Censorship : Must or Boo

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is un/necessary.
Definitely censorship has its good points, otherwise it would not be implemented at all and the use of it would not be sustained. Is censorship a must or is it a boo? Some merits of censorship are namely, to protect and to preserve a society's certain mindset and values.

Through censorship, people can be protected from extreme violence, rude forms of images such as pornography, profanities and the list is infinite. People are protected from these because they are damaging. Some like extreme violence and pornography may affect a person's mind negatively causing a person to do things which he would normally not do in a right state of mind. Such examples can be found daily in the newspapers. For example, when a person watches an excessive dosage of violence and is obsessed with it by wanting to emulate what he sees, a serial killer may be born. So in this case, if violence and such are censored, many crimes and troubles would not have arise. Another more common example is when faces or body parts are censored in television programmes. A person's face may be blurred, that is censored, to protect his identity. In reality shows like "Survivor", it is inevitable that certain private parts of the participants' bodies are disclosed. It is then necessary to censor these images to protect the participants and also for the discretion of the viewers.

Some movies and films contain an anti-peace or anti-government message. These films promote conflict and may even disrupt social peace. By censoring these films or even disallow the screening of these films can preserve the peace that a society enjoys. Take for example if a film were anti-Christinity or any other religions, it would stir up a commotion here in Singapore. Social order would then fail to exist. A society such as modern Singapore is not conservative yet a portion of Singaporeans cannot accept concepts such as gay marriages which are approved in some countries. If television programmes do not censor such concepts deemed unacceptable by the society, it would influence people's mindsets and even values. Such is the influence of images.

On the other hand, censorship has its minus points too. Censorship witholds pieces of information from people, sometimes blurring the big picture. People would then be unable to have a factual overview and thus would have to infer. These inferences may not be justified and be wrong. There is also the issue of too much or too little is being censored. The line between too much and too little censor is fine and indeterminate. Censorship could also just simply be a delay of information.

Pornography may be censored in films and given a rating. However, people are able to find means of obtaining these censored materials. Censorship is not foolproof, it only helps to prevent or acts as a barricade. Its big failing point is it is not infallible. Censorship acts as a shielding screen but this screen is thin and penetrable. So censorship is not useful in this sense. Censorship causes naivety in people. Innocence by default is good but when is it naivety and when is it pure innocence? Knowledge is power as the saying goes. Does witholding knowledge from people equate to leaving them powerless? These are the pitfalls of censorship.

Despite the loopholes censorship has, I think that it is necessary. Censorship helps to shield and protect regardless of how effective or ineffective it may be. The absence of censorship will result in rampant widespread of extreme violence and other unhealthy materials. Therefore censorship must not be eliminated. Even though censorship may simply cause a delay in access to information, it is nonetheless helpful. Perhaps an older person has the maturity that a young child may lack in dealing with violence, pornography and controversial materials.

In my opinion, should there come a day where censorship is no longer present, it would be an age where more eccentric acts will occur, acts which are beyond my brain. As such, in this century where we receive protection, there are still abnormal behaviours. Just like the recent killings done by a Korean student in the States. His behaviour is obviously not what people would define as normal. What caused such peculiarity is a question asked. So, I conclude that if censorship were not in place, far more bizzare and unusual acts will be commited and shock the rest of the world-the normal people. This leads to another question though - what defines normal?

Mass Media : Subjective Perception

How does the media and its subjective perception affect the way this incident was handled?

The mass media holds great influence. As a result of its publication, it has created a big impact on this incident. This is not surprising. The mass media should know that it contains a massive power to affect or even control its audience' minds. Hence journalists, who are part of the mass media, should be aware of the power of their words and be responsible for them. The responsibility of journalists is to provide an unbiased account and facts of the events they report. There should be no assumptions or opinions that could prove unfair to the subjects of the event.

This incident refers to the reaction of two members of the Singapore's swimming relay team when they heard about the disqualificaion of the American team. Bryan Tay and Zach Ong were bewildered and their facial expressions were that of utter disbelief. They were misinterpreted by certain journalists as mocking and scoffing at the American team. This, of course stirred up controversy and even anger. However, this was not the case. Bryan Tay and Zach Ong were simply shocked. They had no intention of jeering at the American team.

But because of the angle the journalist chose to report this incident, it portrayed Bryan Tan and Zach Ong as immature and lacking sportsmanship. The reporter did not make clarifications and convieniently assumed them to be smiling in happinessness. This does not reflect well on the both of them and is also very unfair to them.

In actual fact, there was nothing worth reporting about the incident. Disqualifications due to careless mistakes committed by athletes are nothing out of the ordinary. However, because the media chose to focus on the expressions of just two people without putting it into context, this incident suddenly became newsworthy.

The media should have reported the incident in an objective perception. That is, it was a pity that such well-qualified swimmers made a slight mistake and was penalised for it. That was all there was to it. Instead, the media chose to be subjective. Perhaps the media was trying to stir emotions and feelings, making their report more exciting and noteworthy. In any case, it was wrong and irresponsible of the media to do so. Its subjective perception has caused Bryan Tan and Zach Ong to become notorious. Since they are national swimmers representing Singapore, it affects Singapore's reputation too.

The report would have been factual and informative if the media had reported it with an objective perception. Its subjective perception has resulted in misunderstandings causing much unpleasant feelings. The influence of the media should never be underestimated.

A brief introduction cum warning ^.^

My name is hui hui. I was from Rosyth primary and Mayflower secondary. One thing which makes me see red is when people call the english version of my name which sounds something like "hwee hwee". So if you never ever want to get into my bad books, do not ever call me that. Thanks.