CENSORSHIP!is it really necessary?

Censorship-what are the merits and demerits and is it really that neccesary?
In my view, there are both sides of a coin to censorship, there are definitely some pros and some cons. However, if we want to have a more open society, then i feel that censorship is not that necessary.
First of all, what is censorship? To me, censorship is like a sift, and it only allows morally correct issues to be sieved through and others to be hidden from the general public. One might ask- where is the freedom that we deserve? I feel that the general public should have a certain amount of freedom, and this includes our right of knowing the truth. If the government and media were to hide some issues and information, then our freedom is lost! In actual fact, less censorship would equate to more learning taking place. If there wasn't a barrier to taboo issues, both students and adults can broaden their horizons on such issues and gain more knowledge in the process. We would be able to handle these topics better as we already have prior knowledge about them. Also, transparency is crucial for people to trust their government. By reducing or taking away censorship, learning about taboo issues would not have to be done behind closed doors anymore. We can be more open and thus accept each other better. In Singapore, the young children and youth are really sheltered, and they are not getting enough exposure to the real world. By removing censorship, we can educate them and demystify certain taboo topics to them while they are still young and innocent. This is to allow them to be better and more knowledgeable people when they are older. By shielding them from topics like sex, religion, race etcetera, they will be ignorant and insensitive towards these issues when they grow up as they have not had enough chances to dicuss about their views and what others think about it. Ignorance is also a bad thing as people will be fearful to talk about these topics. And if they do talk about it, they might say soemthing insensitive and hurt the other party, thus resulting in chaos and paranoia.
Conversely, censorship will provide protection- for the people and for national security. Holding back certain information will definitely prevent conflicts as people will not get insulted so easily. Also, negative influence to children and youths will be prevented. As children and youths watch television very often, they are often affected by what they see or hear on screen. Censorship will thus help to uphold values that the individuals initially believe in.
To me, i feel that censorship is not that necessary. If there is something that the public should not see, it should be explained out in the open and not kept in the dark. This will definitely allow the government to gain trust from the people. If we want transparency, freedom, the right to know the truth and more education, then censorship is really NOT neccesary!

MASS MEDIA-perception or reality?

The article, 'Spilling Blood with Oil in Iraq', dated 6 April 2003, gave me much insight as to how the mass media uses different techniques to present information to the general public-be it perception or reality. Following the invasion of the United States into Iraq, the effects that the Iraqi civilians had to face was terrible and the expectation that these civilians would warmly welcome the US troops before the invasion was simply a lie and a fantasy. The arguments that were put across for war were not credible as it ony consisted of a whole string of lies. Even before the invasion, untruths such as France and Germany providing support for the war and the Arab countries willing to follow US and overthrow Saddam were mere lies. Also, a whole lot more lies were told in an effort to justify the war. For example, on the fifth day of the bombing campaign, US Secretary of State Colin Powell, accused Iraq of planning to use chemical weapons just because accusations of them doing something similar were brought up in the1980s. Also, another US official blamed the Iraqis for planning to dress up as the US soldiers to attack civilians and then turn around and blame the invading forces. However, this accusation was not real as well, proving that the US official's mentalities were changed due to perception and not what was actually happening. Then, the next day, some other US officials claimed that the US prisoners of war(PoWs) were being executed and shot in front of the entire town, thus deproving their relationship with Iraq. All these claims were made without sufficient supporting evidence, therefore once again proving that facts can be changed due to different mindsets and biased attitudes toward a certain group of people, in this case between the US and the Iraqi civilians. As the war dragged on, Tony Blair rushed to Washington for supposed "crisis talks" that contained topics unrelated to a crisis at all. The mass media did not present the real facts, but instead were very 'obliging' and catered to the image of Tony Blair, so that the public would not think of him in a bad light. Being the media, they said that the "purpose was to plan the funding for post-war reconstruction" when other notable leaders had already finished their discussion on the same topic. So, here we see how the media can hide the truth and change it to make it look like the way they perceive it!
All in all, the mass media is a really persuasive tool through which ideas are being generated to the public. Being such an effective medium through which we tend to believe almost everything we see and hear, they know how to manipulate our minds into thinking what they want us to think and that is the ultimate power of the mass media.
What the public needs to learn is how to differentiate between perception and reality.