In a related story...
Check out this news post on the OJ Simpson book story here.
It reads just like a standard news story until the last two paragraphs. As you may know, the Chinese media and press have heavy government influence (control?). News articles like this, a fairly standard presentation of the facts followed by a moral commentary, are not uncommon. Do you see anything wrong with this? Could this (moral commentary in news) be a good thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The article is accurate and even though there was some commentary which may have been controlled by government officials, the lesser evil was achieved. Chinese citizens were not shut out of world news and that's better than no contact to the outside world at all. Their moral sentiments seemed positive and it could influence readers to behave in a fashion more in line that the government would like to see for its people. The last two paragraphs do seem like they make the Western countries horrible, but it is the media's right to freedom of the press which we cherish deeply. The US allows for all kinds of commentary which may benefit our people even more because we are not told exactly how to act, but we are able to determine for ourselves the best actions to take.
I think as long as people are educated and taught to be skeptical providing moral commentary on any topic is a good thing. It does help people think about how to be better people when they have to wrestle with a contraversial idea and the moral/political implications that invariably follow. In this article, I think that this commentary is true. China has a developing sports market, and the media should try to shape it have not only great athletes, but also people of high character. This is necessary because invariably my kids, your kids, and your neighbor's kids, are all going to grow watching and idealizing these people. You want to ensure that these "role models" are modeling the highest standards for living, not the minimum or less.
The comments at the end of this particular article seem fairly reasonable to the point of emphasizing living life as a moral person. however, if the government is already controlling these moral messages, whose to say they don't start controlling even more, and trying to use objetive news stories to suddenly convince the public of one side of a controversial ethical arguement. Even if we can agree that there is an absolute wrong and an absolute right, we rarely can agree on what the absolute right is. If moral arguements are to be placed in the article by government agencies, then btoh sides of the arguement should be posted to present a fair opportunity for each reader to develop their own opinions and thoughts.
I think this is a great article. I think the moral commentary at the end is sound. I also think that the we should continue to have freedom of the press, so they can print whatever they want. The problem here, however, is that the government is probably telling the press what to write.
So… there are two main discussion that are important. First of all, moral commentary in the media. I think this CAN be a good thing as long as they are promoting good morals and not immorality. Because of the questionable nature of what could be published, this may be debated; however, with the freedom of the press, this must be allowed in order to not infringe on that freedom.
The second discussion revolved around freedom of the press versus government regulation of the press. In this case, I have to admit, I am in full support of the government publishing that article because it promotes morality. However, I disagree with the way the government went around getting that article published. I think it was good content; however, I feel the press should have the freedom to publish what they want. Therefore, the government should continue to seek to publish morally uplifting articles, but they need to do so by submitting them to the press to be chosen as articles or have their own newspaper detailing those articles. They should not force the press into publishing anything, even if it is morally beneficial for the readers, because this may also open avenues for the government to publish and material they want and the society will lose their ability to question the government, challenge the status quo, and live in freedom.
Post a Comment