We held an intriguing and thought-provoking debate over the issue of censorship during lesson last week. I believe we had covered considerable ground as a team - Nicholas, Gerald, Jason, Esther, Michael, Yueh Phing, myself, and also as a class on the whole.
On my previous post, I had addressed the issue of censorship, whether it could be justified. The conclusion I drew was that censorship ought to be given an approving nod, so long as its influence is not abused by its users. Our group came up with solid examples of why censorship should be established; the negative aspects and morality issues of movies or even songs nowadays are simply too much. From Madonna's works to the cinematic scene of Korea, rages rampant and unchecked sexual behaviours and vulgarities. Already, the teens are getting out of hand. Are we not aggravating the situation if we leave these negative influences alone? Do we want to see our next generation having such unruly behaviours, or a group of people so used to hearing swear-words uttered - be it on television or the radio, that they themselves are infusing vulgarities in their everyday conservations?
It just brings us back to point number one, which is censorship cannot be done away with. So long as it possesses validity, there is no reason why we should abandon it.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
It rather depends on how you define censorship and justified. Censorship yes, but to what degree? Justifiable, again, to what extent?
There is no denying that censorship has positive effects. It filters the possible bad influences from us, say, extreme gore in movies and television programs. It prevents our kids from being overly exposed to unruly, 'loose' sexual references and behaviour. In short, it helps to shield us from the negative 'aura' that the media exudes, and protects our children.
But people do feel otherwise. Censorship restricts us; what we see, hear, listen to. It smothers freedom. Most importantly, it is antagonistic to the idea of freedom of speech and democracy that so many countries are pushing for. Some governments too recognise censorship as a tool to block out its opposing voices. This is but an example of the many instances where censorship is abused.
Do we do away with it? I think not. It is beneficial, like it or not. It is essential. Freedom of speech should be adopted and practised. But when it gets out of hand, which it usually does, censorship is the buffer we rely on to prevent unrest in our communities.
There is no denying that censorship has positive effects. It filters the possible bad influences from us, say, extreme gore in movies and television programs. It prevents our kids from being overly exposed to unruly, 'loose' sexual references and behaviour. In short, it helps to shield us from the negative 'aura' that the media exudes, and protects our children.
But people do feel otherwise. Censorship restricts us; what we see, hear, listen to. It smothers freedom. Most importantly, it is antagonistic to the idea of freedom of speech and democracy that so many countries are pushing for. Some governments too recognise censorship as a tool to block out its opposing voices. This is but an example of the many instances where censorship is abused.
Do we do away with it? I think not. It is beneficial, like it or not. It is essential. Freedom of speech should be adopted and practised. But when it gets out of hand, which it usually does, censorship is the buffer we rely on to prevent unrest in our communities.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The Media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
The media's priority would be its ratings; that is a known and undeniable fact. As long as this biting truth is here to stay, corruption in the media will be inevitable.
Just how many times have we witnessed the media's unscrupulous acts? To bring up the diving viewer ratings, some celebrities' ugly 'undergarments' are dug out and left in the street; while facts are distorted to suit the media's needs. In view of the general attitude and perceptions of the population, the media is taking stands. The media would sometimes favor this person, this organization, this community, if it means higher ratings for themselves.
The severe complication of this issue, would be that the media's influence stretches right to our doorsteps. The hotspot, television, is the source of entertainment and sorts for which most people in the world cannot do without. That will conveniently mean the source of 'filth' and corruption is deposited right in our living rooms, with our children paying more attention to it than our concern and 'nagging'. It is no wonder, due to the media's negative influence, that recent events such as the Virginia Tech shooting occurred.
It is also true that the media still possesses a shred, however small, of its true purpose - to bring accurate and unbiased information to the public. Therefore, I believe that we should do all we can in our power, to stem the conflicting and 'harming' values of the media, before it swallows the media whole. And us too, for that matter.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/27/150207.php
Just how many times have we witnessed the media's unscrupulous acts? To bring up the diving viewer ratings, some celebrities' ugly 'undergarments' are dug out and left in the street; while facts are distorted to suit the media's needs. In view of the general attitude and perceptions of the population, the media is taking stands. The media would sometimes favor this person, this organization, this community, if it means higher ratings for themselves.
The severe complication of this issue, would be that the media's influence stretches right to our doorsteps. The hotspot, television, is the source of entertainment and sorts for which most people in the world cannot do without. That will conveniently mean the source of 'filth' and corruption is deposited right in our living rooms, with our children paying more attention to it than our concern and 'nagging'. It is no wonder, due to the media's negative influence, that recent events such as the Virginia Tech shooting occurred.
It is also true that the media still possesses a shred, however small, of its true purpose - to bring accurate and unbiased information to the public. Therefore, I believe that we should do all we can in our power, to stem the conflicting and 'harming' values of the media, before it swallows the media whole. And us too, for that matter.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/27/150207.php
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Virginia Tech Shooting
I was pretty shocked myself after coming across this incident in the newspapers recently. 34 people losing their lives for no apparent reason in such a short span of say, a quarter of an hour? You would say impossible. But the impossible has nonetheless happened.
This tragedy has sparked off heated discussions, debates, all sorts. Besides wanting to make sense of the bloodbath and the underlying reason to the South Korean's seeming bitterness, people have also brought up the issue of the sale of guns in the US. True, self defence and safety is of priority. However, we must also consider what implications it might hold. What's with the media pushing for more action packed movies and 'unintended' gore, with 'heroes' unleashing pop guns for the most part, coupled with the ease of purchasing weaponry in the States, it will be no wonder if someone did a Virginia Tech again.
Cho Seung Hui has undoubtedly carved his name unto the annals of history; his rampage has earned itself the title of the worst school massacre in US history. It was known that his rage was fueled by him being ''spurned by a would-be girlfriend, not to mention his eccentric temperament. Now, doesnt that remind us of similar beings, like the EMO kids? They probably share the same problems and dilemma of the gunman, perhaps not to such an extreme. But there is no knowing what the EMO kids will turn out to be in the future. Another Cho Seung Hui, if their predicament aggravates? I certainly hope not.
This tragedy has sparked off heated discussions, debates, all sorts. Besides wanting to make sense of the bloodbath and the underlying reason to the South Korean's seeming bitterness, people have also brought up the issue of the sale of guns in the US. True, self defence and safety is of priority. However, we must also consider what implications it might hold. What's with the media pushing for more action packed movies and 'unintended' gore, with 'heroes' unleashing pop guns for the most part, coupled with the ease of purchasing weaponry in the States, it will be no wonder if someone did a Virginia Tech again.
Cho Seung Hui has undoubtedly carved his name unto the annals of history; his rampage has earned itself the title of the worst school massacre in US history. It was known that his rage was fueled by him being ''spurned by a would-be girlfriend, not to mention his eccentric temperament. Now, doesnt that remind us of similar beings, like the EMO kids? They probably share the same problems and dilemma of the gunman, perhaps not to such an extreme. But there is no knowing what the EMO kids will turn out to be in the future. Another Cho Seung Hui, if their predicament aggravates? I certainly hope not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)