"With the media's great power comes its great responsibility." How far do you agree?

Define “power”

1) Definition of “power” — ability, capability, resources, monopoly on something, influence, sway. Most essays were good at showing how powerful the media is.
However, is that always the case?
What about the power of the consumers to influence what they consume?
What about the power of the individual to discern and evaluate the information he is receiving?
What about the power of regulatory organizations and “watchdogs,” like the government, censorship boards, consumer associations?
If the mass media is the watchdog for the government, does it have watchdogs of its own?

Define “responsibility”.

2) Definition of “responsibility” — “The mass media should be responsible” — towards whom? to do what?
“Responsibility” to provide what? ensure that what quality or standard is fulfilled? enforce that what action is carried out or prevented?
You could have the “responsibility” to reveal something, or the responsibility to hide something, to encourage or to suppress.
Specifying these parameters goes towards improving the quality of your premises.

3) If the defined role of mass media is to preserve stability, full employment, safe streets, etc, then it has the responsibility to suppress certain damaging information, etc.
But if the defined role is to bring the “truth,” and preserve freedom of speech, then it has the responsibility to uncover all information, no matter the effect or ramifications.
The “responsibilities” depend on the “accepted ideal.” — Who does this defining? Who is doing the accepting?

4) Many essays put “freedom of expression” in binary opposition with “responsibility,” “accountability” and “self-censorship.” This arrangement is true if —
(a) the responsibility were towards ideals other than “freedom of expression” — many forms of media feel they have a “responsibility” to preserve and champion “freedom of expression”;
(b) you assume there is no middle ground, no spectrum between the two extremes;
(c) you define “freedom” as “irresponsibility” — “freedom” is another word that is highly charged with varying definitions that requires careful exploration.

5) To have a great responsibility is not the same as to have a great task— responsibility implies obligation, enforced work; while to have a task might mean no more than having something big clogging up your to-do list.

6) Responsibility — (a) “accountability” or (b) “obligation” —
“ he is responsible for the murder” versus “he is responsible for the child’s upbringing” —
(a) refers to something that has happened,
(b) refers to something that is in the future.

Define “mass media”.

7) Define “mass” — Majority? Large percentage? Domestic? International? Public? Opposite of “private circulation”?
Let us examine the use of “mass” in another context. When it is reported, “Mass Hysteria over News of Tsunami,” what do you understand of the term “mass”? Everyone in the world? Everyone in the South-East Asia region? Were you hysterical?

8) Do not make the mistake of treating and talking of the “mass media” as a single, monolithic, coherent, undifferentiated entity.
Especially in the modern era, it is multiple, varied, variegated, conflicting, competitive, self-contradictory, non-coherent (not the same as “incoherent”), disrespectful of boundaries and codes.
There are many different forms of media — newsprint, magazines, TV networks, radio, advertising, books, official webpages, online forums, blogs, podcasts — anything and everything that is a means of disseminating information may be named “media”.

9) “Media”: plural of “medium,” an agency by which something is accomplished, conveyed, or transferred.
“Mediums”: plural of “medium,” a person who communicates with spirits of the dead.

10) When you say things like “the mass media inculcates values in its audience,” you should be specific — who is using the mass media to do the inculcating?
After all, “media” or “medium” means “channels,” “methods,” “the in-between space,” “the space of transition”.
“Media” by definition does not do anything by itself — people or organizations use it to do things. These people may be media moguls using media to make money, government using media to disseminate public education or propaganda (however you wish to interpret it), businesses using media to advertise, etc.

11) “If the tools of mass media fall into the wrong hands, there will be [insert disaster of choice]… Therefore, the mass media must bear the great responsibility of not letting its powers be abused…” — so, who exactly is bearing the responsibility? Who is this “mass media”?

Other things you have to specify.

12) Does many multiple sources of information guarantee credibility of information?
What about the problem of self-referencing?
Circular logic?
Unless you specify the context of these sources, you can’t be sure.

13) Many were of the opinion that the mass media should be “objective.”
First, how do you define “objective”?
Some were able to achieve the definition “objective = neutral viewpoint,” at which point my question was, “neutral” in what context?
Politically neutral — what does that mean? Is that even possible? According to Marxist theory, there is no such thing as being apolitical.
Morally neutral — does that mean withholding judgment? Being amoral? Conform to “prevalent” morality? What defines “prevalence”?
You will find that “objectivity” is used as a brand name, a description that is more rhetorical than real.
Second, you should recognize that the statement — “objectivity is ideal” — is an assumption, a value judgment. Should we accept “objectivity” as ideal? Are “white lies” permissible? Is “objectivity” the same as “the whole truth”? “the brutal truth”?

14) “Technology has replaced letter-writing as a means of communication…” What technology?
Students are very fond of large, abstract nouns (it seems to me) while not very apt at grasping abstractions.
Technology can refer to anything from the stone axes Cro-Magnon protohumans used to hunt mammoths to time machines — a vast gamut of things.
Which of these, you will have to be more specific, has replaced letter-writing?

15) “Instant” information — what is that? Unedited? Instant = instantaneous? —
“Instant information” is the myth that quick information is information that has not been filtered through the lenses of agenda, political or otherwise.

About language.

16) Everyone’s favourite word seems “should” — “The government should regulate the media”; “the mass media should be honest and accurate.”
“Should” implies a duty — duty to whom?
“Should” implies that someone has authoritatively said it — who is this someone? What is the source of his or her authority?
“Should” implies adherence to certain moral / ethical / social codes / standards — what are these codes / standards?
Without providing these contexts, and presuming that your reader accepts your “should” assertion, shows confusion between premise and inference — what should have been an inference you used as a premise.
Providing weak or inaccurate or ill-explained contexts means you have provided premises of poor quality.

17) Students presume that words like “undeniably,” “undoubtedly,” “indubitably,” “indeed,” add force to their arguments. Indeed, such students presume wrongly.
The rhetorical ploy is transparent, even laughable.
You have to earn the right to use such words — you earn it by building strong, cogent arguments, with inevitable inferences growing out of solid premises.
Even then, few if any arguments are 100% indisputable.

18) Avoid sanctimonious ranting.
By “sanctimonious” I mean adopting a tone of being on the moral high horse, judgmental rather than judicious, without giving proper context of these judgments — by what standards? According to whose moral or ethical system? Is this system universally accepted? Are there alternative systems?
By “ranting” I mean heaping assertion upon baseless assertion, opinion upon unsupported opinion, in a bid to numb the reader’s mind.
I (for one) am not so easily taken in, I assure you.

19) The spurious “therefore” — People abuse the word “therefore”
Just because you insert it between two sentences does not automatically mean the former is the cause of the latter — it is not a magic word.
“The media has great potential for abuse, therefore we should curb its power, install harsh controls.” —
No, there is no inexorable link between risk of abuse and preemptive action; you need more justification. —
Perhaps something like “in the current political climate, where preemptive strikes, jumping at shadows, seem to be the norm, it would not be unpalatable base one’s decisions on the adage, Prevention is Better Than Cure.”
The use of “therefore” follows very stringent criteria — what comes before “therefore” must be irrefutably proven and supported by what comes before.

20) Narrating rather than arguing — the difference between expository and argumentative. Look out for a later entry discussing the difference in more detail.

21) Sayings, proverbs, parables, clichés—these are not proofs.
“A picture is worth a thousand words, therefore television conveys more information” —
No, it is because pictures convey more information, that’s why there is the saying, “A picture is worth a thousand words”.
“Curiosity killed the cat; therefore we should not be curious.” —
No, give concrete evidence; a proverb or idiom only give your essay style, humour—not an argumentative short-cut.
“With the world changing every moment, we have to keep up by updating ourselves.” —
The use of “with” (and words like “because,” “since,” “seeing that…”) implies that you are using the cliché as proof — which it is most definitely not.

22) To convince (verb) — he is convinced (adj)—he is filled with conviction (noun)
To convict (verb) — he was convicted (adj) of the crime — the High Court overturned the conviction (n).

What really is an inference you mistook for a premise.

23) The question is: “With great power… comes great responsibility. How far do you agree?” —
that is: “Does great responsibility necessarily come with great power?”
You are not answering the question when you simply assert, “The media does have great power, therefore it has great responsibility” — you are merely repeating the question without the question mark.
Most of you spent your entire essay proving that the media does have great power; but the crux of the essay is in proving the “therefore”. I got tired of writing this in every essay—ALL of you made this mistake.

24) “If the mass media provokes war, then it is bad…” — this is assuming that war is unequivocally bad, so much so that there is no need for discussion whether if there are exceptions —
this is an example of confusing inference for premise, opinion for fact, assertion for proof.
“War is bad” is an assertion requiring proof — not proof in and of itself.

25) “In this age of info-tech, we are forced to keep up with the latest happenings, or else we will lag behind others” — implying that progress is unequivocally good—can you think of exceptions?
We can improve this argument by specifying “lag behind others in what aspect”.

Generally faulty logic.

26) “Is X irresponsible? If X is irresponsible, then there will be chaos, catastrophe, the seas will turn to blood, etc. Therefore X has to be responsible.”
Does this sound right to you?
Does this argument satisfy your “common sense”?

27) “We don’t want our newspaper to reproduce the government’s position” — does this statement necessarily imply that “our newspaper” is not already reproducing the government’s position?
Does it necessarily imply “we” are not coercing the newspaper into reproducing the government’s position?

General note on Logic.

28) According to certain epistemological theories, there can be no end to skepticism — no fact is 100% watertight.
It will still come down to a leap of faith, a decision based on the probability of validity.
The point here, is to decide for ourselves, what is our tolerance of improbability?
What is our appetite for risk of error?
How sound must the facts be, how sound must the arguments be, before we give them our belief?

One last note.

29) Deconstructing arguments and premises like this, might seem immoral to some: but never confuse amoral for immoral—such dissection is dispassionate, an effort at “objectivity,” that is, to examine as many perspectives and domains of facts are possible before coming to a (contingent) conclusion. In fact, this can be argued to be the most moral thing of all, to consider all possibilities and probabilities in order to make the best decision—being led by knee-jerk passion is often and wrongly taken to be compassion.

30) Recap:

a) Why do media have so much influence—what is the consequence of having
influence?
b) What does being responsible entail? — responsible to whom?
responsible to what? who to enforce (self, someone else)?
c) Does influence necessarily entail responsibility?
d) Does responsibility necessarily curtail freedom of expression?
e) What is the price are we willing to pay —
for “freedom of expression”? Conversely, what is the price are we willing to pay
for “being responsible to [whatever]”?
f) If consumer power is significant (through their spending power) then the mass media is not all-powerful? So they are “responsible” because otherwise they lose sales? But again we can ask, what or whom are they responsible to/for? To the consumers’ taste? For their “good”, i.e. education? To their demand, no matter what shapes this demand?