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?
Tuesday 22 May 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)