The media is a channel whereby information is disseminated. Different countries rely on different mode of media to convey information. So, I would like to talk about the power of movies and Internet in the modern, highly urbanized society. Therefore, it is not surprising that such mediums of media are evident in the modern society and it is especially manipulating the mindsets of youths today.
Take for example movie like “ Royal Battle” in which a class of students is left in an isolated island to begin their battle. Ultimately, the survivor wins the game leaving all the rest dead. The movie depicts killing of friends in a gory way and I was absolutely aghast when I saw the thriller of the movie. Such movies promote violence among youths and show a misconception of mass killing being similar to a game, which is completely wrong. Mass killing is seen as simulating and exciting in the course of the “game” and forgoes the fact that it is immoral of them to play such a “game”. Youths nowadays are good imitators, they model after what they see or hear very well. It must be disastrous if “Royal Battle” will be reflected in real life situation. Thus, the violent movie can corrupt the minds of youths to thinking that mass killing is cool and exciting.
Newspaper advertisements have also been actively promoting slimming pills and centers with the collaboration with artist. The newspaper defines the only way to beautiful is to be slim. The before and after picture of successful people that undergone slimming further establish the fact that slimming center can help people to shed tremendous weight. But these ads have also cause more and more young girls to become anorexic. The papers have over emphasized on the importance of beauty to be slim which have had its negative impacts on the society.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Media practices self-censorship. how far can it go?
The media can influence the mass populance and the new media mainly make up of the internet, TV and the radio. As i am blogging now, i am also spreading information to the masses via Internet- blogging. However, the government has the rights to intervene to limit the contents broadcast by the media.
For example Mr brown, a famous singapore blogger had his column been remove from the papers due to the sensitive issues raised. This shows that the government understands the great inflencing power that new media holds and strictly follow up on the content made by journalist or bloggers to prevent them from disseminating the wrong values.
content:
On 30 June 2006, mrbrown wrote an article, titled "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!", for his weekly opinion column in Today newspaper concerning the rising costs of living in Singapore. [3] Three days later, on 3 July, an official from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) published a response letter on the same newspaper calling mrbrown a "partisan player" whose views "distort the truth". [4] On July 6, the newspaper suspended his column.[5] Mr Miyagi subsequently resigned from his column.
Later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong responded to the unhappiness raised in MICA's handling of the incident. He stated that "mrbrown had hit out wildly at the Government and in a very mocking tone", and that the government had to respond to such criticsms for fear of them eventually being treated as true. He also stated that national issues should not be debated in such a fashion (referring to mrbrown's article). In spite of that, PM Lee claimed that Singapore was an open society.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrbrown
Variety shows like desperate housewife and ugly betty are also scheduled to air on late at night so as to deter young people from viewing such shows.Though these shows are deemed to be popular american series in Singapore, the content of the show may not be suitable for kids. People who are older are more mature to preceive the Western culture of co-inhabitation or pre martial sex as taboos in Singapore. However if the children are exposed the such Americanized lifestyle, they may grow up to behave like one and lose their sense of culture in singapore.
For example Mr brown, a famous singapore blogger had his column been remove from the papers due to the sensitive issues raised. This shows that the government understands the great inflencing power that new media holds and strictly follow up on the content made by journalist or bloggers to prevent them from disseminating the wrong values.
content:
On 30 June 2006, mrbrown wrote an article, titled "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!", for his weekly opinion column in Today newspaper concerning the rising costs of living in Singapore. [3] Three days later, on 3 July, an official from the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) published a response letter on the same newspaper calling mrbrown a "partisan player" whose views "distort the truth". [4] On July 6, the newspaper suspended his column.[5] Mr Miyagi subsequently resigned from his column.
Later, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong responded to the unhappiness raised in MICA's handling of the incident. He stated that "mrbrown had hit out wildly at the Government and in a very mocking tone", and that the government had to respond to such criticsms for fear of them eventually being treated as true. He also stated that national issues should not be debated in such a fashion (referring to mrbrown's article). In spite of that, PM Lee claimed that Singapore was an open society.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrbrown
Variety shows like desperate housewife and ugly betty are also scheduled to air on late at night so as to deter young people from viewing such shows.Though these shows are deemed to be popular american series in Singapore, the content of the show may not be suitable for kids. People who are older are more mature to preceive the Western culture of co-inhabitation or pre martial sex as taboos in Singapore. However if the children are exposed the such Americanized lifestyle, they may grow up to behave like one and lose their sense of culture in singapore.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
Censorship is the practice of removing content from mass media. Censorship and freedom of speech always comes hand in hand. In present context, Singapore has been actively practicing censorship and we are even ranked 147 out of 167 countries with least freedom of speech. I personally support freedom of speech and therefore feel that censorship can never be justified.
Imagine your favorite artist singing a song that has many words censored? Singapore does censor especially songs that contain obscene language. In China, The famous band, the rolling stones have been told not to perform 5 songs in their concert. This has shown censorship been practiced even in entertainment sector. China is a relatively conservative country with a rich Chinese culture. Long-term censorship of foreign songs into China market may cause an imbalance in the music trade industry. As Chinese youngsters gradually become more westernized, the intense censorship of songs or any media may cause an uprising among youngsters. Assuming that everybody has social moral values, I do not see the big influence of obscene language in songs a big problem. Every word in a song makes up the music, censoring any one of them ruins the whole song.
Another case is the book burning in Nazi in 1933 as a form of censorship. At that time, university students burnt books that contain “Un-german” contents. They see this as a form of purifying their race with the execution of millions of Jews. In this case, the censorship had brought negative emotions of the Jews in the Nazi point of view. This sort of widespread censorship has suppressed feelings among non-Nazi supporters or have brainwashed them in order to escape death. Thus I believe that censorship suppress people of viewing things they want to and have infringed their human rights.
In America, despite being a country that upholds utmost respect for human rights a book by Irwin Schiff, a famous writer, had being banned. The government sees the contents in the book as anti-government as it describes sensitive issue like federal income tax and also encourage people to evade tax. However, Schiff claims that every word is his book is a fact! So, what position do the government has to censor stuff just because the materials are not to their advantages? Government may control and dictate the media but censorship may lead to removal of facts that reader and all have the rights to know.
Therefore I believe that everyone has the eyes to differentiate right from wrong, we do not need censorship to filter us from unhealthy content or inculcate certain “beliefs” in us. Censorship can never be used on human and will never be justified.
References:
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0510almanac.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2006-04-07-stones-china-censorship_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive1.htm
http://www.resonant.org/news/2003/2003.04.16-ban_on_anti_tax_book_renewed_by_federal_judge-rcfp.org.html
Imagine your favorite artist singing a song that has many words censored? Singapore does censor especially songs that contain obscene language. In China, The famous band, the rolling stones have been told not to perform 5 songs in their concert. This has shown censorship been practiced even in entertainment sector. China is a relatively conservative country with a rich Chinese culture. Long-term censorship of foreign songs into China market may cause an imbalance in the music trade industry. As Chinese youngsters gradually become more westernized, the intense censorship of songs or any media may cause an uprising among youngsters. Assuming that everybody has social moral values, I do not see the big influence of obscene language in songs a big problem. Every word in a song makes up the music, censoring any one of them ruins the whole song.
Another case is the book burning in Nazi in 1933 as a form of censorship. At that time, university students burnt books that contain “Un-german” contents. They see this as a form of purifying their race with the execution of millions of Jews. In this case, the censorship had brought negative emotions of the Jews in the Nazi point of view. This sort of widespread censorship has suppressed feelings among non-Nazi supporters or have brainwashed them in order to escape death. Thus I believe that censorship suppress people of viewing things they want to and have infringed their human rights.
In America, despite being a country that upholds utmost respect for human rights a book by Irwin Schiff, a famous writer, had being banned. The government sees the contents in the book as anti-government as it describes sensitive issue like federal income tax and also encourage people to evade tax. However, Schiff claims that every word is his book is a fact! So, what position do the government has to censor stuff just because the materials are not to their advantages? Government may control and dictate the media but censorship may lead to removal of facts that reader and all have the rights to know.
Therefore I believe that everyone has the eyes to differentiate right from wrong, we do not need censorship to filter us from unhealthy content or inculcate certain “beliefs” in us. Censorship can never be used on human and will never be justified.
References:
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0510almanac.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2006-04-07-stones-china-censorship_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive1.htm
http://www.resonant.org/news/2003/2003.04.16-ban_on_anti_tax_book_renewed_by_federal_judge-rcfp.org.html
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
VT gunman
Virginia Tech Campus has experienced a horrifying Monday on 16th April when a gunman killed 32 people before pointing gun at himself. The shocking behavior of a 23-year-old Korean student is way beyond our imagination. Critics had cited schools as being careless while dealing with students with mental problems. So, to what extent can school do to protect its own students?
I agree that schools should play a part in keeping its environment safe for all but in Virginia Tech 26,000 students are in mental distress, it is also impossible to keep track of everybody’s behavior. It may be too late before another gunman show up to kill the innocents thus schools cannot be wholly blamed for not expelling Cho earlier on. I believe that mental distress can be alleviated by counseling sessions and support from friends. Virginia Tech had done well to counseling students however; do people like Cho receive moral support from peers? I doubt so.
It is reported that Cho had being diagnosed with autism since he came to America at the age of 10. It is not easy of him as a foreigner to cope with studies in America especially language barriers. Classmates seemed to discriminate as they were laughing at him after he finished reading a text in English. Hence, he did not really have good friends in America. People who have known him described him as eccentric and loner. For Cho, that was definitely not an environment suited for him yet he lived with that for 13 years.
The massacre had caused grievance among many people but I think it would be a lesson learnt for all to care for everyone one around us. Such a tragic events only shows that everyone has a limit to stress and a built up of stress can have its adverse effects. Schools can help to monitor students but wont it be the best if students learn how to take care of one another?
I agree that schools should play a part in keeping its environment safe for all but in Virginia Tech 26,000 students are in mental distress, it is also impossible to keep track of everybody’s behavior. It may be too late before another gunman show up to kill the innocents thus schools cannot be wholly blamed for not expelling Cho earlier on. I believe that mental distress can be alleviated by counseling sessions and support from friends. Virginia Tech had done well to counseling students however; do people like Cho receive moral support from peers? I doubt so.
It is reported that Cho had being diagnosed with autism since he came to America at the age of 10. It is not easy of him as a foreigner to cope with studies in America especially language barriers. Classmates seemed to discriminate as they were laughing at him after he finished reading a text in English. Hence, he did not really have good friends in America. People who have known him described him as eccentric and loner. For Cho, that was definitely not an environment suited for him yet he lived with that for 13 years.
The massacre had caused grievance among many people but I think it would be a lesson learnt for all to care for everyone one around us. Such a tragic events only shows that everyone has a limit to stress and a built up of stress can have its adverse effects. Schools can help to monitor students but wont it be the best if students learn how to take care of one another?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news. Discuss this with reference to recent events.
Mass media are channels which current news can be made known to the public and it includes the Internet, TV, radio etc. We often learn of entertainment, sports or even political news via the mass media. Thus it is clear that the mass media is influential in our lives. It affects our beliefs such that we seldom question the stand of the mass media. Do the mass media take sides while reporting news and do they simply make news to attract attention?
I am skeptical to how the mass media relates the news as I believe that news that come to us have somehow being edited a umpteen times to the extent that it becomes a fiction report. So I have to agree that they make news instead of reporting them.
Recently, Britney Spears, an American pop singer has attracted worldwide attention with her stunning actions. On Feb 19 2007, Britney has been reported on shaving her head and checking in another rehab the next day.
It is also reported that her hair is being auctioned for at least 1 million by the hair salon. New York-based psychiatrist Gail Saltz has appealed for the media to limit the publications of Britney’ s shocking actions. She is suspected to be suffering from postpartum depression. Has her mismatched marriage with Kevin Federline led her to today’s state? Britney signs of self-destruction as certainly not improved with the mass publication of her fateful tragic. The mass media should be more sensitive and show empathy our fellow being. I understand that today’s mass media has become more profit oriented but aggravating Britney’s mental health for more profits to roll in is not an unethical move to start with.
Another example will be the sand ban of Indonesia to Singapore. Initially, the news reported that the Indonesians were concerned with the protection of their coastline that they have to stop supplying sand to us. Singapore was initially willing to work out a plan to conserve the natural environment of Indonesia, but when it was found out that the sand ban has got nothing to do with the conservation issue, the situation became tensed. The media repeatedly broadcast and follow on the news that Indonesia might have evil motives behind the sand ban. The media may have exaggerated the motives behind Indonesia’s sand ban that stirred up strong feelings among Singaporeans. I believe that the mass media is partly responsible for tension unless it had taken a more neutral stand.
China Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Japan has also made in to the headlines in the news. Articles have shown balanced views on how the Japanese and Chinese can improve their bilateral relations to corporate on projects. I feel that the successful visit to Japan means that the relationships between to two ministers have developed but the Chinese and Japanese may not still like one another. It takes a much more effort to build up the friendship so a mere visit to Japan is not enough to cause a drastic change in perspective of Japanese among the Chinese. Thus it may be a half-truth while reports say the Chinese and the Japanese have improved on their relationship. But I certainly understand the efforts by the media to instill a sense of togetherness between Japan and China. However, what said on the reports may not necessary reflect the whole truth.
I think that the events I have chosen are recent as they occur within this year.
In conclusion, readers or listeners to news today are expected to differentiate between the useful information and the least credible ones. News has evolved over the years and readers just have to be more intelligent to find out the whole truth.
Whoever controls the media - the images - controls the culture. Author: Allen Ginsberg
Britney
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17243855/
Sand ban
http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.5184b9e5238fb92293c89138e3a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=00f88490f045e010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:c7fd6da190161110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD
Japan and China ties
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/12/japan.wenjiabao.reut/index.html
I am skeptical to how the mass media relates the news as I believe that news that come to us have somehow being edited a umpteen times to the extent that it becomes a fiction report. So I have to agree that they make news instead of reporting them.
Recently, Britney Spears, an American pop singer has attracted worldwide attention with her stunning actions. On Feb 19 2007, Britney has been reported on shaving her head and checking in another rehab the next day.
It is also reported that her hair is being auctioned for at least 1 million by the hair salon. New York-based psychiatrist Gail Saltz has appealed for the media to limit the publications of Britney’ s shocking actions. She is suspected to be suffering from postpartum depression. Has her mismatched marriage with Kevin Federline led her to today’s state? Britney signs of self-destruction as certainly not improved with the mass publication of her fateful tragic. The mass media should be more sensitive and show empathy our fellow being. I understand that today’s mass media has become more profit oriented but aggravating Britney’s mental health for more profits to roll in is not an unethical move to start with.
Another example will be the sand ban of Indonesia to Singapore. Initially, the news reported that the Indonesians were concerned with the protection of their coastline that they have to stop supplying sand to us. Singapore was initially willing to work out a plan to conserve the natural environment of Indonesia, but when it was found out that the sand ban has got nothing to do with the conservation issue, the situation became tensed. The media repeatedly broadcast and follow on the news that Indonesia might have evil motives behind the sand ban. The media may have exaggerated the motives behind Indonesia’s sand ban that stirred up strong feelings among Singaporeans. I believe that the mass media is partly responsible for tension unless it had taken a more neutral stand.
China Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Japan has also made in to the headlines in the news. Articles have shown balanced views on how the Japanese and Chinese can improve their bilateral relations to corporate on projects. I feel that the successful visit to Japan means that the relationships between to two ministers have developed but the Chinese and Japanese may not still like one another. It takes a much more effort to build up the friendship so a mere visit to Japan is not enough to cause a drastic change in perspective of Japanese among the Chinese. Thus it may be a half-truth while reports say the Chinese and the Japanese have improved on their relationship. But I certainly understand the efforts by the media to instill a sense of togetherness between Japan and China. However, what said on the reports may not necessary reflect the whole truth.
I think that the events I have chosen are recent as they occur within this year.
In conclusion, readers or listeners to news today are expected to differentiate between the useful information and the least credible ones. News has evolved over the years and readers just have to be more intelligent to find out the whole truth.
Whoever controls the media - the images - controls the culture. Author: Allen Ginsberg
Britney
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17243855/
Sand ban
http://www.straitstimes.com/portal/site/STI/menuitem.5184b9e5238fb92293c89138e3a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=00f88490f045e010VgnVCM1000000a35010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=vgnartid:c7fd6da190161110VgnVCM100000430a0a0aRCRD
Japan and China ties
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/04/12/japan.wenjiabao.reut/index.html
Saturday, April 14, 2007
"The rich contribute to global warming while the poor suffer from it" Do you agree?
The world’s climate has undergone a major shift since human civilization began. Global warming is evident with the increasing temperatures each year and as the weather becomes very unpredictable. Major disasters had struck us and it makes me wonder if it is a signal to us that global warming is getting out of control. I have to agree that the rich has contributed more towards global warming while the effects of it are reflected on the poor- Third world nations and ELDCs.
A typical rich household consumes 20 times the electrical energy of a normal household. Yet the rich pledge to reduce carbon usage by buying personal carbon credits. It is a scheme that allocates a person certain amount energy to consume and if more usage is needed one has to buy it from the open market. I think that this scheme does not aptly inculcate the correct way to reduce carbon emission. It has only turned commercialized the sale of the carbon credits to thriving business. The rich could afford to buy additional carbon credits and they do not need to limit themselves to save on electricity. The poor on the other hand is restricted by the scheme or tries to save their carbon credits for the rich. This falls to a scenario whereby the rich are exploiting the poor.
Former US president Al Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio once made a speech on how to tackle global warming issues during the Academy Awards. I thought highly of them to suggest brilliant ideas. However, it turned out that carbon credits was bought to make the event possible. I feel that it may be a good start but not a solution to the real problem of global warming. They have just demonstrated on how to use their wealth to enjoy while some poor people have to cut down on energy usage for them.
Furthermore, the poor countries could not afford to undergo the effects of global warming. They mostly suffer from drought, famines and storms without the ability to protect them. They are not the most to blame for global warming yet they have to suffer the most just because they are poor.
Articles have started to report on various US companies that are willing to pledge to cut down on carbon emissions and this is the time where the finger pointing game begins. Some of the companies blame the state of the world to others who have contributed to a way or another. They refuse to cooperate as going green maybe incurs high costs. However, I believe that every single being in the universe is responsible for the mess we have made. It has taken us generations to start this mess and it may take us a long time to solve it.
In conclusion, everyone has a role to play to saving the world, not just the poor.
"In a decade, America's mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point." - Edwin Newman, Earth Day 1970
A typical rich household consumes 20 times the electrical energy of a normal household. Yet the rich pledge to reduce carbon usage by buying personal carbon credits. It is a scheme that allocates a person certain amount energy to consume and if more usage is needed one has to buy it from the open market. I think that this scheme does not aptly inculcate the correct way to reduce carbon emission. It has only turned commercialized the sale of the carbon credits to thriving business. The rich could afford to buy additional carbon credits and they do not need to limit themselves to save on electricity. The poor on the other hand is restricted by the scheme or tries to save their carbon credits for the rich. This falls to a scenario whereby the rich are exploiting the poor.
Former US president Al Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio once made a speech on how to tackle global warming issues during the Academy Awards. I thought highly of them to suggest brilliant ideas. However, it turned out that carbon credits was bought to make the event possible. I feel that it may be a good start but not a solution to the real problem of global warming. They have just demonstrated on how to use their wealth to enjoy while some poor people have to cut down on energy usage for them.
Furthermore, the poor countries could not afford to undergo the effects of global warming. They mostly suffer from drought, famines and storms without the ability to protect them. They are not the most to blame for global warming yet they have to suffer the most just because they are poor.
Articles have started to report on various US companies that are willing to pledge to cut down on carbon emissions and this is the time where the finger pointing game begins. Some of the companies blame the state of the world to others who have contributed to a way or another. They refuse to cooperate as going green maybe incurs high costs. However, I believe that every single being in the universe is responsible for the mess we have made. It has taken us generations to start this mess and it may take us a long time to solve it.
In conclusion, everyone has a role to play to saving the world, not just the poor.
"In a decade, America's mighty rivers will have reached the boiling point." - Edwin Newman, Earth Day 1970
Thursday, April 12, 2007
"YouTube has no ethnics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money." Do you agree?
YouTube was founded in almost 2 years ago and started as a small company in San Mateo. Now, YouTube is one of the fastest growing website in which 100 million clips were viewed daily. Youtube has certainly being an innovation of technology in which viewers can enjoy media entertainment free of charge. However, YouTube did not get to best of both worlds as the young business is being challenged by issues such as political peace and videos that imparts the wrong moral value.
Though Youtube is the leading business model in the economy yet it has also shown the ugly side of it -- its lack of ethnics. Videos of bullying amongst teenagers can be found on Youtube. The acts of violence are known as “happy slapping” where an accomplice record the whole act of bullying using a mobile phone or other means of recording. “Happy slapping” is now a very popular among teens in London and it also dawns on me that similar cases have actually took place in Singapore too. An assualt teenage girl was being surrounded by a group of girls who stripped her and slammed her head against the staircase last year. Having this unhealthy violent video posted on Youtube not only increases the trend of “happy slapping” but will hurt the assaulted teenage emotionally. Can we imagine how a teenager would react if he/she sees the footage of the bullying act posted on Youtube? I condemn such a cowardly act but I have to agree that YouTube has open up a channel for such videos to be broadcasted.
For the political side, tension between the Greeks and the Turks when both parties made videos that berate each other. Thus, YouTube was banned in Turkey for 3 days and YouTube was sued for such videos.
In conjuncture, Youtube did unleash users’ creativity for home video making. Users also enjoy making their own music videos with final fantasy or the sims character. Users who have done a great job in homevideo making are termed as “internet celebrities”. Some of them have even gained fame by signing contracts with production companies.
In conclusion, I believe that YouTube has done well in incorporating the TV with the computer. Its contributions have brought a lot of convenience to users as we approach this computer era. Perphaps mankind is still not matured enough to be given such freedom to upload videos on the net for sharing. The sensitive issues posted in the videos outlines the weaklines of YouTube to the extent that it lacks its social ethnics. I hope that people will have kind intention while using Youtube and not use it as a way to broadcast evil thoughts.
“Ethics is a code of values which guide our choices and actions and determine the purpose and course of our lives.” — Ayn Rand, Russian-American novelist and philosopher (1905-1982)
Though Youtube is the leading business model in the economy yet it has also shown the ugly side of it -- its lack of ethnics. Videos of bullying amongst teenagers can be found on Youtube. The acts of violence are known as “happy slapping” where an accomplice record the whole act of bullying using a mobile phone or other means of recording. “Happy slapping” is now a very popular among teens in London and it also dawns on me that similar cases have actually took place in Singapore too. An assualt teenage girl was being surrounded by a group of girls who stripped her and slammed her head against the staircase last year. Having this unhealthy violent video posted on Youtube not only increases the trend of “happy slapping” but will hurt the assaulted teenage emotionally. Can we imagine how a teenager would react if he/she sees the footage of the bullying act posted on Youtube? I condemn such a cowardly act but I have to agree that YouTube has open up a channel for such videos to be broadcasted.
For the political side, tension between the Greeks and the Turks when both parties made videos that berate each other. Thus, YouTube was banned in Turkey for 3 days and YouTube was sued for such videos.
In conjuncture, Youtube did unleash users’ creativity for home video making. Users also enjoy making their own music videos with final fantasy or the sims character. Users who have done a great job in homevideo making are termed as “internet celebrities”. Some of them have even gained fame by signing contracts with production companies.
In conclusion, I believe that YouTube has done well in incorporating the TV with the computer. Its contributions have brought a lot of convenience to users as we approach this computer era. Perphaps mankind is still not matured enough to be given such freedom to upload videos on the net for sharing. The sensitive issues posted in the videos outlines the weaklines of YouTube to the extent that it lacks its social ethnics. I hope that people will have kind intention while using Youtube and not use it as a way to broadcast evil thoughts.
“Ethics is a code of values which guide our choices and actions and determine the purpose and course of our lives.” — Ayn Rand, Russian-American novelist and philosopher (1905-1982)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)