Do you think TV reflects society or influences it?
TV plays a very important role in our lives and it permeates all spheres of it. First and foremost it is the main source of information today, when people are too busy to devote a lot of their time to reading books and newspapers and sometimes are not rich to have a PC. But some people are skeptical about TV and the detrimental effect that it exercises. They affirm that TV has undermined society’s traditional values and standards, TV is a real drug for some of us. TV world occupies a lot of our spare time, we forget about family activities, about participation in the local and community affairs, emerged in soap-operas or entertaining programmes.
Some researchers say that TV has stripped away our gregarious nature and common interests.
Cocooned in TV-shows world, people no longer know their neighbours, friends and even families. They don’t socialize, don’t think and most of them don’t care. An ominous picture of a society so helplessly glued to TV-screen is painted. The influence of TV is shown by the fact that people buy fewer books, they prefer moronic films like “Dumb and Dumber” to spending time with their families.
Emerging in the US is remarkable new evidence of how television has profoundly undermined society’s traditional values and standards. Carried out by Harvard University, the research shows that as TV has become the drug of choice for an increasingly fast and self-occupied world, traditional family activities have disappeared, participation in local affairs and community life has collapsed and a damaging cult of “get-out-of-my-face” isolationism has taken hold.
Most of all TV gives people a biased view of political, social events taking place, which are rendered through the eyes of TV hosts, film maker, who obligatory have to express that or this point of view and support a certain political party and programme. Very often news coverage and evaluation of the events depend on the sponsors of the channel and authorities, who stand behind it.
As for aesthetic upbringing, unfortunately there are too few programmes to be called art works, promoting beauty, moral values and high standards of those with educational purposes.
The primary thought concerning TV (how it exerts influence on people) – its detrimental effect, increase of antisocial behaviour among children who are exposed to TV explicit scenes in westernized communities.
I would say that TV doesn’t only influence people but also follows public opinion. It’s a common fact that people’s interest is a major factor for creating TV programmes. A lot can be said about sex and violence scenes; it’s like transference: people transfer their subconscious decrees and motifs on TV shows and some people even enjoy watching action films with a lot of fights and evidence in this way splashing out their negative emotions and feelings. The same with news programmes with the information replayed to the particular sort of people who feel “comfortable” namely with such coverage of news.
|
|
|
I believe that TV does not only influence people, (panders to and caters for their interests), having not only a negative but also a positive influence. Besides being the primary source of information in our rapidly changing world, TV serves to some extent to the development of a child (it develops visual memory, forms some basic notions and feelings such as dignity, kindness, co-operation and friendship), it provides people with useful knowledge about remote countries, making our world smaller and cosy.
All the means are good if a correspondent wants to get the news. Do you agree?
Every year hundreds of journalists are killed covering wars, most in their own countries where they fight government and corruption to publish the truth. Others die far from home, covering other people’s wars, investigating suspected links between drug traffickers and right-wing terrorists. Even more frequently journalists are imprisoned, tortured or ‘disappeared’. To get necessary information they use various kinds of means, and not all of them are save enough.
Means: to go close enough, based on the principle “if your pictures aren’t good enough, you aren’t close enough”, “if there’s no picture, there’s no story”; not to snap away right up until the explosion. The right image, perfectly captured, can stop wars or start them, save lives, change the world. It’s a special breed that risks life and limb to get the picture worth a thousand stories.
But some correspondents don fatigues and venture no father then behind the palms in the hotel bars where they exchange war stories, they don’t even start with such high-minded intentions.
Not all the means of getting news are good enough; I’d rather say they can be “normal” or acceptable for certain people who have to do a certain thing. “A photographer in danger zones needs to be a detective, a con man and a master of escape.” Such people are not just adrenaline junkies or folks who flirt with death in order to feel alive.
Дата добавления: 2019-02-22; просмотров: 327; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!