Dreams come true

gp essay

2008-07-13T08:20:00.000-07:00

6. Modern society is a slave to fashion. Comment.

Fashion, is something everyone in this world is connected to. As Katherine Hamnett, a top British fashion designer once said: “Clothes create a wordless means of communication that we all understand.” Since everyone needs clothes, whether it is just for the reason of protecting oneself from cold or to create a good impression to others, clothes are inseparable from humans’ lives. Clothes are closely related to fashion, fashion refers to the unique, popular trend, often brought about by the newest materials in the market. Fashion does not only limit to clothes but also vary from architecture to literature to technology. Are the people of today being manipulated by fashion when they are faced with unlimited choices? I beg to differ. The people of today, as a result of globalization, demand some freedom of choice in almost everything they do. As this applies to fashion, something fashionable might be deemed unaccepted by some and acceptable by others. At times, people today might follow the trend, but they are certainty not controlled by fashion. On the other hand, they might be using fashion to achieve their personal objectives. There are instances where one’s life and daily actions all revolve around fashion, thus one is called a slave of fashion. However, these are just the minority in the society, and some are slave to fashion because of means of survival. As such looking at the society as a whole, I strongly believe that the modern society will not be a slave of fashion.

As fashion refers to a popular trend, those in the line where their popularity matters, will be a slave to fashion so that they are deem to have a good fashion sense and thus always remain popular with the change in time. When one wears something that is not fashionable, others might say that they are outdated. For an office worker or a manager, it does not matter if others do not favour them. However, for a celebrity for example, their popularity determines how successful they are in their job. If they do not dress fashionably, their popularity might drop and there goes their opportunity to star in the upcoming movies. For example, celebrities like Madonna, Paris Hilton and Jennifer Lopez, they will always wear new designer clothes to awards presentation. As they employ designers to dress them in clothes that went down the runway, they are helping to publicize for fashion. Thus they can be deemed as slave to fashion. However, it is also arguable that they are not the slave of fashion. Instead, they are making use of fashion to gain both fame and do a business. As stated in BBC article “fashioning a business out of fame”. OutKast's Andre Benjamin gains additional fame as he sets up his own clothing line. In this way, fashion is a slave rather then them being a slave of fashion. As they make use of what is in fashion to reap benefits of their own. Therefore, even those who need to keep up with the fashion on a regular basis are not necessarily slaves of fashion. Hence, the modern society is definitely not a slave to fashion.

As stated in Wikipedia, the modern society is engaged in consumerism and materialism. This could be clearly seen through how compact disc players, digital media, personal computers, and cellular phones, all began to integrate into the affluent American’s everyday lifestyle. As the modern society gets more materialistic, they will continue to achieve their happiness by purchasing increasingly more materials that are latest in the market. The modern society will demand more materials as they are able to gain happiness through them. This will mean that their happinesses will be controlled by the possession of what is the latest in the market, what is fashionable. If they are able to follow the trend and possess the latest gadget, they will then feel happy. As a result they will become slaves to fashion, as they gain happiness by staying fashionable. Therefore, as seen from research by Wikipedia that the modern society gets more materislistic, they will then become slaves to fashion.

On the other hand, modern society uses fashion as a means of religious identity, to portray one’s emotions, allow to to look atractive and protection. By how a person dresses, others are able to identify what religion does he belong to. Moreover, religions are also able to use fashion to spread their culture. For example, Orthodox Jewish men wear long black suits and Islamic women cover every part of their body except their eyes. Their dressing allow their religions to be make known to others so that others would know the code of behaviour to observe around them and also allow more to be aware about their religion, tradition and culture. These traditional costumes could be worn by others who are not from the particular religion, but they do not need to change their habits just because they change how they dress. One example is seen locally in Singapore where Chinese wear the Malay traditional costumes-baju kurung. However, they continue to eat Chinese food which are non-halal and do not pray everyday in the direction of Mecca. Similarly, Malays are seen to wear the Chinese traditional costume too, but their practices do not change. Therefore, it goes to show that the modern society uses fashion to benefit oneself by achieving personal objectives, yet not allowing fashion to control one’s actions.

In modern society, people rather dress to express themselves and work more comfortably, than to stay in fashion. According to Marlow’s hierarchy of needs, basic needs of survival must be gratified before higher needs like need for beauty. Therefore, one will be more concerned about one’s survival before being able to stay in fashion. As globalization continues to take place and competition for survival is crucial, men will be more focused on how what he or she dress will create an impression to enable them to succeed in work or life. An example is how Indian females are wearing more trousers as they find it difficult to work with all the pleats (of the sari) and it does tend to be cumbersome, as stated by BBC news. Fashion designer Nikhil Mehra also stated that, "There are more professional women working now than before, and since most of them are dealing with international clients, they are bound to imbibe some aspects of western culture.” This showed how globalization have allowed fashion for the Indian females to change from saris in the past to wearing pants with blouses and shirts today, because their women found that it facilitates movement more easily as compared to the saris. Therefore, the modern society determines fashion according to comfort rather than allowing fashion to enslave them.

One certain thing in the fashion world is change. Since fashion keeps changing, something must have caused. Although few might be enslaved by fashion, fashion is created and determined by man. Without man, clothes and other materials used by man would not have been invented. Hence, instead of saying man are enslaved by fashion, they are actually enslaved by those who create and determine fashion. Therefore, no man is enslaved by fashion. They either are those who create fashion, determine fashion or enslaved to those who create and determine fashion.

research on fashion

2008-07-13T03:03:00.000-07:00

-http://nota.triwe.net/teachers/tolstikova/students06.htm
-http://www.abeachmall.com/articles/internet-mall-articles/a-modern-definition-of-fashion.html
-http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3089
-http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7271691.stm

essay outline

2008-07-06T04:09:00.000-07:00

2. Singaporeans are too apathetic to take an active part in politics. Discuss.

Definitions:
Apathetic=indifferent
Politics=regarding the management of a country

homosexuals

2007-09-23T09:44:00.000-07:00

I feel that there are two types of homosexuals. One are born the way they are, while the other is the result of influence from their surroundings. I believe that one group are able to switch back to be monosexuals, but they hope and wish to be a homosexual, thus might be due to their tastes and preferences, or even because of seeking attention. However, the other group of them are unable to do so, it is their nature to like or even love the same sex, even though they know that this behavior of theirs is not being condoned in certain society, like that in Singapore. No one enjoys the feeling of being ostracized, being left alone, and what’s worse is that they behaviour are commented and “gossip” about by others, they become like monsters, or even like animals in the zoo, where people watch their every action and gloat at them. For example a pair of gays kissing might have appeared in the headlines of Singapore’s newspapers, but this would never happen to a couple kissing.

Moreover, similar to animals in the zoo, their movements are being restricted, using Singapore as an example; some restaurants refuse to allow the admittance of homosexuals. In a developed and globalised country like Singapore, shouldn’t we respect human rights? As the name suggests ‘human rights’ are for all humans, even though they are homosexuals they still live a life similar to other humans, just that they love a partner of the same sex, they still need to eat, to enjoy entertainment, to buy groceries and clothes etc. How can we remove this right from them just because we do not really accept them? As a Chinese saying goes, “one must not mix personal and working matters.” If one detests homosexuals they could express it in their daily lives, but not in their jobs.

As the numbers of homosexuals around the world is increasing, as research show that one in ten are homosexuals, does this mean that in the past there isn’t any homosexual, is it because of globalisation that causes people to become homosexuals, people start to wonder. As I have stated my belief above, on a group of homosexuals that are born like that and unable to change themselves, I believe that the increasing numbers might be because of the improvements in technology and communication that allows one to be able expressed what on really wants. It might be due to the very first couple being Adam and Eve that people get the perception that a male should love a female and not same sex marriages. The increasing numbers might just be here to tell us that a normal human might be the homosexual since the majorities are usually taken as the norm, and different sex marriages are the exceptions. If this really is the truth, we would then be begging the homosexuals to accept us, therefore why shouldn’t we just live in harmony and make peace with one another. We respecting them and they would be grateful and respect us in return.

Since the numbers are increasing, these homosexuals should not just sit there and let the world gossip about them, they should stand up for their own rights, they should form a union, since a homosexual would understand the pains of a homosexual better, and help one another in their problems. Also as a union, they could stand up for themselves and do something about how this world just keeps them in the closet. Even keeping a non-living thing in the closet for a long period of time would cause it to turn moldy; what’s more it is a living thing that needs to take a breather. I seriously think that these homosexuals should have a voice, only when so many of them speak together, will those stubborn heterosexuals wake up. How is it fair that one consigns others to a life of hiding? Also, if homosexuals are always in hiding it goes to show that they do not like being classified as the name homosexuals, thus why would one choose something which he or she doesn’t like, it just show that they have no control over it, it is just no choice that they are homosexuals. Humans remain as humans, and not play god. As a Chinese saying implies, “do not do something more than your abilities.” If one does not have the ability (intellectual or not) one should not be given the right to label the homosexuals as a wrong behaviour. Thus, since we are in no place to judge them we should give them the love and respect that they deserve.

Moreover, as Singapore globalize, industrialized and move forward as other developed countries do, it is inevitable that we accept homosexuals. Homosexuals provide a huge market for the economy as statistics shows that homosexuals are usually the ones who are more creativity, like designers, hairstylist, artist, dancers etc. neglecting them would mean that Singapore would suffer a lost as compared to other countries economy. Also with the talk about being globalised, Singapore would have to strictly respect human rights. Having prejudices about homosexuals would mean that we do not respect their right as a human, and it is bound to stir a big hoo-ha as more and more countries are accepting homosexuals. Thus, as coded by MM Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, it is just a matter of time before we accept them. However, he put the blame of the delay of the acceptance of homosexuals on the people, the older Chinese and Indian population, and the conservative part of Muslim population. “Is it just because of the unhappiness that it might cause this group of citizens or is it just because he himself, or maybe even the whole government do not accept the homosexuals?” I suspect. Many policies implemented by the government have been for our own good but has caused a certain amount of unhappiness in the people. However, didn’t the government just proceed and implement these policies, explaining them only after these policies have been put to practice. Why can’t the government do the same for that on the homosexual policy? Is it really the people’s interest or is it own perceptions that come first.

self directed research

2007-09-09T21:38:00.000-07:00

argument on globalisation: http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/global/glob1002/2002book/globalisation%20website/converted/cultureclub.html

Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization:
http://www.darkseptemberrain.com/ideas/advantages.htm

globalisation in S'pore:
http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/soc-culture-singapore/msg39717.html

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do YOu Agree?

2007-08-13T10:28:00.000-07:00

Revolution is a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. Crime is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. While poverty is a state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence. Aristotle states that poverty exercise control and influence to both revolution and crime. Poverty causes a great impact on the society. Poverty has shown its effect in terms of employment, living standards and even housing. However there are other factors of revolution and crime.

Studies have shown that the poor are caught in a cycle of poverty due to income stagnation in their jobs. In Singapore this situation is still valid. An article reports that Madam Aishah Mohamed Yunos, 30, due to a poverty left school at primary 6, and because of her lack of education in today’s meritocracy system, she is assigned to blue collared jobs or manual labour. She keeps the neighbourhood spick and span, but paid only a very small sum of $400, without any pay rise in two years of job. However she feels that people who are illiterate should be satisfied with what they have, thus they do not ask for more. Also with the influx of foreign workers people like madam aishah will receive tougher competition, which just results in her having an even lower pay. Therefore someone who is poor is unable to afford good education, causing one to be doing the blue collared jobs with miserable pays. Thus one will always remain in the cycle of poverty. As Singapore globalize, there would always be this group of people which remains in the cycle of income stagnation. This would only result in the poor always thinking that just because of their lack in education, they should be happy with what they have and have no right to disagree to this situation.

As these people living in poverty just have to accept their fate with a job that pay crumbs, they have to live with these small sum that only allows them just enough to eat. In an expanding economy in Singapore, all starting salaries of all occupational groups rose except one – the cleaners and labourers. With lower living standards as the society improves it would cause these poor people to desire to be like the rich or sometimes they just have insufficient money to afford living in this economy, thus it results in people turning to crime. Thus poverty also leads to crime because research has shown a mother who is a cleaner earns only about $500 per month, which is hardly enough to feed herself not mentioning the family.

As a result of the economic upswing recently, prices of housing have rose significantly.
With a rise in housing prices, it makes it harder for the poor to maintain their house, or even buying one that is of better condition. With income stagnation, this group of people would always live in poverty, causing housing to be a problem. When house prices rise to a really unaffordable range, these people will just have to live in slums or sleep in gardens. Therefore as the country aims to prosper and globalize, the majority will improve their standards of living together with the country, but there would still be this group of minority that are seen without proper housing. This problem could be solved with help from the government as they give subsidies to the needy in terms of the housing development board (HDB). However, as the economy continues to improve the government cannot continue to provide help in monetary terms, thus it is crucial to solve the root of the problem: helping these needy to get a good education, which allows them a better life.

However, there are other factors that lead to revolution and crime. For example, race, gender or religion discrimination. All these might cause a revolution, as seen from Hitler’s acts back then. Also, from a long time ago till a few years back, china wasn’t a very developed country because of mild xenophobia. They did not open up their market to foreigners. Today’s china is no longer like the past; it is becoming more and more similar to Singapore, especially the cities like Shanghai. All these just prove that discrimination or getting rid of discrimination can also cause a revolution.

Moreover, studies have shown that some people who rob do not do it because they cannot afford it. On the contrary, they are quite well off. The mother of crime is not only poverty that might be one of the factors but definitely not the only one. People sometimes turn to crime due to peer pressure, where bad influence of friends encourage them to rob or steal. Sometimes they just want to enjoy the trill of doing something against the law and escaping punishment. The idea of resorting to unscrupulous means to achieve one’s goal is due to greed. Therefore, I agree that poverty are one of the sources of crime but its mother is definitely greed instead.

On a whole, poverty could cause revolution and crime, but poverty is definitely not the only ‘mother’ and neither the main one. Revolution and crime are both the cause of men actions, thus the mindsets of men definitely play a very crucial role.

2007-08-11T20:02:00.000-07:00

but u look so natural and lifelike. your eyesight is gone.

article on xenophobia: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/xenophobia_a_brief_analysis/0014385

article on disablism:

http://www.scope.org.uk/disablism/

article on ageism: (look under 'high price of age discrimination' & 'age discrimination cases')

http://www.aoa.gov/prof/notes/Docs/Ageism.doc#_Defining_Ageism

article on lookism:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10627049&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18168&rfi=6

http://www.personneltoday.com/Articles/2005/04/18/29307/overweight-and-underpaid-as-lookism-sweeps-the-world.html

Singapore, multi-racial society.

2007-07-10T10:29:00.000-07:00

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?

In Singapore’s context, none of these views should be adopted singly as it would cause unnecessary problems. In fact, both views should be adopted to a certain extent.

Singer’s view on freedom of speech should be adopted to some extent, because Singapore deemed herself as a democratic country and freedom of expression is crucial. Democracy is defined by dictionary.com as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Therefore for the government to be one where the decision is that of the choice of the people, the people must be allowed to voice their views, and that could only be possible with the freedom of speech.

However, everything in this world has rules and regulations to follow. From the simple board games that we play as a child to our behaviour and conduct in school, our whole life are restricted by rules and regulations. Thus freedom of expression is no exception. For freedom of speech that is applied to Singapore, due to our multi-racial society, freedom of speech should not be total ‘freedom’; it should have its boundaries. Singaporeans who wish to voice their views should be considerate and treat others like how they would like others to treat them (Chinese saying), in aspects like religion, race or other sensitive issues.

On the other hand, living in a multi-racial society, we as individuals should be more understanding and gracious towards others. This is because we cannot expect everyone to believe in what we believe and to view things like how we do, when everyone has a mind of their own. It is difficult and almost impossible to prevent the clash of ideas. Thus to implement the freedom of expression in Singapore, there should be some sort of mild censorship to sensitive issues that might cause riots but still have room for the public to voice their views. Also, since Singapore is a democratic country and the people wish to have freedom of expression, they take into consideration the consequences, and be gracious and forgiving about comments made.

Next, is Szilagyi’s view on placing more focus on social responsibility. Social responsibility is especially important for a multi-racial country like Singapore. If we did things without social responsibility, it would result in unhappiness between different groups of people, which causes tension to arise and thus riots. By then the country would not be able to enjoy the luxury of living in peace and harmony.

Social responsibility as defined by dictionary.com as the accountability of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community. We should not be overly social responsible because this would mean that before every sentence, every action, every move that we make, we have to consider, re-consider ad further consider before we set foot upon it. Other than the much amount of thinking and analyzing skills that we would require, this would also mean – we have many things to consider. Which in turn implies that our boundary for ‘freedom’ of speech decreases till somewhat the standard is no longer called freedom. Also, being overly social responsibility might mean that in order to be accountable to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community, we might twist and turn the truth. Therefore, resulting in the distortions of facts.

To enable us to live like a highly democratic yet peaceful and harmonious multi-racial nation, we should adopt both views of freedom of expression and social responsibility. However, both are not adopted totally but partially, till the extend where we are able to voice what we want and how we feel about some issues without causing any form of encumbrance to any other groups of people in the society. This state of perfection might not be reached easily, but may be after years and years of changes. It is not easily achievable as people are always selfish and usually put themselves before others, causing them to hope for their own ability of freedom of expression yet unable to be gracious enough to let others criticize self. Thus with a group wanting freedom of speech, there will sure to be a group that opposes it due to social responsibility, this might even be the same group. Therefore, the plan above might not be able to work out very well in practice.

"the death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder."DYA?

2007-05-20T04:46:00.000-07:00

Death penalty is the punishment done to any murderer or any criminal who does serious crimes. However, is it right that the death penalty should be done to the criminal? Is it right for anyone to kill another human being? Life has been given by god and no human have the right to remove someone else’s life. Then people would argue,” but these people did something wrong we need to punish them.” However, does punishing someone mean that one wants to make sure the criminal does not repeat his fault? Does death penalty really helps to deter others? If the criminal was allowed to live again after being hanged, will he still dare to repeat the crime? If yes, then is the death penalty still considered a deterrent?

The death penalty has always received support from people. Putting ourselves in the point of the victim’s family, any normal person would want revenge or in their words “justice done”. As the saying goes, ”an eye for an eye”, people will want revenge done for those who are innocently killed.

However, if the murderer is one who did not kill the victim on purpose, or was not in a right state of mind to think rationally, or felt that he was actually doing a service to the victim in saving him from his sufferings, would the reason of punishment still be valid? Not just any other punishment, but the death penalty. The punishment that gives the criminal no second chance. For a murderer who cannot think with the proper state of mind, is it better to help him “become normal” or just sentence him to death since he is abnormal and did something “seriously wrong” like murder.

As seen from the response of the public towards the term ’death penalty’, how much they are against it, we could conclude that people are frightened by the word “death penalty” and do not wish to die in such a way. Therefore issuing a death penalty to hard core criminals or those who have committed serious acts as a deterrent to others who might have the intention to err. People who are tempted to kill might think of the consequences of having a death penalty, which might scare their wits out of them or do not wish to die in such a horrible manner, such that they are able to kick the intention of killing out of their mind.

Only to a certain extent could this death penalty be of deterrent effect. In the past, the hanging was done in public, such that everyone and anyone could see the consequences of taking the wrong step. So that they could see how painful and gross and horrible the death would be like. Causing the deterrent effect to really settle in. In today’s death penalty, it is done in a quiet corner in the prison and done in the middle of the night. Also, even if one is invited to watch no one would go. Therefore, who would know how the actual “scene of crime” looks like? And without seeing just by hear-say, is the impact still as great? The deterrent effect has greatly been reduced.

I believe hearing the following explanation, many would agree to the death penalty. Criminals of serious crimes if not subjected to the death penalty, would most probably be subjected to life imprisonment. These hard-core criminals when they live in the prison are provided with lodgings, food, drink and other necessities. And who provides these facilities to the hard-core criminals, who pay for them? If you do not know, it is us or maybe our parents, the tax-payers. We are so called supporting the criminals that we hate if we send them to life imprisonment, therefore, it is definitely more economically sound to sentenced them to death penalty.

Killing is said to be so serious a crime that the murderer is sentenced to the death penalty. However, what about the person conducting the death penalty? Is he also killing, if so, would the ultimately fair judge sentence him to death as well? So how can the death penalty be the right punishment, since it makes a person commit a very serious crime while carrying out this punishment? If we are such law abiding, the executor would also be sentenced to death penalty, and the cycle would then repeats itself. Therefore, to stop this cycle of people killing more people, we should say “NO!” to the death penalty.

The death penalty has already been a standard punishment across the board, making it impossible to abolish it with a significant shift in public opinion. Although the reasons to punish a person might be valid, but anyone who reacts in any way is influenced by his surroundings, his upbringing, the people around him and how people treat him. Thus, I believe anyone brought up in the same way as any hard-core criminal or murderer would act in the same way as them given the same situation, as it is just their ‘normal reaction’. Therefore, should these people be punished or should we punish the core of the problem which is the influence he gets from the surroundings and the people around him.

Censorship

2007-04-30T07:59:00.000-07:00

Censorship exists in our everyday lives. On a large scale, censorship is used in the media and sometimes even by the government. On a small scale, we all use censorship in our lives, in the things we might have heard or seen. However, have we ever stumbled upon questions like: is this kind of censorship really necessary? Does this do more harm or good to us and our lives? Who will draw the lie for censorship?

To people like parents, teachers or others in the educational field, most of them would say, “censorship is necessary without it we will have terror.” To a certain extent, censorship do helps the society. Censorship in racial issues prevents riots and undesired misinterpretation of one another. In the political area, it helps to protect the government and national interests. It prevents sensitive issues from being raised, causing unnecessary tension. Therefore, censorship also decreases tension.

It acts as a shield to protect the young and weak-minded. It ensures that the wrong messages are not passed across. For example, children or innocent teens might think that having many sex partners is nothing wrong as they mimic these actions and images that they see. With censorship, it would prevent these wrong ideas from being transmitted to the minds of the young and innocent.

However, as the saying goes, a coin has two sides. Other than the good of censorship, there is also the bad part. Censorship is not necessary as these images or actions are a form of exposure for growth of these kids or teens. These are the true images or scenes of reality. Even if there is censorship on books, television or even the movies, today’s accessibility of information would allow any one to find these kind of information from other sources like the internet.

With censorship, it would mean that objective reporting and freedom of speech is forsaken. In today’s world where everyone talks about freedom of speech, if our country have large amount of censorship, we would then be left behind in the fast developing society. Every human have a heart with conscious and a mind to think for themselves. Thus censorship is unnecessary as everyone could practice on viewing such images and videos and reading such materials.

I believe that parents sending enough quality time teaching the right and wrong to their children and educating them on the morals would be the best deterrent in preventing bad influence of the child. If the child really wants to see or read these censored stuff, they will have their means to find them still. Thus how a parent educates or teaches them is very important; sometimes these rated films could be used to teach too.

In today’s world,
What governs our mind?
What governs our action?
What governs the right and wrong?
Is it justice? or is it man’s need for control.
From the time that humans are able to think rationally, humans start to crave for wealth, power and control. With control it makes us feel safe and secure. Thus it is inevitable that human wants control over what is published and what is not.
Therefore, censorship, a form of control, will always exist in this world.

Spilling blood with oil in Iraq

2007-04-10T08:09:00.000-07:00

What have u learnt from the report about the media in the way they present what is percieved over what is real?

i learnt that the media usually does not present what is real, but what the government wants the people to percieve as 'real'. in terms of the ways they present this 'false' infomation to people such that they would percieve them as 'the truth', they usually use people with standing powers or pictures that causes outrage or would stir strong feelings.
i feel that in any single news that is published by the media, it will definitely have people who will celebrate and others who will cry.therefore, the media has the power to choose who they want to cause happiness or anger in.in the process of choosing, the media would definitely consider their own benefits and also the consequences of the choice they make.