The press is also known as the fourth estate. As the name suggests, it should serve as a part of the check-and-balance mechanism alongside with the other three estates that we have in the government currently – the executive, judiciary and legislative. They have the role of revealing any abuse of authority by the government and protecting the rights of the people. Through which, they are able to make sure that the government is implementing policies which are fair and maximises the national interest and society’s welfare.
An uncritical press, therefore, is no longer considered as the fourth estate of the society. This is a disadvantageous to the society as it would have lost another means of checking and balancing the quality of the government and its policy. This gives the government greater authority and freedom to come out with their policy. This freedom is however, a double-edged sword. The government can save the hassle of debating with the people and just implement the policy which they deem best satisfy the national interest, but they can also choose to use this freedom only to selfishly maximise their political supremacy.
An uncritical press creates an environment of passive citizenry. This is detrimental to the growth of a country, especially a democracy. Since democracy is essentially about using the power of the people to maximise national interest, it obviously would require the active citizenry for it to function well. If the media, which is supposed to be the voice of the people, is uncritical of the government, the society would eventually be one which blindly follows the government. That society would no longer be a democracy then.
Assuming that the government policy is to a large extent fair and reasonable to the citizens, having a press which is uncritical of the government policy will maintain political stability, which is advantageous to the society. Cutting down questioning and debates about the government promotes ‘undivided loyalty’ to the government. Also, unnecessary debates over insignificant issues of the government and their policy which are unconstructive and of insignificance to the development of the country can be skipped. The resources and time saved could be used on other fields which can aid further development of the country.
If a press is entirely uncritical of government policy, it would imply that the government is either nearly flawless, or it could lead the public to believe that something is amiss.
Of course, there are advantages to a press that is uncritical of government policy, but these advantages are largely skewed in the direction of the government. Firstly, assuming that there are other factors that could strain the relationship between the press and the government, there would be reduced conflict between the government and the press, allowing mutual trust and a productive working relationship.
The press also serves as an important avenue for the promotion of the government party in question. Through the active support of the press, a positive image of the government would probably be portrayed in the media. Effectively, the result would be increased support for the government from the masses.
However, with a press that is uncritical of government policies, a picture of the 'perfect government' is painted. This poses a major problem. It narrows the view that the citizens have of government policy and possible improvements that could be made, thereby lessening the scope for political debate and decreasing active involvement in political discussions. There would be fewer incidences of citizens questioning the merits and motives of government policy, as citizens are taught to be content with their condition. This is detrimental to the growth of the political scene in a country.
Also, the integrity of a press that is uncritical of government policy should be questioned, as any discrepancies and breaches of national trust made by any government policies could well be hidden or filtered by the government, or the press, or both. It is the responsibility of the press to reveal the motives and details of government policy without taking a biased stand, as citizens have the right to be fully informed about the body that has authority over them. Is it morally upright to hide discrepancies in government policy from those that these policies affect the most? Is it right to keep citizens in the dark?
Perhaps ignorance is bliss and allowing citizens to coexist harmoniously without political unrest and conflict may actually be the better thing to do. However, this is assuming that any discrepancies in government policies are minor and that the government makes the most rational decisions in the best interests of the nation. Yet, this may not always be the case. We believe it would be more beneficial for the nation as a whole if citizens were presented with a wealth of information about politics in their nation by the press, merits and discrepancies included, so that the citizens can make the most informed choice about their government, and whether such government policies serve them the best.
There are several advantages and disadvantages of having a press that is uncritical of government policies. Being uncritical suggests that the press is not inclined to judge and impose its views and stands on the government policies made.
The advantages of having a press that is uncritical of government policy are as follows: When the press is uncritical of the government policies of a country, it will present various perspectives on the government policies. The press will provide information that both supports and goes against the policies. Hence this can greatly benefit society since people can learn about the pros and cons of the policies from a wide spectrum of sources. From there, they can sieve out information that they deem important and relevant to themselves. In addition, with a comprehensive knowledge about the policies, people will not be shortchanged of information that is pertinent to their lives. With an uncritical press, they can also make well-informed and more objective choices regarding the government policies and choose a stand which they are comfortable with. Furthermore, this develops society’s maturity level since people have to filter out relevant information, and it also heightens their awareness of the different voices and extensive points of the view on a certain issue.
Secondly, an uncritical press can prevent false accusations of the government presenting biased information to society. It is possible that the press may over sensationalise certain news to create headlines. The press may be overly sarcastic or critical of the government so as to grab the attention of readers to increase readership and sales. As a result, the government can be put in an extremely unfair position, even having its reputation tarnished, while society can be deprived of relevant and objective information. Having an uncritical press can allow society to understand policies and issues more objectively without being influenced by biased and extremist viewpoints. Over the long run, an uncritical press can prevent political unrest and resentment of the government due to one-sided viewpoints presented by the press. An uncritical press can therefore promote social security and stability within a country.
As an uncritical press presents reports from many sources, the government can gather suggestions and ideas from various viewpoints. This can serve to help the government constantly improve its policies through feedback from the public. Opposing stands can become pressure for the government to better its policies. Thus, society can benefit from the overall positive changes to existing and new policies.
On the other hand, there are disadvantages to having an uncritical press. An uncritical press will allow the inflow and publication of information from as many sources as possible, presenting an extensive range of perspectives. We need to be aware of groups of people in society who are not media literate. They may not be discerning of this information, and may not be equipped with skills to sieve out objective viewpoints. As a result, they may be easily influenced by the reports provided, or may even be overwhelmed with the large amount of information and cannot make well-informed choices.
In addition, a society needs to understand the reasons for the formulation of certain government policies to ensure a peaceful coexistence of the society and the government. An uncritical press cannot provide a comprehensive report on the rationale of a government policy and its advantages to society without presenting opposing viewpoints. As a result, it may become increasingly difficult for the government to gain support from society for the newly formulated policies.
Done by Cheong Limin, Rachel Chin, Lim Shimin, Sun Yiyue and Tao Tao from 09S03K
A press that is uncritical of the government can actually help to speed up the decision-making process by cutting down on unnecessary questioning and debates about imminent policies being implemented by the government. Time and resources can be saved from debating and arguing with a critical press on these new policies, which often tends to drag and lengthen the decision-making process. An uncritical press, however, would not critique these new policies made by the government, making the implementation of new policies seamless and efficient, without any obstruction. This is of course only advantageous based on the assumption that the government makes reasonable decisions and policies that benefit the people. In the context of Singapore though, this assumption has so far been held true, with the government delivering on its promises and maintaining high economic growth during its rule.
In addition, having a press uncritical of the government may promise higher possibilities of social stability and minimize the chances of social disorder from transpiring. A highly critical press that constantly nitpicks on the government might influence the people to think that the government is always doing something wrong. This would certainly undermine the government’s reputation and in the long run, generate resentment towards the state, hence increasing the risk of social unrest. On the other hand, an uncritical press will tend to avoid one-sided attacks against the government, and thus would be less likely to incite any dissent among the people, therefore preserving the social security and stability of the country.
However, having a press uncritical of the government also presents many disadvantages. An uncritical press may result in the lack of transparency between the government and its citizens. In a situation like this, journalists may be paid only to give coverage to what the government wants its citizens to hear and omit those that reflect badly on them. This means that the accountability of the government would be placed in question for there would be nothing to provide a check and balance to the government. The possibility of the misuse of power such as corruption, cronyism and nepotism would therefore be greater, which is definitely disadvantageous to society.
At the same time, a press uncritical of the government would be beneficial to the reigning party. With an uncritical press, opposition parties would lose an avenue for them to air their criticisms. This is certainly disadvantageous in a democratic society where competition between different political parties is beneficial for the country as politicians would then need to work even harder to increase their opportunities of getting elected. With a stifled opposition to contend with, due to a press unwilling to publish criticisms on the government, the reigning party might not work as hard to garner the citizens’ votes due to the decrease in competition.
Another implication of an uncritical press is that it might lead to the citizens thinking that the current government has many plus points, as they would be inclined to think that most, or all, of the government policies implemented are all but ineffective. As such, citizens would become contend with the government and conform to whatever the governments’ decisions may be without question. Over time, they will then become reliant on the government to catalyze changes in the society, becoming ‘passive citizens’. This one way relationship between the government and citizens would weaken the citizens’ ability to make decisions independently which is certainly disadvantageous, especially in a democratic state.
Eugene, on behalf of Sabrina, Vionna, Ivan and Nicholas (09S07A)
A press that is uncritical of government policy would mean that it does not judge, and does not seek out flaws in government policies. Such a press could act in two ways. Firstly, it could follow government laws blindly or it could be unreactive toward changes in government policies.
By having a press that would be unreactive toward changes in government polices, it could influence voters to support the government. This is due to the lack of intiative to present feedback and negative points to the government and people, that could lead to the press giving voters a near-perfect image of the government. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this would be that the government would have one less way to see their flaws and improve, as the press would not take notice of loopholes in the system and advice the government. There would be less debating and challenging of government actions, which could result in leading the government down the wrong road.
By having a press that obeys the government policies blindly, the government can successfully filter out content that could be potentially harmful, by using the press. For example, explicit and violent content in movies can be filtered out to prevent youths from emulating such acts. However, such a press could also allow government exploitation, where the government may make use of the press for its personal agenda. For example, by covering up their mistakes using the press in order to not lose the support of voters.
The relationship between the reigning government and the media, especially the press, has been a long and unwavering one, especially if put into the context of the Singapore press. The press plays a pivotal role in setting the mindset of the people in a country, shaping their thinking and changing their attitude towards the government. Without doubt, the power that the media wields is unquestionable, thus, it is essential that the press work hand in hand with the government, carefully handpicking its reports regarding government policy. However, is this being helpful or hindering?
There are definitely advantages of having a press uncritical towards government policy. By stating opinion in articles and reports, the press plays a subtle role in influencing the choices and preference of the readers. Leaving out their own opinions, the role of the press shrinks to merely informing the general public of decision made by the governments. Thus, the educated reader is able to draw conclusion and decision by himself and voicing his opinion, even though other mediums beside the press. By excluding themselves from government policy decisions, a thriving community of active citizens can be nurtured, where everyone voices out their own views in public forums. Thus, the decision of the country would be one from the citizens, rather than having a large majority consisting of media illiterates swayed by opinions imposed by the press.
However, there are also disadvantages of a country where the press is uncritical of the government policies. The press often scrutinizes policies made by the government. They are able to look at the policies from many different angles and come to different conclusion that caters towards the target audience of their particular newspaper. Once that is the done, the reader is able to see the many different perspectives that the press has looked into, and weigh the pros and cons of the government policy himself. This can be even taken a step further, where media literate readers are able to bring up new views upon these decisions. These different viewpoints are not merely for the benefit of the people, but also essential to government in their formulation of policies to realize loopholes in their policies, and hopefully correct it. With the wide reach of the press, the people and the government will be able to finally come up with a policy that will reap the maximum benefit of the people.
A critical press, who are for the government, can also play a crucial role in the country. By looking into the policies, they can provide a comprehensive report that can sway the readers towards the government. Although many would consider this propaganda, but in doing so, the press helps the government garner the support of the people. Once the government is able to have the supports and faith of the people, then only can they govern the people well, in peace and harmony. Take for example, the Singapore Press The Straits Time, although it has been shackled by the Singapore government, throughout the years of Singapore’s independence, it has been the mouth piece for the government. This has nurtured a healthy and thriving community of active citizens in Singapore, who are in support of the Singapore ruling party.
What are the advantages & disadvantages of having a press that is uncritical of government policy?
The press, as the fourth estate, has a key role in maintaining national security as well as public morals, but can a press that is uncritical of government policy uphold this responsibility placed upon it? Similarly, can a press that is critical of government policy still continue to fulfill this role required of it?
When a press is uncritical of government policy, it is usually giving off the impression to the citizens of the country that all is going well, and it effectively eliminates or reduces all questioning and criticism of the government both by the general populace as well as the opposition. Furthermore, such a press would not actively attempt to seek out flaws or inefficiencies within the ruling party, and might instead, actively support government policies and the like.
Hence, when the press is uncritical of government policy, and when it sends out signals to its countrymen that all is well, it is moulding the mindsets of the people by instantly turning most of them into supporters of the government. Given the fact that the government in question is an effective one, with the people’s needs always at its top priority, then political and social stability is ensured with an uncritical press. Also, since an uncritical press effectively eliminates/reduces questioning and criticism of government policy, as well as cutting down on debate and dissidence of the government, then the ruling party will also be able to carry out its plans and ideas for the country in an effective manner. It is evident here that an uncritical press tips the balances in the government’s favour, but it takes a good government to make use of these advantages and not abuse them.
On the other hand, coupled with the aforementioned advantages, an uncritical press brings out a whole set of problems on its own. Due to the nature of an uncritical press that stifles political discussion which in turn, stifles the political climate, the opposition would always be at a disadvantage when it comes to garnering support for itself. A democratic society is one which requires pluralism within its governance, or at least an effective opposition which is able to rally support for itself, in order to provide for a diversity of opinions and viewpoints, which is exactly the point of having a democratic state in the first place. Hence, with a stifling rather than stimulating political climate, the society as a whole would be unable to mature in terms of its citizens mindsets, totally defeating the ideals of democracy. Furthermore, an uncritical press might also give off the impression of a government with a lack of transparency and accountability to its citizens, especially to other democratic nations worldwide, which might fuel constant international criticism of the government as a whole. The press, as mentioned earlier, is the fourth estate, and hence is expected to be an effective check and balance against the government, and an uncritical press might be one that is self defeating and not true to itself.
The press in Singapore has historically refrained from openly criticizing government policy. The arguments usually put forth to support this stance are stability and efficiency. An unquestioning press will not provoke unrest among the public, causing unhappiness directed towards the government which undermines social cohesion. Also, debates sparked by the press would slow down the decision making process and damage the efficiency of the government. Another worry is that the press, with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maximize circulation (and hence profits), will spout populist rhetoric and support policies that will harm the country in the long term. The press has the power to sway people's opinions and shape their worldviews; a critical press could drive a wedge between the people and the government and a rift between the two is undesirable.
Of course, if the government were perfect, the critical press would be no more than a hindrance and an obstruction. Of course, no government is perfect; many believe that it is the responsibility of the media to expose these imperfections. In some countries, the media is considered important enough to be conferred the title of "the fourth estate", playing the role of a watchdog over the government in addition to the tripartite system of judiciary, executive and legislature. A syncophantic and uncritical press would be shirking their responsibility to the people, paving the way for corruption and ineptitude; a critical media exposes the population to arguments against the government's policy proposals, acting as a safeguard against incompetence or malice. To put it simply, a government under heavy scrutiny is less likely to misbehave (of course, a corollary of this would be that such a government would be less willing to make unpopular but necessary decisions, a reiteration of the point made above).
It is not just ordinary people who are helped by the presence of conflicting opinions, the press may uncover flaws or propose better policy solutions that the government themselves were not aware of. With little outside feedback, a government is more likely to make missteps. It is a common misconception that a critical press is a biased press. Some claim that a critical press does not fulfil its duty to provide information to the people in an undistorted manner. This is not necessarily true; many respected publications (eg., the WSJ) maintain a firm firewall between their (highly opinionated) editorials and (not nearly so highly opinionated) news articles, thus fulfilling both of their roles.
Joel, Ming Mei, Seng Henk, Jia Han, Yi Xin [09S06H]
A press that is uncritical of government policy would mean that it does not judge, and does not seek out flaws in government policies. Such a press could act in two ways. Firstly, it could follow government laws blindly or it could be unreactive toward changes in government policies.
By having a press that would be unreactive toward changes in government polices, it could influence voters to support the government. This is due to the lack of intiative to present feedback and negative points to the government and people, that could lead to the press giving voters a near-perfect image of the government. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this would be that the government would have one less way to see their flaws and improve, as the press would not take notice of loopholes in the system and advice the government. There would be less debating and challenging of government actions, which could result in leading the government down the wrong road.
By having a press that obeys the government policies blindly, the government can successfully filter out content that could be potentially harmful, by using the press. For example, explicit and violent content in movies can be filtered out to prevent youths from emulating such acts. However, such a press could also allow government exploitation, where the government may make use of the press for its personal agenda. For example, by covering up their mistakes using the press in order to not lose the support of voters.
12 comments:
The press is also known as the fourth estate. As the name suggests, it should serve as a part of the check-and-balance mechanism alongside with the other three estates that we have in the government currently – the executive, judiciary and legislative. They have the role of revealing any abuse of authority by the government and protecting the rights of the people. Through which, they are able to make sure that the government is implementing policies which are fair and maximises the national interest and society’s welfare.
An uncritical press, therefore, is no longer considered as the fourth estate of the society. This is a disadvantageous to the society as it would have lost another means of checking and balancing the quality of the government and its policy. This gives the government greater authority and freedom to come out with their policy. This freedom is however, a double-edged sword. The government can save the hassle of debating with the people and just implement the policy which they deem best satisfy the national interest, but they can also choose to use this freedom only to selfishly maximise their political supremacy.
An uncritical press creates an environment of passive citizenry. This is detrimental to the growth of a country, especially a democracy. Since democracy is essentially about using the power of the people to maximise national interest, it obviously would require the active citizenry for it to function well. If the media, which is supposed to be the voice of the people, is uncritical of the government, the society would eventually be one which blindly follows the government. That society would no longer be a democracy then.
Assuming that the government policy is to a large extent fair and reasonable to the citizens, having a press which is uncritical of the government policy will maintain political stability, which is advantageous to the society. Cutting down questioning and debates about the government promotes ‘undivided loyalty’ to the government. Also, unnecessary debates over insignificant issues of the government and their policy which are unconstructive and of insignificance to the development of the country can be skipped. The resources and time saved could be used on other fields which can aid further development of the country.
If a press is entirely uncritical of government policy, it would imply that the government is either nearly flawless, or it could lead the public to believe that something is amiss.
Of course, there are advantages to a press that is uncritical of government policy, but these advantages are largely skewed in the direction of the government. Firstly, assuming that there are other factors that could strain the relationship between the press and the government, there would be reduced conflict between the government and the press, allowing mutual trust and a productive working relationship.
The press also serves as an important avenue for the promotion of the government party in question. Through the active support of the press, a positive image of the government would probably be portrayed in the media. Effectively, the result would be increased support for the government from the masses.
However, with a press that is uncritical of government policies, a picture of the 'perfect government' is painted. This poses a major problem. It narrows the view that the citizens have of government policy and possible improvements that could be made, thereby lessening the scope for political debate and decreasing active involvement in political discussions. There would be fewer incidences of citizens questioning the merits and motives of government policy, as citizens are taught to be content with their condition. This is detrimental to the growth of the political scene in a country.
Also, the integrity of a press that is uncritical of government policy should be questioned, as any discrepancies and breaches of national trust made by any government policies could well be hidden or filtered by the government, or the press, or both. It is the responsibility of the press to reveal the motives and details of government policy without taking a biased stand, as citizens have the right to be fully informed about the body that has authority over them. Is it morally upright to hide discrepancies in government policy from those that these policies affect the most? Is it right to keep citizens in the dark?
Perhaps ignorance is bliss and allowing citizens to coexist harmoniously without political unrest and conflict may actually be the better thing to do. However, this is assuming that any discrepancies in government policies are minor and that the government makes the most rational decisions in the best interests of the nation. Yet, this may not always be the case. We believe it would be more beneficial for the nation as a whole if citizens were presented with a wealth of information about politics in their nation by the press, merits and discrepancies included, so that the citizens can make the most informed choice about their government, and whether such government policies serve them the best.
Done by:
Genevieve, Marvin, Xiaodi, Charmaine, Nicole - 09S03K
There are several advantages and disadvantages of having a press that is uncritical of government policies. Being uncritical suggests that the press is not inclined to judge and impose its views and stands on the government policies made.
The advantages of having a press that is uncritical of government policy are as follows:
When the press is uncritical of the government policies of a country, it will present various perspectives on the government policies. The press will provide information that both supports and goes against the policies. Hence this can greatly benefit society since people can learn about the pros and cons of the policies from a wide spectrum of sources. From there, they can sieve out information that they deem important and relevant to themselves. In addition, with a comprehensive knowledge about the policies, people will not be shortchanged of information that is pertinent to their lives. With an uncritical press, they can also make well-informed and more objective choices regarding the government policies and choose a stand which they are comfortable with. Furthermore, this develops society’s maturity level since people have to filter out relevant information, and it also heightens their awareness of the different voices and extensive points of the view on a certain issue.
Secondly, an uncritical press can prevent false accusations of the government presenting biased information to society. It is possible that the press may over sensationalise certain news to create headlines. The press may be overly sarcastic or critical of the government so as to grab the attention of readers to increase readership and sales. As a result, the government can be put in an extremely unfair position, even having its reputation tarnished, while society can be deprived of relevant and objective information. Having an uncritical press can allow society to understand policies and issues more objectively without being influenced by biased and extremist viewpoints. Over the long run, an uncritical press can prevent political unrest and resentment of the government due to one-sided viewpoints presented by the press. An uncritical press can therefore promote social security and stability within a country.
As an uncritical press presents reports from many sources, the government can gather suggestions and ideas from various viewpoints. This can serve to help the government constantly improve its policies through feedback from the public. Opposing stands can become pressure for the government to better its policies. Thus, society can benefit from the overall positive changes to existing and new policies.
On the other hand, there are disadvantages to having an uncritical press.
An uncritical press will allow the inflow and publication of information from as many sources as possible, presenting an extensive range of perspectives. We need to be aware of groups of people in society who are not media literate. They may not be discerning of this information, and may not be equipped with skills to sieve out objective viewpoints. As a result, they may be easily influenced by the reports provided, or may even be overwhelmed with the large amount of information and cannot make well-informed choices.
In addition, a society needs to understand the reasons for the formulation of certain government policies to ensure a peaceful coexistence of the society and the government. An uncritical press cannot provide a comprehensive report on the rationale of a government policy and its advantages to society without presenting opposing viewpoints. As a result, it may become increasingly difficult for the government to gain support from society for the newly formulated policies.
Done by Cheong Limin, Rachel Chin, Lim Shimin, Sun Yiyue and Tao Tao from 09S03K
A press that is uncritical of the government can actually help to speed up the decision-making process by cutting down on unnecessary questioning and debates about imminent policies being implemented by the government. Time and resources can be saved from debating and arguing with a critical press on these new policies, which often tends to drag and lengthen the decision-making process. An uncritical press, however, would not critique these new policies made by the government, making the implementation of new policies seamless and efficient, without any obstruction. This is of course only advantageous based on the assumption that the government makes reasonable decisions and policies that benefit the people. In the context of Singapore though, this assumption has so far been held true, with the government delivering on its promises and maintaining high economic growth during its rule.
In addition, having a press uncritical of the government may promise higher possibilities of social stability and minimize the chances of social disorder from transpiring. A highly critical press that constantly nitpicks on the government might influence the people to think that the government is always doing something wrong. This would certainly undermine the government’s reputation and in the long run, generate resentment towards the state, hence increasing the risk of social unrest. On the other hand, an uncritical press will tend to avoid one-sided attacks against the government, and thus would be less likely to incite any dissent among the people, therefore preserving the social security and stability of the country.
However, having a press uncritical of the government also presents many disadvantages. An uncritical press may result in the lack of transparency between the government and its citizens. In a situation like this, journalists may be paid only to give coverage to what the government wants its citizens to hear and omit those that reflect badly on them. This means that the accountability of the government would be placed in question for there would be nothing to provide a check and balance to the government. The possibility of the misuse of power such as corruption, cronyism and nepotism would therefore be greater, which is definitely disadvantageous to society.
At the same time, a press uncritical of the government would be beneficial to the reigning party. With an uncritical press, opposition parties would lose an avenue for them to air their criticisms. This is certainly disadvantageous in a democratic society where competition between different political parties is beneficial for the country as politicians would then need to work even harder to increase their opportunities of getting elected. With a stifled opposition to contend with, due to a press unwilling to publish criticisms on the government, the reigning party might not work as hard to garner the citizens’ votes due to the decrease in competition.
Another implication of an uncritical press is that it might lead to the citizens thinking that the current government has many plus points, as they would be inclined to think that most, or all, of the government policies implemented are all but ineffective. As such, citizens would become contend with the government and conform to whatever the governments’ decisions may be without question. Over time, they will then become reliant on the government to catalyze changes in the society, becoming ‘passive citizens’. This one way relationship between the government and citizens would weaken the citizens’ ability to make decisions independently which is certainly disadvantageous, especially in a democratic state.
Eugene, on behalf of Sabrina, Vionna, Ivan and Nicholas (09S07A)
A press that is uncritical of government policy would mean that it does not judge, and does not seek out flaws in government policies. Such a press could act in two ways. Firstly, it could follow government laws blindly or it could be unreactive toward changes in government policies.
By having a press that would be unreactive toward changes in government polices, it could influence voters to support the government. This is due to the lack of intiative to present feedback and negative points to the government and people, that could lead to the press giving voters a near-perfect image of the government. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this would be that the government would have one less way to see their flaws and improve, as the press would not take notice of loopholes in the system and advice the government. There would be less debating and challenging of government actions, which could result in leading the government down the wrong road.
By having a press that obeys the government policies blindly, the government can successfully filter out content that could be potentially harmful, by using the press. For example, explicit and violent content in movies can be filtered out to prevent youths from emulating such acts. However, such a press could also allow government exploitation, where the government may make use of the press for its personal agenda. For example, by covering up their mistakes using the press in order to not lose the support of voters.
The relationship between the reigning government and the media, especially the press, has been a long and unwavering one, especially if put into the context of the Singapore press. The press plays a pivotal role in setting the mindset of the people in a country, shaping their thinking and changing their attitude towards the government. Without doubt, the power that the media wields is unquestionable, thus, it is essential that the press work hand in hand with the government, carefully handpicking its reports regarding government policy. However, is this being helpful or hindering?
There are definitely advantages of having a press uncritical towards government policy. By stating opinion in articles and reports, the press plays a subtle role in influencing the choices and preference of the readers. Leaving out their own opinions, the role of the press shrinks to merely informing the general public of decision made by the governments. Thus, the educated reader is able to draw conclusion and decision by himself and voicing his opinion, even though other mediums beside the press. By excluding themselves from government policy decisions, a thriving community of active citizens can be nurtured, where everyone voices out their own views in public forums. Thus, the decision of the country would be one from the citizens, rather than having a large majority consisting of media illiterates swayed by opinions imposed by the press.
However, there are also disadvantages of a country where the press is uncritical of the government policies. The press often scrutinizes policies made by the government. They are able to look at the policies from many different angles and come to different conclusion that caters towards the target audience of their particular newspaper. Once that is the done, the reader is able to see the many different perspectives that the press has looked into, and weigh the pros and cons of the government policy himself. This can be even taken a step further, where media literate readers are able to bring up new views upon these decisions. These different viewpoints are not merely for the benefit of the people, but also essential to government in their formulation of policies to realize loopholes in their policies, and hopefully correct it. With the wide reach of the press, the people and the government will be able to finally come up with a policy that will reap the maximum benefit of the people.
A critical press, who are for the government, can also play a crucial role in the country. By looking into the policies, they can provide a comprehensive report that can sway the readers towards the government. Although many would consider this propaganda, but in doing so, the press helps the government garner the support of the people. Once the government is able to have the supports and faith of the people, then only can they govern the people well, in peace and harmony. Take for example, the Singapore Press The Straits Time, although it has been shackled by the Singapore government, throughout the years of Singapore’s independence, it has been the mouth piece for the government. This has nurtured a healthy and thriving community of active citizens in Singapore, who are in support of the Singapore ruling party.
benkhoo, wenyu, yuanning, kenneth, elaine 09S06H
What are the advantages & disadvantages of having a press that is uncritical of government policy?
The press, as the fourth estate, has a key role in maintaining national security as well as public morals, but can a press that is uncritical of government policy uphold this responsibility placed upon it? Similarly, can a press that is critical of government policy still continue to fulfill this role required of it?
When a press is uncritical of government policy, it is usually giving off the impression to the citizens of the country that all is going well, and it effectively eliminates or reduces all questioning and criticism of the government both by the general populace as well as the opposition. Furthermore, such a press would not actively attempt to seek out flaws or inefficiencies within the ruling party, and might instead, actively support government policies and the like.
Hence, when the press is uncritical of government policy, and when it sends out signals to its countrymen that all is well, it is moulding the mindsets of the people by instantly turning most of them into supporters of the government. Given the fact that the government in question is an effective one, with the people’s needs always at its top priority, then political and social stability is ensured with an uncritical press. Also, since an uncritical press effectively eliminates/reduces questioning and criticism of government policy, as well as cutting down on debate and dissidence of the government, then the ruling party will also be able to carry out its plans and ideas for the country in an effective manner. It is evident here that an uncritical press tips the balances in the government’s favour, but it takes a good government to make use of these advantages and not abuse them.
On the other hand, coupled with the aforementioned advantages, an uncritical press brings out a whole set of problems on its own. Due to the nature of an uncritical press that stifles political discussion which in turn, stifles the political climate, the opposition would always be at a disadvantage when it comes to garnering support for itself. A democratic society is one which requires pluralism within its governance, or at least an effective opposition which is able to rally support for itself, in order to provide for a diversity of opinions and viewpoints, which is exactly the point of having a democratic state in the first place. Hence, with a stifling rather than stimulating political climate, the society as a whole would be unable to mature in terms of its citizens mindsets, totally defeating the ideals of democracy. Furthermore, an uncritical press might also give off the impression of a government with a lack of transparency and accountability to its citizens, especially to other democratic nations worldwide, which might fuel constant international criticism of the government as a whole. The press, as mentioned earlier, is the fourth estate, and hence is expected to be an effective check and balance against the government, and an uncritical press might be one that is self defeating and not true to itself.
-Cassia, Yongsheng, Claire, Chenxuan, Shiyang 09S06J
The press in Singapore has historically refrained from openly criticizing government policy. The arguments usually put forth to support this stance are stability and efficiency. An unquestioning press will not provoke unrest among the public, causing unhappiness directed towards the government which undermines social cohesion. Also, debates sparked by the press would slow down the decision making process and damage the efficiency of the government. Another worry is that the press, with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders to maximize circulation (and hence profits), will spout populist rhetoric and support policies that will harm the country in the long term. The press has the power to sway people's opinions and shape their worldviews; a critical press could drive a wedge between the people and the government and a rift between the two is undesirable.
Of course, if the government were perfect, the critical press would be no more than a hindrance and an obstruction. Of course, no government is perfect; many believe that it is the responsibility of the media to expose these imperfections. In some countries, the media is considered important enough to be conferred the title of "the fourth estate", playing the role of a watchdog over the government in addition to the tripartite system of judiciary, executive and legislature. A syncophantic and uncritical press would be shirking their responsibility to the people, paving the way for corruption and ineptitude; a critical media exposes the population to arguments against the government's policy proposals, acting as a safeguard against incompetence or malice. To put it simply, a government under heavy scrutiny is less likely to misbehave (of course, a corollary of this would be that such a government would be less willing to make unpopular but necessary decisions, a reiteration of the point made above).
It is not just ordinary people who are helped by the presence of conflicting opinions, the press may uncover flaws or propose better policy solutions that the government themselves were not aware of. With little outside feedback, a government is more likely to make missteps. It is a common misconception that a critical press is a biased press. Some claim that a critical press does not fulfil its duty to provide information to the people in an undistorted manner. This is not necessarily true; many respected publications (eg., the WSJ) maintain a firm firewall between their (highly opinionated) editorials and (not nearly so highly opinionated) news articles, thus fulfilling both of their roles.
Joel, Ming Mei, Seng Henk, Jia Han, Yi Xin [09S06H]
A press that is uncritical of government policy would mean that it does not judge, and does not seek out flaws in government policies. Such a press could act in two ways. Firstly, it could follow government laws blindly or it could be unreactive toward changes in government policies.
By having a press that would be unreactive toward changes in government polices, it could influence voters to support the government. This is due to the lack of intiative to present feedback and negative points to the government and people, that could lead to the press giving voters a near-perfect image of the government. On the other hand, the disadvantage of this would be that the government would have one less way to see their flaws and improve, as the press would not take notice of loopholes in the system and advice the government. There would be less debating and challenging of government actions, which could result in leading the government down the wrong road.
By having a press that obeys the government policies blindly, the government can successfully filter out content that could be potentially harmful, by using the press. For example, explicit and violent content in movies can be filtered out to prevent youths from emulating such acts. However, such a press could also allow government exploitation, where the government may make use of the press for its personal agenda. For example, by covering up their mistakes using the press in order to not lose the support of voters.
Christian, Nikhita, Yiksin, Yuwen, Emily
Posted Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:45:00 PM SGT
Renamed Saturday, February 23, 2008
Post a Comment