Saturday, April 28, 2007
To what extent is censorship necessary and why?
Regarding censorship, I believe that the necessity of it lies in the eyes of the beholder.Imagine watching a soap drama full of profanities, uncut sexual intimacy and violence with your family at home and your curious younger sibling bombarding you with questions. The majority will be at loss of what to do because explaining the sexual scenes and unpleasant vulgarities will make one feel uncomfortable, yet not explaining it would lead to the sibling's increased curiosity and continual asking. You would feel awkward and offended, won't you? This is the time where you truly hope that censorship exists.
Censorship acts as a mean of protection against negative influences. The young will be negatively influenced and traumatised by free media, where gore, horror, pornography are showcased and the list goes on.
Without this filtering system, the world would be in chaos as offensive words will be arrowed towards almost everyone and there will be repeated occurrence of conflicts and misunderstandings. Why do i say so? Because if the media publicises extremists' speeches with intentions to stir up discontentment towards certain racial groups and it does not make the effort to clarify the doubts and questions, riots and fights will definitely take place.
If audiences are allowed to access any forms of media, their values will be tarnished, positive values may not be uphold regardless of how adamant they are to outside influences.
Perhaps the most important area that censorship is targeting on would be national security. If military strategies of a country, let's say Singapore, are disseminated, can this little red dot on the world map survive attacks from other countries? Would media exists without its supporting nation?
Even though censorship provides means of protection and prevention against negativity, loosening the grip on it can also benefit the society.
How would we know about the disgraceful acts done by our former CEO of NKF, the once trustworthy organisation, if a certain extent of freedom of speech is not allowed for the media?
By presenting the truths which the audiences have the rights to know, we can relate that the absence of censorship allows transparency.
If we protect and disallow the young to view certain censored media content, we are actually triggering their curiosity, indirectly urging them to get to these contents by any means. As the famous saying goes,'curiosity kills the cat', the society's method of protecting the young against negative influences will actually backfire. With technological advancements, how difficult would it be to get access to the 'forbidden's if one is determined to do so?
Furthermore, early exposure to the media and the more materialistic side of the society is also as a mean to educate the young, make them less ignorant towards the society and feed their never-ending curiosity. Adults should not be overly protective towards the young or these flowers would definitely find it problematic to adjust themselves to the society when they step out of the greenhouse.
After all that there is to say about censorship, i should say that it provides more merits than demerits and it is definitely necessary. If not, the huge degree of freedom of speech will actually kill.
Dreamt by Shurlene min at
Monday, April 16, 2007
Mass Media (print) - Creative Untruths
What have you learnt here about the media in the way they present what is perceived over what is real? (Date of source : 6th april 2003)With eloquence and convincing words, the influential media often and has the rights to present what is perceived, rather that what is real to the audience, especially when they face pressure from the government or political parties. This is especially prevalent in countries like U.S. where freedom of speech and expression are allowed, though the media still faces internal pressure.
The media sides the government in a way that they only portray the positive side of them and tone down the seriousness of their mistakes. In other words, the media either cover up government's faults or beautify their serious mistakes, they seldom publish the fact, as far as I've inferred from the article.
The article " Spilling blood with oil in Iraq" clearly proves that the entrance of U.S. army is actually an ill-will in disguise; Iraqis have been 'traumatised','crippled' and 'killed' in the 12 years of time during U.S.'s "invasion".
The initiation of war by U.S. was claimed to be a righteous one as they convinced some others of the existance of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the urgent need to search and destroy them. However, has any form of media report about the confirmed existance of weapons so far?
Maybe most possibly, what the dominant U.S. did not reveal is their loss of pride due to the 911 terrorists attack and it is their attempt to take revenge and show their dominance.
With an excuse to restore peace after the U.S.-initiated war, U.S. president called for a surge of army to Iraq earlier this year, which was deemed to be unnecesary. However, without even the media's report, rationals will understand that they are actually eyeing on the rich natural resources like oil in Iraq.
This is also an obvious hint that the media has been under the U.S.'s influence on publicising what should be published. There are certainly a lot of unrevealed news that we do not know.
Perhaps to many, the media's looking down on the audience's ability to differentiate between truths and untruths and thus it is a more bias source. But contrastingly, in this particular case, the daring scriptwriter uses our ability to read between the lines, well enough to convey certain facts in an indirect manner. With phrases like 'creative untruths' and 'obliging media', readers can most possibly guess what the writer is trying to say - the media lies too.
Contradictingly, if we the audience do not believe the media, what are the reasons that make us believe in this writer?
Thinking of it in another way, the media is a source of information and a way to attain more knowledge on a wide array of things happening around the world. It is through the media that we acquire first hand information, don't you agree? If this is not so, how would we get to know about 911 and the 2004 tsunami so immediately? Yes indeed, the media is very resourceful and influential.
All in all, it is up to individuals' views on whether to trust this source of information wholeheartedly. After all, being an influential source of medium to get information, audiences will at least carry a weak belief that the media is truthful to what they present.
It is essential that we the audience of the media are willing to expose ourselves to various sources of information to get a more complete scope of what is really happening.
*7.02pm*
Dreamt by Shurlene min at
Monday, April 9, 2007
homework
Dear teacher,I'll do my homework soon....
Dreamt by Shurlene min at