Blog prompt 8

The Phone-hacking Scandal, continued

I could not believe my eyes when I read this article. I knew it must be, of course, but seeing it in a letter from a former reporter of the company showed how uncaring they were. An entire company, ignoring the fact that this phone-hacking, this invasion of privacy is going on under their nose, and not doing anything?

Clive Goodman, News International (NI) former royal reporter, just recently wrote to NI, stating that phone hacking "was 'widely discussed' at editorial meetings, until such chatter was banned by the editor". Apparently, people would do anything for money. If it included covering up an enormous phone-hacking plot, so be it. If it included devastating families of murder victims more, so be it. I doubt they have any heart left in them at all, letting all this go by unsettled. I personally feel disgusted at the hearts of these men. Where are their morals? If it had been Murdoch alone, it would have been his mistake. Standing aside and letting a crime happen is almost tantamount to having committed it himself. Someone should have stood up to Murdoch, regardless of his authority, to guide him back to the path, to not allow him to stray off. Instead, the whole executive staff played an extreme "follow-the-leader" game, where they followed his plans, not knowing right or wrong. I wish they had a sense of moral value to at least try and stop him, which would t least be the right thing to do even if it means risking his job. Others more worthy to follow might have appreciated this value of integrity at least, but now they have a criminal record and are involved with Murdoch, no one will hire them any more.

"The news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news. How far do you agree?"

I agree to a small extent that the news media should be blamed for the unhealthy paparazzi culture and going to the extremes for sensational news.

Firstly, the readers of the news play an important part in the cultivation of this unhealthy culture. Only when there is a demand will there be a supply. The readers and supporters of newspapers fulfil the "demand" portion, which will cause supply to rise. The readers only care about the news; they do not care about the ways and means they were obtained. They just continue buying the newspapers, without a care for the subjects of these news, who gets pestered by paparazzi, trying but failing to maintain the slightest bit of privacy. As such, the readers and supporters of these news are the main root of this problem.

Secondly, the paparazzi are not doing anything against the law, so the law enforcement have no right to arrest them. They are perfectly at liberty to interview others and to write news about them. Without suppression, the paparazzi will continue their work, and even more will also start to take up this job. No one else also dares to oppose the news publishers, for fear of being reported in the news. This lack of opposition has promoted the growth of this unhealthy culture.

However, the news media are also to blame. The news companies are desperate about earning money, and will try all ways and means to achieve their objectives. There is also competition between the reporters -- a survival of the fittest, where only those who are more effective stay and others are fired. The reporters will work hard as they can to get news from readers, from whom the companies earn money, and from whom the reporters' salaries are paid.

Blog prompt 5

1) Is there true justice?

The answer to this question depends on one's perspective of true justice. According to dictionary definitions, justice is the legal treatment used to punish people who have committed crimes. However, justice has also been commonly used in referring to the fair treatment of people. If justice is taken as the legal system used to punish, I do not feel there is true justice. Legal systems and the laws which comprise of it are created by humans, and as it is commonly said, it is human to err. As these laws are made by humans, it is unsafe to say that it is absolutely fair to others. Parallel to that thought is the fact that humans also have no right to judge what true justice is. Therefore, I can conclude that true justice cannot be judged by Man.

2) Is there true mercy, as expounded by Portia? Why?

There is true mercy as expounded by Portia. However, after Shylock refuses the mercy, she becomes strict and refuses to spare him another chance.At first, she gives him three chances to mete out mercy to Antonio, which he refuses. Although there was no way Shylock could have foreseen that Portia was going to trap him with her play of words, he should have meted out mercy when given the chance. As others say, do unto others what you want others to do unto you, if you are merciful, you will be repaid for your mercy one day. In my perspective, true mercy was meted out, as expounded by Portia.

3) Justice and law can be manipulated by people in power. Comment on this with reference to the text and other real-life cases and examples.

It is true that justice and law can be manipulated. The only question is only what kind of people can do that. Authority is an obvious quality needed to do so. One has to attain a certain level of authority, such as a lawyer, to be able to even speak out for or against the law. Secondly, one must have intelligence and wit to be able to manipulate justice and law to suit him or herself.If one does not have that quality, and tries to twist the laws around at random, he may find them turning against him. Lastly, the person must understand the convict or prosecutor he is dealing with. If the convict or prosecutor's background is not understood, they may not fall for any trap the person sets.