GMAT Essays (AWA)

In some countries television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries these is little or no censorship.

In you views to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs ? Explain....

----------------------------------

I believe that govenment should censor radio and TV programs carefully for offensive language and bahavior. People in countries that have little or no censorship, generally tend to use abusive language very frequently. Television and radio programs have the broadest coverage of all mass media and can adversly influence youngsters.

Firstly, it has been shown that youngsters who watch too much violence to TV tend to be more aggressive than those who do not. According to the CNN reports, more and more youngsters these days are exposed to abusive language and excessive violence on television which has led to an increase in the sale of firearms and an increase in the amount of gun violence. To put a stop to this the government must consor TV content.

Secondly, according to a survey by students of University of Southern California, a majority of radio programs that air the latest hip-hop and rap music are heard ex-convicts and criminals. The content on these shows are generally very offensive and contain a lot to abusive language. This just goes to show certain content encourages sections of the population to behave in a manner not acceptable to society. These programs need to be censored.
Opponents of censorship might argue that freedom is our right and one is free to watch whatever one wishes to, but when this freedom causes problems for the rest of the people, then government needs to intervene.

Thus, although we live in a free country where democracy is our right, in order to prevent the younger generation from exposure to illicit content, the government needs to censor content on television and radio. This censorship could also reduce crimimal activity.



Argument

In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch TV programs about visual arts than was the case in a poll consucted 5 years ago. During these years, the number of people visiting our city's art museum has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city's art museums will also start to decrese. Thus some of the City's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public TV.

Discuss....

--------------------------------

The argument above states that there is a correlation between the number of people watching programs about visual effects and the number of people visiting the city's art museum. The argument further states that because of a reduction in the funds allocated to public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, attendance at the city's museum would decline and hence the city's funds should be reallocated to public TV. The argument is flawed for several reasons.

Firstly, the argument fails to consider the possibility that the correlation between the fifteen percent increase in the poll results for people watching TV programs about visual effects and people visiting the city's art museum might just be a coincidence. There may infact be no relationship between the two whatsoever, in which case reallocating funds to public TV would increase the number of people watching programs about visual effects but the number of people visiitng the City's museum would still decline.

Secondly, the argument assumes, that severe cuts in the budget for public television would negativly effect the viewership of visual arts programs. It could simply be that, there is presently too must funding available on Public TV and hence corporations have decreased funding. In this case the decline in funding would not lead to a reduction in visual effects programs in the first place.

Finally, the argument ignores the possibility that with a reduction in the number of TV programs about visual arts, people might be drawn to the city's museum to view such arts. The lack of visual arts programs might just increase attendance at the city's museum, in which case the funds should not be reallocated to public TV.

Thus, in order to reach a conclusion that some of the City's funds for supporting the arts should be reallocated to public TV, more information needs to be known. Firstly one needs to know the correlation between the percentage of people watching visual arts programs to those visiting the city's art museum. One also needs to know whether increasing the funding for arts on public TV would actually increase attendance at the museu.