gp essay

1. Discuss the challenges faced by the mass media in an era of globalisation.

Globalisation can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces. In this era of globalisation, the mass media have faced many challenges that have risen due to this change. As globalisation is a continuously changing process, the mass media, both traditional and new, has to constantly change in order to adapt and hence, there would be infinitely many challenges to overcome.

As the world continues to be unified, the media faces competition from all over the globe. The people are no longer limited to the few sources of information that can be obtained from the media as they are now able to gather information from overseas and have a greater perspective of issues. This is especially so in the form of citizen journalism which refers to the act of citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information. This source of information which might or might not be reliable can be found easily on the internet. Hence, the media faces increasing competition in this sense and would be deemed as a challenge it faces.

A main source of media, the internet, have been blamed for the appearance of content deemed as unfit for the people such as pornography and violence. Due to globalisation, information can be freely obtained and accessed from anyone and anywhere around the world. This leads the the problem of the media unable to regulate the content which are offensive. This includes racist remarks made by anonymous people on the internet by letting their opinions known. This form of racial insensitivity could lead to massive disputes between groups of people which might lead to protests and riots. Terrorist might also use the internet as a method to influence and brainwash innocent people to follow their cause. This would lead to the increase in terrorist activities around the globe which could threaten global security. Therefore, this would be a main area of concern for the internet media.

Globalisation also brings about an increase in international trade between countries. Hence, there should be friendly bilateral ties between countries or otherwise, there could be problems in trading goods between them. For example, North Korea had not opened up it's doors to the world and there was no trade between it and other countries. The reason lies in the fact that there were disputes with the United States of America over nuclear issues. Sometimes, the media has to step in and use it's influence to mend the weak ties between certain countries as it has to safeguard the interest of the people which would benefit from better ties between countries. Examples include imported goods could be cheaper as taxes are levied. Therefore, the media has this role and responsibility to ensure healthy ties between countries which is no easy feat.

In conclusion, globalisation has brought about many changes to the world and the mass media would have to face many new challenges. However, these challenges can seen as hurdles which would ultimately benefit our world.

Is same-sex marriage a practical consideration in this age of globalisation?

Same-sex marriage is defined as a governmentally, socially, or religiously recognized marriage in which two people of the same sex live together as a family. Currently, in the conservative society of Singapore, same sex marriages are against the law and are banned. However in other more open societies such as the Netherlands, same sex marriages are legal and recognized. I believe that in this age of globalization where people are more open to new ideas while culture and tradition are slowly eroding; same-sex marriages have become a practical consideration in many societies.

Some argue that marriage is for the purpose of raising children and that two parents of the same sex are not adequately equipped to raise children. However, there is no basis in fact for this opinion. Children do well in homes where they are nutured and loved, regardless of the parents' genders. Besides, many heterosexual couples choose not to or are unable to have children yet their marriages are considered valid.
Some people object to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds. They often claim that extending marriage to same-sex couples will undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by cultural, religious, and traditional understanding. Furthermore, opponents argue that same-sex marriage cannot fulfill common procreational roles, and/or sanctions a partnership that is centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. However, homosexuals also have the basic human rights and should not be prevented by religious stance that prohibits it.

Libertarians and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. These sides of the argument may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage", some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children.

"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." Therefore, in conclusion, I believe that we should not discriminate against the homosexuals and deny them of their rights to happiness.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do you agree?

I agree to a large extent that poverty is the cause of crime and revolution.

A revolution is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time. Variously defined revolutions have been happening throughout human history. They vary in terms of numbers of their participants (revolutionaries), means employed by them, duration, motivating ideology and many other aspects. They may result in a socio-political change in the socio-political institutions, or a major change in a culture or economy.

Poverty in this sense may be understood as a condition in which a person or community is deprived of, and or lacks the essentials for a minimum standard of well-being and life. These essentials may be material resources such as food, safe drinking water, and shelter, or they may be social resources such as access to information, education, health care, social status, political power, or the opportunity to develop meaningful connections with other people in society.

In Singapore, there are examples of the clear gap between the incomes of different workers such as an executive compared to menial job laborer. According to an article in February 2007 from the International Herald Tribune, it states that 'average wages were rising with the economy' but 'incomes among the bottom 30 percent of households had actually fallen'. This highlights that the problem of income disparity between our workers are becoming worse. Therefore, if left untouched, those at the bottom 30 percent would have problems obtaining the basic necessities that are required for subsistence and they could be driven to desperation and commit crimes as means of survival.

Therefore, i can conclude that to a large extent that the mother of revolution and crime is poverty as the poor people would commit crimes out of desperation although some might commit crimes for other reasons such as in the name of fun or revenge.

Blogging task
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, I believe that Szilagyi’s view should be adopted where more focus should be placed on social responsibility instead of freedom of speech. A lack of understanding and social responsibility while pursuing the freedom of expression would lead to insensitivity which could result in potential disasters. Take the published caricatures of Prophet Muhammad for example, the press merely tried to make their point regarding self-censorship and press freedom but it led to condemnation by Muslims worldwide. This shows that we should have been aware, that in a world of global information flow there is an insurmountable contradiction between traditional free speech values and public discussion about Islam and how to strike a balance between individual and collective press freedom rights.

However, on the other hand, freedom of speech is also an essential factor for a country to obtain true democracy. A view is not “fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed,” it will become “a dead dogma, not a living truth”. Freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive. We must be free to deny the existence of God, and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that millions of people regard as sacred. Without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

In conclusion, a small country such as Singapore where many races reside in, we have to be careful of what we say as there could be misunderstandings and misinterpretation which could threaten the peace we have now. Therefore, I believe that we should place more focus on social responsibility instead of freedom of expression.

“The death penalty is murder and should be abolished.” Do you agree?

Capital punishment also known as the death penalty is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Capital punishment can be carried out through various ways such as hanging, lethal injection, etc. The main reason behind this capital punishment was to punish the criminal as well as to appease the victim’s family.

One reason on why the death penalty should be abolished beacause it is just the same as murder. The only difference is that the execution of the convict is carried out in a lawful manner. As it is said, two wrongs does not make a right. What use is it to execute the convicted only after he has commited the crime? Furthurmore, the reason given for the death penalty is that the criminal is a threat to society which should be eliminated. However, if the convict is in jail, he would now be of no threat, so there is no reason to execute him. Some say that capital punishment may lead to irreversible miscarrages of justice and that it violates and denies the rights of the convict.

Some might argue that capital punishment serves as a deterrence to others as they would think twice before committing a crime. They would be afraid of the consequences if they had committed a crime. However, statistics have shown that deterrence has little effect in decreasing capital crime. Some criminals have no choice while others are strong willed, therefore, they would not be deterred easily.

In conclusion, i believe that the death penalty should be abolished as it denies our basic rights as human beings. I believe that criminals should be given a second chance in life and not have their precious life thrown away. Therefore, the death penalty should be abolished.

Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and explain why it is un/necessary

Censorship is the removal or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. Typically censorship is done by governments, religious groups, or the mass media, although other forms of censorship exist. Censorship is not a new concept at all, it was already being practiced during ancient times.

Reasons on why censorship is necessary include the intention to protect children and weak minded from offensive materials such as pornography, violence, etc. If children are exposed to all these, they might grow up with wrong values inculcated in them and might poise to be a threat to society.

Some might argue otherwise as censorship only delays the time children get exposed to the real world as they would eventually do. This could lead to curiosity and children would find means of obtaining information on topics such as sex through various sources such as the internet.

Censorship also helps to maintain peace and national security. Racial issues are very sensitive in Singapore. Imagine a video leaked showing a certain race being discriminated against. This would cause chaos and could eventually lead to racial riots which would result in instability of our country. Therefore, censorship is needed to prevent this from happening.

In conclusion, I believe that censorship is necessary as the benefits would outweigh some of the problems that would arise from it.

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

In society nowadays, the media has a lot of influence among the public. It is not only able to feed us with the information about major events happening all around the world, but also manipulate the viewers at the same time. So, should we believe everything the media reports? The information that we get may not be as accurate as you think it would be. The media has the ability to show us some parts of events and therefore, we are unable to get the entire picture.

In the case of this incident, the media has chosen to depict our swimmers in bad light. They showed our swimmers smiling at the disqualification of the American team. This would give the viewers the impression that our swimmers are mocking them for their mistake. However, in reality, our swimmers were only smiling in shock and had no intention whatsoever in celebrating their disqualification in the competition. This incident shows that the media is very subjective in its perception and has no desire to get to the bottom of things. This resulted in this controversy in the first place.

In conclusion, the media and its subjective perception can cause a lot of problems as the viewers may be upset to see what they show. This incident is one good example.