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