Consider the merits and demerits of censorship. State your reasons why you think it is un/necessary?

According to the Crystal Reference Encyclopedia, censorship is the controlling of access to and dissemination of information, especially on political and moral grounds. It is a characteristic of authoritarian states, which seeks to regulate the flow of information, opinion, and expression.

In my opinion, I believe censorship is necessary. It would allow certain secrets of the different kinds of organizations or individuals to be protected for reasons of security, confidentiality and personal privacy. Imagine the military strategies of Singapore and America have been exhibited, what would happen to the national security of both countries? This is supported by the regulations under the UN International Human Rights Act (1948), Article 19, which states that there must be protection of national security or of public order. Furthermore, with censorship, stir-ups of racial feelings which will lead to chaos would be prevented in comparison to the complete report on the respective cultures’ differing values and beliefs which might lead to racial conflicts.

Nonetheless, probably the most important concern is to be able to uphold positive moral values and prevent negative influences to our society. Dr Steven Martino, who led the US study published in the latest edition of the journal ‘Pediatrics’, said that ‘sexually degrading lyrics’’ – many graphic and filled with obscenities – caused changes in adolescents’ sexual behaviour. However, this study is not substantial to support censorship as it is only conducted in US, not worldwide. Nevertheless, it serves as an indicator on what non-censorship can do to our teenagers. Moreover, over-exposure or repeated exposure to the media can result in desensitization which makes behaviours like hanging out with a sugar daddy, being submissive in sexual relationships, allowing one to be disrespected by the partner, etc, seem normal. Therefore, does this prove that censorship is vital and should be actively encouraged?

However, censorship is unnecessary, on the other hand. In particular, the probability of censorship being implemented is far above the ground when it is used to conceal corruption, crime – hiding the golden truth from the public, robbing of the human rights everyone ought to have, Thus, the wider public interest is not reflected and considered. This is equivalent to showing disrespect and doing injustice to those who had been faithfully following the law and not abusing their freedom of action. It is unfair to contravene everyone’s rights of getting the whole picture. Hence, transparency is being exercised if everything is accounted for.

Furthermore, by having non-censorship in the act, demystification follows. The public would not be ignorant or doubtful on issues concerning them, the country, and the world. In this way, horizon will be broadened, allowing people to comprehend things at much different levels, angles and perspectives. At the same time, this would mean giving youngsters early exposure to contexts they might not have been exposed to under conditions of censorship. This is vital as even if issues that are deemed to be undesirable to be exposed like sex are censored, there is no chance to delete all the sources of input to a child’s curious mind. Youngsters can rent videos from a video store or simply watch grisly clips on YouTube. So why not?

In conclusion, the issue of whether censorship itself should be permitted to exercise its authority in this globalizing, evolutionary society is definitely based on one’s perception. Usually, this would be related to how one is being brought up to determine what is right or wrong. Nevertheless, the factor of in which context is censorship being at play here also played a significant role in the permission for it to be executed. Well, at least for me, censorship is necessary. Sometimes, Man just cannot differentiate between good and evil. In such cases, perhaps it would be better for the censor to sieve out the necessary information for us, the readers.

What have I learnt about the media in the article ''Spilling blood with oil in Iraq'' in the way they present what is perceived over what is real?

I have learnt that the media does not have the autonomy to publish the reality, or rather; it has the absolute power to publish everything. It is a matter of choice that they preferred to control the information presented to the public. In this particular illustration, the article on “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq”, the ‘creative untruths’ that were reported by the US, British and were later published by the media had apparently proven that the media is influenced by the US administration. Hence, the media was ‘obliged’ to present what the US and British assumed it was.

However, that article “Spilling blood with oil in Iraq” has demonstrated that the media, in particular, the print industry has its freedom and rights to publish the truth. At the very least, it portrayed how exactly Iraq has been going through since the entrance of the US-British forces into the country. Nonetheless, this specific example is only one fraction of the influential media that showcases what is real. It allows the public, specifically, the readers to be educated, to have a real idea on how the situation in Iraq is really like, how Iraq is the real victim in this whole issue of her being the one that threatens the United States, for instance, using chemical weapons. Actually, it was the US that was the ‘invading forces’ instead of being the ones that were supposedly to assist in the post-war reconstruction.

Nevertheless, in general, the media, now in this alleged “democratic and free society”, which is deemed as enjoying the liberty to publish everything including the golden truth, is in reality, not exercising its privilege to the fullest, in terms of providing the true story. Instead, it makes use of its authority to print whatever they want, even when it comes to changing the reality, hiding the truth and controlling the public’s perception of the matter.