Please help me to check it, thanks to all of you!
The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to control violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The violent contents broadcasted by the mass media have been singled out in recent years as a matter of urgent public concern. Some believe that so as to curb the threats of violence and crimes in society, the government should impose strict limitations on the amount of violent and action movies. I totally subscribe to this view for the following rationales.
First of all, some in favour of violent films contend that violence is considered as an inevitable part of reality, whether one acknowledges it or not. It is, thus, legitimate for television programme producers to reflect the real world in movies. Addtionally, in most cases, for the purpose of promoting justice or self-defence, the act of using violence is acceptable. This may sound true to a certain extent; nonetheless, the fact is that in pursuit of a high audience rating, movie producers normally tend to put strong emphasis on the extraodinary heroism which is far from easy to capture in reality. This might coax audiences, especially younger generations, into a fantastic world and automatically simulating violent behaviours in a belief that those actions would be deeply respected and reaped applause from others. In other words, the massive coverage of violence in the news media could exert profound impacts on viewers and lead them to undesiable behaviours.
Opponents of curbing violence on television argue against any forms of censorship. They believe that adult viewers are adequate mature to make their own decisions on what programme is harmful for them. As for chilrden, with intensive supervision of their parents, they would be kept under control and therefore would be unable to access violent scenes. However, facts have shown that dominant entertainment media is so successful in cajoling millions of audiences every single day into watching their action productions, regardless of age. So prudent are producers that they can make their products sound attractive and then audiences, including adults, could not escape from them. Generally, there is no point in denying the fact that tight constraints on curbing violence in the media is essential.
From what has been analysed above, it is concluded that violence in the mass media could have adverse effects on audiences regardless of age, even resulting in crimes in the society. It is high time the government took actions and tackled such a problem. Censorship definitely prove to be one of the most effective panaceas for the time being.
The government should control the amount of violence in films and on television in order to control violent crimes in society. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
The violent contents broadcasted by the mass media have been singled out in recent years as a matter of urgent public concern. Some believe that so as to curb the threats of violence and crimes in society, the government should impose strict limitations on the amount of violent and action movies. I totally subscribe to this view for the following rationales.
First of all, some in favour of violent films contend that violence is considered as an inevitable part of reality, whether one acknowledges it or not. It is, thus, legitimate for television programme producers to reflect the real world in movies. Addtionally, in most cases, for the purpose of promoting justice or self-defence, the act of using violence is acceptable. This may sound true to a certain extent; nonetheless, the fact is that in pursuit of a high audience rating, movie producers normally tend to put strong emphasis on the extraodinary heroism which is far from easy to capture in reality. This might coax audiences, especially younger generations, into a fantastic world and automatically simulating violent behaviours in a belief that those actions would be deeply respected and reaped applause from others. In other words, the massive coverage of violence in the news media could exert profound impacts on viewers and lead them to undesiable behaviours.
Opponents of curbing violence on television argue against any forms of censorship. They believe that adult viewers are adequate mature to make their own decisions on what programme is harmful for them. As for chilrden, with intensive supervision of their parents, they would be kept under control and therefore would be unable to access violent scenes. However, facts have shown that dominant entertainment media is so successful in cajoling millions of audiences every single day into watching their action productions, regardless of age. So prudent are producers that they can make their products sound attractive and then audiences, including adults, could not escape from them. Generally, there is no point in denying the fact that tight constraints on curbing violence in the media is essential.
From what has been analysed above, it is concluded that violence in the mass media could have adverse effects on audiences regardless of age, even resulting in crimes in the society. It is high time the government took actions and tackled such a problem. Censorship definitely prove to be one of the most effective panaceas for the time being.