Hahaha, hey people. Haven't posted for some time. This blog was actually created for my GP last time in sg. Now that I'm back in Malaysia, I created another more casual blog. N the entries in this blog is a bit..err...boring...and formal..so u can choose not to read them. Haha my new blog address : http://yuehphing-jess.livejournal.com/
Enjoy
Friday, July 4, 2008
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Class debate : THBT censorship CAN be justified
Class debate : The house believes that censorship can be justified.
“Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds. Because of this, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy. Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.” 1
I cannot imagine a world without censorship. “In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions and hard core pornography.” 2 Young children will be watching pornography without control. 8% of criminals rate pornography as their highest sexual interest. Psychologist, Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behaviour. This shows how dangerous pornography can be.
Without censorship, I cannot imagine what will happen to the world. “In 8 of January of 2007, Brazilian authorities tried to censor the site Youtube.com due to a video of scenes of sex between the model Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend Renato Malzoni, filmed by a paparazzo on a beach in Spain. Companies responsible for the access to the Internet in Brazil, such as Brasil Telecom and Telefonica, initially accepted the judicial order readily, and hindered access to the site with the offending videos. Due to the great displeasure regarding the decision in the community, authorities rescinded their order the following day, and Youtube.com was once again widely available to computer users in Brazil.”1
“During the Spanish-American War of 1898, reporters, if anything, led cheers for the military. Throughout World War I, journalists considered themselves part of the war effort, not independent observers. This pattern of press and military cooperation continued through World War II. But starting with the Korean War and then Vietnam, the press took an increasingly independent and critical view of the military. In Vietnam, more than 2,000 accredited reporters roamed freely throughout battle zones interviewing ordinary soldiers rather than relying on the often rosy picture of the war presented by the Pentagon. There were few incidents of news stories endangering U.S. troops or military operations. But negative press accounts fueled anti-war feelings back home. When the war in Southeast Asia finally ended, many in the military blamed the press for "losing Vietnam." Some Pentagon officials resolved to restrict press coverage of future American wars. In 1983, the Pentagon barred all journalists from the initial invasion of Grenada. Then in 1989, the Pentagon selected a dozen reporters to cover the invasion of Panama and restricted them to an airport in Panama until nearly all fighting ended.”3 Negative reports will make the situation worse like in the case of the Vietnam War.
The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.” 2 Activists might fight for freedom of speech, but freedom without control will make the world a worse place to be in.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
2 http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=83
3 http://www.crf-usa.orgIraqwar_htmliraqwar_press.html
“Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds. Because of this, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy. Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.” 1
I cannot imagine a world without censorship. “In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions and hard core pornography.” 2 Young children will be watching pornography without control. 8% of criminals rate pornography as their highest sexual interest. Psychologist, Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behaviour. This shows how dangerous pornography can be.
Without censorship, I cannot imagine what will happen to the world. “In 8 of January of 2007, Brazilian authorities tried to censor the site Youtube.com due to a video of scenes of sex between the model Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend Renato Malzoni, filmed by a paparazzo on a beach in Spain. Companies responsible for the access to the Internet in Brazil, such as Brasil Telecom and Telefonica, initially accepted the judicial order readily, and hindered access to the site with the offending videos. Due to the great displeasure regarding the decision in the community, authorities rescinded their order the following day, and Youtube.com was once again widely available to computer users in Brazil.”1
“During the Spanish-American War of 1898, reporters, if anything, led cheers for the military. Throughout World War I, journalists considered themselves part of the war effort, not independent observers. This pattern of press and military cooperation continued through World War II. But starting with the Korean War and then Vietnam, the press took an increasingly independent and critical view of the military. In Vietnam, more than 2,000 accredited reporters roamed freely throughout battle zones interviewing ordinary soldiers rather than relying on the often rosy picture of the war presented by the Pentagon. There were few incidents of news stories endangering U.S. troops or military operations. But negative press accounts fueled anti-war feelings back home. When the war in Southeast Asia finally ended, many in the military blamed the press for "losing Vietnam." Some Pentagon officials resolved to restrict press coverage of future American wars. In 1983, the Pentagon barred all journalists from the initial invasion of Grenada. Then in 1989, the Pentagon selected a dozen reporters to cover the invasion of Panama and restricted them to an airport in Panama until nearly all fighting ended.”3 Negative reports will make the situation worse like in the case of the Vietnam War.
The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.” 2 Activists might fight for freedom of speech, but freedom without control will make the world a worse place to be in.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
2 http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=83
3 http://www.crf-usa.orgIraqwar_htmliraqwar_press.html
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
New Media
Hello everyone. In case you never realized, I have been posting on media for such a long time. Today, it’ll still be on media, on new media to be exact but this time I’ll be adding a little entertainment, actually they are just pictures because there are people who complained that my blog is getting boring and filled with words. Actually, it’s not because I like words, but since it is an educational blog, I have no choice but to do it in this way.
So, let’s start. New media is actually a broad term that usually refers to new technologies and communication methods in the context of their effects on the established mainstream media. So, that means that all the websites you surf on the internet can also be categorised as new media. I find that this new media has a great impact on all the communities. The first very great impact will be the way you get news. In the past, people only get news from newspapers and magazines. Now, just by clicking on their mouse, they can get news delivered straight to their homes.
In a converged media world, consumers increasingly call the shots. We use Apple iPods to make our own music playlists. Personal video recorders allow us to customize television schedules. Digital Audio Broadcasting or DAB Digital Radio pumps static-free music to our homes and cars. These consumers pull stock-market updates, text messages, wallpaper, ring-tones, and short-form video into their mobile phones. We come together in online communities, generate their own content, mix it, and share it on a growing number of social networks. No longer a captive, mass media audience; today's media consumer is unique, demanding, and engaged.
In essence, in the participatory era, media will no longer be delivered one way from a media company to an audience but by audience members to other audience members. The distinction between content creators and consuming audiences first gets blurry and then disappears completely. Instead of media being delivered as a sermon or lecture, it becomes a conversation among the people in the audience. How can audience or readers do that? Today's media revolution, like others before it, is announcing itself with a new and strange vocabulary: Blog, Podcast, Wikis, Wikipedia, Vlogs, and Folksonomies. As I type these words in Microsoft Word, these words are underlined in red which means that it doesn’t exist in the dictionary. But the point is that everyone understands this language. It is global. It connects everyone all over the world. Another example of media being delivered by audience to the audience will be YouTube. People from all over the world share their field of interest, share knowledge they practically share everything on Earth. By the way, to sidetrack, there is a very interesting video I found on YouTube, it’s very funny but I hope no one will be insulted by it. I want to upload in my blog but don't know how. Can anyone tell me?
I think I should stop here before people start complaining that they see words and hate it. It’s really not my fault. I can’t help it, maybe I am just to linguistic in nature. Haha. I have tried my best. If you still find it boring, can you please suggest how to make it more interesting and appealing to the visuals? Thanks.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=52164
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6794156
http://rebuildingmedia.corante.com/archives/2006/04/27/what_is_new_media.php
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/media2002/reports/EP6Rolls.PDF
http://www.techtarget.com/downloads/studies/Web20_The_impact_of_new_media_whitepaper.pdf
So, let’s start. New media is actually a broad term that usually refers to new technologies and communication methods in the context of their effects on the established mainstream media. So, that means that all the websites you surf on the internet can also be categorised as new media. I find that this new media has a great impact on all the communities. The first very great impact will be the way you get news. In the past, people only get news from newspapers and magazines. Now, just by clicking on their mouse, they can get news delivered straight to their homes.
In a converged media world, consumers increasingly call the shots. We use Apple iPods to make our own music playlists. Personal video recorders allow us to customize television schedules. Digital Audio Broadcasting or DAB Digital Radio pumps static-free music to our homes and cars. These consumers pull stock-market updates, text messages, wallpaper, ring-tones, and short-form video into their mobile phones. We come together in online communities, generate their own content, mix it, and share it on a growing number of social networks. No longer a captive, mass media audience; today's media consumer is unique, demanding, and engaged.
In essence, in the participatory era, media will no longer be delivered one way from a media company to an audience but by audience members to other audience members. The distinction between content creators and consuming audiences first gets blurry and then disappears completely. Instead of media being delivered as a sermon or lecture, it becomes a conversation among the people in the audience. How can audience or readers do that? Today's media revolution, like others before it, is announcing itself with a new and strange vocabulary: Blog, Podcast, Wikis, Wikipedia, Vlogs, and Folksonomies. As I type these words in Microsoft Word, these words are underlined in red which means that it doesn’t exist in the dictionary. But the point is that everyone understands this language. It is global. It connects everyone all over the world. Another example of media being delivered by audience to the audience will be YouTube. People from all over the world share their field of interest, share knowledge they practically share everything on Earth. By the way, to sidetrack, there is a very interesting video I found on YouTube, it’s very funny but I hope no one will be insulted by it. I want to upload in my blog but don't know how. Can anyone tell me?
I think I should stop here before people start complaining that they see words and hate it. It’s really not my fault. I can’t help it, maybe I am just to linguistic in nature. Haha. I have tried my best. If you still find it boring, can you please suggest how to make it more interesting and appealing to the visuals? Thanks.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=52164
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6794156
http://rebuildingmedia.corante.com/archives/2006/04/27/what_is_new_media.php
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/media2002/reports/EP6Rolls.PDF
http://www.techtarget.com/downloads/studies/Web20_The_impact_of_new_media_whitepaper.pdf
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Can censorship be justified????hmmmm......
My class recently had a debate in censorship and that made me wonder whether is censorship is justified. I googled the word censorship and got these information. “Censorship is the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. The withholding of official secrets, commercial secrets, intellectual property, and privileged lawyer-client communication is not usually described as censorship when it remains within reasonable bounds. Because of this, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy. Censorship is closely related to the concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When overused, it is often associated with human rights abuse, dictatorship, and repression.” 1
I cannot imagine a world without censorship. “In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions, hard core pornography.” 2
Young children will be watching pornography without control. 8% of criminals rate pornography as their highest sexual interest. Psychologist, Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behaviour. This shows how dangerous pornography can be. Without censorship, I cannot imagine what will happen to the world. “In 8 of January of 2007, Brazilian authorities tried to censor the site Youtube.com due to a video of scenes of sex between the model Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend Renato Malzoni, filmed by a paparazzo on a beach in Spain. Companies responsible for the access to the Internet in Brazil, such as Brasil Telecom and Telefonica, initially accepted the judicial order readily, and hindered access to the site with the offending videos. Due to the great displeasure regarding the decision in the community, authorities rescinded their order the following day, and Youtube.com was once again widely available to computer users in Brazil.”1
“During the Spanish-American War of 1898, reporters, if anything, led cheers for the military. Throughout World War I, journalists considered themselves part of the war effort, not independent observers. This pattern of press and military cooperation continued through World War II. But starting with the Korean War and then Vietnam, the press took an increasingly independent and critical view of the military. In Vietnam, more than 2,000 accredited reporters roamed freely throughout battle zones interviewing ordinary soldiers rather than relying on the often rosy picture of the war presented by the Pentagon. There were few incidents of news stories endangering U.S. troops or military operations. But negative press accounts fueled anti-war feelings back home. When the war in Southeast Asia finally ended, many in the military blamed the press for "losing Vietnam." Some Pentagon officials resolved to restrict press coverage of future American wars. In 1983, the Pentagon barred all journalists from the initial invasion of Grenada. Then in 1989, the Pentagon selected a dozen reporters to cover the invasion of Panama and restricted them to an airport in Panama until nearly all fighting ended.”3 Negative reports will make the situation worse like in the case of the Vietnam War.
“The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.” 2 Activists might fight for freedom of speech, but freedom without control will make the world a worse place to be in.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
2 http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=83
3 http://www.crf-usa.orgIraqwar_htmliraqwar_press.html
I cannot imagine a world without censorship. “In many countries there will be multiple liability for production of slanderous material, material which incites racial hatred. Where the author or publisher can not be traced or are insolvent the printers can be sued or prosecuted in some circumstances. The relatively small number of internet service providers (ISPs) should be made liable if they assist in the provision of dangerous and harmful information such as bomb making instructions, hard core pornography.” 2
Young children will be watching pornography without control. 8% of criminals rate pornography as their highest sexual interest. Psychologist, Edward Donnerstein from the University of Wisconsin found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behaviour. This shows how dangerous pornography can be. Without censorship, I cannot imagine what will happen to the world. “In 8 of January of 2007, Brazilian authorities tried to censor the site Youtube.com due to a video of scenes of sex between the model Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend Renato Malzoni, filmed by a paparazzo on a beach in Spain. Companies responsible for the access to the Internet in Brazil, such as Brasil Telecom and Telefonica, initially accepted the judicial order readily, and hindered access to the site with the offending videos. Due to the great displeasure regarding the decision in the community, authorities rescinded their order the following day, and Youtube.com was once again widely available to computer users in Brazil.”1
“During the Spanish-American War of 1898, reporters, if anything, led cheers for the military. Throughout World War I, journalists considered themselves part of the war effort, not independent observers. This pattern of press and military cooperation continued through World War II. But starting with the Korean War and then Vietnam, the press took an increasingly independent and critical view of the military. In Vietnam, more than 2,000 accredited reporters roamed freely throughout battle zones interviewing ordinary soldiers rather than relying on the often rosy picture of the war presented by the Pentagon. There were few incidents of news stories endangering U.S. troops or military operations. But negative press accounts fueled anti-war feelings back home. When the war in Southeast Asia finally ended, many in the military blamed the press for "losing Vietnam." Some Pentagon officials resolved to restrict press coverage of future American wars. In 1983, the Pentagon barred all journalists from the initial invasion of Grenada. Then in 1989, the Pentagon selected a dozen reporters to cover the invasion of Panama and restricted them to an airport in Panama until nearly all fighting ended.”3 Negative reports will make the situation worse like in the case of the Vietnam War.
“The issues at stake in this debate, protection of children, terrorist activity, crime, racial hatred are all international problems. If a global solution is required then it can be achieved by international co-operation and treaties. It is acknowledged that it is justifiable to censor where harm is caused to others by the speech, words or art of an author, all the examples cited above are clearly causing harm to various groups in society. By a combination of the initiatives listed above it is possible to limit that harm.” 2 Activists might fight for freedom of speech, but freedom without control will make the world a worse place to be in.
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
2 http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=83
3 http://www.crf-usa.orgIraqwar_htmliraqwar_press.html
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Virginia tech
The recent massacre in Virginia Tech University makes me wonder how violent man can be. It is hard to imagine one person’s ability in taking away 32 lives and the happiness of so many people. That particular one person proved to me that you can never judge a book by its cover. He was just an ordinary boy, maybe a little quiet, but no one ever expected him to just appear in a classroom and start spitting bullets around.
But, this particular incident also brought about arguments on gun control. With just two guns he purchased, he caused terror in all around the world. With gun control, maybe this wouldn’t have happened at all. Maybe he wouldn’t have thought of killing so many people without access to guns. Maybe the thought of bringing the gun into Virginia Tech wouldn’t have even crossed his mind.
But is it really true? Will the law be able to stop him from killing so many people? Will it even bring him out of his so called “depressed” world? Or will he just continue feeling depressed or even kill more people in his bid to get a weapon of destruction to leave the world in terror? We never know.
In so many countries that actually passed on gun control laws, shootings still happen. Even in Virginia Tech itself where it proudly boasted their gun control laws but Cho Seung Hui still managed to bring in the gun. This showed that no matter how controlled or how tight the security is, desperate people will still manage to find a way to sneak it in. It might be harder for them, but they will still manage to find a way some day.
Gun control might be able to help a little in reducing shootings but it also depends on the country itself. If the country is not able to control corruption, then guns can be easily smuggled into the country even if there are laws on gun control. It also depends on how well the citizens of the country control their emotions. If someone had tried to help him then maybe this wouldn’t have happened. But this isn’t the time to start pointing fingers. This incident will serve as a reminder to all of us that no matter how hard we try to prevent it, it will still happen one day. The only way is to watch out and look out for people who look disturbed and stop the tragedy from repeating itself.
But, this particular incident also brought about arguments on gun control. With just two guns he purchased, he caused terror in all around the world. With gun control, maybe this wouldn’t have happened at all. Maybe he wouldn’t have thought of killing so many people without access to guns. Maybe the thought of bringing the gun into Virginia Tech wouldn’t have even crossed his mind.
But is it really true? Will the law be able to stop him from killing so many people? Will it even bring him out of his so called “depressed” world? Or will he just continue feeling depressed or even kill more people in his bid to get a weapon of destruction to leave the world in terror? We never know.
In so many countries that actually passed on gun control laws, shootings still happen. Even in Virginia Tech itself where it proudly boasted their gun control laws but Cho Seung Hui still managed to bring in the gun. This showed that no matter how controlled or how tight the security is, desperate people will still manage to find a way to sneak it in. It might be harder for them, but they will still manage to find a way some day.
Gun control might be able to help a little in reducing shootings but it also depends on the country itself. If the country is not able to control corruption, then guns can be easily smuggled into the country even if there are laws on gun control. It also depends on how well the citizens of the country control their emotions. If someone had tried to help him then maybe this wouldn’t have happened. But this isn’t the time to start pointing fingers. This incident will serve as a reminder to all of us that no matter how hard we try to prevent it, it will still happen one day. The only way is to watch out and look out for people who look disturbed and stop the tragedy from repeating itself.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Mass media cover ups........
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.Discuss this with references to recent events.
I completely agree with the statement. Mass media do not report news, they make news. They get to choose whichever news they like to report and usually these are news that enables them to make money. The recent “freedom of press” culture which appeared a few years ago also aided them in this process. But, news is not a product, it is simply a reporting of events. Nevertheless, to increase profits, corporate-controlled media have decided to “manufacture” and “market” news. They pack the news in attractive packages before selling them to the public. Any “bad products” will be rejected straight away. In May 2002, CBS news anchor Dan Rather acknowledged, "What we're talking about here is a form of self-censorship. Self-censorship is a real and present danger to journalists at every level and on a lot of different kinds of stories. Before the war, before September 11th, fear ruled every newsroom in the country in some important ways—fear if we don't dumb it down, if we don't tart it up, if we don't go to the trivial at the expense of the important, we're not going to be publishing a newspaper or magazine. We're not going to be on the air. The ratings will eat us up.” (www.wanttoknow.info/mass media)
After months of downplaying the size of demonstrations against the war on Iraq, major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post were forced to give front-page coverage to the massive February 15 international demonstrations against the war. The main reason was that the participation of more than 10 million people around the world meant the demonstrations were simply too big for editors to bury. But activists also directly targeted National Public Radio, the Times and other elite media--and shamed them into acknowledging that they had ignored the story of earlier protests. February 15 showed the power of protest to reach millions of people who share our anger about this war--and who will be more likely to join us on the streets at the next demonstration. We can also look to the example of the Vietnam War to see this power. The media backed the brutal war against the people of Vietnam from the moment that U.S. began to send in its "advisers." But the antiwar movement forced the reality of the war into public consciousness--and pressured the U.S. establishment, including the media, to open up the issue to debate. (httpwww.zmag.orgcontentshowarticle.cfmSectionID=21&ItemID=12496)
There are a lot more evidence to the fact that the media are actually playing around with the news, choosing which news is best to report and the list will never end. A brief example will be that the media publishes news according to the readers’ interest. Nobody has ever reported on trivial issues like the aftermath of the debate over the decline of social workers in Singapore. However, the media chose to report on the political debate over the ministerial pay. Why is this happening? This is because the public are more interested in the ministers’ pay rather than the decline of social workers. Therefore, the reports continue for more than a week after it was first announced. (http://www.todayonline.com/articles/180929.asp) (http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.5184b9e5238fb92293c89138e3a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=00f88490f045e010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:de31bbc860db1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD)
The media will never just report news. If they do, then our newspapers will be as thick as dictionaries. Maybe one day, we will just have to read a lot of different newspapers every day just to get the hang of the issues with all the “self-censorship” going on.
I completely agree with the statement. Mass media do not report news, they make news. They get to choose whichever news they like to report and usually these are news that enables them to make money. The recent “freedom of press” culture which appeared a few years ago also aided them in this process. But, news is not a product, it is simply a reporting of events. Nevertheless, to increase profits, corporate-controlled media have decided to “manufacture” and “market” news. They pack the news in attractive packages before selling them to the public. Any “bad products” will be rejected straight away. In May 2002, CBS news anchor Dan Rather acknowledged, "What we're talking about here is a form of self-censorship. Self-censorship is a real and present danger to journalists at every level and on a lot of different kinds of stories. Before the war, before September 11th, fear ruled every newsroom in the country in some important ways—fear if we don't dumb it down, if we don't tart it up, if we don't go to the trivial at the expense of the important, we're not going to be publishing a newspaper or magazine. We're not going to be on the air. The ratings will eat us up.” (www.wanttoknow.info/mass media)
After months of downplaying the size of demonstrations against the war on Iraq, major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post were forced to give front-page coverage to the massive February 15 international demonstrations against the war. The main reason was that the participation of more than 10 million people around the world meant the demonstrations were simply too big for editors to bury. But activists also directly targeted National Public Radio, the Times and other elite media--and shamed them into acknowledging that they had ignored the story of earlier protests. February 15 showed the power of protest to reach millions of people who share our anger about this war--and who will be more likely to join us on the streets at the next demonstration. We can also look to the example of the Vietnam War to see this power. The media backed the brutal war against the people of Vietnam from the moment that U.S. began to send in its "advisers." But the antiwar movement forced the reality of the war into public consciousness--and pressured the U.S. establishment, including the media, to open up the issue to debate. (httpwww.zmag.orgcontentshowarticle.cfmSectionID=21&ItemID=12496)
There are a lot more evidence to the fact that the media are actually playing around with the news, choosing which news is best to report and the list will never end. A brief example will be that the media publishes news according to the readers’ interest. Nobody has ever reported on trivial issues like the aftermath of the debate over the decline of social workers in Singapore. However, the media chose to report on the political debate over the ministerial pay. Why is this happening? This is because the public are more interested in the ministers’ pay rather than the decline of social workers. Therefore, the reports continue for more than a week after it was first announced. (http://www.todayonline.com/articles/180929.asp) (http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.5184b9e5238fb92293c89138e3a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=00f88490f045e010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:de31bbc860db1110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD)
The media will never just report news. If they do, then our newspapers will be as thick as dictionaries. Maybe one day, we will just have to read a lot of different newspapers every day just to get the hang of the issues with all the “self-censorship” going on.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
YouTube....
1. “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?
I personally agree that YouTube has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. If it is not for money, then YouTube will not be created in the first place. The creators of YouTube may say that it is created to let people share and circulate videos around but too many evidence has shown that YouTube doesn’t care about the videos that has been uploaded. The videos that were uploaded had sparked outrage on various issues. The most significant one will be the 44-second film showing graffiti over the king's face. If YouTube had even paid the slightest attention to the videos, the Thai government will not even consider banning YouTube in the country. It is obvious that YouTube cares only for money on not for other aspects that are also very important in life.
Another very obvious evidence will be the case where Viacom actually sued Google, which is the owner of YouTube for massive intentional copyright infringement. YouTube was so busy in making millions or even billions of dollars that it didn’t even notice that quite a number of the videos uploaded are copyrighted materials owned by established companies like Viacom. If it has ethics, it wouldn’t have allowed these clips to be uploaded onto the website. The whole world is busy trying to deal with piracy and here YouTube is actually encouraging pirates to operate freely and without worry. Of course, YouTube can say that it doesn’t have any control over the videos that are uploaded but I firmly disagree. That reason is a very poor excuse to me. There is no way YouTube can’t access control over the clips as it can easily restrict users from uploading clips that were copyrighted.
YouTube also allows inaccurate information to be uploaded. Some of the information uploaded can be quite deadly if followed. One good example will be the video that shows medical information without any proof that it is accurate and safe for use. Some of the parents of autistic children actually shared information on the progress of their children and ways on how to deal with them. If the information had been inaccurate, and any one parent tried the method out, it might result in the death of the child. YouTube should have warned its users that not all of the information put up on the website is accurate as the consequences of someone getting the wrong advice is actually quite risky. It is just a simple act and it doesn’t take up much time, but YouTube never even bothered to look at the videos that have been uploaded. Yes, money may be important but ethics are important too. YouTube need to play a part in ensuring the videos put up are safe for all viewers and the information are accurate.
I personally agree that YouTube has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. If it is not for money, then YouTube will not be created in the first place. The creators of YouTube may say that it is created to let people share and circulate videos around but too many evidence has shown that YouTube doesn’t care about the videos that has been uploaded. The videos that were uploaded had sparked outrage on various issues. The most significant one will be the 44-second film showing graffiti over the king's face. If YouTube had even paid the slightest attention to the videos, the Thai government will not even consider banning YouTube in the country. It is obvious that YouTube cares only for money on not for other aspects that are also very important in life.
Another very obvious evidence will be the case where Viacom actually sued Google, which is the owner of YouTube for massive intentional copyright infringement. YouTube was so busy in making millions or even billions of dollars that it didn’t even notice that quite a number of the videos uploaded are copyrighted materials owned by established companies like Viacom. If it has ethics, it wouldn’t have allowed these clips to be uploaded onto the website. The whole world is busy trying to deal with piracy and here YouTube is actually encouraging pirates to operate freely and without worry. Of course, YouTube can say that it doesn’t have any control over the videos that are uploaded but I firmly disagree. That reason is a very poor excuse to me. There is no way YouTube can’t access control over the clips as it can easily restrict users from uploading clips that were copyrighted.
YouTube also allows inaccurate information to be uploaded. Some of the information uploaded can be quite deadly if followed. One good example will be the video that shows medical information without any proof that it is accurate and safe for use. Some of the parents of autistic children actually shared information on the progress of their children and ways on how to deal with them. If the information had been inaccurate, and any one parent tried the method out, it might result in the death of the child. YouTube should have warned its users that not all of the information put up on the website is accurate as the consequences of someone getting the wrong advice is actually quite risky. It is just a simple act and it doesn’t take up much time, but YouTube never even bothered to look at the videos that have been uploaded. Yes, money may be important but ethics are important too. YouTube need to play a part in ensuring the videos put up are safe for all viewers and the information are accurate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
