We've all been taught that schools are places to learn in. Where we learn to differentiate good from bad. A crime from a lawful act. But think about it this way. What if ignorance were a crime, and schools are merely jails for the uneducated ignorant criminals?
If that were the case, it would be natural that all humans will enter this jail at one point in time or the other, considering how we're all born ignorant, or so most believe. Coincidentally enough, this is true in most countries with the facilities to imprison their young.
Let's look at the other similarities that exist between a stereotypical jail and this "jail", that goes by the name of a school.
Jails are built to keep criminals from entering or staying in society to prevent them from doing harm. In order to achieve this, they lock the prisoners in their cells, allowing them minimal contact with the general law-abiding public. There they will remain, until a time the criminals are deemed to have reformed, or learnt from the error of their ways and thus will not pollute society with their crimes any further. In a school, the "prisoners", also known as students, are kept in their respective cells, known as classrooms, for the majority of the day. Does this not minimise their contact with the rest of the world? As if this was not enough, students are also expected to continue remaining in their prison for a long enough period of time until they have acquired enough knowledge to cease to be considered "ignorant", thereby freeing them of guilt from their initial crime of ignorance. These similarities basically show the relationship between a jail for the ignorant, and a jail for the rest of the criminals.
Prisons expect the prisoners to be clad in one identical set of clothing to identify them, and likely, to prevent any one individual prisoner from being too different from the rest of the prisoners, and to differentiate the prisoners from the wardens. In mainstream schools, students don their uniforms, which dismisses any thought of individuality, probably in the hope that none will be able to resist the urge to conform and lead the others astray, or to escape from this jail they have no choice but to be cooped up in. Is this not yet another proof that students are actually deemed as criminals rather than law abiding citizens, even though they have not willingly committed any crimes?
Furthermore, there's also the stigma placed by society on criminals that immediately render them unable to seek a better life even if they have managed to escape from their jail term, by being permanently labeled. Convicted criminals are unable to enter places of interest or just about anywhere without fear of being apprehended or shunned by society. Students, also, are prevented from entering such premises unless they adorn a camouflage which manages to conceal their identity as criminals of ignorance. Students are not allowed to access recreational facilities such as game arcades or billiard houses during their "jail term", also known as lesson time, which being chased out by the operators in the facilities, under the grounds of being "under-aged". Don't they mean "unlawful ignorants" instead?
Of course, all these only hold true if it is considered that being ignorant might be a crime, and who's to say it's not, other than the governments of the world with their subtle propaganda? Let the students roam free, I say, and let them not be looked upon as criminals for not knowing enough about the world.
Individualism, and not a conformist attitude, is the way to go for the world.
Saturday 13 October 2007
Tuesday 22 May 2007
The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
Media is not corrupting our society.
The main reason why people feel that the media corrupts our society is due to our disgust and anger in its displays of violence and pornography, which are often accused of corrupting the minds of children and the young.
However, they fail to even clearly state the form in which the media corrupts the public. Some people feel that media’s corruption is more in the form of violence, killing and massacre. Others may see pornography as a greater form of corruption. Political party members may even claim corruption as the dissemination of information that do not adhere to their political aims, such as introducing communism in a democratic state or vice versa. With such a poor definition of the way in which media corrupts society, we can never be certain about what in the media is corrupting. What appears to be corrupting to one person may be seen as by another as a way to a way in educating the people of the harsh realities of life.
Furthermore, the media is not necessarily the one responsible for the corruption of society. Ironically, it is actually the changing of opinions and the creation of a more "open" society that has caused this "corruption". As more people in the world become more open to new trends and practices, the control over the media has also loosened. There is an increasing airing of shows and movies on violence, bloodshed and gore such as SAW and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which actually enjoyed large viewership. The very fact that there is an increasing demand for such shows means that society is actually encouraging the airing of such shows. This brings about the controversial question: is it the society or the media that is corrupting?
The actual fact is that the decline of morality in the society has caused the decline of media morality and it is not the other way round. Furthermore, the statistics obtained from a survey entitled "Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won't Stop Violence" have demonstrated that while research indicates numerous causes for violence, none of them link directly to media violence.
"When violent crimes hit the headlines, people want to lash out at something, anything, and assign blame," said David Horowitz, Executive Director of the Media Coalition. "The media is too often that something, even though, as our report found, there is no causal link between the violent content in the media and real violence."
While the accessibility to violence depicted in various forms of the media, such as books, magazines, movies, music, TV and video games have risen during the 1990s, violent crime has, instead, fallen to its lowest level in nearly 30 years.
The survey also notes that even research linking media with violent content to an increase in aggressive play, such as children's wrestling, as opposed to actual violence, is contradictory.
It should also be considered that television viewers are watching out of their own accord. They have a choice of whether or not to watch. If someone feels that a program has inappropriate content, he can simply change the channel or shut off the television. It is ridiculous to accuse the media of corrupting society when people can fix the problem by this simple act of discretion, assuming they themselves are not corrupt. If we were to ignore the fact that the media is not an entity independent of human control and treat it as another being with the ability to corrupt, then the situation can be seen as a willing speaker conveying ideas to a willing listener, the keyword in this case being "willing". Is the speaker at fault for speaking, even though the listener has a choice that can be easily exercised to not listen to the speaker? Or should be listener be blamed instead, for actively listening so that he may be corrupted by the ideals put forward by the speaker?
Furthermore, most people blame the mass media for the increasingly violent nature of the society, which contributes to the corruption of our children. We believe that the media are not the sole or even the primary cause of those problems. Blaming media for changes in childhood and social problems has shifted our public conversation away from addressing the real problems that impact child’s lives.
The main reason is that politicians are using the media rather than budgeting the money to address these problems. Lower-income people ‘have more experiences with the reality of problems like violence’; they know the media are not a big part of the equation in their struggles to keep their children safe in troubled communities
Media does not reach children in a vacuum. Children process the messages they receive in the context of their value systems. By giving children the tools they need to understand what they are seeing and hearing, parents can help their children absorb a wide range of media and messages consistent with the positive values taught by parents, teachers and peers.
In conclusion, we have to note that the very idea of "media” is formed by the society. Thus, how is it that the knife is blamed for the murderer’s deed?
The main reason why people feel that the media corrupts our society is due to our disgust and anger in its displays of violence and pornography, which are often accused of corrupting the minds of children and the young.
However, they fail to even clearly state the form in which the media corrupts the public. Some people feel that media’s corruption is more in the form of violence, killing and massacre. Others may see pornography as a greater form of corruption. Political party members may even claim corruption as the dissemination of information that do not adhere to their political aims, such as introducing communism in a democratic state or vice versa. With such a poor definition of the way in which media corrupts society, we can never be certain about what in the media is corrupting. What appears to be corrupting to one person may be seen as by another as a way to a way in educating the people of the harsh realities of life.
Furthermore, the media is not necessarily the one responsible for the corruption of society. Ironically, it is actually the changing of opinions and the creation of a more "open" society that has caused this "corruption". As more people in the world become more open to new trends and practices, the control over the media has also loosened. There is an increasing airing of shows and movies on violence, bloodshed and gore such as SAW and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which actually enjoyed large viewership. The very fact that there is an increasing demand for such shows means that society is actually encouraging the airing of such shows. This brings about the controversial question: is it the society or the media that is corrupting?
The actual fact is that the decline of morality in the society has caused the decline of media morality and it is not the other way round. Furthermore, the statistics obtained from a survey entitled "Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won't Stop Violence" have demonstrated that while research indicates numerous causes for violence, none of them link directly to media violence.
"When violent crimes hit the headlines, people want to lash out at something, anything, and assign blame," said David Horowitz, Executive Director of the Media Coalition. "The media is too often that something, even though, as our report found, there is no causal link between the violent content in the media and real violence."
While the accessibility to violence depicted in various forms of the media, such as books, magazines, movies, music, TV and video games have risen during the 1990s, violent crime has, instead, fallen to its lowest level in nearly 30 years.
The survey also notes that even research linking media with violent content to an increase in aggressive play, such as children's wrestling, as opposed to actual violence, is contradictory.
It should also be considered that television viewers are watching out of their own accord. They have a choice of whether or not to watch. If someone feels that a program has inappropriate content, he can simply change the channel or shut off the television. It is ridiculous to accuse the media of corrupting society when people can fix the problem by this simple act of discretion, assuming they themselves are not corrupt. If we were to ignore the fact that the media is not an entity independent of human control and treat it as another being with the ability to corrupt, then the situation can be seen as a willing speaker conveying ideas to a willing listener, the keyword in this case being "willing". Is the speaker at fault for speaking, even though the listener has a choice that can be easily exercised to not listen to the speaker? Or should be listener be blamed instead, for actively listening so that he may be corrupted by the ideals put forward by the speaker?
Furthermore, most people blame the mass media for the increasingly violent nature of the society, which contributes to the corruption of our children. We believe that the media are not the sole or even the primary cause of those problems. Blaming media for changes in childhood and social problems has shifted our public conversation away from addressing the real problems that impact child’s lives.
The main reason is that politicians are using the media rather than budgeting the money to address these problems. Lower-income people ‘have more experiences with the reality of problems like violence’; they know the media are not a big part of the equation in their struggles to keep their children safe in troubled communities
Media does not reach children in a vacuum. Children process the messages they receive in the context of their value systems. By giving children the tools they need to understand what they are seeing and hearing, parents can help their children absorb a wide range of media and messages consistent with the positive values taught by parents, teachers and peers.
In conclusion, we have to note that the very idea of "media” is formed by the society. Thus, how is it that the knife is blamed for the murderer’s deed?
Wednesday 16 May 2007
The problem with the modern media is they do not have a sense of social justice. Do you agree?
"Social justice 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."
- "Social Justice", as defined by Wikipedia.
Based on just the above definition of social justice, it is true that the media does not have a sense of social justice. That is, it does not give every individual and group fair treatments and a just share of the benefits of society.
Terrorists are easily the most identifiable group of people who do not receive treatment from the media that is equal to other groups. An article from BBC entitled "Isolating terrorists; preserving justice" gives a report on the arrest of Babar Ahmad due to his alleged links with terrorism. In the article, even though unequal treatment of Babar Ahmad by the media was not explicitly displayed, the use of certain phrases show the media's lack of a sense of social justice. One of these is "His father is proud of him and still believes in him, despite the fact that in 2003 he was arrested under anti-terrorism laws." In this case, they are fairly obviously hinting that being arrested under anti-terrorism laws made him unworthy for his father to be proud of him.
However, this may be due to the fact that terrorists are criminals in the eyes of the law and society in general. Thus, the media is pressurised to treat Babar less kindly than non criminals.
Yet that does not give a reason as to why the media expresses racism, especially by the Caucasians against the Asians. A recurring example of blatant racism is the television series, "South Park". In one particular episode(Warning: Do not visit if you are extremely sensitive to coarse language and may die upon reading them), the cast goes to China for a dodgeball competition, where most of the examples of racism in this episode occurs. It may be justifiable for the media to behave less fairly towards criminals, but what about different races?
Yes, profits may be what fuels the existence of such lack of social justice from the media, and showing the people what they want to see, for example, controversial issues, is the most direct route to earning revenue for the media. But shouldn't it be about time that the media stops and checks itself? Is social justice so easily substitutable for profits, or can the shreds of morality barely existing in the media cause a change in their actions?
- "Social Justice", as defined by Wikipedia.
Based on just the above definition of social justice, it is true that the media does not have a sense of social justice. That is, it does not give every individual and group fair treatments and a just share of the benefits of society.
Terrorists are easily the most identifiable group of people who do not receive treatment from the media that is equal to other groups. An article from BBC entitled "Isolating terrorists; preserving justice" gives a report on the arrest of Babar Ahmad due to his alleged links with terrorism. In the article, even though unequal treatment of Babar Ahmad by the media was not explicitly displayed, the use of certain phrases show the media's lack of a sense of social justice. One of these is "His father is proud of him and still believes in him, despite the fact that in 2003 he was arrested under anti-terrorism laws." In this case, they are fairly obviously hinting that being arrested under anti-terrorism laws made him unworthy for his father to be proud of him.
However, this may be due to the fact that terrorists are criminals in the eyes of the law and society in general. Thus, the media is pressurised to treat Babar less kindly than non criminals.
Yet that does not give a reason as to why the media expresses racism, especially by the Caucasians against the Asians. A recurring example of blatant racism is the television series, "South Park". In one particular episode(Warning: Do not visit if you are extremely sensitive to coarse language and may die upon reading them), the cast goes to China for a dodgeball competition, where most of the examples of racism in this episode occurs. It may be justifiable for the media to behave less fairly towards criminals, but what about different races?
Yes, profits may be what fuels the existence of such lack of social justice from the media, and showing the people what they want to see, for example, controversial issues, is the most direct route to earning revenue for the media. But shouldn't it be about time that the media stops and checks itself? Is social justice so easily substitutable for profits, or can the shreds of morality barely existing in the media cause a change in their actions?
Wednesday 9 May 2007
The media is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
The first response to this question from many people would be a firm nod of agreement. After all, the media IS a powerful tool in influencing many of our decisions and perceptions of situations. However, if one were to delve deeper into this issue, the answer may not seem as distinct as it originally appeared.
It is undoubtedly true that there are instances where the media is seen to corrupt our society. Cho Seung-Hui, the university student who shot and killed 32 people, is claimed to have been influenced by the movie "Oldboy" because of one of his photographs sent to NBC was said to have been in a position similar to an image used in promoting the movie, even though this was later proved to be untrue.
The fear of the media's ability to corrupt society is further displayed when they were requested by Peter Read, the father of a victim in the Virginia Tech massacre, to "stop airing Cho's manifesto".
Besides this, there have also been accusations from Jack Thompson, an infamous character in the gaming community due to his strong views against video games with violence, that many musical performances contain obscenities and should not be released.
However, we have to first look at how the media is defined. Is the media to be regarded as an entity entirely separate from the society? Or is it just a label for a part of the society that attempts to communicate with the rest of the society? Of course, the media cannot exist without humans from the society controlling it. From the above examples, it can also be seen that the fears of our society being corrupted by the media stems from members of the society, be it Cho Seung-Hui, NBC, the gaming industry or even Jack Thompson.
The act of corruption can therefore not be blamed entirely on the media, but rather, the members of society who abuse it to corrupt the society. Thus, a more appropriate question to ask now would be, "Is our society corrupting itself?"
It is undoubtedly true that there are instances where the media is seen to corrupt our society. Cho Seung-Hui, the university student who shot and killed 32 people, is claimed to have been influenced by the movie "Oldboy" because of one of his photographs sent to NBC was said to have been in a position similar to an image used in promoting the movie, even though this was later proved to be untrue.
The fear of the media's ability to corrupt society is further displayed when they were requested by Peter Read, the father of a victim in the Virginia Tech massacre, to "stop airing Cho's manifesto".
Besides this, there have also been accusations from Jack Thompson, an infamous character in the gaming community due to his strong views against video games with violence, that many musical performances contain obscenities and should not be released.
However, we have to first look at how the media is defined. Is the media to be regarded as an entity entirely separate from the society? Or is it just a label for a part of the society that attempts to communicate with the rest of the society? Of course, the media cannot exist without humans from the society controlling it. From the above examples, it can also be seen that the fears of our society being corrupted by the media stems from members of the society, be it Cho Seung-Hui, NBC, the gaming industry or even Jack Thompson.
The act of corruption can therefore not be blamed entirely on the media, but rather, the members of society who abuse it to corrupt the society. Thus, a more appropriate question to ask now would be, "Is our society corrupting itself?"
Wednesday 2 May 2007
Virginia Tech Massacre: Racial Discrimination
In our modern society, racial discrimination appears to be something that is frowned upon, no matter where you are. However, if you would pay just a little more attention to the things that happen in the world, racial discrimination is rampant, though subtly.
One recent example of racial discrimination is in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre.
One of the first descriptions obtained about Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter in the massacre, was that he was "a young man of Asian descent". This may not be enough to prove the existence of racial discrimination, but as more information about him was revealed, the media began to harp on the fact that he was a South Korean. Had he been a white American, would headlines still carry titles such as "Korean student named as Virginia Tech massacre gunman"?
Furthermore, the police was seen to have detained another Asian man during the incident. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=448955&in_page_id=1811&ct=5)
The question here is, if the shooter had not been an Asian, but rather, a white American, would the police have gone around arresting any white Americans who fit the bill? The answer is quite clearly a "no".
However, a reason for this might be due to the sheer number of white Americans on the campus as compared to the number of Asians. Due to this small number of Asians, the chances of detaining the killer would be greatly heightened with every Asian arrested, as compared to the odds in finding the criminal if random Americans were to be detained.
Even though many news articles report the killer as being a Korean, this may still not be a sign of racial discrimination. The news reports things that are out of the ordinary, such as a massacre, as it is information that people would want to know. If we are currently in anarchy, breaking news would then be the opposite of what we are seeing now, as murder and mayhem make up the norm, and is not worth reporting. This same idea can be applied to the reporting of the murderer as an Asian, or more specifically, a Korean. If the massacre happened in Korea, it is unlikely for the media to constantly repeat that the killer was Korean, as this is to be expected. However, if a Korean was to commit a crime in America, it would be newsworthy and thus attract the attention of the public because even though massacres are rare, massacres carried out by a minority race are even less likely to occur.
Thus, the existence of racial discrimination in the media is largely up to the reader to decide on, and clear judgments are difficult to pass, as they would often be rebutted by another reader with a different perception.
One recent example of racial discrimination is in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre.
One of the first descriptions obtained about Cho Seung-Hui, the shooter in the massacre, was that he was "a young man of Asian descent". This may not be enough to prove the existence of racial discrimination, but as more information about him was revealed, the media began to harp on the fact that he was a South Korean. Had he been a white American, would headlines still carry titles such as "Korean student named as Virginia Tech massacre gunman"?
Furthermore, the police was seen to have detained another Asian man during the incident. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=448955&in_page_id=1811&ct=5)
The question here is, if the shooter had not been an Asian, but rather, a white American, would the police have gone around arresting any white Americans who fit the bill? The answer is quite clearly a "no".
However, a reason for this might be due to the sheer number of white Americans on the campus as compared to the number of Asians. Due to this small number of Asians, the chances of detaining the killer would be greatly heightened with every Asian arrested, as compared to the odds in finding the criminal if random Americans were to be detained.
Even though many news articles report the killer as being a Korean, this may still not be a sign of racial discrimination. The news reports things that are out of the ordinary, such as a massacre, as it is information that people would want to know. If we are currently in anarchy, breaking news would then be the opposite of what we are seeing now, as murder and mayhem make up the norm, and is not worth reporting. This same idea can be applied to the reporting of the murderer as an Asian, or more specifically, a Korean. If the massacre happened in Korea, it is unlikely for the media to constantly repeat that the killer was Korean, as this is to be expected. However, if a Korean was to commit a crime in America, it would be newsworthy and thus attract the attention of the public because even though massacres are rare, massacres carried out by a minority race are even less likely to occur.
Thus, the existence of racial discrimination in the media is largely up to the reader to decide on, and clear judgments are difficult to pass, as they would often be rebutted by another reader with a different perception.
Wednesday 18 April 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.
The mass media, once thought of as a reliable medium for the dissemination of news, is gradually losing the trust of its audience due to an increasing number and occurrence of exaggerated claims and even outright lies. This can be seen further on in the post from the quoted recent events. But before we begin, what is the definition of the term, "recent events"? "Recent", on its own, is defined to be of the immediate past or just previous to the present time (AND approximately the last 10,000 years, but that'd be far too unfeasible considering we're talking about news, which changes daily), which has an ambiguous connotation, while "events" signifies something that happens at a given place and time. Combining the meanings of the two words into that of one phrase, the definition of "Recent events" can be derived to be something that happens at a given place and of the immediate past.
On April 17 2007, The Straits Times published an article on the front page on the massacre in Virginia Tech. The massacre was described to be "America's deadliest ever school massacre". However, this claim is untrue. According to Wikipedia, the Bath School disaster claimed the lives of 45 people and injured 58, which had a higher death toll than the 32 in the Virginia massacre. It would've been more accurate to note this as the deadliest ever school shooting, instead of exaggerating the event and claiming it to be the deadliest massacre.
This does not mean that only disasters are the victims of the media's tweaking of facts. Even something as trivial as Madonna's visit to Malawi can be abused by the media to increase readership at the expense of truth. News24.com accuses the orphanage of "mobilising" the orphans to chant slogans and throw stones at journalists to deter them from approaching the orphanage. But such a thing never occurred, according to a journalist at Associated Press, who made no mention of such an act, and only mentioned about the police and Madonna's security preventing journalists and onlookers from entering the compound.
Another example of the media coming up with false figures is the sheer number of different statistics provided by different news sources, with a huge contrast between Washington Post's 1,300 deaths in Iraq and The New York Times' 246 casualties, even though both of them claim to have obtained their figures from the same source, namely Baghdad's main morgue.
However, we cannot merely look at the faults and inconsistencies between the media and the truths and ignore the fact that the mass media is ALSO reporting the news, though a small amount of it may be altered. The crux of the matter is to acknowledge the fact that the mass media is our most important source of news while at the same time realising that we must not only rely on one avenue of information to get the whole truth, because the media tends to report half truths, and half truths make for good lies, thus cross-referencing with regards to news items is required.
On April 17 2007, The Straits Times published an article on the front page on the massacre in Virginia Tech. The massacre was described to be "America's deadliest ever school massacre". However, this claim is untrue. According to Wikipedia, the Bath School disaster claimed the lives of 45 people and injured 58, which had a higher death toll than the 32 in the Virginia massacre. It would've been more accurate to note this as the deadliest ever school shooting, instead of exaggerating the event and claiming it to be the deadliest massacre.
This does not mean that only disasters are the victims of the media's tweaking of facts. Even something as trivial as Madonna's visit to Malawi can be abused by the media to increase readership at the expense of truth. News24.com accuses the orphanage of "mobilising" the orphans to chant slogans and throw stones at journalists to deter them from approaching the orphanage. But such a thing never occurred, according to a journalist at Associated Press, who made no mention of such an act, and only mentioned about the police and Madonna's security preventing journalists and onlookers from entering the compound.
Another example of the media coming up with false figures is the sheer number of different statistics provided by different news sources, with a huge contrast between Washington Post's 1,300 deaths in Iraq and The New York Times' 246 casualties, even though both of them claim to have obtained their figures from the same source, namely Baghdad's main morgue.
However, we cannot merely look at the faults and inconsistencies between the media and the truths and ignore the fact that the mass media is ALSO reporting the news, though a small amount of it may be altered. The crux of the matter is to acknowledge the fact that the mass media is our most important source of news while at the same time realising that we must not only rely on one avenue of information to get the whole truth, because the media tends to report half truths, and half truths make for good lies, thus cross-referencing with regards to news items is required.
Wednesday 11 April 2007
1. “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?
"YouTube". It has become a common avenue for people to share videos, be it for a more useful purpose like education or just to while one's time away. Occasionally, YouTube even makes the headlines on certain popular websites such as Slashdot! But, despite its increasing popularity, has anyone given a thought on how ethical YouTube is?
To Viacom and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), YouTube can be seen as an unethical, money hungry corporation that ignores any copyright laws for the sole purpose of generating profits and publicity. Looking at it from the copyright holders' points of view, you may find that Viacom and MPAA are fully justified in targeting YouTube with their accusations. If you depend on the media industry for a living, and obtain profits from the sale of items such as original video CDs, YouTube's existence may only affect you negatively, that is the threatening of your livelihood.
The main reason for their claim is due to the many copyrighted videos found on YouTube. However, according to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, YouTube is not to be found guilty as it is not to be held responsible for the misuse of its service provided by the users. Furthermore, YouTube relies on the viewers to report any unauthorised material to them, according to its website. Thus, YouTube cannot be said to be entirely unethical in its dealings with copyright issues.
But even though YouTube is not necessarily unethical, it is not particularly justified in its inaction against copyrighted videos as long as they are not reported.
Now, is YouTube's sole purpose to provide entertainment and to earn money? This question is entirely up to one's perception as no clear answer to it has been provided by either of the founders of YouTube, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen. In my opinion, then, it is rather obvious that YouTube IS indeed created to provide entertainment and to earn money. The reason for this is the fact that YouTube was created in the first place. How many corporations out there were actually set up to achieve an aim other than to generate income for its founder? Considering the fact that YouTube was built on the idea that it would be a medium for people to share their videos freely, it's safe to say that it is also made for the purpose of entertainment.
I cannot fully agree with the statement as I disagree that YouTube has no ethics whatsoever, yet I agree with the later part of it, that is, YouTube has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. Thus, I am unable to make a distinct stand as the former and the latter part of the question conflict.
To Viacom and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), YouTube can be seen as an unethical, money hungry corporation that ignores any copyright laws for the sole purpose of generating profits and publicity. Looking at it from the copyright holders' points of view, you may find that Viacom and MPAA are fully justified in targeting YouTube with their accusations. If you depend on the media industry for a living, and obtain profits from the sale of items such as original video CDs, YouTube's existence may only affect you negatively, that is the threatening of your livelihood.
The main reason for their claim is due to the many copyrighted videos found on YouTube. However, according to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, YouTube is not to be found guilty as it is not to be held responsible for the misuse of its service provided by the users. Furthermore, YouTube relies on the viewers to report any unauthorised material to them, according to its website. Thus, YouTube cannot be said to be entirely unethical in its dealings with copyright issues.
But even though YouTube is not necessarily unethical, it is not particularly justified in its inaction against copyrighted videos as long as they are not reported.
Now, is YouTube's sole purpose to provide entertainment and to earn money? This question is entirely up to one's perception as no clear answer to it has been provided by either of the founders of YouTube, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen. In my opinion, then, it is rather obvious that YouTube IS indeed created to provide entertainment and to earn money. The reason for this is the fact that YouTube was created in the first place. How many corporations out there were actually set up to achieve an aim other than to generate income for its founder? Considering the fact that YouTube was built on the idea that it would be a medium for people to share their videos freely, it's safe to say that it is also made for the purpose of entertainment.
I cannot fully agree with the statement as I disagree that YouTube has no ethics whatsoever, yet I agree with the later part of it, that is, YouTube has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money. Thus, I am unable to make a distinct stand as the former and the latter part of the question conflict.
Sunday 1 April 2007
‘The teenage years are the best years of one’s life.’ Would you agree with this view? (CAMBRIDGE NOV 1994)
The term "teenager", although often used to describe any youths who are in a transitional stage between being a child and becoming an adult, is actually defined as "a person whose age is a number ending in "teen" in the English language: that is to say, someone from the age of 13 to the age of 19", according to a search on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Thus, from the definition above, I have been a teenager for over three years, and counting. Although the previous two years seemed to be the worst period of my life, things have drastically taken a turn for the better. I won't be surprised if these few years actually turn out to be the best years of my life, considering how I will be facing even tougher challenges after the end of my teenage life, such as the eventual struggle for a degree, and employment.
Friends are an integral part of life. And school, which takes up the bulk of any teenager's life in Singapore, due to Singapore's laws on education, is, in my opinion, the best time to make lasting friendships. In school, we are placed with a number of our peers in a class, where we are expected to work together and help one another along the academic path to success. It is thus almost impossible to not make friends in this setting.
Furthermore, there is no fixed number of people who are allowed to excel in examinations, as it is based on meritocracy. However, in the workplace, many people can be vying for one position, and so it is more likely for your trust to be betrayed by one whom you regarded as your friend, just so he or she can be promoted.
However, there are also teenagers who cringe at the very mention of the term "school". They, in my opinion, are ones who fail to make a valid comparison between the harsh demands of the working world and the relatively more carefree environment in school. In school, we are still given leeway when we fail to submit our assignments on time, as this would not adversely threaten our teachers' livelihood, whereas at work, a late assignment could result in major losses for our employers, putting us at great danger of getting the boot.
Another reason is the fact that humans are greedy. Though many may claim they aren't a glutton, they are, in one way or another, still desiring for more than what they currently possess. This results in dissatisfaction with life for humans of all ages, not merely teenagers, even though we may appear to be the only ones unhappy with our lives as we tend to be more vocal about our dislikes.
Thus, the teenage years ARE the best years of one's life, even though we fail to appreciate it at times due to our judgement being clouded by a sudden influx of work, and stress.
Thus, from the definition above, I have been a teenager for over three years, and counting. Although the previous two years seemed to be the worst period of my life, things have drastically taken a turn for the better. I won't be surprised if these few years actually turn out to be the best years of my life, considering how I will be facing even tougher challenges after the end of my teenage life, such as the eventual struggle for a degree, and employment.
Friends are an integral part of life. And school, which takes up the bulk of any teenager's life in Singapore, due to Singapore's laws on education, is, in my opinion, the best time to make lasting friendships. In school, we are placed with a number of our peers in a class, where we are expected to work together and help one another along the academic path to success. It is thus almost impossible to not make friends in this setting.
Furthermore, there is no fixed number of people who are allowed to excel in examinations, as it is based on meritocracy. However, in the workplace, many people can be vying for one position, and so it is more likely for your trust to be betrayed by one whom you regarded as your friend, just so he or she can be promoted.
However, there are also teenagers who cringe at the very mention of the term "school". They, in my opinion, are ones who fail to make a valid comparison between the harsh demands of the working world and the relatively more carefree environment in school. In school, we are still given leeway when we fail to submit our assignments on time, as this would not adversely threaten our teachers' livelihood, whereas at work, a late assignment could result in major losses for our employers, putting us at great danger of getting the boot.
Another reason is the fact that humans are greedy. Though many may claim they aren't a glutton, they are, in one way or another, still desiring for more than what they currently possess. This results in dissatisfaction with life for humans of all ages, not merely teenagers, even though we may appear to be the only ones unhappy with our lives as we tend to be more vocal about our dislikes.
Thus, the teenage years ARE the best years of one's life, even though we fail to appreciate it at times due to our judgement being clouded by a sudden influx of work, and stress.
Saturday 17 March 2007
To Start Anew
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."
- Charles Dickens
The past two months that have been more or less a transition phase for my entry into junior college life left me with a whirlwind of emotions. Perhaps my departure from Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Secondary School (KCPSS) was more of a double-edged sword than merely joy and elation after all.
During the first orientation, I felt as though I'd made better friends in just a matter of days, as compared to the numerous sworn enemies in the four years I'd spent in KCPSS.
However, as time passed, conflicts arose, disagreements occurred, relationships fell apart, and to add to all that, I felt as though I was falling behind on school work again. It felt like secondary school all over again! Only this time, I don't have my only friend to rant to anymore. I was on my own. Again.
Then it hit me. I didn't succeed in causing myself to be the most hated person in KCPSS in just a couple of days. The first signs of resentment from the school towards me also happened as a result of my unsatisfactory attitude towards people over a longer period of time. Thus, my journey in a foreign environment will start all over again come Monday, 19th March. This time, it'll end up without everyone hating me. Hopefully.
Hello there. My name is Francis, and I come from Bishan. I'd prefer to not introduce myself in too much detail, as you would be more likely to find out my idiosyncrasies through personal encounters with yours truly. I will, however, provide you with some of my interests in general. I like to involve myself in recreation, both indoor and outdoor, and I often sit in front of the computer, clueless about my initial objective in turning this complex mechanism on. I wouldn't like talk about the things I dislike, but I should, so I will. I loathe hypocrites, even though I can't say I'm not one myself. Finally, to end off, I will admit that there is one thing that scares the daylights out of me, though I won't specify what. For my own safety.
- Charles Dickens
The past two months that have been more or less a transition phase for my entry into junior college life left me with a whirlwind of emotions. Perhaps my departure from Kuo Chuan Presbyterian Secondary School (KCPSS) was more of a double-edged sword than merely joy and elation after all.
During the first orientation, I felt as though I'd made better friends in just a matter of days, as compared to the numerous sworn enemies in the four years I'd spent in KCPSS.
However, as time passed, conflicts arose, disagreements occurred, relationships fell apart, and to add to all that, I felt as though I was falling behind on school work again. It felt like secondary school all over again! Only this time, I don't have my only friend to rant to anymore. I was on my own. Again.
Then it hit me. I didn't succeed in causing myself to be the most hated person in KCPSS in just a couple of days. The first signs of resentment from the school towards me also happened as a result of my unsatisfactory attitude towards people over a longer period of time. Thus, my journey in a foreign environment will start all over again come Monday, 19th March. This time, it'll end up without everyone hating me. Hopefully.
Hello there. My name is Francis, and I come from Bishan. I'd prefer to not introduce myself in too much detail, as you would be more likely to find out my idiosyncrasies through personal encounters with yours truly. I will, however, provide you with some of my interests in general. I like to involve myself in recreation, both indoor and outdoor, and I often sit in front of the computer, clueless about my initial objective in turning this complex mechanism on. I wouldn't like talk about the things I dislike, but I should, so I will. I loathe hypocrites, even though I can't say I'm not one myself. Finally, to end off, I will admit that there is one thing that scares the daylights out of me, though I won't specify what. For my own safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)