Free Speech or Social Responsibility.

Free Speech, a human right that is claimed by many radicals as necessary for a country to grow. But is it true? They believe that by censoring free speech, it is violating the principles of democracy while others feel that social responsibility should be emphasised instead. However, what is to become of Singapore if free speech is exercised?

Personally, I feel that free speech should come after education. Certain level of maturity and social responsibility is needed before a country can become truly exercise freedom of speech. Education will let people's mind to develope and become more aware of the consequences of their own speech. In the context of Singapore, racial remarks are very sensitive in the nation and it should be taken seriously. The history of Singapore is embroiled with racial tensions and hence, any insensitive comment made by anyone may cause another racial riot which will impede the development of its economy as well as jeopardise the social security.

People who disagree that social responsibility should come before free speech should consider the consequences brought by people who make senseless and irresponsible comments. In year 2005, a student made a sweeping comment and targets a certain race. It created an uproar among religious committees and once again threatens the peace of Singapore. No one can guarantee that no person will post any irresponsible comment randomly and therefore, we must educate the people to differentiate constructive comments from gibberish.

In conclusion, education is not only important in teaching people what they should write as well as telling from right and wrong. No one can guarantee everyone will be socially responsible and no one can stop anyone from making a comment given this current state of technology. Hence, censorship is useless to stop this problem. Singapore, where there is cultural and religious pluralism should hence emphasise on social responsibility. However as stated above, no one can guarantee that everyone will be socially responsible, government should educate the people as education allows people to have a more open mind and look at things in an objective manner. Social responsibility can only do this much and the rest will be up to the people to judge what is right and what is wrong.

media is corrupting our society, do you agree?

Media is everywhere and there is no doubt it affects the society, whether good or bad. Imagine yourself walking down the street or simply watching a television programme in your couch, have you ever wondered how much extra information is added into your brain subconciously; even as you are reading my blog. It affects traditions, values and culture. Is this good for us, or is it corrupting our minds?

Today, we see bad things happening in our world---mass killings, drug abuse and many others to list. In many cases, mass media has a part to do with it. In some studies, it is shown that a preference for heavy metal music may be a significant marker for alienation, substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, suicide risk, sex-role stereotyping or risk-taking behaviours during adolescence. (Source: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1999). In televisions nowadays, it is so common to hear heavy metal music and children who have not developed a sense of judgement for themselves, are going to expose themselves to the extreme and explicit lyrics. Do you think it will be healthy for the development of a child if he or she is continuously exposed to this kind of environment?http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/music/inappropriate/negative_effects_music.cfm

Now, we shall look at another way media corrupts our mind---pornography. In around the world, no matter where you are, if you can have access to internet(mass media), you can have access to pornography. How is viewing pronography cause a serious impact to the society? Viewing pornography actually leads tot he objectivisation of women which will in turn lead to domestic violence and sexual abuse cases. This statement has been proven by studies done by an Australian college.http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_42/ai_n15929172/pg_2

Despite the many negative effects that mass media churns out, it does has positive effects on the society. For example, the use of mass media to inform others and to get people to donate to other people who are in trouble. For example was the great tsunamis which happened in 26 december 2004. Due to the mass media, the donations rose tremendously. The news of tsunamis spread fast to many countries and citizens of these countries donate funds, clothings and food to the tsunamis victims which in turn led to the quick recovery of the places which are hit by the disaster.

Actually, mass media does not corrupt minds but it influences them. It simply depends on the motive and the content of the news conveyed through mass media. It can be good or bad but it really depends on the government organisations and media companies to adhere to its original principles---which is to inform.

Social justice-absent in the modern media?

I agree that social justice is absent in the present media.

Mark Crispin Miller once said, "Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretense that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth". Although we live in a so called"liberal" world today, many things around us, for example media, is controlled by the government. As what the statement above shows, media shows information which are biased towards the stand of the government itself. Due to the influence of the growing superpower--USA, societies around the world are turning more and more capitialistic. This causes the media around the world to work mostly for benefits rather than just doing their jobs; which is to report accurate information to the general public. One example is the use of USA government to sell the case of war to the citizens.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Amy_Goodman/Bill_Moyers_interview_4_07.html

Other than being controlled by governments, the media is also controlled by corporates. Some media companies are paid by corporates to report news which goes in their favours. Some media companies even go to the extent by fabricating news footages to give a veneer of accuracy on the news they report. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Video_news_releases. With such inaccurate news going around, it is difficult to believe that at this point in time, that media today still has a streak of sense of social justice.

However, we must also credit the media for providing accurate information of a certain extent to the public. Though the media today works mostly in the basis of benefits, we must not forget that media do generate information which are true and accurate. Now there are websites which gives differing views on issues reported by mainstream media. Thus, general masses can now cross reference information and decide on which is fact and which is fiction. But nonetheless, media report news not in an objective manner but rather, in slanted views. If we are to weigh whether, meida still has a sense of social justice, I will think that the answer is going to be a "no".

Censorhip

I do not agree that censorship can be justified to a large extent.

Censorships are used to "protect people from obscene materials and other information which can pose a threat to the social sercurity and stability of the nation. To some extent, censorships is important especially when information are available to us anywhere and anytime.

However, I still believe that censorship is not beneficial to the society on the whole---no matter it is now or back in the past. If you hear of how Hitler control the media, you will agree with me that it is anti-liberal and tyrannical. Why? This is because it restricts what we can know and not what the higher authorities want us to know. Is one informationalways correct or should we look at the other viewpoints or other articles so as to get a beeter picture? I think the answer is rather obvious. Is censorship some sort of propaganda, I gree that it is to a certain extent. By restricting what you know, can make it easier for others to persuade you. Censorship leads to ignorance and I do not support censorship at all.http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/propaganda_in_nazi_germany.htm

Moreover, with globalisation taking place, censorship is no longer relevant. People can easily get information from the world wide web with no one stopping him. Information spreads and by the time you know it, a major event may be available to you seconds after the actual thing happened. In this example, http://ncac.org/entertainment/20070312~ME-Belfast~Defend_Free_Speech_on_the_Public_Airwaves.cfm, a broadcaster was banned for airing his views on politics. I agree that personal views can be disruptive and misleading, but with education, I think that people will be able to differ from what is right and wrong and thus, make correct judgements.

http://ncac.org/science/20070312%7EUSA%7ENew_Report_Discusses_Censorship_Of_Science.cfm
In this article, it is talking about a government banning results of certain science researches. Censorship of science shows no respect for knowledge as the basis of democracy, and the commitment to the free exchange of ideas to ensure that knowledge is shared. In such an environment, can a society ever progress?

Not just another shootout

The news of the Virginia shootout came as a shock to many. 23 deaths caused by just one person. It created a great buzz. But how many people will actually show as much concern to the massacres in Baghdad. To her citizens, it is just another day. One can easily point out that the difference in the so called "value" of lives in different nations.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the Virginia shootout is insignificant or we should not grieve over such situations. I am just hoping that people will shift their sights on what are the other worse events happening in other war torn countries. Is there really a value difference between americans' lives and the muslims in Iraq? Is it true that people living with higher standards should have a higher value? I hope that people will put this incident behind them and take a better look at the world that is consumed by violence and agony.

Instead of posting commentaries on the Virginia massacre, i think people should channel their efforts to provide aid to other poorer countries which has thousands dying daily. They start movements, mass funerals. These events need astronomical sums of money. Does it help at all to commemorate someone who is dead? Would not it be better if it is channeled to better uses for example, use it for charitable causes.

Speaking of which, there is something to be learned from this virginia shootout. Why and how the Korean was able to plot and execute sucah a scale of massacre? It all goes down to the living conditions of an immigirant in a foreign country. Even in this so called liberal world of ours, people are still being discriminated, being deemed as parasties of the society who grab the opportunites of the locals. What should be changed is the attitude of how locals should look and treat the migrants.And by the way there is no gene that will decide what race we are which means we are all actually of the same kind. Hence, everyone deserves an equal right to where we want to stay. Another point is the availability of guns. Why is it that guns are made available to common folk? Is it for sercurity or is it a threat posed among people? I think all of you should know the answer.

In conclusion, I feel that people should not just say how sad the massacre is but instead, look out into the world and use events happened as lesson and use htme to create a better world.

Media- produce or report news?

The mass media is very powerful and influential in the world. As one ex-president of United States said" a president governs the people for 4 years but journalists govern the people forever". This statement simply shows the power of media. In the modern age people now depend on media for information and i find that it is important for the mass media to report facts rather than create them.

What news i would like to do is about news that are fabricated in favour of the government or the corporate. These types of videos are particularly known as the VNRs(video news releases ). VNRs are pre-packaged "news" segments and additional footage created by broadcast PR firms, or by publicists within corporations or government agencies. VNRs are designed to be seamlessly integrated into newscasts, and are freely provided to TV stations. Although the accompanying information sent to TV stations identifies the clients behind the VNRs, nothing in the material for broadcast does. Without strong disclosure requirements and the attention and action of TV station personnel, viewers cannot know when the news segment they're watching was bought and paid for by the very subjects of that "report."

One of the examples is the report on nuclear weapons in Iraq. After George Bush's claim that Iraq purchase Uranium from Niger was exposed, it created a big buzz on the reliability of the news that we are listening to. Nowadays, government agencies uses media as a way to influence the mentality of the people to do what the government wants them to do. In this case, it is to spur the negative feelings of US citizens to fight the Iraq war. It questions what the media ethics does it have and the information we are getting through our senses. It refutes that basic definition of information.http://www.rense.com/general44/50.htm

Now we shall look at news in our local context---The Huang Na murder case. In this incident, the mass media exaggerated the situation and portrayed the victim's mother as a very pitiful and devastated lady who had just lost her daughter. In the end, the response was massive. Some of the Singaporeans who had read of her plight decided to give donations to Huang Na's parents. This sum of money grew as more articles are reported on her. In the end, this astronomical sum of money was enough to buy Huang Na's parents a three story bungalow in China. This once again shows the power of media again. The exaggeration has caused the people to lose their rationality and donate unnecessarily. The donations have lost its meaning and the media has to bear part of this blame.http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=Huang+na&id=157756

The final report i am doing is on the exaggeration of reports on global warming. Although global warming is a serious problem, the media should not sensationalize it. A catastrophe is interesting but a climate analysis is not. Nowadays, when we flip through the newspapers, we see reports on climate change and how the world will end in near future. It just shows something, media would rather attract readers, have a veneer of superficial interest to increase its sales rather than provide the true story.http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html

Youtube--- the new age

Youtube is originally a website created for people to share their ideas and videos in the world wide web for free. The 2 persons who created the website has been recently paid S$2 billion dollars by google to sell the rights of the website to the company.

Now, youtube has been banned in thailand for showing a video of someone vandalising the potrait of the king. Some state that youtube is an organisation that only lets others post entertaining videos with not much moral content in them. But should we say that youtube is not a pool entertainment junk.

Before we jump into a swift conclusion, we have to examine the origin of youtube. I feel that the core idea of youtube is maninly a medium to share information. Most of the people know that it was a self interest web until it became commercialised. The youtube contains a wide variety of videos, posted by many others who wanted to share their videos. Some are self created, while others are taken directly from TVs. If it is only a website meant for money, then it would have charged others, for viewing or posting a video. And also, if someone was to blame youtube for showing the videos, we should instead point the fingers on those who posted it. All in all, youtube is still only a medium for people to paste their ideas right.

We should not ignore the fact that people actually do benefitted from youtube. Some became famous by posting something interesting and original content while others requested help through video blogs and got what they wanted. So who says that youtube is only a website for entertainment. Not only does it spur creativity and help others, people can watch what they want for free. It is an additional benefit for the main crowd which is why, youtube is unrivalled till now because it has not changed much since it was created.

Perhaps youtube can improve itself by filtering out sensitive videos but the essence of it will be lost. This will discourage people from posting videos and in the end, stifle creativity. I feel that it is the viewers who make the decision of what to watch and not the website of what to post.