Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. This famous quote by Mark Twain may give us an idea as to why many demand for the freedom of expression in media as well as in the press. I, for one, agree that freedom of expression is vital and marks the rise of a democratic as well as an open nation. However, in the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I feel that the Szilagyi’s view should be adopted. This is due to the potential racial and religious boundaries present in our society. Hence, being a country of cosmopolitan nature, it is important to take the feelings and well-being of people into concern so as to avoid conflicts and misunderstanding among the various ethnic groups. I also agree with Szilagyi’s view because though he emphasizes the importance on social responsibility, he agrees that it is necessary to have freedom of expression too. Depriving one to express his or her own ideas freely to the public reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It shows that the society needs to be told or shown what is right or wrong. As true as this can be, not practicing individual social responsibility, in other words, expressing our views openly; in this case racist comments, is just a call for trouble. Why then, call it a free society, many might ask, when more than often the government seeks to censor or destroy any material that it finds offensive? It is clearly a matter of opinion as to what is offensive and what is not. However, what one may not find offensive may offend another.

For example in 2005, two bloggers were charged with sedition for posting racist comments online due to numerous complaints by other bloggers.
They were accused of promoting feelings of ill-will and hostility between races in Singapore. Though, it is safe to say that not all were affected by this, there was still a considerable amount of uproar caused by this incident. This clearly shows that as much as we want, not all might be tolerant to the expression of such comments openly. Furthermore, this might also create ill-feelings to arise. However, this does not call for full censorship either as not having freedom of expression might have adverse effects on the society.

Then, again, the government can charge the bloggers and deprive them of freely expressing their views on the net, but is it possible to deprive them of freedom of thoughts. How is the problem solved by merely removing the medium of the problem rather than the root of the problem; the blogger’s thoughts. Moreover, is it not true that blogs are a portal through which many express their feelings? Furthermore, allowing such racist comments to be published in public might not necessarily be a cause for trouble. This is because in the article, Singer puts across the point that David Irving should be released despite his absurd denial of the holocaust. Singer, was directly affected by the holocaust, through which he lost his grandparents; but instead of insisting on putting David Irving behind bars, he does the opposite. Therefore, it is not right to assume that freedom of expression is nothing but trouble. However, referring to the second article by Szilagyi,who believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility, I am compelled to agree that republishing the religious cartoons was not a very wise thing to do.

In this age of IT and technology, where the countries around the world are in some way interconnected, it is necessary to encourage the freedom of expression for the benefit of all nations. Freedom of expression is important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. The government that muzzles free expression runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people. On the other hand, when freedom of expression is restricted, rumors, unfair criticisms, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. Furthermore,suppressing the ideas we don't like, encourages proponents of those ideas to fester in secret societies and be involved in wrong acts that may cause more harm to the society.Hence, as important as it is to allow the freedom of expression it is also necessary to practice social responsibility so that we can live harmoniously, especially in a multi-racial country like Singapore.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/167812/1/.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?

In general, "media" refers to various means of communication such as television, radio, and the newspaper .The issue on media and its influence on society have been debated over the past few centuries. No doubt, that in this age of new media, many of our activities and actions are the way they are, due to the influence of media. Like George Orwell said, “The people will believe what the media tells them to believe.” However, is it righteous to conclude that media is nothing but a pain in the neck?; that all it ever does is to promote values that corrupt our society? I, however disagree that media is corrupting our society, and below I will present my argument.

Media influence or media effects refers to the theories about the ways in which the mass media affect how their audiences, think and behave.Since the birth of the age of media, the influence of it has been felt worlwide.The mass media plays a crucial role in forming and reflecting public opinion: it communicates the world to individuals, and it reproduces modern society's self-image. Critics, majority of whom are parents of today’s youth, often attack the media stating that it is the major cause of promoting copycat murders, suicides and various violent behaviours in the society.Thus, leading to a corrupt society.However, more than often, do we fail to realise that these copycat murders and violent acts are the cause of individuals being raised in a violent, emotionaly neglected environment rather than watching certain programs, films or listening to certain music.

Many have also been fast to point a finger at the media, claiming that it is the root of all evil .More than often, we have heard of how corrupt governments manipulate the society through media to promote a political cause.However, based on these incidents, is it right to conclude that media does nothing but corrupt the society.The question here is that, does the society become corrupted just because of what the media shows them or is it just our mindset as to how we view the media?

Furthermore, there are countless evidence to prove that media does more than promoting negative values. The role of media in a modern society is not only limited to reporting and analysing specific events.It tracks and analyses trends in a society, keeps the audience updated on issues such as malaria,aids and HIV;which could be a matter of life and death. Without media disseminating important information to the general public would be a painstaking job. Besides, without media, is it even possible to know about the issues that are happening around the world? The answer is NO! We would be like frogs in the well. Does this easy access and availability of information corrupt our society or does it mark the rise of a sophisticated and educated nation.

On the other hand, media has also some negative influences on the society. For example, the violence portrayed by the media has led to an increasing number of undesirable acts in the society. Increasingly, younger children are killing their peers and then laughing and bragging about their exploits. An example would be the Virginia Tech Massacre. Furthermore, when television films on teen-age suicide were aired, researchers noted a significant increase in the number of teen suicides or suicide attempts (Boston Globe, Sept. 11, 1986).Thus, showing the negative influence of media on the society.To top that, the growing trend of weight-obsessed women of all ages is a problem of dramatic proportions. Of all women 56% are on a diet on any given day and "80% of girls have dieted by the time they reach the age of 18" (Wilson and Blackhurst). Though not all, but many of these girls and women are at an increased risk for developing an eating disorder such as anorexia nervosa and/or bulimia nervosa. This is undeniably the result of media which more than often promotes the ideal shape for women through slimming advertisements.


No doubt that media has made some negative influence on the society. Like many other things, media is a two-edged sword .It can be put to use in a meaningful way or simply used to corrupt the society.


Media is often made the ‘scapegoat’ to cover up for the undesirable activities that occur in our society. While it is easy to put the blame on media as being the cause of corrupting of society, little do we notice the good that it has done for mankind. Furthermore, the influence of media on people and thus, the society is a result of how we view it .Do we want to view the glass as half- empty or half-full? It all boils down to the way we see things. In this 21st century, where media plays an important role, it is impossible to accept the notion that media is corrupting our society.

Links:
http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/cgi-bin/tw/tw-mag.cgi?category=Magazine22&item=1104159913

http://www.articlecity.com/articles/politics_and_government/article_438.shtml

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/war.html

The problem with the modern media is they do not have a sense of social justice.Do you agree?

Before taking my stand, I would define the meaning of the key terms in the question. What is modern media? How is it distinguished from media in the past? And what exactly is social justice? In the past, communications were carefully and clearly crafted and sent via pipelines to be received by the public. In other words, it was a one way route in which the information was distributed. The feedback and participation of the audience was not given much importance. However, the advancement in technology has given rise to modern media. Modern media does not refer mainly to traditional forms of mediums like newspapers, television or web sites. Instead, it stretches well beyond the World Wide Web and out into the "real world" whereby the public is not just passive receiver of information but also actively engaging in discussion over issues. Such forms of modern media are blogs, forum, pod casting and tagging which involves the active participation of the audiences themselves. Whereby, social justice as defined by Wikipedia, refers to conceptions of a just society, where "justice" refers to more than just the administration of laws. It is based on the idea of a society which gives individuals and groups fair treatment and a just share of the benefits of society.

Hence,is it true to say that modern media do not have a sense of social justice? Or is this just another sweeping statement? As for me, I believe that the modern media lacks social justice but would not say that it completely does not have it.Below, I will support my resons with reference to three articles.

"The Gulf War, was made popular by an immense propaganda barrage unleashed by the Pentagon, the media, and government, creating an ideological milieu in which 45 percent of the population said it would be prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iraq. Military actions were, transformed into a grotesque national spectacle, a great celebration of war-making." This quote by Carl Boggs distinctly shows the problem with modern media- Lack of social justice. True, modern media promotes the freedom of expression but many a times, it has been exploited to suit the needs of various individuals or corporations-both private and government. Thus, depriving certain groups of freedom in certain areas. The article “Moyers hammers the media for 'Buying the War' in Iraq” helps to prove this point .This article, examines the media's shortcomings in "Buying the War," a 90-minute Bill Moyers Journal special. Many journalists have been demonized and vilified by the president's party and cheerleaders for being aggressive in their interrogation of public officials. Most media outlets owned by corporations "with vested interests in Washington policy, not only make it hard on journalists to publish their views on certain issues but are also skeptical about publishing such information because the journalists’ writings were at odds with what most of the Washington press corps was reporting. This clearly shows the social injustice of modern media. as they are deprived of freedom of expression to prevent the dissemination of information regarding government affairs.

The second article “Speaking for ourselves” speaks about civil right activists in Jackson, Mississippi who took the Federal Communications Commission to the court because it failed to take action on local stations which failed to serve their African-American audiences though they made up 45% of their audiences. The fact that the concerns of a certain group of audiences where completely ignored to suit its own need further reiterates the fact that modern media lack a sense of social justice.

Finally, the third article entitled “Media injustice to Sacred Heart Hospital” is about how the wrong dissemination of information to the public regarding the illness of Mr. Arroyo, the President’s husband resulted in lowering the reputation of the hospital. The hospital which is known for its good services and timely treatment diagnosed him as having acute gastritis. However, when Mr. Arroyo was flown to St. Luke’s, he was operated on for an aortic aneurysm as well as given heart bypass surgery. This resulted in media reporting which blew up the wrong diagnosis made by the hospital with no explanation of why acute gastritis was not what ailed him after all. This caused the public to assume that The Sacred Heart hospital had committed a blooper in diagnosis, thus putting it in bad light. This is clearly social injustice in the part of media as it took no efforts to correct its error in reporting though the hospital has proved to provide accurate diagnosis on various other occasions.

Though, I still stand firmly by my stand, I cannot agree that modern media completely does not have any social justice. As providing a platform whereby people are given a freedom to express their thoughts and opinions is social justice itself.

Links:
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/apr/27/yehey/opinion/20070427opi5.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-04-22-bill-moyers_N.htm
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20031117&s=thembanixon

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?

Censorship is a controversial word that has been with us for as long as we can remember. While some say that censorship is what prevents the world from being corrupted, others reject this notion by stating that censorships exist merely to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions.


Censorship as defined by Wikipedia, is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Usually, censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media.Censorship occurs when expressive materials, like books, magazines, films and videos, or works of art, are removed or kept from public access. This is because of certain individuals and pressure groups that identify these materials as inappropriate. So, putting the question into perspective, is censorship ever justified? As for me, I truly believe that censorship in certain circumstances is justified, though not in all. Below, I will present both sides of the argument with reference to three articles.
I believe that censorship in areas such as pornography and mass media is justified. With today’s profound increase in violence, sex crimes, teen pregnancy, and other corrupt acts, it is indeed necessary to practice censorship. A closer look at society might prove multi media as being the main cause in this changing of ideals. The modern society has become insensitive to the acts shown on television, movies and video games. One of the main culprits of criminal behaviour is the violence in films. Violence shown in films may not only have a negative influence on those who are already violence prone but might also hinder the growth of children. In this age of media, where mass media plays an important role in the lives of people, exposing materials without censoring them might cause the public to become desensitized to these corrupt values. This is because, constant exposure to the false reality that happen in the media, cause people to become immune to the atrocious acts that occur in real life. Hence, it is necessary to have restrictions to watch certain movies based on their age due to the presence of violence and sexual scenes in them.


I also support the censorship of pornography. Pornography not only leads to crime and sex discrimination but also poses a potential threat to children. Children spend a great amount of time surfing the net. Hence, not censoring pornographic material might lead youngsters to develop a corrupt mindset. Moreover, children who are not matured enough might not be in the position to differentiate the wrong values from the right ones. In a recent study, Psychologist Edward Donnerstein (University of Wisconsin) found that brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behavior. True, that censorship of pornography does not censor thoughts and ideas; but censoring material published in the media form will bring protection to the society. Hence, I firmly believe that pornography does not have a positive effect and should be censored.
With reference to the articles entitled ‘SEX ARTICLE IN WELLINGTON HIGH PAPER CENSORED ‘ and ‘Students sue school over censored articles’, it is possible to see the controversies that might arise due to censorship. While the principal of Wellington expressed concern over the publishing of sex articles, the students saw this as way of quietening them down and restricting their freedom in free speech and expression. The concern of the principal is indeed justifiable, as she was afraid that kids in the ninth grade might not have the maturity level to handle such articles. Moreover, the principal said that the trend of high school students thinking that losing their virginity is the popular census and that they see no harm in it, is indeed worrying. In this case, censoring is justifiable, as it done for the well-being of the students and shows the potential danger of exposing such material to them. The argument presented in the second article was similar to that in the first article.

Though, practicing censorship in certain areas can be justified it is not always the case. Examples where censorship is not justified is in the area of music and literature and in circumstances where disclosure of information to public is beneficial. Music is a way in which many express their innermost feelings, and censoring certain music is indeed equivalent to suppressing their thoughts and freedom in expression. Furthermore, the censoring explicit expression used in literature not only changes the meaning of it but also undermines its purpose. After all, music and literature are art forms that are meant to be expressed and conveyed to public. The third article entitled ‘Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him’ shows that censoring of information that might be beneficial to the general public and their well-being is indeed unjust. He said that the Bush administration had tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming which included critics of the leadership body in The United States. This clearly proves that valuable information was withheld from public to protect the government’s interest.

Furthermore, many believe that censorship can never be justified as they feel that they should be free to decide what they watch or read, since, they are mature enough to know what is good and bad. Moreover, they feel that censorship is pointless, as nowadays people can travel to other countries and discuss ideas or read materials unavailable in their own country and that it is also impossible to block material on satellite or on the internet. Opponents of censorship also claim that unless the people of a nation are fully educated that there can be no development. Finally, the biggest argument against censorship for many people is the idea of personal freedom. As put in words by Charles Bukowski, ‘Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide actualities from themselves and others. Their fear is only their inability to face what is real. Somewhere in their upbringing they were shielded against the total facts of our experience. They were only taught to look one way when many ways exist.’

In conclusion, I believe that it is not true to say that censorship can never be justified, as censoring material in certain areas have clearly benefited the mankind. Censorship is not taking away the rights of citizens; it is protecting the rights of people who do not wish to be exposed to certain things. It is also a great tool in preserving morals and social order.




Links:
http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2005/02/22/s1b_wellhigh_0222.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=28e236da0977ee7f&ex=1296190800

Virginia Tech shooting:Do tightening firearm laws alone guarantee safety?

The shooting at Virginia Tech University was definitely an incident that attracted the attention of many .Since then, many controversial issues such gun policies, censorship and racial discrimination has been brought to light. Following the massacre at Virginia Tech, many have been debating if stricter laws on fire arms should be enforced. Many advocates are on both sides of the debate. While a minority group suggests that the easy access to guns in America is the main reason as to why America's homicide rate is much higher than in any other industrialized country; a large majority feel that one such incident should not be the sole reason to tighten firearm laws.

I agree that certain gun policies should be reviewed. However, I frankly do not believe that tightening firearm laws alone would guarantee safety. Below I present my views as to why I believe that certain gun policies need to be reviewed.

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.” This quote by Indian philosopher
Mahatma Gandhi is definitely applicable to the massacre at the Virginia Tech.The easy access to guns in America enabled the student, Cho Seung Hui to obtain firearms easily after going through routine background checks. Though these checks were meant to confirm that the firearms were in safe hands, they clearly failed to do so. Furthermore, guns which were meant for self defense were used in the wrong way. As, he soon made the headlines by going on a murderous rampage at his university, killing 32 people. Further investigation showed that Cho Seung-Hui had bought his guns illegally, though with the appearance of legality. He was said to have slipped through a loophole. The question now is, why have laws which demand safety background checks before purchasing of firearms, if they are unable to work effectively. Does it not suggest that stricter laws on gun policies are yet to be enforced?

Furthermore, the legal age for buying a gun in the state of Virginia is only 12.It is almost appalling to visualize small kids carrying guns in their pockets. Though the guns can only be obtained with parental supervision, is it really a necessity to allow kids to have guns. Though I know that tightening this law may not help entirely, I do feel that it is necessary precaution to review this law especially after the Virginia Tech massacre as 12 is too young an age to be carrying a firearm.

However, as mentioned before, tightening firearm laws itself might not guarantee safety. This is because with reference to the massacre, the easy access to guns was not the only reason as to why the incident occurred at Virginia Tech. The murderer, Cho Seung-Hui , a student at the university was identified early as being mentally disturbed. Moreover, he showed possible signs of violence through his writings which increasingly became unhinged. However, these signs which were overlooked led to such a bitter incident to occur. Furthermore, having the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth. One can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, but people will find ways and means to bring guns into the place. Besides, even if there were even tougher gun policies, access to gun would still remain relatively easy. Those that cannot buy will steal or borrow. Cho Seung-hui was obvious a mentally disturbed individual, and there is evidence that there had been careful planning before the massacre was carried out . The likelihood is that he would have found a way to lay his hands on some form of weapon even if Virginia's, or America's, gun laws were a lot stricter.


Another reason why tightening firearm laws itself might not guarantee safety is because there are cases whereby guns have indeed saved the day. As ironical as it may seem, it is the truth. In a Pennsylvania high school for example, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Furthermore, there facts that prove that enforcing stricter firearm laws have proved useless. An example is the shooting in Dublane. After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. However, this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

In conclusion, I strongly feel that certain gun policies should be reviewed. However, tightening gun policies or taking them away from people will neither guarantee safety nor remove the guns from the hands of criminals.


Source: nytimes.com

Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news: they make the news.Discuss this with references to recent events.

"The media is not just the message. The media is a massage. We're constantly being stroked, manipulated, adjusted, realigned, and manoeuvered." This quote by Joey Skaggs is definitely applicable in today’s context. Before looking at this in depth, let’s define the key terms in the question. What exactly do we refer to as mass media and how recent is recent. Well, mass media is a term used to denote, as a class, that section of the media specifically conceived and designed to reach a very large audience such as the population of a nation state while recent events are anything of late occurrence or events that are lately happening.

Referring back to the question, the statement that mass media do not report the news but make the news definitely holds true. Often we would have followed up closely with certain news just to realize that not all the information reported is accurate.This does not apply only to current affairs but also to news on celebrities. Why is it that there seems to be more bad news reported than good? Is it because the world going to the dogs? Or simply because we are being manipulated?Media manipulation is an aspect of public relations in which partisans create an image or argument that favours their particular interests.This tactics used by the mass media involves the suppression of information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply diverting attention elsewhere.

In my essay, I will refer to three recent events namely ‘Mixed signals on granite exports to Singapore’, ‘Reports of N Korea apology 'inaccurate' and ‘Abdullah tells government officials to stop arguing through media’. I have chosen these events as recent because they have occurred within a short span of time.Citing examples from these events, I will prove how the media plays up the news instead of reporting them. The ban of sand from Indonesia to Singapore has been a topic of discussion over some time.It is clear that media had played up the news as it was stated clearly that ‘quibbles over technical terms ‘ had brought the topic of possible granite ban to light. Earlier this month, Mr Hassan and Trade Minister Mari Pangestu told Singapore that there was no export ban on granite.However, this contradicted the statement provided by several Jakarta officials who hinted a possible ban on the export of granite to Singapore.This confusion over the granite ban reported by the media has not only sent mixed messages to the readers but has also made Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda look into whether the export of granite chips should continue. So, one might then ask how the media has made the news.Well, why did the media choose to report news that might cause confusion instead of reporting the finalized decision? The reason is that the media does not report exactly what happens but twists the news to attract attention.

The second news article on inaccurate reports of North Korea’s apology reiterates the above stated point. Media had reported that North Korea had apologised for conducting a nuclear test that caused its neighbour disturbance and that it was not carrying out a second one.However, China said that the reports were inaccurate and that there is no guarantee the it will not test again. It also indicated that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. (DPRK) had no plans for a second nuclear test but if other countries impose more pressure, the DPRK may take further steps.This is clearly an example of the media not reporting the news but making their own.Thus, leading to unwanted problems.The third news is about a spat between the police and the deputy minister over conflicting crime data.Both parties not only claim that their data is accurate but also point fingers at each other telling the other had manipulated the crime rate figures.The question now is, why had the media decided to report on the argument between the government officials even though it knows that doing so will cause many to lose trust in the government.Simple! to attract attention. No doubt that they give the data , but only in a way they want us to view it.In other words, they make the news.

The media sways the public, and this is undeniable.However, is it true that the media always makes the news instead of reporting them.If so, why do we still look to newspapers as a reliable source of information Let's not forget, however, that the influence of the mass media depends not only on what and how they report, but also on how the audience perceive all that. This depends on the audience's perception, education and social affiliation as well as other circumstances. Whether we think that media makes the news or reports them is in the way we see it.When a dog bites a man that is not news, but when a man bites a dog that is news. This is the kind of news that makes people stop and read; and that is the reason why media has to make the news by presenting it in a different perspective instead of merely reporting it.

“You Tube has no ethics, it’s been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?

You Tube, one of the largest and fastest growing video entertainment communities with Google’s expertise. In this techno-savvy world it is hardly possible to find anyone who has not heard of it. No doubt that, You Tube is a haven for entertainment for many, irregardless of their age. Not only does it provide free access to online videos, but your opportunity to showcase your talent in video making is just a click-away! Then again, is You Tube merely an outlet where you can be entertained or is it a portal where moral values are not given a second thought. Has it gone too far this time?

Though being a You Tube user myself, I have to agree that to a large extent, it has no ethics. So what exactly do ethics mean? Well, ethics are defined as principles concerning right and wrong and how people behave. It was clearly a detestable act for You Tube to allow clips that are offensive to Thailand’s revered monarch to be viewed by many online. Even though, You Tube terms of use state clearly that among other things, defamatory material is not permitted, it refused to remove the clip until Thailand introduced a government ban on the site. Soon after the original video was claimed to have been removed by the creator, other clips showing images of the king’s face covered with graffiti and juxtaposed with images of feet surfaced. Thus, causing Mr Sitthichai, Thailand’s communications minister to accuse You Tube of “being heartless and culturally insensitive for refusing to do anything.”

True, that one cannot come to a decision that You Tube has no ethics based on one event. However, further research has shown that this is not the first time that someone has pointed a finger at You Tube for being insensitive. TV journalist, Robert Tur, filed a lawsuit against the company fro hosting a number of news clips without permission. Countries such as Iran and Turkey have also introduced ban on You Tube. While Iran banned You Tube in an attempt to impede “corrupting” foreign films and talent; Turkey blocked You Tube for some time for insulting Turkishness and having alleged Turks and Ataturks to be homosexuals. This clearly reiterates You Tube’s lack of moral principles.

Though , You Tube has established itself as a well-known entertainment portal, I would not say that it was created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. The abundance of video clips have definitely entertained people. However, it has done more than that. It has helped to boost creativity among the users. Last year, You Tube held a competition to reward the most innovative video. This undoubtedly encouraged people to stretch their limits to produce entertaining videos. Moreover, the visual element of You Tube also makes it possible to explain treatment and intervention that is otherwise difficult to describe in other web-based formats. An example would be the government funded clinic in Builth, Wales, UK which posts videos on You Tube demonstrating how to sample blood sugar levels and use an inhaler. This has in turn benefited many.

In conclusion, though to a large extent I agree that You Tube does not have ethics, I would not entirely agree that it was created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.