom of expression is said to propel a country to its heyday through the progress of all aspects of the country, be it political, social, cultural and technological aspects. This is because it gives people the opportunity to share opinions, think out of the box and work towards the progress of a nation. This is evidenced by how civilised and well-perceived countries are when they subscribe to freedom of expression, like the US and the Scandinavian countries. However, underneath the veneer of its merits, some incidents that have come to the fore recently strengthens the validity of this notion that the freedom of expression actually hinders the progress of a nation. Nonetheless, I beg to differ. It does not hinder the progress of a nation, so long as it is regulated.

Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress because it brings about a more vibrant culture by rehabbing a country’s cultural scene. As cultures provide a country with a sense of identity and its citizens, a sense of belonging, freedom of expression serves as a vehicle to forge these important traits at a time when the westernisation of countries have started to amalgamate cultures into a homogenous one. It allows for artists and creative people to illustrate or express the country’s’ roots, way of life and thinking without prosecution. This is crucial for a country to make cultural progress because possessing a vibrant culture strengthens the social fabric of a country and fills them with pride and motivation to help the country progress. For example, the freedom of expression has enabled the publishing of literature like ‘Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry’ and ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ which reflects on America’s wretched past on racial inequality. These works allow citizens to better understand their country’s roots and learn from mistakes of the past so that they become responsible citizens. On the other hand, if a country curbs freedom of expression, it will most certainly hinder its progress, as seen from the consequences of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, where the teachings of renowned scholars, religions and people who preach them have been purged. This resulted in the majority of the population, unable to generate significant cultural progress because they have been indoctrinated and have not been given the freedom to express the right to practice proper moral values. Despite its rich cultural heritage, the Cultural Revolution brought about by draconian restrictions on the freedom of expression has had China regressed culturally. America however, has matured into becoming a more civilized society with a vibrant culture, proof that the freedom of expression leaders to the progress of a nation.

I do not agree that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation because of engenders technological innovation and progress. It lets innovations thrive because new concepts and schools of thought can be created for the betterment of countries. Taking these concepts further is the improvement in technology to solve the world’s problems and safeguard nations. It is only through the freedom of expression can scientists save lives with stem cell research and the 3-D printing of organs because they are backed by no boundaries to experiment. Through these experiments, new ideas and improvements could be made. Scientists can also solve hunger by creating GM food, which genetically alters the genes to make crops more resistant to diseases. This increases crop yield such that it is hoped that it could meet the quickly escalating demand for food as the world population is projected to hit 9 billion by 2050. Furthermore, the freedom of expression also gives rise to a nation’s military progress, allowing it to safeguard its borders. A country’s productivity, infrastructure and various interests can only be protected if there is a competent military to deter aggressors. Freedom of expression lets engineers developed advanced military technologies like stealth, cruise missiles, drones and laser weapons never before accomplished. These advanced technologies allow for a military to gain unparalleled situational awareness on the battlefield through information sharing and therefore, more potent warfighting capabilities. Not only will military technologies increase survivability, but it can also protect a nation’s borders through deterrence. All this progress can only be achieved if the freedom of expression was in place to bring about, and not hinder, progress.

The freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation because it ensures that the political situation is uncorrupted and that the government can be kept in checking such that it serves its citizens well. It forms the bedrock of a country’s progress. By having a free press, leaders who commit wrongdoings can be held accountable as seen by the impeachment of South Korean President Park Geun Hye, whose confidant’s meddling with state affairs has seen her political career unravelling into shambles. This is only possible and the freedom of expression creates windows of opportunity to do research and dig deep for information to expose wrongdoings. By exposing corrupt leaders can new, more righteous ones be elected. The country can then progress politically. Freedom of expression does not hinder a nation’s progress insofar that citizens can provide feedback and air with their discontentment through dialogues and online forums. Governors and diplomats, are after all, also human and will make mistakes. Some governments may be blindsided to certain issues and when this happens, it is a citizen’s responsibility to express his opinions so that their governments can correct policies to allow a nation’s progress.

Alas, events of recent times have juxtaposed with my stand that the freedom of expression does not hinder the progress of a nation, especially in a social aspect. The massacre at Charlie Hebdo, where Al-Qaeda terrorists struck the offices of a satirical cartoon magazine who drew derogatory depictions of Prophet Muhammad, and the Muslim ban in which Donald Trump has imposed has given rise to a surge in Muslim discrimination across America. These are just two instances in which freedom of expression leads to social regression because it testifies to the abuse of this freedom bestowed on the populous. Vilifying and cracking jokes about religion will tear the ever-widening social fabric that has held liberal democratic counties for years apart with its relentless wave of immigrants assimilating into these nations. These incidents hitherto unseen before will cause racial vitriol, disunity in society and potentially, social, economic and political instability. Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State could up the ante by ramping up propaganda to victimize disenchanted Muslims to join to fight as martyrs. These exploitations have manifested themselves with the rise of lone-wolf terrorist attacks around the world. Far-reaching implications like these will undermine the security of nations. As a result, people living in liberal democracies will soon sell down the river, the social principles they have stood by for so long.

Though it may be true that the freedom of expression can at times hinder the progress of nations, betraying principles like these will do greater harm than good. Look at how far nations which have espoused the freedom of expression have come. It is through these freedoms can positive changes be realised. It is through these freedoms can citizens, the building blocks of society, have a say in how to govern their country and not instead be politically apathetic. It is through the freedom of expression can the ideas of society be shared, mistakes are corrected and progress is achieved.

To end off, I do not believe that the freedom of expression hinders the progress of a nation. In fact, it makes a nation’s collective experience more colourful by experiencing the best of times and the darkest of hours. That said, we must never forget that we are the masters of our own destiny. We can influence, direct and control our environment, to allow humankind to progress as one. To do so, it is of paramount importance that liberal democratic countries regulate the potential negative effects that may accompany the use of freedom of expression, especially with regards to sensitive racial and religious matters, so that these nations can progress towards their future utopia.

The Media has exaggerated the importance of sport. Do you agree?

Sport was once considered to be the reflection of sportsmanship and team spirit. Sport was taken seriously by the athletes who used to practice and train themselves immensely. But today, sports have a completely new meaning; the seriousness regarding sports which athletes once had has diminished in the present times. Sports were once about making the country proud and representing the country in Olympics was a dream of every athlete but all that has changed in the present times. Sport today has become extremely commercialized and this can be attributed to the presence of media. Media gives too much attention to sports, to an extent that many issues of greater gravity are completely neglected. All the media attention towards sport has made sport distasteful in today’s world. Though it is not that sport does not deserve attention, it is true that media attention increases the self-esteem of the athletes and makes them perform better. However, the increasing commercialization of sport is harmful as it makes it over-hyped and the importance of sport exaggerated.

Sport has become a profitable field for many industries; many companies spend a lot of money on these sporting events. The commercialization of sport has also diverted the athletes from the sporting ideals and has made them extremely money-minded. Many athletes are used as a spokesperson for many brands and millions of dollars are spent on advertisements during these sporting events. An instance of the growing commercialization of the sport can be that during the Olympics where Coco-Cola and McDonalds had spent a considerable amount on advertising and were unhappy because not many spectators were allowed in the stadium. Many sports brands use athletes to promote their sports gear by wearing them during a tournament. The commercialization of sport has led to the deterioration of sporting ideals. The media has created a culture where athletes are considered to be heroes; media creates celebrity athletes so their news channels get more audience.

Sporting events have gained too much attention today, winning or losing has become more important today instead of the fun for playing the sport. Sport has always been looked at from a nationalist perspective, where winning is deemed to be a victory in combat. This is evident during the cricket matches between India and Pakistan or rugby matches between South Africa, Australia and Britain. The media often highlight these matches and overhype about them. One instance of this can be China winning more Gold medals than the United States during the Olympics. It was counter-argued by the US media that the US leads in overall medals in Olympics and Chinese athletes are under-aged and the medals should be snatched away from them. Therefore, the importance of sport is exaggerated.

Sports have also been portrayed exaggeratingly by the media because of the inclusion of politics in sports. There has been a relationship between sports and politics even before the initiation of media coverage but media has made sports and politics seem indivisible. A sporting event boycott of apartheid South Africa was given a boost by the media. The media also highlighted instances wherein athletes chose to play in the sporting event which led to anger among the people from their home countries. China too was challenged with the argument over the organizing Beijing Olympics and the Olympics committee was heavily criticised for giving a country like China was given the responsibility of holding such an important sporting event.

­­In conclusion, media has given too much importance to the sport and by doing this has reduced its importance. Today, media has made sport a highly commercialized sector and the athletes less interested in the sport. The media has turned sport into a money minting machine and the athletes as Gods.

‘In spite of more information, man is not more informed.’ comment.

In today’s world, information is everywhere. Be it in schools, online, on television, on social media and even on posters placed on subway stations and toilets. However, how many of this information serves the purpose of enriching us with the knowledge to nurture our emotional and psychological wellbeing? It is hard to believe that an advertisement placed inside a subway telling us that Marigold milk is the best and healthiest milk choice out there in the market or Burger King’s two dollars ninety-five cents nuggets are the best value meal you can get out of fast-food restaurants is going to be potentially informing us with useful and purposeful information. Some may argue that the vast amount of outlets currently available for man to seek and obtain information makes man more informed as they are presented with countless opportunities to garner useful information. However, I beg to differ as even though there are numerous amounts of ways and outlets for man to retrieve information, plenty of the information provided from these outlets are unreliable or too shallow to truly make man more informed. Hence, I believe that in spite of the plenty amount of information available, man is not more informed.

To start off, the absence of parameters to define media discourse has undermined the quality of information. Media companies are highly profit-driven and would thus play up and dwell on the sensational, tantalizing news that they know will sell. This can be on car accidents, murders, sexual assault or controversial scandals. Media companies only report on such sensational news simply because they are interesting, not because they are important. In the 20 months between September 2012 and March 2014, Fox News aired an astounding 1,098 evening and primetime segments dedicated to the Benghazi attacks. Despite there being no basis, Fox News and other outlets claimed that the Obama administration knew that the terrorists had planned the attacks 10 days in advance. CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell criticised Fox News and the media at large for habituating scandalising the Benghazi attacks with incomplete or unsupported claims. In fact, Fox News often used the Benghazi attacks as a shorthand, as a symbol of a lying corrupt, tyrannical and possibly murderous Obama white house. Hence the information that is fed to man today through the media may not even be based on solid facts and we run the risks of being influenced by false information provided from the media. In fact, according to the World Health Organization, 28,000 people who die daily can actually have their deaths prevented if basic care was provided to them. Yet we hardly see the media reporting on such pressing issues, on how little we give and how we are avoiding important issues happening around the world. When the media does report on such issues like foreign aid, they often tend to paint the image that we are giving substantially and in proportion to our means to people in need. Therefore, the media is actually providing us with an excess of information that deludes us and causes us to be actually more ignorant instead of more informed with the issues happening around us. Therefore, even though the media can give us so much information. man would still not be more informed.

Secondly, even though a majority of man are able to obtain basic education that serves to enrich man with useful knowledge and skills, it does not necessarily mean that man is able to apply the knowledge learnt in a real-life context. Education serves as a tool that enables people to broaden their perspectives and understand things that are happening around them. However, the reality is that most schools today bombard students with bucket loads of content and knowledge, expecting them to ingest them and spew it out during examinations. What students pick up are answering techniques and skills required for them to ace their examinations. Therefore, they are learning how they can apply the tons of knowledge that they learnt to answer examination questions. However, does this guarantee that they will also be able to learn how to answer real-life problems when they occur? The answer is most probably no as the real skills that students actually pick up in their education is the ability to memorise knowledge and the ability to answer questions on paper. To further substantiate my point, according to the United States (US) Bureau of labour statistics, only 26.1% of young people aged 16-19 and 18.7% of those aged 20-24 have volunteered to do volunteer work. Students who have received basic education have more or less been exposed to the growing need to help the needy and they would know how much impact they can make on the lives of people if they choose to lend out a helping hand. However, this point has obviously not been ingested by these students according to the low percentage of young people willing to volunteer. This is a real-life problem that despite being more educated to know the answer to solve the problem on paper, is not solved in real life. Hence, even though man is receiving more and more information through the means of education, they are not able to fully utilise this information to apply to real-life situations, making man not more informed.

Critics may argue that man can be more informed through the means of social media due to its extensive reach. An example they would state is the viral ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. The ALS Ice Bucket Challenge’s aim is to raise awareness about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Over 2 million people on YouTube were tagged in ALS Ice Bucket Challenge videos on YouTube and the campaign was very successful in raising awareness among the public about ALS and it also raised a gargantuan sum of 220 million dollars for the ALS Associations. Thus, proving that the increase in social media platforms has provided more information for man that can make them more informed about previously uncommonly known diseases and issues existing around the world.

While it is true that new media can be a powerful tool to spread information to the general public about current affairs and issues around the world that require our attention, media can also enable individuals to abuse their rights and use social media as a tool to instigate hatred and sow discord among people, societies and nations by posting controversial comments and posts which only have the purpose of evoking tensions among people. For example, The Real Singapore (TRS) website was asked to shut down as it published content that was objectionable in the field of public interest, public order and national harmony. The Media Development Authority (MDA) also added that TRS had fabricated articles and inserted falsehoods into their articles that were either plagiarised or sent in from contributors in order to make the articles more inflammatory. This goes to show that despite the gargantuan amounts of information that new media provides us with, the information may either be fake or have no basis. Such information provided only make man grow hatred for each other and arouses tensions among people and serves no purpose in actually making us more informed and knowledgeable about the world around us. Man is not more enriched and is not able to better understand the world around them. Hence, despite the growing amount of information given to us, man is not more informed.

In conclusion, even though more information is made readily available to man, it is the quality of the information and the way we use the information that makes man more informed. The greater quantity of information provided does not necessarily make man more informed. It is high time we start refining the information we make available to the public in a way that allows the general public to be enriched and enlightened from the high-quality knowledge. This can enable man to be more informed and also potentially start making positive changes to the world with this newly found information.

Movies and television can never replace books. Discuss.

An essay that needs A LOT of improvement.

Can books be replaced by movies and television? Books exist since the invention of writing systems and everyone owns one so the invention of books is much earlier than the invention of movies and television. Movies and television were invented after the invention of books. Movies and television give people variety of choices. Both provide sensory stimulation and excitement. However movies and television cannot replace books as books give readers a very personal experience and allow people’s imagination to go wild. Books keep the brains active hence it is my opinion to say that movies and TV can never replace books.

Cinema and television provide people with a variety of choices. There are millions of movies and television programmes that exist in the world now. People can choose on their own from the variety of choices. Instead of reading a book, people can watch a movie. However not only movies and television provide people with a variety of choices, books give people a variety of choices too. In fact, most of the movies and TV are based on books. For example, the famous book series, Harry Potter, the movies of Harry Potter are originated from books written by J.K Rowling. If movies and television provide people with a variety of choices, books do provide too as movies and television are originated from books.

Films and television give people sensory stimulation and excitement. These two have sound and visual effects to attract people. With the sound effects or background music, mov ies and television create tension that catches people’s attention. With fanciful images, catchy music and emotional acting, people have more appeal to moving images. However books give people a very personal experience while holding a book. When one is reading a book, the interaction is between the person and the book. This gives people a personal space while reading a book. Books allow people’s imagination to flow freely. Unlike movies and television which guide the viewers, books allow the readers to escape into their own world while reading. Books restrict the readers’ mind and ways of thinking. Therefore movies cannot replace books.

A lot of books are made into movies nowadays. People usually prefer to watch a movie before reading the book. Movies are shorter and can save time. An average length of a movie is about one and a half hours long. For example, comparing the people who have watched the movie, Twilight, and people who have read the book series, more people have watched the movie series than reading the book series. This is evident that people prefer books to movies. However without books, there would be no films. People get ideas from books to produce film. As books are invented before the invention of television, books are more original and can deliver the message of the authors more clearly.

In conclusion, books can never be replaced by moving images and fancy effects. Firstly books provide readers a more personal experience than films. Secondly books can provide people with a variety of choices. Thirdly books allow readers’ imagination to flow unlike programmes which control the viewers’ mind. Therefore movies and television can never replace books.

“Discuss the impact of the mass media on society today.”

In this current age, the mass media has played an integral part in the lives of both the young and old. The mass media, which comes in the form of publications, television programmes, the Internet, music and others, has had both positive and negative impacts on the society today, influencing their mindsets and beliefs. In my opinion, mass media has resulted in more negative effects than positive.

The mass media influences the mindsets of the young and impressionable; leading to a blurring of the distinction between right and wrong. One has to be discerning in what he believes, which is presented by the mass media. Without the knowledge of being able to differentiate between good and evil, it is easy for one to be easily swayed by the messages conveyed by the media. Take, for instance, violent television programmes such as WWF wrestling, which advocates violence. The programme depicts scenes of wrestlers beating each other up to a bloody pulp and hurling verbal abuses at each other. Youths and children who cannot differentiate between right and wrong are eventually influenced into having the misconception that violence and verbal abuse is a solution to problems or disputes. This may lead to insidious effects over time, such as imitable behaviour. A significant example to note is that the teenage gunmen behind the Columbine High School massacre were avid fans of certain violent video games. Although there is no concrete evidence that playing such games led them to commit their heinous deed, there is the possibility that they were influenced into thinking that killing is a solution to rid them of people they disliked. Hence it is evident that the mass media has influenced the beliefs of the young, and has resulted in an inability to tell right from wrong.

The mass media knows no boundaries, and thus certain messages conveyed may be offensive or inappropriate. While mediums of mass media such as the television and publications may be restricted by censorship or bans, the Internet is one medium that cannot be controlled. Anyone can easily make information available and accessible on the Internet, through websites, blogs and the like. In some cases, racial slurs or discriminatory messages against certain religions may even make their way onto the World Wide Web. An example is the controversial, anti-Islamic video, “Fitna”.“Fitna”, a short film by Geert Wilders, made its debut online and was even posted on Youtube, a video sharing website open to the public. The film linked the religion to terrorism and resulted in an uproar in the Islamic world. Supporters and followers of Islam were furious, and there were even protests against the film. The furore over“Fitna” is evidence the mass media has no limits, as there is no control over what is on the Internet. In“Fitna”’s case, there is clearly discrimination against Islam, resulting in many Muslims feeling angry and offended. Despite calls to ban the video, it is still available on various websites for public viewing. Thus it is clear that there are no boundaries in the mass media, regardless of the content of the messages conveyed.

The mass media may lead to bias in the beliefs of society, as there might be control imposed on the information conveyed, thus preventing the people from seeing the big picture. In several countries, the mass media has become a powerful medium of conveying messages of propaganda. Only selected information is made available to the public, with bans imposed on information deemed as inappropriate. An example is China. The people are fed with pro-government information, as the government has banned Blogger, a blog hosting website, and any form of publication or websites that are anti-government. 50 journalists and bloggers were arrested early this year, for posting anti-political party comments online. By disallowing opinions against the government to be made accessible to the public, the citizens in China are not provided with the big picture of their government. While some of the people are aware of the propaganda presented to them via the mass media in their country, many others are not as discerning, and pro-government values are inculcated in them. Even in other countries, it is only natural for the governments to use the mass media to present themselves in a positive light, as they want the support of the people. However, imposing restrictions on the messages spread by the mass media leads to a one-sided view of matters, and people will be unable to see the other side of the coin. Therefore the mass media has resulted in influencing society into having narrow mindsets.

On the other hand, the mass media has had beneficial impacts on the society in this age, as it is an efficient medium of spreading information. Forms of the mass media, such as the Internet, have made information easily accessible by the public. With a few clicks of the computer mouse, the public is exposed to a wide range of current affairs in the world. For instance, when cyclone Nargis in Myanmar occurred, blogs, websites and forums were flooded with news about it. Another form of the mass media, publications such as newspapers, also informed the public of the news. Regardless of country, it was only a short while before nearly everyone knew about the natural disaster. The governments of countries did not need to formally inform the whole country of the news, as the various forms of mass media had already done that. Hence it is evident that the mass media has impacted society positively, as it is a convenient and effective means of relaying information.

While the mass media has its benefits in society, its negative impacts outweigh the positive impacts. The mass media is able to influence the mindsets of the young, is without boundaries and plays a huge role in shaping the beliefs of a country’s citizens. Thus, I conclude that the mass media has had a negative impact on the society of today.