Mass Media ; Censorship

When is censorship really necessary? This is one question that not only the person who is in charge of censoring struggles with, even civilians like us are both affected and bothered with what is being censored and what is not.

Taking up the recent example of Thailand blocking YOUTUBE for a clip that mocks the Thai King, the entire site was blocked from the citizens of Thailand, as GOOGLE has not agreed to remove it from YOUTUBE. In this case, the government was the middleman and was in charge of "censoring" this video clip for the Thai people, while GOOGLE is the "protector" of the general public who surfs on YOUTUBE. Thus sparking the argument on who is right, Thailand officials or GOOGLE?

Indeed, the Thai officials have plenty of valid reasons to block this entire site from their people. The Thais since history has been known for their immense respect for their king, the king is practically being worshipped. Actions such as stepping on the coin, which has the king’s face on it, can really upset the Thais. Needless to say, having a 44 seconds video that consists of King Bhumibol’s images being altered and insulted was far too much for the Thais to handle, especially the government. It was deemed as specially humiliating and disrespectful. Imagine the conflict and commotion that will arise if most Thais get to see this video. Hence, the government has reasons such as preventing conflicts from sparking, prevent negative influences and uphold positive values such as to respect their king. I am sure they would never want their next generation of Thais to be a bunch of adults that don't give two hoots about their king being insulted or worse off, be the ones who is insulting.

On the other hand, I perfectly understand why GOOGLE refuses to remove the video too. Being the most popular source of user-generated videos, by removing videos from the website, they are depriving users of their freedom to post videos. With a tagline, YOUTUBE - “Broadcast Yourself”, it is all about the freedom of expression on the internet. They are supposed to give users a platform to say whatever they want, therefore going against their own motto if they remove the video.

All in all, it is always a tough decision to make. Nonetheless, being a third-party, I prefer standing in the safe side that is to prevent conflicts from happening. Which is to censor the video and protect the people. Thailand does not exactly have a small population so any hard feelings, which develop into conflicts, will have dramatic consequences. Thus I feel that we as individuals play an important role in the process of exercising our right in “freedom of speech” too. In this case, the user who posted the video is not tracked down. I feel that he plays a relatively large responsibility for causing such inconveniences, depriving the Thais of entertainment from YOUTUBE and giving the two parties a headache on censorship.

Mass Media ; Media's subjective Perception

In this case, the media's subjective perception affected the way this incident progressed in a great deal. According to the article "Singapore Swimmers in hot water", it all started when a reporter saw Bryan and Zach smiling when they saw the US team being disqualified. The reporter published this news on the Associated Press, which is a renowned news company. He "thought" and "inferred" on his own that since those 2 Singaporean boys are there for competition, they must be gloating upon seeing the US team lose a chance of winning another medal. Indeed, the thoughts and inference of that reporter landed our two young swimmers into hot soup.

What bothers me is that just with one reporter’s report, a huge impact is brought upon the two swimmers. This not only shows the power of mass media, it also once again reinforce the danger of the media’s subjective perception. SSA’s team manager, David Tay, asked a good question. Why didn’t the reporter go up and ask the boys why were they smiling? This brings the whole incident to a whole new level, which is the motive of the reporter who reported such matters without clarifying with the “accused”. Is he doing it just for the sake of increasing the news selling rates? If so, doesn’t he know that the future and reputation of not only the two young boys but also the whole Singapore Team are at stake here? Or that he might be responsible for sowing discord between countries? All these questions are sure mind bogging. Nonetheless, I do hope that this is not the case.

I am relieved that they are able to clear up the misunderstanding through the media. Instead of smiling in mockery at the US team, the boys actually were in shock. It was the media, which landed them into such trouble; ironically it was the media, which helped them out of it too. Therefore, I would not make a sweeping statement and say the media’s perception is all bad and harmful. Nonetheless, in this case, it was a bad example of media perception. It also serves as a reminder for us audience to always look at the “bigger picture” and not just the picture painted for us by one solitary newspaper.

Mass Media ; Reliabilty of news

After reading these two articles, "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq" and "TVBS scandal points to credibility problems in Taiwan's media industry" I realised I have to really think twice before believing what the media reports. No matter how established the media company seems to be, we should still assess the news report carefully, especially when it talks about political issues.

In the case of the article "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq", the media always pictured the campaigns as good but when the author went to Iraq, he realised that was not the case. Instead of helping the poeple in Iraq, they were being bombed and killed. For so long, most people who tuned in and follow-ed up on the situations in Iraq by watching the news, were severly misleaded. A totally different picture was painted for them. In other words, the media withheld the truth from the people.

As for TVBS, they are a very popular and one of the more established television company in Taiwan that has been operating for 14 years. Yet, they did up a false report on a robbery. If not for the investigation that has been done, the people will be still kept in the dark. It seems like the media would do anything just to get a good viewership, as it was not the first time such false reporting was made. If the scheme was not discovered, the poeple would still have to fear when walking in the streets at night. Who would account for all these fear that is caused by a false report?

Therefore I have learnt that I have to evaluate and be more careful when reading the news. Indeed what is perceived by the news may not be real.

OH LA LA ~ MY GP BLOG !
HAHAH :D