Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view should be adopted?
Singapore being a multi racial country has to maintain peace between four main ethnic groups as well as the minorities, so as to avoid any misunderstandings that could result in the downfall of the country. Currently, Singapore is a politically stable country where all races live in harmony. In order to ensure this unity continues, I think that Szilagyi’s view on the approach of social responsibility should be adopted. Freedom of expression, also known as freedom of speech, is no doubt important, especially in a democratic country. However, in Singapore’s context, it may prove to be risky.
If anyone in Singapore was allowed to speak his mind, and that person decided to make a comment that criticizes any one of the cultures or religions, havoc would be created. It is only natural that the group being offended gets angry, thus creating a drift between Singapore citizens. Even if the ideas expressed are factual and just happen to be unpopular, the feelings of others have to be taken into account as religion is an extremely sensitive issue. History has shown that clashes between different races have resulted in dreadful adversities. For example, the 1964 Race Riots in Singapore between the Chinese and Malay groups was an incident that ended up with many violent killings and injuries. Another example was the outcome of the publication of Danish cartoons ridiculing Muhammad which was a tragedy. Despite the social cohesion in Singapore, it is not guaranteed that a similar episode will not occur here. Thus, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to practice social responsibility.
Singer is right in saying that freedom of expression is crucial for individual dignity, participation of public in decision-making and accountability. Nevertheless, it should not be practiced at the expense of social responsibility. On the other hand, this method can be adopted if the citizens are socially responsible. This means that when people realize that religion is a delicate matter and needs to be handled with care, they will learn to be sensitive towards others. They will then speak with maturity because they have a responsibility towards the different communities and will not make comments that hurt others. Only then will it be possible to give them the right to express themselves.
Singer believes that imprisoning David Irving for holocaust denial was not the best way to handle the situation. I disagree because I think it is easier to prohibit one person from making such ridiculous statements then to try and make a whole group of offended individuals understand that the man was just expressing his view. In conclusion, I feel that Szilagyi’s reasoning is justified and taking into account Singapore’s multiracial background, social responsibility is the better approach.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
Censorship is the removal and withholding of information, which is considered objectionable, from the public. It usually done by government bodies, sometimes the mass media and even religious groups. The term “censorship” tends to give the impression that some secret is being withheld. Censorship is necessary in some circumstances while in others it is perceived as violating human rights, especially in that of freedom of speech. Although I do not agree that censorship can never be justified, I think there are some cases in which censorship in not justifiable.
Firstly, I will present the situation in which censorship can be justified. Moral censorship refers to the censoring of materials deemed to be morally incorrect. For example, pornography is usually censored under this rationale. Pornography can cause harm to women by degrading their social standing. Since its contents can be found on the Internet and the Internet has thousands of users that include children, the encountering of pornography can corrupt the minds of little ones. Pornography censorship can also come under religious censorship as it is insulting to certain religious values. Therefore, I think it is legitimate to disallow the viewing of pornography, in other words, censoring it.
Another situation would be that of enforcing censorship to protect children against violence. Images they see on television often influence kids and those deeply influenced also act like what they see on TV. Video games are getting more violent thus, giving children ideas to carry out violent behaviour and acts. In the case of violent movies, the influence of it also applies to adults. Censorship of these kind of movies limits the danger of destructive cinema without exceedingly limiting the freedom of speech. Hence, even in this case I think it is acceptable to allow censorship.
Democratic countries often boast of promoting their belief on freedom of speech. Hence, it is surprising to know that the people of that country have to fight for the right to free speech. One such organization that originated in the US is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose most recent campaign involves the rights of bloggers and citizen journalists. In this case censorship is said to be not justifiable because it does not allow for freedom of speech. They believe that everyone has the right to Blog anonymously, keep sources confidential, make comments without fear, freely Blog about elections and so forth. A quote by William O. Douglas, “Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us”, seems to indicate that censorship confines ones thinking. It also limits the power of the press to communicate issues, problems, and the agendas of those holding political power. In such events censorship is not justifiable.
In conclusion, censorship can be justified in incidents where it is harmful or insulting. Anyhow it should not be to the extent of limiting the flow of ideas and opinions, and forbidding the human right of free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Censorship/
http://www.eff.org/br/
Firstly, I will present the situation in which censorship can be justified. Moral censorship refers to the censoring of materials deemed to be morally incorrect. For example, pornography is usually censored under this rationale. Pornography can cause harm to women by degrading their social standing. Since its contents can be found on the Internet and the Internet has thousands of users that include children, the encountering of pornography can corrupt the minds of little ones. Pornography censorship can also come under religious censorship as it is insulting to certain religious values. Therefore, I think it is legitimate to disallow the viewing of pornography, in other words, censoring it.
Another situation would be that of enforcing censorship to protect children against violence. Images they see on television often influence kids and those deeply influenced also act like what they see on TV. Video games are getting more violent thus, giving children ideas to carry out violent behaviour and acts. In the case of violent movies, the influence of it also applies to adults. Censorship of these kind of movies limits the danger of destructive cinema without exceedingly limiting the freedom of speech. Hence, even in this case I think it is acceptable to allow censorship.
Democratic countries often boast of promoting their belief on freedom of speech. Hence, it is surprising to know that the people of that country have to fight for the right to free speech. One such organization that originated in the US is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, whose most recent campaign involves the rights of bloggers and citizen journalists. In this case censorship is said to be not justifiable because it does not allow for freedom of speech. They believe that everyone has the right to Blog anonymously, keep sources confidential, make comments without fear, freely Blog about elections and so forth. A quote by William O. Douglas, “Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us”, seems to indicate that censorship confines ones thinking. It also limits the power of the press to communicate issues, problems, and the agendas of those holding political power. In such events censorship is not justifiable.
In conclusion, censorship can be justified in incidents where it is harmful or insulting. Anyhow it should not be to the extent of limiting the flow of ideas and opinions, and forbidding the human right of free speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Censorship/
http://www.eff.org/br/
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Impacts of New Media
New media refers to any interactive media and communication methods usually developed in electronic forms, such as the Internet and Blogs. The impact of new media is evident in the fields of technology, economics and politics. Some impacts are positive while others are negative.
New media constantly changes at a rapid rate as it can be changed from any number of sources. Hence, it can be hard to keep up with the pace and may be difficult for companies to remain competitive in today’s digital markets. Major television channels such as BBC1 and 2 have seen increasing trends of attracting a much larger audience compared to other channels because of the switchover from analogue to digital television. According to a Professor Gunter, “In the future, TV reception will become increasingly available in other technologies such as personal computers linked to the internet and mobile telephones. TV sets themselves will become increasingly computerized and develop enhanced functions meaning the sets will be used more interactively.”
Another disadvantage of new media is the cost. As new media forms are almost entirely digital in nature, the cost of initial establishment and then the maintenance of the equipment, resources and manpower needed may pose a consequential problem for smaller businesses.
However there are many positive impacts of new media as well. Firstly, it is extremely convenient to buy products on the web from the comforts of your home. For example buying movie or concert tickets can be as easy as a few clicks away. Online auctioning is also very popular through websites such as Napster and eBay. All this is so common now, when just some time back the concepts and technology behind them did not even exist.
The new media also allows for freedom of speech through blogs or online diaries. It ensures that there are multiple sources of truth and hence a benefit of this media reformation is the flow of creativity. For example, the media coverage of American politics includes bloggers providing information to readers together with reporters from typical media. This illustrates new communications technology emerging as a medium through which such news is brought to readers which was formerly only accessible to the primary provider.
So, we can see that because of the progress new media has made, it is increasingly being used due to globalization. Thus, the impacts it has on technology, economics and politics are mostly positive with exceptions here and there.
http://www.24dash.com/education/20374.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media
http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/new_media_old_politics.html
New media constantly changes at a rapid rate as it can be changed from any number of sources. Hence, it can be hard to keep up with the pace and may be difficult for companies to remain competitive in today’s digital markets. Major television channels such as BBC1 and 2 have seen increasing trends of attracting a much larger audience compared to other channels because of the switchover from analogue to digital television. According to a Professor Gunter, “In the future, TV reception will become increasingly available in other technologies such as personal computers linked to the internet and mobile telephones. TV sets themselves will become increasingly computerized and develop enhanced functions meaning the sets will be used more interactively.”
Another disadvantage of new media is the cost. As new media forms are almost entirely digital in nature, the cost of initial establishment and then the maintenance of the equipment, resources and manpower needed may pose a consequential problem for smaller businesses.
However there are many positive impacts of new media as well. Firstly, it is extremely convenient to buy products on the web from the comforts of your home. For example buying movie or concert tickets can be as easy as a few clicks away. Online auctioning is also very popular through websites such as Napster and eBay. All this is so common now, when just some time back the concepts and technology behind them did not even exist.
The new media also allows for freedom of speech through blogs or online diaries. It ensures that there are multiple sources of truth and hence a benefit of this media reformation is the flow of creativity. For example, the media coverage of American politics includes bloggers providing information to readers together with reporters from typical media. This illustrates new communications technology emerging as a medium through which such news is brought to readers which was formerly only accessible to the primary provider.
So, we can see that because of the progress new media has made, it is increasingly being used due to globalization. Thus, the impacts it has on technology, economics and politics are mostly positive with exceptions here and there.
http://www.24dash.com/education/20374.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media
http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/new_media_old_politics.html
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The media Is corrupting our society. Do you agree?
Media influence refers to the theories about the ways in which the mass media affect how their audiences think and behave. I agree that the media is corrupting our society. The negative influence is caused by the showcasing of harmful images that tends to lure the audience into following by example. The media, the medium through which these images are shown to the world, comprises of old media and new media. Old media refers to newspapers, magazines, television and the radio, while new media refers to the World Wide Web and even blogs.
One major concern, that has been the talk of the town for quite some time now, is that of the increasing cases of eating disorders among women of ages as young as 9. The media has painted the image of the perfect woman through advertisements on TV, such as those of food products warning the dangers of women’s appetites, and through magazines by publishing pictures of very thin models and actresses. This is one reason why beauty endorsements have become an increasing trend lately. Even in beauty pageants it has been seen that over the years, the contestants’ weights and body measurements have decreased significantly. This leads women to become more conscious of their body and start dieting. Some starve themselves to the extent of contracting diseases such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia. One such case was that of Toni Tahoun, formerly an air stewardess, and her stepsister, Nina, both of whom suffered from anorexia. Toni sought help from a specialist and became much better, although she still struggles daily. Nina, however, was unable to hold on and died from a heart attack at the age of 25, in 1986.
Another large impact of the media is that on violent behaviour. The mass media plays a vital role in the forming of one’s opinions and subconsciously affects our minds. In a recent study it has been claimed that children who watch wrestling programmes are more likely to commit violent acts and carry weapons. True enough, in 1999, 12-year-old Floridian Lionel Tate killed a young while imitating moves he learnt from watching wrestlers on TV and was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment. Movies depicting violence have also corrupted people’s mindsets causing them to commit disastrous crimes. For example, the film Natural Born Killers, voted by Premiere as one of “The 25 Most Dangerous Movies”, has inspired several murders including the Columbine High School Massacre, where 14 people died including the 2 students carrying out the shooting rampage.
The media’s influence is even evident in the field of politics. The famous incident in which John F. Kennedy won Richard Nixon in the presidential race, was a result of him presenting himself and appearing better than Nixon on television. Another incident was that of Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for communist infiltrations in the US, which was broadcast frequently on TV, thus influencing the negative attitude of Americans towards communism, without a neutral viewpoint.
The evidence is glaringly obvious in all these incidents where media has caused harm in health, much violent tragedies and a president to be chosen on the basis of good looks. Hence, it can be clearly seen that the media has been corrupting our society and continues to do so.
http://www.geocities.com/starving4pride/MediasNegativeInfluence.html
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p010646.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Killers#Serial_killers.2FMass_murderers_emulating_the_film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_influence
One major concern, that has been the talk of the town for quite some time now, is that of the increasing cases of eating disorders among women of ages as young as 9. The media has painted the image of the perfect woman through advertisements on TV, such as those of food products warning the dangers of women’s appetites, and through magazines by publishing pictures of very thin models and actresses. This is one reason why beauty endorsements have become an increasing trend lately. Even in beauty pageants it has been seen that over the years, the contestants’ weights and body measurements have decreased significantly. This leads women to become more conscious of their body and start dieting. Some starve themselves to the extent of contracting diseases such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia. One such case was that of Toni Tahoun, formerly an air stewardess, and her stepsister, Nina, both of whom suffered from anorexia. Toni sought help from a specialist and became much better, although she still struggles daily. Nina, however, was unable to hold on and died from a heart attack at the age of 25, in 1986.
Another large impact of the media is that on violent behaviour. The mass media plays a vital role in the forming of one’s opinions and subconsciously affects our minds. In a recent study it has been claimed that children who watch wrestling programmes are more likely to commit violent acts and carry weapons. True enough, in 1999, 12-year-old Floridian Lionel Tate killed a young while imitating moves he learnt from watching wrestlers on TV and was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment. Movies depicting violence have also corrupted people’s mindsets causing them to commit disastrous crimes. For example, the film Natural Born Killers, voted by Premiere as one of “The 25 Most Dangerous Movies”, has inspired several murders including the Columbine High School Massacre, where 14 people died including the 2 students carrying out the shooting rampage.
The media’s influence is even evident in the field of politics. The famous incident in which John F. Kennedy won Richard Nixon in the presidential race, was a result of him presenting himself and appearing better than Nixon on television. Another incident was that of Joseph McCarthy’s hunt for communist infiltrations in the US, which was broadcast frequently on TV, thus influencing the negative attitude of Americans towards communism, without a neutral viewpoint.
The evidence is glaringly obvious in all these incidents where media has caused harm in health, much violent tragedies and a president to be chosen on the basis of good looks. Hence, it can be clearly seen that the media has been corrupting our society and continues to do so.
http://www.geocities.com/starving4pride/MediasNegativeInfluence.html
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p010646.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Killers#Serial_killers.2FMass_murderers_emulating_the_film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_influence
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Issues Arising From Virginia Tech Killings
The mass killing at Virginia Tech on 16 April 2007 has since triggered many debates in many areas of discussion. This tragedy has been much talked about and has shed light on the issues of gun policies, racial discrimination, censorship and many more. Naturally, after the shooting many became more aware of the legal laws following gun control in the USA, or rather the lack of it.
There are people who observed that now when guns are more difficult to obtain than in the past, the use of it to kill has increased. Then there are others who say that coherent and consistent laws could have prevented the South Korean killer, Cho, from acquiring weapons. Since Virginia tech is a gun-free zone, the gun should not have even brought there in the first place. However, Cho did not have much difficulty in purchasing the guns nor did he have much problem bringing the guns into the campus. In my opinion, nothing much could be done as the main reason Cho attacked the 32 people was because he was mentally unsound.
Another aspect of the arguments was that of immigration control. There is one indisputable fact about the shootings at Virginia Tech is that if Cho had not been allowed to immigrate to the USA, the incident would not have occurred in the first place. Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com, noticed that mass murders by immigrants have become a real trend. In fact they are accountable for 72 deaths in the last sixteen years. However again, immigrants should not be generalized, as it could have been anyone with the same disability.
The issue of racial discrimination aroused to the much emphasis on the fact that Cho was a South Korean. The attention media has brought to this detail undeservedly links ethnic Koreans as a group to the killings rather than that of an individual. South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun also sent three messages of condolences which a gave a somewhat impression that the South Koreans were at fault even though it was an individual, that happened to be a South Korean, who was responsible for the lives of many innocent people.
In conclusion, I think that all the issues arising from the mass murder at Virginia Tech University are a straying from the main cause of the killings, which is the poor mental condition of Cho Seung Hui.
There are people who observed that now when guns are more difficult to obtain than in the past, the use of it to kill has increased. Then there are others who say that coherent and consistent laws could have prevented the South Korean killer, Cho, from acquiring weapons. Since Virginia tech is a gun-free zone, the gun should not have even brought there in the first place. However, Cho did not have much difficulty in purchasing the guns nor did he have much problem bringing the guns into the campus. In my opinion, nothing much could be done as the main reason Cho attacked the 32 people was because he was mentally unsound.
Another aspect of the arguments was that of immigration control. There is one indisputable fact about the shootings at Virginia Tech is that if Cho had not been allowed to immigrate to the USA, the incident would not have occurred in the first place. Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com, noticed that mass murders by immigrants have become a real trend. In fact they are accountable for 72 deaths in the last sixteen years. However again, immigrants should not be generalized, as it could have been anyone with the same disability.
The issue of racial discrimination aroused to the much emphasis on the fact that Cho was a South Korean. The attention media has brought to this detail undeservedly links ethnic Koreans as a group to the killings rather than that of an individual. South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun also sent three messages of condolences which a gave a somewhat impression that the South Koreans were at fault even though it was an individual, that happened to be a South Korean, who was responsible for the lives of many innocent people.
In conclusion, I think that all the issues arising from the mass murder at Virginia Tech University are a straying from the main cause of the killings, which is the poor mental condition of Cho Seung Hui.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news. Discuss this with references to recent events.
It is true that there is a tendency for the media to add spices to their stories to make the news more interesting. The media refers to the different means of communication, namely the Internet, television, radio, newspapers and magazines. However recently, the mass media has also resolved to making up the news in order to sell their story. The examples I am going to site are based on recent events. These recent occurrences refer to late happenings in the 21st century.
On 14 March ’07, a report posted on the iNewswire Web site claimed that Hollywood actor Will Ferrell had met with a fatal accident, which had caused his death. Even though the report was taken away quickly, the damage had been done. Some of the public who had read the report actually sent flowers to the supposedly dead actor. Two weeks later, ABC News ran an article clarifying the mistake and reporting that Will Farrel was indeed alive and busy shooting for a movie.
The was also another incident where on 5 April ’07, The Romanian Embassy blamed the BBC for “stage-managing” a report about immigrants living in Hyde Park via the Newsnight reporters. Raduta Matache, the acting Romanian Ambassador, said that it was clear that BBC had set-up the whole thing, resulting in the violation of the ethics of journalism. A spokesman for Hyde Park admitted that people occasionally slept there, but said that there were regular patrols to stop encampments from being set up. Initially, the BBC had said that they were just giving Daniel, a 23-year-old, a small fee for contributing to the Newsnight and had not misled their audience at all. Later the BBC finally admitted to paying Daniel to film his ‘home’ even though he had already got a place in the hostel.
The third incident occurred a few years back in 2003 where the radio station 98.1 KISS in Chattanooga, Tennessee decisively announced that rapper Eminem would be doing a free show in a discount store parking lot. Convinced listeners were so mad at the DJ’s responsible for making the false announcement that they even threatened to harm them. Several police were needed to deal with the huge crowd. Both DJs were later jailed for creating a public nuisance. Even though this was intended as an April fool’s joke, there was no need to create such frenzy.
These are just a few episodes. There have been many more occasions where the media has created the news instead of reporting facts. This could have very serious consequences and the media may even lose the trust of the public if such events continue to occur.
Sources:
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/closeup/deathrumors/_a/have-no-fear-will-ferrell-is-alive-and/20060330085409990001
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/04/did_we_make_it_up.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article1615826.ece
http://english.hotnews.ro/BBC-accused-of-false-reporting-on-Romanian-immigrants-articol_44664.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools
On 14 March ’07, a report posted on the iNewswire Web site claimed that Hollywood actor Will Ferrell had met with a fatal accident, which had caused his death. Even though the report was taken away quickly, the damage had been done. Some of the public who had read the report actually sent flowers to the supposedly dead actor. Two weeks later, ABC News ran an article clarifying the mistake and reporting that Will Farrel was indeed alive and busy shooting for a movie.
The was also another incident where on 5 April ’07, The Romanian Embassy blamed the BBC for “stage-managing” a report about immigrants living in Hyde Park via the Newsnight reporters. Raduta Matache, the acting Romanian Ambassador, said that it was clear that BBC had set-up the whole thing, resulting in the violation of the ethics of journalism. A spokesman for Hyde Park admitted that people occasionally slept there, but said that there were regular patrols to stop encampments from being set up. Initially, the BBC had said that they were just giving Daniel, a 23-year-old, a small fee for contributing to the Newsnight and had not misled their audience at all. Later the BBC finally admitted to paying Daniel to film his ‘home’ even though he had already got a place in the hostel.
The third incident occurred a few years back in 2003 where the radio station 98.1 KISS in Chattanooga, Tennessee decisively announced that rapper Eminem would be doing a free show in a discount store parking lot. Convinced listeners were so mad at the DJ’s responsible for making the false announcement that they even threatened to harm them. Several police were needed to deal with the huge crowd. Both DJs were later jailed for creating a public nuisance. Even though this was intended as an April fool’s joke, there was no need to create such frenzy.
These are just a few episodes. There have been many more occasions where the media has created the news instead of reporting facts. This could have very serious consequences and the media may even lose the trust of the public if such events continue to occur.
Sources:
http://news.aol.com/entertainment/closeup/deathrumors/_a/have-no-fear-will-ferrell-is-alive-and/20060330085409990001
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/04/did_we_make_it_up.html
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article1615826.ece
http://english.hotnews.ro/BBC-accused-of-false-reporting-on-Romanian-immigrants-articol_44664.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
"YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money." Do you agree?
YouTube, bought by Google for $1.65b last year, is a popular free video sharing website that has a remarkable number of users. Since it was founded if Feb 2005, it has grown to become one of the most entertaining and popular websites on the internet. Does YouTube have no ethics? Has it been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money? I would think not.
It is true that YouTube has become the cause of many controversies regarding copyright infringement, violence and banning of the website in some countries. A large amount of content is being uploaded by people not permitted by United States copyright law to do so. Although the company often removes these contents, there are still cases of them being uploaded. The ITV News bulletin has also expressed their concern that YouTube encourages violence and bullying amongst teenagers, who engage in happy slapping. YouTube has also been prohibited in Iran to block corrupting foreign films and music. It has also been banned in Turkey and Thailand due to videos offending the Turks and the former Thai Prime Minister. All these events would lead one to think that YouTube does not follow a system of moral principles.
Why then is YouTube still so popular? This is because the benefits outweigh these few alleged affairs. YouTube is very convenient and effective way to show one's talents such as singing, dancing, playing an instrument, comedy acts and even video editing. In fact YouTube has led to the creation of many "internet celebrities", who are popular beings that have attracted much attention from their videos such as Brooke Brodac and Lisa Donovan. YouTube not only promotes creativity but acknowledges it as well. YouTube recently awarded some YouTube videos under the categories of “most creative”, “best comedy”, “most inspirational” and so forth. YouTube also features that are educational, such as documentaries and guides. The fact that YouTube entertains free of charge is extremely admirable. YouTube was named TIME magazine’s “Invention of the Year” for 2006.
Hence, I do not agree that YouTube has no ethics and has been created exclusively to entertain and earn money. In the process of promoting talent, YouTube may have caused some arguments, but this user-friendly site has many more functions than just to amuse and make profits.
It is true that YouTube has become the cause of many controversies regarding copyright infringement, violence and banning of the website in some countries. A large amount of content is being uploaded by people not permitted by United States copyright law to do so. Although the company often removes these contents, there are still cases of them being uploaded. The ITV News bulletin has also expressed their concern that YouTube encourages violence and bullying amongst teenagers, who engage in happy slapping. YouTube has also been prohibited in Iran to block corrupting foreign films and music. It has also been banned in Turkey and Thailand due to videos offending the Turks and the former Thai Prime Minister. All these events would lead one to think that YouTube does not follow a system of moral principles.
Why then is YouTube still so popular? This is because the benefits outweigh these few alleged affairs. YouTube is very convenient and effective way to show one's talents such as singing, dancing, playing an instrument, comedy acts and even video editing. In fact YouTube has led to the creation of many "internet celebrities", who are popular beings that have attracted much attention from their videos such as Brooke Brodac and Lisa Donovan. YouTube not only promotes creativity but acknowledges it as well. YouTube recently awarded some YouTube videos under the categories of “most creative”, “best comedy”, “most inspirational” and so forth. YouTube also features that are educational, such as documentaries and guides. The fact that YouTube entertains free of charge is extremely admirable. YouTube was named TIME magazine’s “Invention of the Year” for 2006.
Hence, I do not agree that YouTube has no ethics and has been created exclusively to entertain and earn money. In the process of promoting talent, YouTube may have caused some arguments, but this user-friendly site has many more functions than just to amuse and make profits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)