MBAFinance wrote:
In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is
little or no censorship.
In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant
reasons and/or examples to support your position.
Quote:
Though it seems a good idea to have the government to censor the media for offensive language and behavior, I would argue that too much censorship could cause disastrous results and the benefits don't outweigh the damages.
Good opening, but maybe a bit too colloquial. You don't have to write how you would talk. I'd like to see a brief sentence about what you are going to introduce as evidence.
Quote:
First of all, the execution of such a censorship could be problematic.
Great first sentence, other than the "First of all".
Quote:
Though it is not hard to single out some extremely offensive language or behavior, in many circumstances there is a fine line between what is acceptable and what is offensive.
Great! Lets see if you hit on the fact that offensive is subjective.
Quote:
Especially when the plot requires certain violent or obscene scenes to make the show effective. The difficulties to come up enforceable standards make the censorship process highly subjective and easily abused.
Yay, you do. Missing the word with inbetween up and enforceable. The plot point however, is kind of weak. Again, its just subjective. Some might argue that its not necessary for plot building. Your strongest point - subjective nature of all this - is somewhat weakened by this relatively unsupported comment. That being said, you got the number 1 argument to make here - so good job. I'm a little worried why you think the issue is enforcement of standards, and not the standards themselves, but lets see.
Quote:
Some TV or Radio programs might bribe the officials to pass the censorship and cause corruption in the government. studios may become over cautious and choose to only produce programs that neutral in nature and drop controversial projects. Directors and actors will find it extremely hard to produce original work under such an atmosphere.
Hmmm... you kind of went astray. You list possible scenarios - but common, is it really likely that a TV station is going to bribe the government? Or is it more likely they will just ignore the legislation and accept a fine if caught? The point you should be making here is that since censorship is subjective - you can't fairly define reasonable standards. The issue is not enforceability per se -- just look at places like China that effectively enforce all sorts of stuff -- the issue is that what YOU find offensive, I might not - and here's the link: So who is to say the government has any right to decide for me what I can and cannot watch? This is why the subjective nature of censorship is problematic - not because its hard to enforce.
Put it another way - if I decide that saying poop on tv is not allowed - that's a subjective decision. I may feel its bad, you may not. But, that doesn't change the fact that it can be enforced through fines, jail time, whatever. See my point?
Your point about studios is good - but it could be strengthened if you explained WHY not making controversial movies is bad for society. Your last sentence just doesn't belong - its a huge conclusion that is totally unsupported by any examples or evidence.
Quote:
Secondly, in worst scenario, too much censorship could cost freedom of expression.
"in a worst case scenario" is the phrase you are looking for. However, good point. Nice and strong.
Quote:
Because the Government officials have the absolute power over whether a program can be broadcast or not, in turn, the government can abuse its power to ban opposite opinions from the media. The result is, the media become a tool of the government to abuse and control the citizens. To see how bad it can become, just look at what happened in Cuba or North Korea.
Perfect. You want more like these. Introduce a specific idea and back it up with a specific example. Well done.
Quote:
Some may argue that offensive language and behavior in media will do such a damage to the kids that the government should censor the media just for kids' sake. I respectfully disagree. We live in an imperfect world, even we cleanse all the negative influences from the media, our kids are still subject to them in real life. Besides, it should be parents' and schools' responsibilities to educate kids and keep them from harm's way not the government's.
Some grammar issues. You dont respectfully disagree, you just disagree. Great point about the parents - you hit the nail on the head - if you'd taken this and tied it to the subjective part of your essay you would have had better cohesion. But you got to it anyway - though I think it would have been a stronger paragraph further up the essay - but good job. Watch the grammar.
Quote:
In summary, the disastrous results of too much censorship outweigh its benefits. In my opinion, it is better to leave the producers and directors to decide what should be in a broadcasting program.
Reasonable end but careful - if the producers and directors decide, couldn't they also censor? Especially be careful because the question says - OR ANY OTHER GROUP -- most of your points apply to anyone doing the censoring - whether it be government or not. So, to suddenly end with a point about how you think its not ok for the government but OK for someone else weakens your whole argument. Especially because you just said in the previous paragraph that its not up to other people to decide what kids get to watch - its up to parents.
Its a good essay, could use some polishing and work but overall you make some well thought points. Remember - don't feel like you have to just write a ton - better to make 3 great points than 5 good ones.
close
29 Aug 2006, 21:09
