Ah, punishment…A widely talked about topic I must say. Why do we need punishment? Are we so ignorant of rules that we should have to resort to pain to ensure that one learns his or her lesson??? This brings up the topic of today’s justice system and to be specific, effective law and order. What is effective and what is not? Why is it that most of us label the meting out of harsh punishments to being more effective that giving more lenient punishments? It looks as if we humans, highly intellectual people I must add, are only capable of learning our mistakes through pain and torture. Surely something is amiss…
Today’s law and order has taken, from a personal point of view, a turn for the worse. The punishments seem to be getting harsher and harsher form each new crime being committed in today’s society. Just about a week ago, there was an officer form the Central Narcotics Bureau, who came to talk to all the students about the multitudes of highly addictive drugs being circulated among drug traffickers today, and off course, the punishments awaiting these drug traffickers. 24 strokes of the cane is one of the cruel punishments that await these traffickers. 24 stokes of the cane at one session!!! And we aren’t talking about the canes that we buy from any shop…Oh no, we’re talking about canes that are thicker than our index fingers and the people who met out the punishment are real professionals…I talking about people who take target practice to ensure that every shot lands spot on to ensure maximum pain. Sounds totally sick and sadistic right…Wait till you see the pictures…I guarantee that the next time you get even an ounce of craving for drugs, your hand will immediately be feeling for your behinds…
With reactions such as this, can’t it be said that the punishment is effective??? So it’s sadistic and all, but it does shove fear down our guts which does achieve its primary purpose: Making people fear facing the consequences for drug trafficking. Imagine issuing a normal jail sentence to one such drug trafficker. Sure, he’ll be confined but his mentality would simple be, “It’s just a small jail sentence. I’ll just be extra cautious next time. What’s the worse that could happen?” So, in this context, pain does serve as effective punishment.
Another thing I would like to talk about is about one of the stories that was shown on the “Taboo” video shown in school. Though I’ve forgotten exactly what country it was in, but I would like to highlight what its crime punishment ritual works. You see, law and order in this particular place revolves around religion and beliefs. Unlike in countless other places today, where criminals are convicted of their crimes in courts, this particular place goes one step further. Should there be a case where the criminal cannot be properly convicted in court due to reason such as lack of evidence, there is a ritual whereby both the accused and the accuser must dip their hands into a pot of boiling oil and retrieve a ring inside the pot. It’s believed that he person who’s guilty will have their hands burned while those who are actually innocent will not be greatly harmed.
The video actually showed an instance whereby the method worked and the correct person was identified for his crimes. Though the accuser had to go through pain of dipping his own hand into the oil, the purpose of the ritual was served. You see, the mere thought of dipping his hand into a pot of boiling oil was so ludicrous and downright scary was too much for him to handle, that he confessed on the spot. Off course, the punishment was served in full force through public humiliation.
Crucially, what I am driving at, is that every community will have its view one what it considers to be effective punishment or effective law and order. To them, it doesn’t matter if its painful, ludicrous, or downright crazy, as long as it serves its purpose of making people think twice about committing a crime, to them its effective. But for all our sakes, lets just hope that this notion of using boiling oil to solve modern day crimes and disputes never ever surfaces in Singapore no matter how effective it is…
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
School Break-ups and Heart breaks
Ah, alas, a growing topic and an issue being encountered by a growing number of teens not only in America alone, but maybe wider on the global scale. Relationships or to be exact, boy-girl relationships and a major issue plaguing young adults today, especially with the ever stressful school life always lurking around us. So what I am trying to drive at is why they even commit to a relationship at such a tender age when they know that is about sure to never work out….
When we look at today’s students, we can see that there is a lot of love in the air, or maybe it’s just the ever growing hormones. We see a lot of these relationships blooming in secondary school and it just becomes greater in Junior Colleges. The thing is that, how many of these relationships actually do make it? In secondary school, say at the end of secondary 4, when one goes to a JC in one part of Singapore and the other ends up in a polytechnic in another distant part in Singapore, will they realistically be able to carry on their relationship? Sure they may have the weekends, but our raging hormones are bound to seek out another significant other to spend our school days with. Then, the boys will have to move on to the army for the next 1 and a half to 2 years. Will he really expect his girlfriend to wait eagerly for him every weekend?
Yes, I may sound very cynical about this whole relationship thing but I really do feel that by committing to a relationship at such an age is bound to give you a heart break sooner or later. In today’s competitive society, where getting to interact with my family members is a rare chance, there is limited chance of building a strong relationship. I think that its for the best that we keep our options open and not quickly jump into things just from one burst of emotion from our hearts. Yes, we are bound to have our crushes and so forth, but it would be best that we avoid making to much hash over it.
When we look at today’s students, we can see that there is a lot of love in the air, or maybe it’s just the ever growing hormones. We see a lot of these relationships blooming in secondary school and it just becomes greater in Junior Colleges. The thing is that, how many of these relationships actually do make it? In secondary school, say at the end of secondary 4, when one goes to a JC in one part of Singapore and the other ends up in a polytechnic in another distant part in Singapore, will they realistically be able to carry on their relationship? Sure they may have the weekends, but our raging hormones are bound to seek out another significant other to spend our school days with. Then, the boys will have to move on to the army for the next 1 and a half to 2 years. Will he really expect his girlfriend to wait eagerly for him every weekend?
Yes, I may sound very cynical about this whole relationship thing but I really do feel that by committing to a relationship at such an age is bound to give you a heart break sooner or later. In today’s competitive society, where getting to interact with my family members is a rare chance, there is limited chance of building a strong relationship. I think that its for the best that we keep our options open and not quickly jump into things just from one burst of emotion from our hearts. Yes, we are bound to have our crushes and so forth, but it would be best that we avoid making to much hash over it.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Today's Parenting
Today’s Parenting
With reference, to the Newsweek article “Still haunted by what could have happened”, I have managed to draw out a few issues concerning today’s parenting. Written by a female writer, the article is about an incident that happened to her at the age of 12. Being very gullible at that time, she was actually lured into having coffee with this man who pretended to be a model photographer. With some measure of sweet talk, the writer was deceived. When he finally revealed himself to be a child pornography photographer, it was the writer’s quick legs that saved her from what would be otherwise, a very horrible fate.
These events have sort of influenced her parenting approach. She has become on the verge of being a very over-protective mother to her children. With this, I address the issue of today’s parenting. It is good??? Is it bad??? Just how mush has changed in parenting over the past years. You see, we all have to look at what the world has shaped into today. Is it any safer you may ask? Well, my answer would have to be “no”. Aside form terrorist attacks, crimes have been rampant as ever. Let’s not look at this in a Singaporean context and instead look at other places around the world. The emergence of the internet chat relay rooms and many other connection devices have may it a walk in the park for sexual predators to pounce on unsuspecting victims. Society itself has shown a growing number of sexual offenders and many other criminals. It is at such “dangerous” times like these when we ask ourselves, “Is it really wrong for parents to be so protective of their children?” I stand on the fence for this issue.
It is not bad but it’s certainly not correct either. By looking aver the shoulder to see if their parents are around, children are really being deprived of the freedom they ought to my. My philosophy is that, children should experience reality alone once in a while. It is mistakes made at time like those where the child really understands the consequences of his actions. I am not trying to imply that girls should get raped just for them to realize the mistake of talking to a stranger. I am trying to say that parents should emphasize their advice to their children and have the trust that they will heed their advice.
I see in more and more in today’s society. Children are generally being more pampered by their parents and with such a good life they are leading today, children actually grown up not experiencing many hardships. The growing concerns of parents can be seen in the way teachers are getting more and more calls from them about their child. Co-curricular activities have really gotten a lot of stick from the parents because of their child’s involvement.
So, at the end of the day, I think that parents should give their children all the advice in the world but actually allow the child to go out and experience reality and life on the streets. Couple that with loads of care and concern, and I can assure that they’ll grow up to be better people. Believe what you want, because in the end what matters the most to me, is that I know I have benefited from the freedom my parents have given me.
With reference, to the Newsweek article “Still haunted by what could have happened”, I have managed to draw out a few issues concerning today’s parenting. Written by a female writer, the article is about an incident that happened to her at the age of 12. Being very gullible at that time, she was actually lured into having coffee with this man who pretended to be a model photographer. With some measure of sweet talk, the writer was deceived. When he finally revealed himself to be a child pornography photographer, it was the writer’s quick legs that saved her from what would be otherwise, a very horrible fate.
These events have sort of influenced her parenting approach. She has become on the verge of being a very over-protective mother to her children. With this, I address the issue of today’s parenting. It is good??? Is it bad??? Just how mush has changed in parenting over the past years. You see, we all have to look at what the world has shaped into today. Is it any safer you may ask? Well, my answer would have to be “no”. Aside form terrorist attacks, crimes have been rampant as ever. Let’s not look at this in a Singaporean context and instead look at other places around the world. The emergence of the internet chat relay rooms and many other connection devices have may it a walk in the park for sexual predators to pounce on unsuspecting victims. Society itself has shown a growing number of sexual offenders and many other criminals. It is at such “dangerous” times like these when we ask ourselves, “Is it really wrong for parents to be so protective of their children?” I stand on the fence for this issue.
It is not bad but it’s certainly not correct either. By looking aver the shoulder to see if their parents are around, children are really being deprived of the freedom they ought to my. My philosophy is that, children should experience reality alone once in a while. It is mistakes made at time like those where the child really understands the consequences of his actions. I am not trying to imply that girls should get raped just for them to realize the mistake of talking to a stranger. I am trying to say that parents should emphasize their advice to their children and have the trust that they will heed their advice.
I see in more and more in today’s society. Children are generally being more pampered by their parents and with such a good life they are leading today, children actually grown up not experiencing many hardships. The growing concerns of parents can be seen in the way teachers are getting more and more calls from them about their child. Co-curricular activities have really gotten a lot of stick from the parents because of their child’s involvement.
So, at the end of the day, I think that parents should give their children all the advice in the world but actually allow the child to go out and experience reality and life on the streets. Couple that with loads of care and concern, and I can assure that they’ll grow up to be better people. Believe what you want, because in the end what matters the most to me, is that I know I have benefited from the freedom my parents have given me.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Virginia Tech Shootings
"Oh man, not again..." was all i could say as I first heard about the Virginia Tech killings. The massacre was the dealiest mass shooting in modern U.S history. As I sat my couch, and saw the pandemonium that surfaced in the video clips of the shootings, i could not help recall the Columbine massacres that started off this mass debate over the selling of firearms to any tom, dick or harry.
The Columbine high school massacre occurred on 20th June 1999. Though not as deadly as that in Virginia Tech, 12 students were killed while 24 others were injured. The preperators were Eric Harris and Dylan Khebold. Brutal, scary and plain insane is what i would describe the whole thing. Brutal for the two guys who unmercilessily shot plainly anyone who came across their sight of vision. Scary because of the extent of their rage towards society. I mean, they absolutely hated the high school. The extent to this can be seen in them actually making 99 over bombs to destroy the school'd caffeteria. It really scary how they could just plainly get life threatening infomation from the internet just like that. In many reports, people indicated that harris had a blog providing all sorts of wierd infomation he had gathered from the internet on how to cause mischief to people. Lastly, its plain insane how two high school students could get the connections and actually buy pistols and two shotguns. mean, some actually sell them these things without asking questions!!! Where's the logic in that??? Would i be right in saying that they would even sell a pack of cigarettes to a 13-year old. These are certainly things that have to be sorted out in America.
As we look at the Columbine as well as the Virgina Tech massacres, the U.S government has to a extremely firm stance against selling of guns. I am not telling them to stop everyone from buying guns, but at least allow background checks for people wanting to purchase these firearms. We need to ensure that we are entrusting these deadly weaphons to people who are sane and are not going to become potential mass murderers. Hearing me say this has made me think about new issues. Sure, everyone's bound to be a little paranoid about safety from time to time. But guns!!! Its a little bit too extreme to ensure safety, won't you agree??? Why not buzz batons or those electric things that women carry around to shock the life out of naughty men??? Has society itself evolved to such a stage where there is no possible way to ensure that you will always be safe as you walk down the street???
Many believe that society played a huge part in both the massacres. Eric Harris and Dylan Khebold were victims of isolation and possibly bullying as well. AS a school student myself, i do know the emotional struggle one is bound to feel if he or she is felt out by his friends. The inability to fit into society can do a lot of things to a peson psychologically. Having our own cliques and not sparing a thought to allow new friends to come and mingle with us. Is this the new face of school life??? Thus, it is essential for us to not shun anyboby and welcome everybody. Who knows, if Cho and the two guys had gotten warm, welcoming friends, they would nto have ever committed those atrocities. We should not discriminate people no matter what. Painting a cruel portrait of someone whom you don't really know and talk to should not be the way.
Again, i come back to the topic about guns. I would really hope the Congress stamps its authority in the issue. My fear is of this things starting to occur in other countries as well. Lets always remember that in a fit a rage, we are daring enough to virtually do anything. Its only when we are calm again that we realise the stupidity of our actions and regret them. If the sale of guns still exists widely, lets hope that more and more Americans don't wake up in the morning regretting for the life they cruelly took with one mere bullet.
The Columbine high school massacre occurred on 20th June 1999. Though not as deadly as that in Virginia Tech, 12 students were killed while 24 others were injured. The preperators were Eric Harris and Dylan Khebold. Brutal, scary and plain insane is what i would describe the whole thing. Brutal for the two guys who unmercilessily shot plainly anyone who came across their sight of vision. Scary because of the extent of their rage towards society. I mean, they absolutely hated the high school. The extent to this can be seen in them actually making 99 over bombs to destroy the school'd caffeteria. It really scary how they could just plainly get life threatening infomation from the internet just like that. In many reports, people indicated that harris had a blog providing all sorts of wierd infomation he had gathered from the internet on how to cause mischief to people. Lastly, its plain insane how two high school students could get the connections and actually buy pistols and two shotguns. mean, some actually sell them these things without asking questions!!! Where's the logic in that??? Would i be right in saying that they would even sell a pack of cigarettes to a 13-year old. These are certainly things that have to be sorted out in America.
As we look at the Columbine as well as the Virgina Tech massacres, the U.S government has to a extremely firm stance against selling of guns. I am not telling them to stop everyone from buying guns, but at least allow background checks for people wanting to purchase these firearms. We need to ensure that we are entrusting these deadly weaphons to people who are sane and are not going to become potential mass murderers. Hearing me say this has made me think about new issues. Sure, everyone's bound to be a little paranoid about safety from time to time. But guns!!! Its a little bit too extreme to ensure safety, won't you agree??? Why not buzz batons or those electric things that women carry around to shock the life out of naughty men??? Has society itself evolved to such a stage where there is no possible way to ensure that you will always be safe as you walk down the street???
Many believe that society played a huge part in both the massacres. Eric Harris and Dylan Khebold were victims of isolation and possibly bullying as well. AS a school student myself, i do know the emotional struggle one is bound to feel if he or she is felt out by his friends. The inability to fit into society can do a lot of things to a peson psychologically. Having our own cliques and not sparing a thought to allow new friends to come and mingle with us. Is this the new face of school life??? Thus, it is essential for us to not shun anyboby and welcome everybody. Who knows, if Cho and the two guys had gotten warm, welcoming friends, they would nto have ever committed those atrocities. We should not discriminate people no matter what. Painting a cruel portrait of someone whom you don't really know and talk to should not be the way.
Again, i come back to the topic about guns. I would really hope the Congress stamps its authority in the issue. My fear is of this things starting to occur in other countries as well. Lets always remember that in a fit a rage, we are daring enough to virtually do anything. Its only when we are calm again that we realise the stupidity of our actions and regret them. If the sale of guns still exists widely, lets hope that more and more Americans don't wake up in the morning regretting for the life they cruelly took with one mere bullet.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The World of Crime and Justice
It has been debated around the world and yet there has been no answer for it. Yes, can we ever use torture in dealing with criminals and terrorists. Is it really justifiable. If you ask me, i would have to say a firm "NO". There is no way, torturing people can ever be called justice.
In article one, the ineffectiveness of torture in getting the truth out of detainees is clearly shown. To go so low as to start threating that the childen would be killed is really too much. Surely there is a way out of violence. We have been brought up to use our brains and its about time that we start using nore of brain power than muscle power. The FBI seems to believe so and has not employed violence to get the truth out of the the al-Qaeda members. The used the knowledge of religion to sort of persuade them that allah had ensured their survival to ensure that the lives of many others could be saved, giving them a real purpose in life. Not only this, but they even used kindness and promised for an operation to be done to one of the member's child. These methods eventually helped turn the members over to the good side. However, the CIA, being brash and headstrong, decided to use muscle power and would go to the most extreme measures to get the truth out of the members. It was no surprise that Bush and Cheney sided with the way CIA ran their interrogation process.
The CIA were barely successful in getting the "truth" out of the members. The "truth" being stuff that the intelligence had already knwon long before. But, the public was getting wift of these tortures and immediately turned on their President. Bush was clearly being backed to a corner and he could do nothing but lie in their faces. The CIA had gooten large results...The results had lead to the captures of two more high profile terrorists...well done to torture...These were lies only known to the intelligence community. There are even the costs of emplying torture that we all should consider. Say we torture someone, and that person has already given you the infomation that you need. But is that person really going to one day, "Hey you know, i have some additional infomation that you can use..." Fat hope is what i would say. Treat someone with at least a little bit of decency, and the rewards will be far better. Moreover, torturing someone just to get the truth is not legal.
Article 2 gives us the view of someone who is with torture and of course the contrasting opinions of a human rights group. Basically, its the question of whether these actions are ethical. Beating someone to a pulp...Humans beating up humans...Is it really right??? But Mr Faris(pro-torture) mentioned about a psychopatic murderer bruying a teenage girl and the clock running down on you, i sort of started to think that violence would surely have to be used in this circumstance. So, what i am driving at, is there going be a situation where nothing else can be done and the last resort in to use force???
Stangely enough, we should actually think about the people who are the ones who actually torture the people. Just what is going to their head while they brutalise the person??? It has got to be the most traumatising thing to go through. Imagine having vivid dreams about the person who you tortured...Its enough to drive anyone nuts. I thought about this after watching the drama LOST, where there was actually an Iraqi prison torturer among the survivors. In one episode, he confronts one of the victims of his torture(her hands and face were brutally scarred) and actually breaks down crying, saying that he has never spent a day in his life not reflecting on the pain that he has caused.
Overally, torture is a very brutal act and it should never be followed regadless of how desperate the situation is. Else, we can might as well throw away the morals that we work so hard to preserve.
In article one, the ineffectiveness of torture in getting the truth out of detainees is clearly shown. To go so low as to start threating that the childen would be killed is really too much. Surely there is a way out of violence. We have been brought up to use our brains and its about time that we start using nore of brain power than muscle power. The FBI seems to believe so and has not employed violence to get the truth out of the the al-Qaeda members. The used the knowledge of religion to sort of persuade them that allah had ensured their survival to ensure that the lives of many others could be saved, giving them a real purpose in life. Not only this, but they even used kindness and promised for an operation to be done to one of the member's child. These methods eventually helped turn the members over to the good side. However, the CIA, being brash and headstrong, decided to use muscle power and would go to the most extreme measures to get the truth out of the members. It was no surprise that Bush and Cheney sided with the way CIA ran their interrogation process.
The CIA were barely successful in getting the "truth" out of the members. The "truth" being stuff that the intelligence had already knwon long before. But, the public was getting wift of these tortures and immediately turned on their President. Bush was clearly being backed to a corner and he could do nothing but lie in their faces. The CIA had gooten large results...The results had lead to the captures of two more high profile terrorists...well done to torture...These were lies only known to the intelligence community. There are even the costs of emplying torture that we all should consider. Say we torture someone, and that person has already given you the infomation that you need. But is that person really going to one day, "Hey you know, i have some additional infomation that you can use..." Fat hope is what i would say. Treat someone with at least a little bit of decency, and the rewards will be far better. Moreover, torturing someone just to get the truth is not legal.
Article 2 gives us the view of someone who is with torture and of course the contrasting opinions of a human rights group. Basically, its the question of whether these actions are ethical. Beating someone to a pulp...Humans beating up humans...Is it really right??? But Mr Faris(pro-torture) mentioned about a psychopatic murderer bruying a teenage girl and the clock running down on you, i sort of started to think that violence would surely have to be used in this circumstance. So, what i am driving at, is there going be a situation where nothing else can be done and the last resort in to use force???
Stangely enough, we should actually think about the people who are the ones who actually torture the people. Just what is going to their head while they brutalise the person??? It has got to be the most traumatising thing to go through. Imagine having vivid dreams about the person who you tortured...Its enough to drive anyone nuts. I thought about this after watching the drama LOST, where there was actually an Iraqi prison torturer among the survivors. In one episode, he confronts one of the victims of his torture(her hands and face were brutally scarred) and actually breaks down crying, saying that he has never spent a day in his life not reflecting on the pain that he has caused.
Overally, torture is a very brutal act and it should never be followed regadless of how desperate the situation is. Else, we can might as well throw away the morals that we work so hard to preserve.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
New Media
Power to the people or threat to stability??? That is the big question...On one hand, new media is powerful to the people in the sense that, with the abundance of blogs, now everyone has the opportunity to pour their feelings over any issue in the vast internet. Just think about it, whatever you want ot say, it can be said with the touch of a few buttons. Sure, it is bound to chure up some really crude, violent messages, but personally, i would much prefer it to be done in the internet than in riots and strikes, which most of the time escalate into massive fights.
But, however, there surely is the bad part to new media and it takes the form of terrorism. As everyone knows by know, the terrorists are actually using the internet to spread its jihadist views and spread all sorts of propaganda. For instance, the article mentioned about faking the desecration of a Koran. Finding out that your religion's holy book was mocked at is sure to drive everyone mad, and that was just the case. Anti-american riots were up and running not long after that. Thats the problem with media....Any tom, dick or harry in the world could just start up controversy with a few touch of buttons. Its because of these people that the whole censorship thing started off anyway...
I really do understand why censorship started...It would be every government's goal to ensure that its people trust them totally and that their image to the people is a very good one...But is this image coming at the expense of lying straight to the faces of people...Thus, bloggers who know the truth about what really goes on in the government are eager to show it to their fellow countrymen. Its a right of everyone to know whats going on in their government. Take Singapore's policy of openness for example. It has worked out well in the sense that the public is able to know what the governemt is doing and likewise, the government is able to get feedback from the people. I believe that this really helps to reduce any tensions or problems that people have with any policies. This is why the Singapore government does not go around censoring blogs and imprisoning bloggers.
Freedom of speech...A widely debated topic, i mush say...Surely, some governments are really hypocritical...Whats the point of saying freedom of speech one day and the next day, you are censoring blogs and imprisoning bloggers. They, by their own judgement, are saying that the people are not able to voice out their pressing issues and likewise are not able to comment anything bad or controversial about them...The way i see it, if the government has been having a really good relationship with the people and has really been honest and open to them, i don;t see any reason why they should be so afraid of these blogs. "Say what they want but we know that we are right", should be their approach. But whats happening is far form this.
Controlled media is the last thing i would like to touch on. I mean, people watch the news to find out whats REALLY going on..But what they are watching instead is fabricated news, made for a certain party to look really good in the eyes of the viewers...For instace, Micheal Moores Fahrenheit 9/11 showed a scene where the American news would be in full praise of the American army but would quietly shield the public's attention about all the caualites that occured during the war in Iraq.So overall, with he way things have shifted the the media, i think that the media is more of a threat to stability to the world.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Todays' Media
I must say that the article does have its fair share of controversies but I must say that the media has be unreliable to convey the truth. But if you ask me if the media CAN EVER be relied upon to convey the truth, I would say yes. It will once all the money-faced editors and news chairmans are exposed to the whole nation for their fradulent ways.
I really do think that the current media in the U.S are operating on the principles of the 3 Ps: Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. Profit of the three is the main driving force behind the press. I really do like the statement about how the media "markets" and "manufactures" news for profit. It would explain why people would want to edit so much of an interview. Controversy and talking points. These two are what editors look for to gain profit. Take off a few words here and there and cut of some boring parts of a interview, and it will be the talking point among people the next day.
Prejudice is something that is abundant in U.S.A. O.J Simpson is one such victim of this prejudice. When a celebrity black man kills his white wife and eventually is acquitted, the whole country becomes havoc. But switch the black man to a white man and it becomes an everyday piece of news. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, being prejudice would sell in the U.S. Take comedian Dave Chapelle and Russell Peters for instance. Two of my favourite comedians but both comedians have their comedy act based on being prejudice. Moreover, the face that they are very, very popular hints to the fact that it really sells in America. So, its not surprising for the media to slant in this direction.
In the American media, its almost as if anyone who has something to say that may potentially reveal things about the war, will be silenced. The press give people what they want to see and the people blindly have to follow it. They choose what they want people to see. This is what i find is extremely wrong. I mean, who are they to obstruct us from learning the truth. If you have an open media, I would suggest that they start living up to it. Show the casualties of war, the people who have died, and the atrocities committed instead of "happy" rides in tanks with U.S soldiers.
I remember a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Micheal Moore, the director, asked congressmen outside the white house if they would send their children for the war in Iraq. Obviously, none of them answered and its clear what all their answers would have been. The war is wrong, they all know it but the media cannot showcase that stand. They have to stand by the war effort.
I would like to round of this entry with something local. Sure its controversial, but its sort of true. Remember how its always the PAP members mostly on the front papers of the Straits Times...Remember its always the PAP members going door to door shaking peoples' hands that is shown on the news...Remember how the slightest of bad acts by the opposition would instantly be splashed on the front pages...The opposition did lose fair and square but did the PAP receive a little push on the back by our media???
I really do think that the current media in the U.S are operating on the principles of the 3 Ps: Popularity, Prejudice and Profit. Profit of the three is the main driving force behind the press. I really do like the statement about how the media "markets" and "manufactures" news for profit. It would explain why people would want to edit so much of an interview. Controversy and talking points. These two are what editors look for to gain profit. Take off a few words here and there and cut of some boring parts of a interview, and it will be the talking point among people the next day.
Prejudice is something that is abundant in U.S.A. O.J Simpson is one such victim of this prejudice. When a celebrity black man kills his white wife and eventually is acquitted, the whole country becomes havoc. But switch the black man to a white man and it becomes an everyday piece of news. I could be wrong, but in my opinion, being prejudice would sell in the U.S. Take comedian Dave Chapelle and Russell Peters for instance. Two of my favourite comedians but both comedians have their comedy act based on being prejudice. Moreover, the face that they are very, very popular hints to the fact that it really sells in America. So, its not surprising for the media to slant in this direction.
In the American media, its almost as if anyone who has something to say that may potentially reveal things about the war, will be silenced. The press give people what they want to see and the people blindly have to follow it. They choose what they want people to see. This is what i find is extremely wrong. I mean, who are they to obstruct us from learning the truth. If you have an open media, I would suggest that they start living up to it. Show the casualties of war, the people who have died, and the atrocities committed instead of "happy" rides in tanks with U.S soldiers.
I remember a scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 where Micheal Moore, the director, asked congressmen outside the white house if they would send their children for the war in Iraq. Obviously, none of them answered and its clear what all their answers would have been. The war is wrong, they all know it but the media cannot showcase that stand. They have to stand by the war effort.
I would like to round of this entry with something local. Sure its controversial, but its sort of true. Remember how its always the PAP members mostly on the front papers of the Straits Times...Remember its always the PAP members going door to door shaking peoples' hands that is shown on the news...Remember how the slightest of bad acts by the opposition would instantly be splashed on the front pages...The opposition did lose fair and square but did the PAP receive a little push on the back by our media???
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)