Being multi-racial is one of Singapore's vulnerabilities. This can be seen from past events like during the merger of Singapore, Malaya. Race riots was one of the reason which caused destruction to properties and lives which eventually lead to separation of Singapore and Malaysia. This means that racial issues are very sensitive in Singapore and should be handled sensitively. Thus, i think that the view of Zsofia Szilagyi should be adopted in Singapore- ' The press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, and it need to do so by focusing on responsibility, and not solely on freedom'.
This can be learnt from the Danish press which published 12 sets of cartoon depicting Prophet Muhammad, using freedom of speech, but resulting in , mass demonstration, diplomatic and economic boycotts of their products in the Middle East, which indirectly affect Denmark's economy. The use of freedom of speech, in this case, has caused negative impact, thus it shows that freedom of speech is applied wrongly. The press be be socially responsible when releasing information to the public, ensuring that the information released will not arouse and resentment in people.
To prevent any resentment in Singapore. Singapore has taken actions on people who tried to biased view against any races. In September 2005, Singapore has arrested 3 males who posted racist entries against Malays in their blogs. Singapore arrested them with the reason of them trying to arouse resentment and causing society instability. The penalty will be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to 3 years, or both. The arrest of the 3 males has shown the public that Singapore handle racial issues very seriously and that the punishment is not light.
Thus, press responsibility in multi-racial country like Singapore is very important as it might uproot the past resentment and cause society instability.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Censorship can never be justified
In this media-intensive age, where we are bombarded with magazines, newspapers, periodicals, television and radio programmes, advertisements, and what-not, the issue of censorship inevitably comes into play. First, let's define censorship. Censorship is the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. This can be achieved through the examination of books, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent; heretical; or treasonous. Unjustified means that it is not right or proper." Censorship, has been practiced by governemnts and the press since the begiinning of time. Yet, is censorship ever justified? Can it ever be justified? Example of censorship being unjustified is the incident which happened on 4 Feb 2005King Gyanendra has sacked the government, declared a state of emergency and imposed media censorship saying it had failed to tackle the Maoist rebel uprising. This results in Media having to promise not to pose a "threat" to the security situation. Their correspondent says that, with phone lines cut for a lot of the time and media censorship, there has been almost no flow of information. Being citizen of Nepal, they should be kept aware of all the happenings in Nepal. By censoring facts, people will not be able to have a full picture of the incident and will have a biased view and in times to come for decision making, they might not make the wise choice. Making the wrong choice might affect many other people, not only one self.
Importance of a free media in civil society
The information role of a free press is disseminating knowledge and allowing critical scrutiny. A free press provides us with the news. Information and warnings we need to make informed decisions. They gather and pass on information we would unlikely or unable to make on our own. They also inform us about conditions or happenings that they determine could threaten our day-to-day existence. The media balances perspective and give voice to the neglected and disadvantaged, thus providing greater human security- but a compromised news media cannot serve its function to enlighten the public, so citizens can intelligently exercise their responsibilities in a democratic society.
When censorship leads to propaganda
Propaganda can serve to rally people behind a cause, but often at the cost of exaggerating, misrepresenting, or even lying about the issues in order to gain that support. Those who promote the negative image of the “enemy” may often reinforce it with rhetoric about the righteousness of themselves. Often, the principles used to demonise the other is not used to judge the self, leading to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.The threat of censorship is never greater than in wartime when governments exploit the pull of patriotism to suppress unwelcoming news. The military often manipulates the mainstream media, by restricting or managing what information is presented and hence what the public are told. This has happened throughout the 20th century. Over time then, the way that the media covers conflicts degrades in quality, critique and objectiveness. The military throughout most recent conflicts then have tried hard to control media in subtle ways, either through organizing media sessions and daily press briefings, or through providing managed access to war zones and so forth.
Problematics of implementation
There are also practical reasons as to why censorship doesn’t work. It is difficult for people to agree on what should be censored and to define it in terms that are clear enough to put publishers and distributors on notice of what is banned. Compounding the difficulties of censorship are the inherent contradictions of a secular democratic society that recognizes no one group above the other. For example, those who think that media violence is bad for kids acknowledge that they don’t mean to include televisioned versions of Shakespeare or Saving Private Ryan. In some countries, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of public hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults. For example, when it comes to hard-core pornography, much of what’s illegal here in Germany is legal and normal in Scandinavia.
Censorship doesn't conclusively resolve the problems it claims to
Advocates of censorship claim that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills. But how true is this? Despite research showing that the average child sees about 8000 television murders by the time he is 21, the link between entertainment and behaviour is as complex as the human mind. In investigating the effects of television on children, Wilbur Schramm, a professor of communication, concluded that under some conditions, vioelent programmes could effect some children. But most of the time, most television is neither helpful nor harmful to most kids under most circumstances. Since this conclusion is quite vague, how can one say that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills? As such, censorship is not the panacea to these problems; it is not justified. Blaming media is merly the simplest, most convenient way to explain what cannot be exaplined. Moreover, censorship tends to create the forbidden fruit effect. It creates taboos that make the forbidden material more attractive. Banning a film, therefore, increases people's desire to see it. If violent films are removed from mainstream cinema, audience demand might be met by an unregulated "underground" industry. Curious youngsters will defy the ban - making their way into R-rated movies, de-programming Internet filters, sneaking looks at Playboy orFHM. Censorship in the media is more about sending people a message of social disapproval than about actually preventing them from reading or viewing everyhing that might be thought age-inappropriate or psychologically damaging. Lastly, censorship strategies also create the false impression that the problem has been solved. For example: the use of parental discretion warnings and advisories: it presumes the presence of a parent to catch the warnings and to switch the channel, and ignores the fact the millions of children of working parents watch television unsupervised. Hence, censorship is not a solution to other significant cuass of violence, such as drugs, inadequate parenting, availability of weapons and unemployment. The solution has to take into consideration a large number of factors. It is going to take a lot more than rating, advisories, and cleaning up the TV schedule to deal and prevent the problem of violence. Thus, censorship is not justified, as such problems will only get worse becuase people are under the impression that something has been done already.
Conclusion
In conclusion, censorship can never be justified. The media should be a technology by which we are entertained and informed, although it is necessary to discern what one considers appropriate. Personal accountability and responsibility are the cornerstones to healthy media viewing habits, not potentially violating free speech. As Henry Steele Commanger said, "The fact is that censorship always defeats for its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real descretion."
Importance of a free media in civil society
The information role of a free press is disseminating knowledge and allowing critical scrutiny. A free press provides us with the news. Information and warnings we need to make informed decisions. They gather and pass on information we would unlikely or unable to make on our own. They also inform us about conditions or happenings that they determine could threaten our day-to-day existence. The media balances perspective and give voice to the neglected and disadvantaged, thus providing greater human security- but a compromised news media cannot serve its function to enlighten the public, so citizens can intelligently exercise their responsibilities in a democratic society.
When censorship leads to propaganda
Propaganda can serve to rally people behind a cause, but often at the cost of exaggerating, misrepresenting, or even lying about the issues in order to gain that support. Those who promote the negative image of the “enemy” may often reinforce it with rhetoric about the righteousness of themselves. Often, the principles used to demonise the other is not used to judge the self, leading to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy.The threat of censorship is never greater than in wartime when governments exploit the pull of patriotism to suppress unwelcoming news. The military often manipulates the mainstream media, by restricting or managing what information is presented and hence what the public are told. This has happened throughout the 20th century. Over time then, the way that the media covers conflicts degrades in quality, critique and objectiveness. The military throughout most recent conflicts then have tried hard to control media in subtle ways, either through organizing media sessions and daily press briefings, or through providing managed access to war zones and so forth.
Problematics of implementation
There are also practical reasons as to why censorship doesn’t work. It is difficult for people to agree on what should be censored and to define it in terms that are clear enough to put publishers and distributors on notice of what is banned. Compounding the difficulties of censorship are the inherent contradictions of a secular democratic society that recognizes no one group above the other. For example, those who think that media violence is bad for kids acknowledge that they don’t mean to include televisioned versions of Shakespeare or Saving Private Ryan. In some countries, it is a bare male torso that crosses the line, while in others, any depiction of public hair, whereas still others permit any activity between consenting adults. For example, when it comes to hard-core pornography, much of what’s illegal here in Germany is legal and normal in Scandinavia.
Censorship doesn't conclusively resolve the problems it claims to
Advocates of censorship claim that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills. But how true is this? Despite research showing that the average child sees about 8000 television murders by the time he is 21, the link between entertainment and behaviour is as complex as the human mind. In investigating the effects of television on children, Wilbur Schramm, a professor of communication, concluded that under some conditions, vioelent programmes could effect some children. But most of the time, most television is neither helpful nor harmful to most kids under most circumstances. Since this conclusion is quite vague, how can one say that censorship will reduce violence and other social ills? As such, censorship is not the panacea to these problems; it is not justified. Blaming media is merly the simplest, most convenient way to explain what cannot be exaplined. Moreover, censorship tends to create the forbidden fruit effect. It creates taboos that make the forbidden material more attractive. Banning a film, therefore, increases people's desire to see it. If violent films are removed from mainstream cinema, audience demand might be met by an unregulated "underground" industry. Curious youngsters will defy the ban - making their way into R-rated movies, de-programming Internet filters, sneaking looks at Playboy orFHM. Censorship in the media is more about sending people a message of social disapproval than about actually preventing them from reading or viewing everyhing that might be thought age-inappropriate or psychologically damaging. Lastly, censorship strategies also create the false impression that the problem has been solved. For example: the use of parental discretion warnings and advisories: it presumes the presence of a parent to catch the warnings and to switch the channel, and ignores the fact the millions of children of working parents watch television unsupervised. Hence, censorship is not a solution to other significant cuass of violence, such as drugs, inadequate parenting, availability of weapons and unemployment. The solution has to take into consideration a large number of factors. It is going to take a lot more than rating, advisories, and cleaning up the TV schedule to deal and prevent the problem of violence. Thus, censorship is not justified, as such problems will only get worse becuase people are under the impression that something has been done already.
Conclusion
In conclusion, censorship can never be justified. The media should be a technology by which we are entertained and informed, although it is necessary to discern what one considers appropriate. Personal accountability and responsibility are the cornerstones to healthy media viewing habits, not potentially violating free speech. As Henry Steele Commanger said, "The fact is that censorship always defeats for its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real descretion."
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
The problem with the modern media is they do not have a sense of social justice. Do u agree?
Social justice refers to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society and modern media here refers largely to the internet, it also refers to conceptions of a just society, where "justice" refers to more than just the administration of laws.
Modern media refers to both the old and new media. Old media refers to newspaper, news broadcasting, magazines, and radios. Whereas, new media refers to the internet. The differences between the new and old media is that the work of old media is done by a group of professionals who are well trained in the areas of news and information presentation, such as, new broadcasters, journalists, editors etc. However, the work of new media can be done by just anyone, like you and me. As a result, new media has no social justice as the person who present the news is not well-trained, thus having no sensitivity to sensitive issues like political, religious and racial. Especially, when issues of religious and races are very vulnerable in Singapore, as inferred from the past.
Media has great impacts in our lives and how we view things. Most people spent their free time on new or old media like TV and the internet. For new media normally, the information is in controlled and censored if it is sensitive or offensive, which can bring harm to social instability. However, on the other hand, in the aspect of new media, any tom, dick or Harry can just post sensitive opinion, news and information on the internet, without any controlled or censorship. In this case, it might cause social instability, leading to chaos and disorder.
In the news media of www.channelnewsasia.com, people can send in pictures and video to make their own news. The title of this activity is “YOUR NEWS”
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/index.htm
In this case, a blogger in Iran is arrested for 14years as he criticized for the arrest of online journalists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4292399.stm
In the case of Youtube, whereby, it posts videos insulting the Thailand’s king caused social instability in the country itself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6535509.stm
Modern media refers to both the old and new media. Old media refers to newspaper, news broadcasting, magazines, and radios. Whereas, new media refers to the internet. The differences between the new and old media is that the work of old media is done by a group of professionals who are well trained in the areas of news and information presentation, such as, new broadcasters, journalists, editors etc. However, the work of new media can be done by just anyone, like you and me. As a result, new media has no social justice as the person who present the news is not well-trained, thus having no sensitivity to sensitive issues like political, religious and racial. Especially, when issues of religious and races are very vulnerable in Singapore, as inferred from the past.
Media has great impacts in our lives and how we view things. Most people spent their free time on new or old media like TV and the internet. For new media normally, the information is in controlled and censored if it is sensitive or offensive, which can bring harm to social instability. However, on the other hand, in the aspect of new media, any tom, dick or Harry can just post sensitive opinion, news and information on the internet, without any controlled or censorship. In this case, it might cause social instability, leading to chaos and disorder.
In the news media of www.channelnewsasia.com, people can send in pictures and video to make their own news. The title of this activity is “YOUR NEWS”
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/index.htm
In this case, a blogger in Iran is arrested for 14years as he criticized for the arrest of online journalists
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4292399.stm
In the case of Youtube, whereby, it posts videos insulting the Thailand’s king caused social instability in the country itself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6535509.stm
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
Censorship refers to the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. censorship can be achieved through the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication for the purpose of altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive. The rationales for censorship have varied, with some censors targeting material deemed to be indecent; heretical; or treasonous. Thus, ideas have been suppressed under the guise of protecting three basic social institutions: the family, the church, and the state. Unjustified means that it is not right or proper.
Example of censorship being unjustified is the incident which happened on 4 Feb 2005
King Gyanendra has sacked the government, declared a state of emergency and imposed media censorship saying it had failed to tackle the Maoist rebel uprising.this resuts in Media having to promise not to pose a "threat" to the security situation. Their correspondent says that, with phone lines cut for a lot of the time and media censorship, there has been almost no flow of information. There is no longer any independent reporting on radio, while newspaper and television offices have had regular visits from military censors with warnings not to criticise the royal takeover.
This shows that censorship is unfair to the citizens who are kept in the dark and away from the truth. Being citizen of Nepal, they should be kept aware of all the happenings in Nepal. By censoring facts, people will not be able to have a full picture of the incident and will have a biased view and in times to come for decision making, they might not make the wise choice. Making the wrong choice might affect many other people, not only one self.
Apart from that incident in Nepal, there was also censorship in the WW2. This was said by a person who experience censorship. He said, “I was attached to a group which carried out censorship duties during the war. This involved reading every letter which came into Northern Ireland. When the recipient of the letter received it, there may have been portions of text struck out, if it was felt that it contained some piece of information that would harm the war effort.”
Censorship can never be justified. Recipients have every right to know the whole content of the letter. They might be waiting anxious for the news of their loved ones who were involved with the war. Striking of the text will make them unclearly of the situation causing more anxiety.
22 Oct 2006
The archbishop of canterbury, Rowan Williams, has urged the government of China to end press censorship. On a visit to Beijing he said there should be free debate about issues such as the death penalty.
China should involved citizens in discussion as it is the citizen that makes up the country. Every citizen should have a say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4238823.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/74/a5896074.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6070000/newsid_6075800/6075832.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm
Example of censorship being unjustified is the incident which happened on 4 Feb 2005
King Gyanendra has sacked the government, declared a state of emergency and imposed media censorship saying it had failed to tackle the Maoist rebel uprising.this resuts in Media having to promise not to pose a "threat" to the security situation. Their correspondent says that, with phone lines cut for a lot of the time and media censorship, there has been almost no flow of information. There is no longer any independent reporting on radio, while newspaper and television offices have had regular visits from military censors with warnings not to criticise the royal takeover.
This shows that censorship is unfair to the citizens who are kept in the dark and away from the truth. Being citizen of Nepal, they should be kept aware of all the happenings in Nepal. By censoring facts, people will not be able to have a full picture of the incident and will have a biased view and in times to come for decision making, they might not make the wise choice. Making the wrong choice might affect many other people, not only one self.
Apart from that incident in Nepal, there was also censorship in the WW2. This was said by a person who experience censorship. He said, “I was attached to a group which carried out censorship duties during the war. This involved reading every letter which came into Northern Ireland. When the recipient of the letter received it, there may have been portions of text struck out, if it was felt that it contained some piece of information that would harm the war effort.”
Censorship can never be justified. Recipients have every right to know the whole content of the letter. They might be waiting anxious for the news of their loved ones who were involved with the war. Striking of the text will make them unclearly of the situation causing more anxiety.
22 Oct 2006
The archbishop of canterbury, Rowan Williams, has urged the government of China to end press censorship. On a visit to Beijing he said there should be free debate about issues such as the death penalty.
China should involved citizens in discussion as it is the citizen that makes up the country. Every citizen should have a say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4238823.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/74/a5896074.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6070000/newsid_6075800/6075832.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm
Monday, April 30, 2007
the west has too much freedom... do you agree?
Freedom is precious to everyone, especially to teenagers. To them, freedom is able to go anywhere without parents' consent, freedom is able to do anything they want and they like without any restrictions. However, when actions of freedom bring hurt to any party's feelings, the freedom is being taken for granted. Everything we do is related to other as we are living together in the world...
In my opinion, I think that the west has too much freedom. Take for example, few years ago when Denmark's Jyllands-Posten’s two illustrators takes up cudgels for freedom of expression produced cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. The newspaper published the series of cartoons, after a writer complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Mohammad.
Because of this, it caused social instability as it arouses anger in many Muslim which lead them to protests, burning down Denmark Flags. The freedom of the media in Denmark, in this case had been insensitive to the feelings of the Muslim thus it show that freedom of media has not been put to good use and this kind of freedom should not be cherished.
To add oil to fire, countries in the West continue to spread the cartoons of prophet Mohammad using the media’s freedom of expression and speech… this further spread angers to the Muslims in the West… this shows that the media in the West had too much freedom which lead to being insensitive to others feelings causing instability.
Another incident showing West having too much freedom is the Virginia Tech Massacre. In America, everyone has the right to buy a gun after the age of to protect themselves. This is too much of a freedom, when everyone has the right to have a gun, they tend to misuse the guns. They will not use words nor fists to solve problems but they will use guns instead. The dun in America is designed as a tools to stop evil people from hurting innocent people in the gun law. However, evil people can also own a gun… this means that evil people can also hurt innocent people with a guns. Having this gun law, it encourages people to use force to solve problems… in this case, it will cause the country to be in chaos as killing of people become so easy and it’s difficult to track the killers.
In my opinion, I think that the west has too much freedom. Take for example, few years ago when Denmark's Jyllands-Posten’s two illustrators takes up cudgels for freedom of expression produced cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad. The newspaper published the series of cartoons, after a writer complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Mohammad.
Because of this, it caused social instability as it arouses anger in many Muslim which lead them to protests, burning down Denmark Flags. The freedom of the media in Denmark, in this case had been insensitive to the feelings of the Muslim thus it show that freedom of media has not been put to good use and this kind of freedom should not be cherished.
To add oil to fire, countries in the West continue to spread the cartoons of prophet Mohammad using the media’s freedom of expression and speech… this further spread angers to the Muslims in the West… this shows that the media in the West had too much freedom which lead to being insensitive to others feelings causing instability.
Another incident showing West having too much freedom is the Virginia Tech Massacre. In America, everyone has the right to buy a gun after the age of to protect themselves. This is too much of a freedom, when everyone has the right to have a gun, they tend to misuse the guns. They will not use words nor fists to solve problems but they will use guns instead. The dun in America is designed as a tools to stop evil people from hurting innocent people in the gun law. However, evil people can also own a gun… this means that evil people can also hurt innocent people with a guns. Having this gun law, it encourages people to use force to solve problems… in this case, it will cause the country to be in chaos as killing of people become so easy and it’s difficult to track the killers.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Media do not report the news; they make the news
There are many types of media- newspaper, Internet, magazine, television, radio. It can be in the form of pictures, words, sounds or video. No matter in what form, it can affect greatly on the readers or viewers points of views as media is the source of our information to the world.
Readers and viewers point of viewers do not just be affected by watching or hearing the news; it is due to how the journalists, editor, and news presenter present the news to the reader and viewers. If the news is presented in such a way that a certain party is at fault, most of the people in the world who view such a similar news will condemned the ‘wrong’ party being at fault.
Affecting the readers and viewers point of views is not too a serious problem as the readers and viewers still has the ability and rationality to have their own point of view of the whole incident. What is more serious is that the news that is not true is brought to the viewers and readers. In other words, the media make the news. In doing this, the media had caused injustice to the party who are involved in the ‘fake’ news and also caused ignorance in the readers and viewers. This is unfair to the readers and viewers as they have the right to know the truth, since the media is responsible for REPORTING the truth.
The incidents of injustice have been done mostly in the case of entertainment and statistic. For examples, making news like a certain celebrity might be pregnant, has an underground relationship with a guy or a girls, edit photos to make celebrity seems like they are dating. Or, even to slot in dialogue that was not made by the celebrity involved. Doing such things might tarnish the reputation of the party involved and will also caused misunderstanding which might lead to undesirable effects. As a Chinese saying goes:’ fan ke yi ruan chi, hua bu ke yi ruan jiang’. Meaning, can anyhow eat anything but cannot anyhow spout words.
http://www.eonline.com/gossip/awful/index.jsp
http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070423/en_celeb_eo/19843b6e_a2d645a8_a20c_014e5ea58772;_ylt=AiASXTdGav_hFYRECEKxawhdDxkF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070423/en_afp/entertainmentus;_ylt=AjhaYC3mb.V5ZNgz0eFqm21dDxkF
Readers and viewers point of viewers do not just be affected by watching or hearing the news; it is due to how the journalists, editor, and news presenter present the news to the reader and viewers. If the news is presented in such a way that a certain party is at fault, most of the people in the world who view such a similar news will condemned the ‘wrong’ party being at fault.
Affecting the readers and viewers point of views is not too a serious problem as the readers and viewers still has the ability and rationality to have their own point of view of the whole incident. What is more serious is that the news that is not true is brought to the viewers and readers. In other words, the media make the news. In doing this, the media had caused injustice to the party who are involved in the ‘fake’ news and also caused ignorance in the readers and viewers. This is unfair to the readers and viewers as they have the right to know the truth, since the media is responsible for REPORTING the truth.
The incidents of injustice have been done mostly in the case of entertainment and statistic. For examples, making news like a certain celebrity might be pregnant, has an underground relationship with a guy or a girls, edit photos to make celebrity seems like they are dating. Or, even to slot in dialogue that was not made by the celebrity involved. Doing such things might tarnish the reputation of the party involved and will also caused misunderstanding which might lead to undesirable effects. As a Chinese saying goes:’ fan ke yi ruan chi, hua bu ke yi ruan jiang’. Meaning, can anyhow eat anything but cannot anyhow spout words.
http://www.eonline.com/gossip/awful/index.jsp
http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070423/en_celeb_eo/19843b6e_a2d645a8_a20c_014e5ea58772;_ylt=AiASXTdGav_hFYRECEKxawhdDxkF
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070423/en_afp/entertainmentus;_ylt=AjhaYC3mb.V5ZNgz0eFqm21dDxkF
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
YouTube has no ethics; it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.
Youtube, broadcast yourself is establish to allow uploading, viewing and sharing of videos by many individuals. It is a site where people can visit for entertainment and information. Anyone can create an account for free in youtube, and this allows them to upload video,post comments and rating.The range of video available in youtube, varies from drama series, real-life video, speeches, cartoons, animation and many more.
Youtube has done certain measures to stop inappropriate video from spreading in the Internet. Viewers of inappropriate video can flag the video as inappropriate and the youtube committee will suspense the account of the person who post the inappropriate video, removing all video which were posted by the person. Whether, the inappropriate video is being flagged as inappropriate, it depends on the viewers whether to flag it a not.
However, this is not a fool-proof measures to stop unethical video from spreading in the Internet. As the saying goes, 'prevention is better than cure'. The youtube committee should review all video being uploaded before approving to post the video over the Internet. In this way, unethical video will have no chance to reach to any viewers. With this, the unethical video cannot be downloaded by anyone when it has no chance to reach the viewers.
Apart from issue of unethical video post on youtube for entertainment, there is this issue of youtube is established for the purpose of making money. Making money from the Internet is very common. Advertisers want to post advertisement on youtube proof that youtube is a success website. Advertisers won't just pay to post advertisement on any website. Youtube was a success thus it is reasonable to earn money from it when the youtube committee has put in effort to make the website a success. Thus, earning money from their own effort is absolutely a reasonable things.
Youtube has taken measures to stop unethical video from spreading over the Internet. It is just that the measures taken was not a perfect one. Thus it is unfair to say that youtube has no ethics. On the other hand, it is absolutely reasonable for youtube to earn money from their own efforts.
Youtube has done certain measures to stop inappropriate video from spreading in the Internet. Viewers of inappropriate video can flag the video as inappropriate and the youtube committee will suspense the account of the person who post the inappropriate video, removing all video which were posted by the person. Whether, the inappropriate video is being flagged as inappropriate, it depends on the viewers whether to flag it a not.
However, this is not a fool-proof measures to stop unethical video from spreading in the Internet. As the saying goes, 'prevention is better than cure'. The youtube committee should review all video being uploaded before approving to post the video over the Internet. In this way, unethical video will have no chance to reach to any viewers. With this, the unethical video cannot be downloaded by anyone when it has no chance to reach the viewers.
Apart from issue of unethical video post on youtube for entertainment, there is this issue of youtube is established for the purpose of making money. Making money from the Internet is very common. Advertisers want to post advertisement on youtube proof that youtube is a success website. Advertisers won't just pay to post advertisement on any website. Youtube was a success thus it is reasonable to earn money from it when the youtube committee has put in effort to make the website a success. Thus, earning money from their own effort is absolutely a reasonable things.
Youtube has taken measures to stop unethical video from spreading over the Internet. It is just that the measures taken was not a perfect one. Thus it is unfair to say that youtube has no ethics. On the other hand, it is absolutely reasonable for youtube to earn money from their own efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)