http://www.serendipity.li/cda.html#voa
Summary:
Censorship in the United States is about keeping her own citizens in the dark. The official version of whatever that happened is actually a fabricated story, presented to a largely unsuspecting public. The majority of the public is expected to not analyse the information given to them critically, as most of them cannot be bothered to do so. This makes easy the job of the ruling elite, who hunger after power and world domination. The announcement of the official version only requires the suppression of any alternative version.
The assumptions:
The writer assumes that the government of the United States actually wants to keep their own citizens in the dark about their actual affairs, in their bid for world domination. He has not questioned the accuracy of his own statement, in regards to what the government of the United States is really after. He also assumes that censorship in America works by ignoring anything that does not follow the official story.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Censorship in the United States
Title: Neil Gaiman’s journal: Why defend freedom of icky speech
Hyperlink: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
Describe (Summarize):
The article is written by Neil Gaiman, the author of the comic book,' Sandman'. He is actively participating in an organisation which supports freedom of speech in comic books. He argued about the logic of freedom of speech and discussed how one person's obscenity can be another's art. Freedom of speech to him, is not about defending what you like and standing up for what you think is right, it's more about just basically giving everyone a chance to speak out, regardless of their stand.
"What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art.Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost."
Extracted from: Neil Gaiman’s journal: Why defend freedom of icky speech
2) Analyze assumptions:
Americans have conflicting ideals about freedom of speech. Some assumed that freedom of speech implicates the censorship of certain contents while others think of it as a platform to express themselves and their art freely without any restrictions. In society, more and more artists are being marked down and prosecuted for their free expression. They find out that the limits of expression are going beyond them and they can no longer speak their mind. The writer clearly states that the true meaning of freedom of speech is whereby one can say what he likes, write what he likes, and know that the remedy to someone saying or writing or showing something that offends you is not to read it, or to speak out against it.
Hyperlink: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
Describe (Summarize):
The article is written by Neil Gaiman, the author of the comic book,' Sandman'. He is actively participating in an organisation which supports freedom of speech in comic books. He argued about the logic of freedom of speech and discussed how one person's obscenity can be another's art. Freedom of speech to him, is not about defending what you like and standing up for what you think is right, it's more about just basically giving everyone a chance to speak out, regardless of their stand.
"What makes it worth defending? and the only answer I can give is this: Freedom to write, freedom to read, freedom to own material that you believe is worth defending means you're going to have to stand up for stuff you don't believe is worth defending, even stuff you find actively distasteful, because laws are big blunt instruments that do not differentiate between what you like and what you don't, because prosecutors are humans and bear grudges and fight for re-election, because one person's obscenity is another person's art.Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost."
Extracted from: Neil Gaiman’s journal: Why defend freedom of icky speech
2) Analyze assumptions:
Americans have conflicting ideals about freedom of speech. Some assumed that freedom of speech implicates the censorship of certain contents while others think of it as a platform to express themselves and their art freely without any restrictions. In society, more and more artists are being marked down and prosecuted for their free expression. They find out that the limits of expression are going beyond them and they can no longer speak their mind. The writer clearly states that the true meaning of freedom of speech is whereby one can say what he likes, write what he likes, and know that the remedy to someone saying or writing or showing something that offends you is not to read it, or to speak out against it.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Vaz calls for video game censorship
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14/20090304/tpl-vaz-calls-for-video-games-censorship-81c5b50.html
Summary:
Keith Vaz, Labour MP and chair of the home affairs committee wants to introduce a stricter video game classification. His purpose for doing so is “not about censorship” but for “protecting (Britain’s) children” (extracted).He cited a survey which revealed that 74 percent of British parents were concerned over the increasing levels of violence in video games. He hopes for the Byron report to be implemented fully, "Given the fact that there is increasing availability of these games on the internet exhibiting scenes of graphic and gratuitous violence" (extracted). The above Byron report is a series of proposals by Tanya Byron which concluded that by increasing awareness and better enforcement, video game classification can be improved.
Assumptions:
1) Concerned parents have tried to help their children by controlling what they play, but have failed in doing so.
2) The British government already has a plan underway, however it is still in it's initial stages or the plan is going very slowly.
Summary:
Keith Vaz, Labour MP and chair of the home affairs committee wants to introduce a stricter video game classification. His purpose for doing so is “not about censorship” but for “protecting (Britain’s) children” (extracted).He cited a survey which revealed that 74 percent of British parents were concerned over the increasing levels of violence in video games. He hopes for the Byron report to be implemented fully, "Given the fact that there is increasing availability of these games on the internet exhibiting scenes of graphic and gratuitous violence" (extracted). The above Byron report is a series of proposals by Tanya Byron which concluded that by increasing awareness and better enforcement, video game classification can be improved.
Assumptions:
1) Concerned parents have tried to help their children by controlling what they play, but have failed in doing so.
2) The British government already has a plan underway, however it is still in it's initial stages or the plan is going very slowly.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The World Trade Centre Demolition
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc11.htm
Many people still believe that the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were due to reasons like the hatred of the Arab terrorists towards democratic America. George W. Bush even suggested that the terrorists hate America because "America is free”. However, that may not be the case.
There were other reasons, reasons that were beneficial to the U.S and that was the work of terrorists within the U.S. government itself who seek to gain control of Central Asian and Middle Eastern oil and to impose a fascist dictatorship not only upon the United States but also upon the entire world.
The public however, was just given an explanation, and ‘excuse’ for the cause of the incident. They were not aware of the truth and were left to accept what was left for them. Censorship prevented them to know the truth, which is an entitlement the public is suppose to have.
The assumption:
The author believes that the US government is corrupted and the Mass Media in US cannot be relied on totally because the ‘truth’ is often not published, especially when it concerns the image of a country. He believes the 'truth' is merely an excuse for the public to accept.
Apparently, the author has taken a biased stand, against the US government by insisting that the US government is corrupted without concrete evidences to support his stand.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc11.htm
Many people still believe that the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were due to reasons like the hatred of the Arab terrorists towards democratic America. George W. Bush even suggested that the terrorists hate America because "America is free”. However, that may not be the case.
There were other reasons, reasons that were beneficial to the U.S and that was the work of terrorists within the U.S. government itself who seek to gain control of Central Asian and Middle Eastern oil and to impose a fascist dictatorship not only upon the United States but also upon the entire world.
The public however, was just given an explanation, and ‘excuse’ for the cause of the incident. They were not aware of the truth and were left to accept what was left for them. Censorship prevented them to know the truth, which is an entitlement the public is suppose to have.
The assumption:
The author believes that the US government is corrupted and the Mass Media in US cannot be relied on totally because the ‘truth’ is often not published, especially when it concerns the image of a country. He believes the 'truth' is merely an excuse for the public to accept.
Apparently, the author has taken a biased stand, against the US government by insisting that the US government is corrupted without concrete evidences to support his stand.
Censorship and Internet: A Singapore Perspective
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004065.pdf
Summary:
Singapore faces many challenges in the Internet’s censorship. This is mainly due to its operating philosophy and technical set-up. The Internet defies censorship because of characteristics such as information explosion, de-massification, convergence, computer culture and globalisation.
The Internet has the ability to explode information onto every user. However, the number of censors at work has not kept pace with the explosive growth in the amount of censorable materials.
In addition, computer culture does not encourage censorship as maximum freedom is celebrated. Cyberspace culture is not value-free in that it privileges free speech and the free flow of ideas as a route to social and intellectual progress.
Furthermore, censorship can be bypassed. For example, although materials can be censored by restricting access, users can simply access these restricted materials from overseas service providers.
In addition, The Internet poses a problem due to its global interconnectivity. As different countries have different standards of censorship, there is the question of which standard of censorship should be adopted.
Despite these difficulties, Singapore is still trying to put controls in place. For example, using technology itself to control technology. However, it is not working as well as hoped.
In conclusion, the Internet is something very hard to control, and although the Singapore government is aware that it cannot do much to censor the Internet they keep trying.
Assumptions:
The writers assume that Singapore has not changed its views on censorship and still wishes to harness the power of the Internet. They also assume that technology has not improved to the extent that it can control the material on the Internet.
China's Holistic Censorship Regime
http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/chinas-holistic-censorship-regime
http://www.feer.com/essays/2008/may/chinas-holistic-censorship-regime
Description:
After the events in Tibet, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) banned public views of the riots, discussions of the conflict between ethnic groups. Instead, they choose to compare the violence between Tibet and China to the Chinese’s history of oppression by foreign powers – as the CCP came to power through its heroic fight against the Japanese.
This is an attempt to distract the Chinese from the failures of government and depicts the CCP in a very positive position.
Censorship in China is not only making undesired message defined by the CCP inaccessible to the Chinese. Rather, the Chinese has decided to combine facts and values with censorship. Residents are rewarded for supporting the “brand values” defined by the CCP, punished for taking a contrary stance.
In demanding this sort of fealty from its residents, China insists that both individuals and organizations conflate their social, economic and political roles, creating significant inefficiencies and distortions for businesses.
Such censorships make it almost impossible to understand what the average Chinese person might “really” think.
Ironically, the key principle that makes the whole system works is the citizens’ uncertainty about what is or is not aligned with the “feelings” of the people.
Assumptions:
The writer assumed that
i. The CCP is only trying to cover their bad deeds – Censoring comments on the Tibet violence and relating the incident to past events, portraying China as a victim of foreign oppression.
ii. The CCP came out with those “brand values” only for their own interest – Residents are rewarded and punished for obeying the values and going against it respectively.
iii. The CCP’s policy on the fusion of social, economic and political roles by the individuals and organizations only brings about negative side-effects.
Comments are very much appreciated.
Censorship In China
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=18567
-Summary-
This is a transcript of Mr Jiao’s talk at the UCLA, where he discussed mainly about the issue of censorship in China at a national level.
The Chinese government really makes an effort to isolate China from the rest of the world. Censorship in China is practiced in the television and radio channels company, the printing industry and even the Internet. There are even exclusive follow up systems that have been set up to monitor and evaluate the content of these media. In addition, there is also a ‘system of punishment for media agencies’ (extracted) that ignore the censorship rules.
Entries to certain websites have been prohibited and news on anything related to China has not been made available on the Internet; in Beijing University, international magazine subscriptions are rarely available for reference; there is strict control in the importation of books from foreign countries; and calling into China is much cheaper than calling out from China, a measure taken by the government to ‘regulate the flow of information’ (extracted). China has taken the definition of censorship to another level by imposing such restrictions.
'China’s isolation from the outside world has been a long tradition, which ultimately implanted a sense of fear in the general public' (extracted). This is why China is still so adamant about changing her censorship policy and is also the reason why China is one of the least exposed countries in the world.
-Assumptions-
Mr Jiao assumes that censorship is detrimental for the society. His transcript did not include the advantages of censorship, instead it mainly focuses on the disadvantages. He meticulously described each measure taken by the government to prevent information from leaking to the outside world. Mr Jiao is also trying to imply that censorship equals to a reduced flow of information, this can be seen through his descriptions in certain paragraphs.
(The author is a citizen of China himself. And what is interesting about this article is that even he is aware of the censorship policy and wants to make some reforms for the good of the country.)
-Summary-
This is a transcript of Mr Jiao’s talk at the UCLA, where he discussed mainly about the issue of censorship in China at a national level.
The Chinese government really makes an effort to isolate China from the rest of the world. Censorship in China is practiced in the television and radio channels company, the printing industry and even the Internet. There are even exclusive follow up systems that have been set up to monitor and evaluate the content of these media. In addition, there is also a ‘system of punishment for media agencies’ (extracted) that ignore the censorship rules.
Entries to certain websites have been prohibited and news on anything related to China has not been made available on the Internet; in Beijing University, international magazine subscriptions are rarely available for reference; there is strict control in the importation of books from foreign countries; and calling into China is much cheaper than calling out from China, a measure taken by the government to ‘regulate the flow of information’ (extracted). China has taken the definition of censorship to another level by imposing such restrictions.
'China’s isolation from the outside world has been a long tradition, which ultimately implanted a sense of fear in the general public' (extracted). This is why China is still so adamant about changing her censorship policy and is also the reason why China is one of the least exposed countries in the world.
-Assumptions-
Mr Jiao assumes that censorship is detrimental for the society. His transcript did not include the advantages of censorship, instead it mainly focuses on the disadvantages. He meticulously described each measure taken by the government to prevent information from leaking to the outside world. Mr Jiao is also trying to imply that censorship equals to a reduced flow of information, this can be seen through his descriptions in certain paragraphs.
(The author is a citizen of China himself. And what is interesting about this article is that even he is aware of the censorship policy and wants to make some reforms for the good of the country.)
MPs seek to censor the media
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-seek-to-censor-the-media-1006607.html
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security and give unprecedented and legally binding powers to Britain's security agencies and police t ban the media from reporting matters of national security.
However, this has it's pros and cons too. And it could be seen by past issues:
In 2007, an Islamist plot to kidnap and murder a British serviceman, during which reporters were tipped off about the imminent arrest of suspects in Birmingham, a security operation known as "Gamble". The media exposure given, jeopardised the operations the police were on. The strategy of the police for interrogating those arrested was blown out of water.
There is this other issue of the PhD student in Nottingham who was banged up for six days without charge because he downloaded something from the internet for his thesis. The only reason this came to light was because of the media attention to the case.
The writer is assuming that the only way to take care of the national security is by controlling the Mass Media, giving authority to the national authorities. It is also assuming that the national authorities know exactly what they should publish and what they should not on the media.
The Intelligence and Security Committee, the parliamentary watchdog of the intelligence and security agencies which has a cross-party membership from both Houses, wants to press ministers to introduce legislation that would prevent news outlets from reporting stories deemed by the Government to be against the interests of national security and give unprecedented and legally binding powers to Britain's security agencies and police t ban the media from reporting matters of national security.
However, this has it's pros and cons too. And it could be seen by past issues:
In 2007, an Islamist plot to kidnap and murder a British serviceman, during which reporters were tipped off about the imminent arrest of suspects in Birmingham, a security operation known as "Gamble". The media exposure given, jeopardised the operations the police were on. The strategy of the police for interrogating those arrested was blown out of water.
There is this other issue of the PhD student in Nottingham who was banged up for six days without charge because he downloaded something from the internet for his thesis. The only reason this came to light was because of the media attention to the case.
The writer is assuming that the only way to take care of the national security is by controlling the Mass Media, giving authority to the national authorities. It is also assuming that the national authorities know exactly what they should publish and what they should not on the media.
Wikipedia child image censored
Wikipedia child image censored
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm
A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.
The blocked page of the online encyclopedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions, released in 1976. Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal. The IWF said it was a "potentially illegal child sexual abuse image". Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites. They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.
But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision. The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.
As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users. Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.
Susan Robertson, of the IWF, said the image could potentially contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978. Ms Robertson also said the IWF needed to "take a view" on the images available on Amazon with its "analyst team and police partners".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm
A decision by a number of UK internet providers to block a Wikipedia page showing an image of a naked girl has angered users of the popular site.
The blocked page of the online encyclopedia shows an album cover of German heavy metal band Scorpions, released in 1976. Internet providers acted after online watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation warned them its picture may be illegal. The IWF said it was a "potentially illegal child sexual abuse image". Some volunteers who run Wikipedia said it was not for the foundation to censor one of the web's most popular sites. They also argued that the image was available in a number of books and had never been ruled illegal.
But the IWF, which warns internet providers about possible images that could be linked to child abuse, said it had consulted the police before making its decision. The foundation's list of proscribed sites is widely used by British internet service providers to filter out images showing child abuse and other illegal content.
As a result, the addition of the Scorpions Wikipedia page has made it inaccessible to the majority of British internet users. Wikipedia volunteer David Gerard said he and fellow users were angry that as well as the photo, the text on the page had been blocked.
Susan Robertson, of the IWF, said the image could potentially contravene the Protection of Children Act 1978. Ms Robertson also said the IWF needed to "take a view" on the images available on Amazon with its "analyst team and police partners".
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Censorship in China
http://www.duke.edu/~faq/eagate/reports/Censorship_In_China-Report.pdf
In the past, China under communist rule was heavily controlled by the government in almost every aspect of life. After many protests by the citizens, the government was forced to relax their stance on censorship and the economy thereby enabling the public to regain their freedom of speech.
http://www.duke.edu/~faq/eagate/reports/Censorship_In_China-Report.pdf
In the past, China under communist rule was heavily controlled by the government in almost every aspect of life. After many protests by the citizens, the government was forced to relax their stance on censorship and the economy thereby enabling the public to regain their freedom of speech.
Though Chinese citizens today enjoy much exposure from the mass media, several different types of prior restraints are used to silence critics of the Communist Party and to maintain control over political information. One example of such is that there are Legislative Prior Restraints, meaning that there are administrative barriers to control freedom of speech, for instance, the requirement for Chinese citizens to receive permission to publish information (licensing schemes). In addition, there are strict punishments for divulging “state secrets” under the State Secrets law, including life imprisonment and lengthy prison terms.
The Chinese authorities have suppressed freedom of expression through various government agencies to maintain control in China. One such government agency is the The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television which controls content of all broadcasts in China, including radio, television, satellite and Internet.
The writer’s implying that people’s effort in protests did bring about a change in government’s policies regarding censorship but it is only to a certain extent. Take for example, the case of Huang Qi, a Chinese citizen who was charged with subversion due to certain material posted on his web site even though it was not posted by him. From this, writer assumes that the Chinese government is in a way maligning people of crimes without even having proper evidences to charge them with. This also implies that their way of handling matters is to an extent irresponsible as “the courts did not make any attempts to demonstrate how the articles actually caused a threat to security” and that “under Chinese law any spread of information inconsistent with the Communist Party is deemed an act of subversion.”
The Chinese authorities have suppressed freedom of expression through various government agencies to maintain control in China. One such government agency is the The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television which controls content of all broadcasts in China, including radio, television, satellite and Internet.
The writer’s implying that people’s effort in protests did bring about a change in government’s policies regarding censorship but it is only to a certain extent. Take for example, the case of Huang Qi, a Chinese citizen who was charged with subversion due to certain material posted on his web site even though it was not posted by him. From this, writer assumes that the Chinese government is in a way maligning people of crimes without even having proper evidences to charge them with. This also implies that their way of handling matters is to an extent irresponsible as “the courts did not make any attempts to demonstrate how the articles actually caused a threat to security” and that “under Chinese law any spread of information inconsistent with the Communist Party is deemed an act of subversion.”
Media Censorship in China –
Council on Foreign Relations
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11515/
Media censorship in China has been deemed by experts as
China’s government‘s way of trying to use media controls
in its bid to maintain power while trying to balance the need
for more information. The Chinese law and media policies
have included increased media regulations
as well as the arrest and prosecution of journalists who they feel
is threatening their positions in the government by violating these rules
and revealing classified matter.
However, it has been said that China’s media is currently undergoing
a process of commercialization, leading to growing competition,
diversified content, and an increase in investigative reporting by
Chinese news agencies. Northeast Asia media expert Ashley W. Esarey
has stated that it is very likely that the Internet will play a role
in Chinese media reform, because its
“absolute control has proven difficult, if not impossible.”
This control can further be supported by the fact that
China has been ranked 163 out of 168 countries in its 2007
index of press freedom by the watchdog group
(Reporters Without Borders).
The government has stated that China’s constitution affords its citizens
freedom of speech and press but yet, the document contains
broad language that says Chinese citizens must defend
“the security, honor, and interests of the motherland.”
The government’s monitoring structure has therefore,
promoted an atmosphere of self-censorship to prevent
any information posted to be deemed as classified matter
and risk facing prosecution.
The authors have assumed that the government in China has absolute
control over the Chinese media and the people in China are actually
not willing to succumb to these strict rules and regulations
but they are at the same time, not willing to take actions or
make sacrifices to stand against these ‘unreasonable’ laws and policies.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Censorship in the UK - mediawatchwatch.org.uk
Website: http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/category/censorship/
Description:
This website highlights all kinds of sensitive and controversial issues and mockingly criticizes current “trends” such as homosexuality and the religion scientology.
It also encourages readers to participate in inappropriate activities such as a petition for a Blasphemy Day International aiming to “a show of solidarity for the freedom to mock and insult religion without fear of murder, violence, and reprisal. It is the obligation of the world’s nations to safeguard dissent and the dissenters, not to side with the brutal interests of thugs who demand “respect” for their beliefs (i.e., immunity to being criticized or mocked or they threaten violence).” (extracted)
Their main purpose is to practice a total freedom of speech, even crossing the line of respect.
Assumptions:
They have this mentality that religions are, in a way, the cause of war and chaos between people in the world, hence, they feel that people should be allowed to openly criticize other religions perhaps with the thinking that it would make the world a better place, that by opening up, there is no reason for people to think that somebody is criticizing his/her religion behind their backs and that being truthful would make people more tolerant of each other’s religions and cultures.
They, also, assume that respect demanded for one another’s religion is actually just a protective cover from getting negative comments/remarks from others.
Film censorship in the UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2002/mar/13/filmcensorship.seanclarke
Films shown in the United Kingdom follow the classifications given by the British Board of Film Classification (formerly the British Board of Film Censorship). The BBFC is an autonomous, self regulatory industry body, which operates to a set of guidelines that may deem a film appropriate or inappropriate. The guidelines include observing immutable codes of conduct as well as dealing with flexible attittudes such as nudity and obscene language.
Suprisingly, I learnt from this article that the BBFC “is keen to highlight the role that public consultation plays in its decision making, and organizes ‘roadshows’ to both canvas public opinion and to justify its decisions” and they also cut films “rarely, and very openly: its website lists the length of any cut, and the reasons for it”.(extracted) This is a very questionable point because we have learnt that what the public expects from the mass media and what the mass media has to offer are often conflicting. Even if the board seeks the opinions of the general public on what they feel is acceptable, will the board actually put them into practice? Will the board be reminded of their onus of removing negative behaviour portrayed in films without compromising on providing quality entertainment values to the public?
Furthermore, it has been said in the article that the BBFC is “very susceptible to influence from government departments, partly through its fear of being made redundant by the creation of an official body”. (extracted) In other words, the board is under the control of the government, which leads to an implication: it is very unlikely that the BBFC will show films that disagree with the government’s ideology and practices. The public would be restricted to viewing films that are pro-government, which also means censorship. Hence, I feel that the irony here is that censorship in the United Kingdom takes place in subtle ways away from public’s eye even though it is claimed that the board cuts its films “very openly”.
The assumption here is that all relevant parties such as the Home Office, the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the British board of film classification, local councils, film distributors and the public included, all have a say in deciding what goes to the cinema and what does not, but in actual fact, as shown earlier, the government has the most authority in the decision-making.
Films shown in the United Kingdom follow the classifications given by the British Board of Film Classification (formerly the British Board of Film Censorship). The BBFC is an autonomous, self regulatory industry body, which operates to a set of guidelines that may deem a film appropriate or inappropriate. The guidelines include observing immutable codes of conduct as well as dealing with flexible attittudes such as nudity and obscene language.
Suprisingly, I learnt from this article that the BBFC “is keen to highlight the role that public consultation plays in its decision making, and organizes ‘roadshows’ to both canvas public opinion and to justify its decisions” and they also cut films “rarely, and very openly: its website lists the length of any cut, and the reasons for it”.(extracted) This is a very questionable point because we have learnt that what the public expects from the mass media and what the mass media has to offer are often conflicting. Even if the board seeks the opinions of the general public on what they feel is acceptable, will the board actually put them into practice? Will the board be reminded of their onus of removing negative behaviour portrayed in films without compromising on providing quality entertainment values to the public?
Furthermore, it has been said in the article that the BBFC is “very susceptible to influence from government departments, partly through its fear of being made redundant by the creation of an official body”. (extracted) In other words, the board is under the control of the government, which leads to an implication: it is very unlikely that the BBFC will show films that disagree with the government’s ideology and practices. The public would be restricted to viewing films that are pro-government, which also means censorship. Hence, I feel that the irony here is that censorship in the United Kingdom takes place in subtle ways away from public’s eye even though it is claimed that the board cuts its films “very openly”.
The assumption here is that all relevant parties such as the Home Office, the Department of Culture Media and Sport, the British board of film classification, local councils, film distributors and the public included, all have a say in deciding what goes to the cinema and what does not, but in actual fact, as shown earlier, the government has the most authority in the decision-making.
Censorship in China
http://www.duke.edu/~faq/eagate/reports/Censorship_In_China-Report.pdf
Only recently, Chinese journalist are able to investigate issues like corruption. However, the Chinese government is still controlling the media to a large extent. this is shown "If the government is worried about a specific issue, they crack down on editors, journalist, and web users." (extracted). Four major aspects of censorship in mainland china is its effort to severe all interactions with the outside world, the control of personnel of general directors of media, the control over the processing of articles and the control of web content. the censorship of popular culture is also severely in place. Bands, movies and television are controlled strictly by the Chinese government.
The writer is assuming that the Chinese people do not want any form of censorship in their country. the writer implies that the Chinese government ways of controlling the media is unethical.
Only recently, Chinese journalist are able to investigate issues like corruption. However, the Chinese government is still controlling the media to a large extent. this is shown "If the government is worried about a specific issue, they crack down on editors, journalist, and web users." (extracted). Four major aspects of censorship in mainland china is its effort to severe all interactions with the outside world, the control of personnel of general directors of media, the control over the processing of articles and the control of web content. the censorship of popular culture is also severely in place. Bands, movies and television are controlled strictly by the Chinese government.
The writer is assuming that the Chinese people do not want any form of censorship in their country. the writer implies that the Chinese government ways of controlling the media is unethical.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Is there really a NEED for CENSORSHIP?
http://www.aussiepete.com/2008/05/censorship-in-singapore-is-mda-for-real.html
The level of censorship in Singapore especially for Media Development authority is said to be unreasonable. In TVs, cinemas and music industry, swear words are ‘cut’ but not the public forums on the Internet e.g. like facebook. However, the MDA just doesn’t realize that one can pass through immigration at Changi and buy magazines showing nude bodies and return to Singapore with it. Censorship is indeed important to protect children from inappropriate materials but at the same time, we should be able to keep an open mind about things.
The MDA claims that their surveys show that Singaporeans generally find censorship standards acceptable. For example, in the recent Censorship Review Committee 2003 survey, more than 70% of the respondents were satisfied with our content standards. The MDA assumes that everyone is happy with what they see, hear on the mass media.
However, the question now lies on availability of the consumers' satisfaction with the mass media? To me, i feel that the level of censorship is judged by one's standard. Hence, the question tt should be put in place is " what is your acceptable level of censorship for the mass media ".
Singapore must drop 'out-of-bounds' censorship
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040813ao.htm
Majority of the mass media in Singapore, (for example, radio, newspapers, and magazines) are controlled by the government. This is seen in the case of when the author had posted a column in “Today” and the Information Minister Lee Boon Yang said that the author had crossed the line.
The author believes that if Singapore drops the ‘Out- of – Bounds’ Censorship, the economy will actually improve as seen in “Media that doesn't simply report but also scrutinises promotes better corporate governance in government and business” (extracted)
The moment ‘you’ think out of the box, as compared to what the government want you to think, you will actually cross a OB marker so to speak. Thus the government wants the public to express self-censorship as well.
The markers also “demand that people think within a certain mindset and their nefarious nature means that people err on the side of caution” These also prevent Singaporeans to be creative by avoiding being courageous and daring in our thoughts.
“The views of foreigners particularly are targeted by the Singapore Government for censorship. Taking foreigners' money but not allowing them a voice betrays a lack of self-confidence on the part of the Government.” (Extracted)
“if the Singapore Government must have OB markers, it should clearly spell out what they are and enshrine them in law. Better still, it should get rid of them.” (Extracted) If not, it will result in Singapore being unable to move forward as one people and one nation who dares to express their views freely.
Some assumptions made by the author are that Singaporeans do not have the capability to research for the information they see that are censored from the internet.
Another is that these OB markers actually exist as it was only one time that the author fell foul of them. The forum in the newspapers is a place for people to express their views and one way the government collects their feedback therefore, it hosts both the positive and negative aspects of the people’s opinions. However if it reflects the government in a bad light that will affect the people, the government will censor it.
The author also believed that the views of foreigners are targeted by the government. However, why does he believe that is so? If you look in the newspapers, you will be able to see some forum posts by foreigners as well as the locals.
Lastly, even if the OB markers exist, that will not prevent people from thinking out of the box if they want to. The people can give their own opinions on matters as well.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Film festival director about censorship in Singapore
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000424ws.htm
The main gist of the article is how films in Singapore have ratings and how these censorships violate the film producer’s work of art. By censoring the films, viewers will not be able to appreciate the filmmakers original work of art, this can be seen in, "contradiction between government censorship and the artistic freedom” (extracted).
Also, films are a form of art produced by film makers and their forms of art, in a way, represent life and by censoring this, art doesn’t reflect life anymore. “Usually art reflects life but if so much censorship is taking place, then art doesn't reflect life anymore” (extracted)
The Singapore International Film Festival also stated that they will remove censorship so that producers work is not altered. “But the next stage for us, I think, is to have the Film Festival exempted completely from censorship”(extracted).It is also mentioned that those movies which are rated 21 should not be cut anymore as the people who watch these movies are already over 21 and should know better and “take responsibility for what they see”(extracted).
The assumption made by the Singapore International Film Festival and the Singapore Government is that viewers do not want to see things, which through the government’s eyes, are perceived as morally wrong. The government doesn’t realize that the viewers may want to see these things, and that they can handle viewing these things by themselves. The government is assuming that what they are censoring is for the good of their citizens but they don’t realize that at the same time, they are ruining the filmmaker’s work of art.
They are also implying that the citizens are not mature and old enough to take responsibility for what they watch and therefore the government takes the initiative to censor the movies for the public.
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000424ws.htm
The main gist of the article is how films in Singapore have ratings and how these censorships violate the film producer’s work of art. By censoring the films, viewers will not be able to appreciate the filmmakers original work of art, this can be seen in, "contradiction between government censorship and the artistic freedom” (extracted).
Also, films are a form of art produced by film makers and their forms of art, in a way, represent life and by censoring this, art doesn’t reflect life anymore. “Usually art reflects life but if so much censorship is taking place, then art doesn't reflect life anymore” (extracted)
The Singapore International Film Festival also stated that they will remove censorship so that producers work is not altered. “But the next stage for us, I think, is to have the Film Festival exempted completely from censorship”(extracted).It is also mentioned that those movies which are rated 21 should not be cut anymore as the people who watch these movies are already over 21 and should know better and “take responsibility for what they see”(extracted).
The assumption made by the Singapore International Film Festival and the Singapore Government is that viewers do not want to see things, which through the government’s eyes, are perceived as morally wrong. The government doesn’t realize that the viewers may want to see these things, and that they can handle viewing these things by themselves. The government is assuming that what they are censoring is for the good of their citizens but they don’t realize that at the same time, they are ruining the filmmaker’s work of art.
They are also implying that the citizens are not mature and old enough to take responsibility for what they watch and therefore the government takes the initiative to censor the movies for the public.
The Mass Media and Society
Dear A03
I have included the following videos for your learning pleasures. As you watch them, please be mindful of the following prompts:
I have included the following videos for your learning pleasures. As you watch them, please be mindful of the following prompts:
- What criticism does the video make of the mass media?
- What conflict exist between the mass media and its public?
- What traits/features of the mass media does the video highlight and attack?
- What are your thoughts on the videos?
I invite you to post your comments on these videos for our sharing and discussion by Sunday 22 March 2009. Review and reflect on each other's thoughts and opinions.
Thank you and best regards
Mr Low
Video 1: The effects of the mass media on American women
Video 2: The Hypnotic Effects of Television & The Mass Effect
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)