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?

Does media speak the truth?
(Based on the article "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq" –6april2003)

Media exists in many different forms-newspapers, magazines, television, radios etc. It is the means of communication, which reach or influence people widely and hence it has the obligation to update us daily with the world’s happenings. But does the media always report the truth to us?

With the encouragement for the freedom of speech and their powerful command of English Language, today’s media frequently weave creative stories and present to us what they perceived over what is real. The information we received are only a part of the truth but when we zoom out our lens to take a look at the whole picture, we will often realize that we are misled by our innovating media.

The media is used as a tool by the government for propaganda purposes and the government will definitely not tolerate scandals or news that are of disadvantage to them. Eventually, it is understandable that media will only broadcast the glory of the government and make obscure reports on the mistakes made by government. With reference to the article "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq", my above stand is strongly supported.

As far as everyone knows, the Iraq war has sparked off as USA argued that Iraq is producing weapons of mass destruction. However, none of the arguments for war was substantiated from the start. There has been no weapons of mass destruction been found, so why does people still has the strong belief of the existence of such weapons? The phrase-"creative untruths" is used in the article to describe the news given to us by the reporters. From only two simple words, we can infer that media is not always trustworthy. They can lie. As quoted from the article, "Many Iraqi civilians have been crippled, traumatized and killed in 12 years of war", we can see that the usage of these words in bold have aroused our strong feelings towards the real situation in Iraq. We can eventually see the whole picture of this cruel reality through inference from these words- USA’s real motive of the Iraq war is to have full control of Iraqi oil. I believe only the minority is aware of this truth.To put it nicely, the media may have their restrictions or obligations to report a certain piece of information to the world and thus it is dependent on individuals whether or not to trust them in wholesale.

However, I personally feel that we should widen our scope and not just narrow our source of education to one. Only then, we will be able to look at things from different perspectives and eventually find our own conclusion to the issue.

Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?


Censorship is exercised in all forms of media. Government plays the parental role in regulating the powerful mass media in society, and they are the ones who determine what the media should present to the people. To censor or not to censor is a controversial topic and is subjected to individuals.

Media serves as a tool for us to receive new knowledge and to express our thoughts and feelings. If censorship was not carried out, people will be free to access any form of media and it will be of a higher possibility for them to get hold of taboo materials (politics, religions, horror, violence, pornography, racial etc). Singapore is a multi racial country and it is vital for people of different races and religions to live harmoniously together, hence is it very sensitive to discuss on topics such as racial and religion issues. If all has the freedom to voice out their thoughts and feelings, no one will ever think of the consequences of their words. A racial riot may spark off easily when one simply comments about a particular race and Singapore will be in a dire state. With censorship, the national security is guaranteed as it serves as a safety valve to prevent any exposure of sensitive materials that may anger the different racial groups.

Media is a trendsetter, it controls our behaviour. Internet, especially, is where we are able to access to almost everything in the world. Young children are most vulnerable towards pornography, they easily get addicted to it and promiscuity will be encouraged in them. This upsets the growing up process of a child and with their upright values tarnished, they may grow up into an incorrigible person. In this area of concern, censorship protects the young from early exposure of pornography, gore and violence by allowing them to mature in a healthy environment. It also protects the rest of the human population from gruesome images or scenes that may be disturbing them.

So gievn the above situations,Censorship can be justified.

However, government encourages us to express our thoughts and feelings freely but at the same time, they censor those comments that they view as taboo words. It is actually depriving us of the freedom of speech and violating our human rights by not revealing the truth to us.

Censorship easily causes misunderstanding, as the message is not brought clearly across. Without censorship, there will be transparency and will help demystify the doubts of people. The early exposure of certain things, such as sexual issues, may not be a bad thing after all as it can serve as an education for the young. Instead of blocking all access to it and arouse the curiosity of children, don’t you think that it will be better for us to first educate them and help clear their doubts for their questions? The ignorance of many things around the world is often the result of censorship. Transparency of media is a form of fairness to the population, as it reveals everything to the public and not hide any information from them.

In conclusion, censorship should take place so as to protect the society from materials that are morally unaccepted and offensive. Personally, I feel that censorship is necessary as even rationale people are often unable to differentiate the difference betweens what is right and what is wrong.Hence by exercising censorship, it will help us to drain away materials that are deem as taboos.


Reference:http://urbanrant.blogspot.com/search/label/media

Gun control isn't the answer.
-Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn't be tightening firearm laws.



I felt that with the recent incident that occurred in the US,regarding the shooting in Virginia Tech,there should still be stricter control over gun control.If the gun control was in place,the Korean student will have no access to his fatal weapon that took so many lives away.Thus this mishap could have been prevented.

Some might argue that a gun is not dangerous,but danger is caused by the man holding it,so they disagree to the concept of gun control.Morever,they argued that guns are in actual fact,use as a weapon for self-defense,thus guns should be allowed in a country.

However,i beg to differ.

Firstly,how could one man be sure of the motive of the other man holding the gun.If the gun does falls into the hands of a murderer,such as the Virginia Tech incident,lives will be lost at a instance and thousands other suffered due to their deaths.So,does it worth to allow even a respectable and trust-worthy man to hold on onto a gun,not even knowing if he has any other agenda?

Secondly,weapons like knives and swords can also be used for self defense.However it's illegial to carry them about.So i'll like to question why would people argued for guns to be allowed to carry around for self defense?The impact bought by a loose man shooting around is definitely greater than that of a losse man running and chopping people,as many will witness the act and have more time to run away,unlike that of a gun,as the victims have not much time to react,if there's even time for them to react in the first place.Morever,if gun control is practised,there will not even be a case of anyone using guns for self-defense,thus the need for Gun control is voided.