Consider the merits and demerits of censorship and state your reasons why you think it is unnecessary/necessary.

Censorship has existed since the beginning of monarchy and its purpose still remains the same. It is a tool which the authorities used to suppress what the media showcases to its audience and to control what they actually see or hear. This is often done for the good of the audience. Although censorship may sound positive, in today's society, its existence is a controversial issue.

Firstly, let us look at what censorship exactly censors. Censorship applies to all that may induce negative moral values to its audience. This includes violence, nudity, sensitive issues such as races and religions. Through censorship, it helps to protect the audience, mainly the young from materials that may not suit their maturity. For instance, imagine a five year old child exposed to violence such as blood and gore. What he knows about blood is limited, perhaps just the fact that bleeding equals to pain. Being exposed to a whole pool of blood would not only horrify him, it would also affect the child psychiologically with the images continuously flashing back in his mind. Censorship also helps to lower tension so as to reduce the outbreaks of riots since no negative messages get across. This is particulary important in Singapore which is a multi-racial country. The different racial groups would certainly not tolerate negative racist remarks about them being publicised around through the media. Hence, from another perspective, censorship helps to protect national interest and maintain peace.

However, there are people who strongly believe that censorship is not necessary. They find that the media should expose people to reality instead of hiding the ugly truth from them and even if censorship is practised, there may be other sources available. In fact, the consequences would be far worse as the other sources available may have much more information available that the media do not possess. By exposing people to negative things and to have someone educate them at the same time, it would make us stronger and see the world from another perspective. Furthermore, today societies emphasize on freedom of expression and no matter how cruel, gory, disgusting the artist, writers or directors want to portray his work of art, we should not censor it as a show of respect to their talent.

I personally believe that censorship should be present but it should not be overly practised. Frequently, censorships ruin the message that ought to be delivered. For example, although gory images are disgusting, it actually sends a clear-cut message across to the people. As what the saying suggests: "A picture says a thousand words."Self-censorship should be practised instead as only through that would people know how to control themselves. If we restrict people too much, there will be this human instinct that would drive them to know more. This instinct is curiosity. Curiosity kills the cat; people would resort to almost anything if they are overly curious and that would lead to further social issues instead. Hence, censorship is necessary but it would only serve its purpose if there is a limit to it.

Media

When we were young, we used to think that the media is a reliable source of information. However, as we grow older, we tend to realise that that is not so true. The media serves many purposes, among which includes informing but that is not the main purpose for its existence. The media actually possesses the power to introduce new subjects, be it sensitive issues or not, persuade its audience and even promote propaganda. Propaganda means the spreading of ideas and information, most of the time being untrue or biased, with the intention to influence its targetted audience.

Based on the article "Spilling blood with oil in Iraq", we can see the media attempts at promoting propaganda. Most of the information that was opened for the public tend to be one-sided and non-factual, solely for the reason to encourage people to support the war. In this scenerio, most of the Americans, the intended audience, knew nothing about the ugly truth behind the war. They knew not that the damage caused by the Americans to Iraq is far worse than what Saddam Hussein ever did in his life. This is an irony considering that the reason for war was to stop further devastation to Iraq. Americans also do not realise that there was an ulterior motive as well, which was the desire to own Iraq's oil.

Hencefore, I conclude that media actually has the ability to alter information available to the public, the information be it either factual or completely false in an attempt to change people's mindset over the subject.