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.
Wednesday 18 April 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)