|
Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.
Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
The speaker asserts that the present society is hardly willing to accept any living man and woman as hero or heroine for sake of the scrutiny of the media will render the diminishment of people who become their subject. The topic is complex regarding the tricky relationship between mass media and mass opinion. While the speaker regard media as the malefactor that damage the reputation of potential heroes and heroines, I hold the belief that the society is still capable of producing heroic people and mass media is nonetheless one of the contributor to their survival and blossom.
The claim of the speaker is two folds: firstly, the scrutiny of media result in a destructive impact to their subjects, second, because of the diminishing reputation, no living hero or heroine would exist. It might be tempting to agree with the speaker that the close investigation do considerable harm to the subject of media. Obeying the rule of truthfully restoring news, journalists often have an in depth examination of lives of the subjects who achieved heroic deeds. Such information, once revealed, would severely profane their image because that the readers and audience would find that these seemingly heroic people, like anyone else, have a load of shortcomings and mundane morass. Consequently, the heated worship of such heroes and heroines will quickly cool off. Without such reverence and public attention, these subjects lose their attraction to be regarded as hero.
Aside from the foregoing argument, I strongly disagree with the author’s assertion. First of all, living heroes and heroines actually exist in the society. The existence of hero and the reputation of hero are mutually independent. To meet the criteria of hero, one should be highly extolled as people whose specialized talent outstrip others, or whose notable feat have a great moral or historical influence. Given some living heroes have been revealed have some infamous deeds, their outstanding achievements and quality is ineffaceable. The great basketball Michael Jordan is notable as a cruel and ungenerous man to his opponent as well as his teammate, but that scarcely have any negative influence to his heroic image as a peerless champion. Their fames will, in some aspect, get violence by the scrutiny of media, but not their specific regard which is the most important quality to be a hero.
Secondly, it is arbitrary to neglect the positive effect of media in erecting heroes. Heroes and their heroic deeds are timeless attractions to audience. Considering the great profit and fame such news brings to the media, the medium have mountain willingness to put major effort in introducing and publicizing these heroes. In return, being exposed to mass media, the heroes have impressed their image to the audience and readers. Take athletes for example, had it not been the production of mass media, their image can only be caught by audience watching in the stadium so that hardly can their achievements and spirit be impressive to the mass.
Furthermore, the close investigation of heroes will even raise the intimacy between followers and heroes. According to the psychological research, people prefer to trust and reverent figures that have great achievement but commit some lapses to those who appear as perfect. So some fault exposed by the media will conversely have a positive impact to heroes.
In sum, the living hero and heroine have their status in the society because of their achievements and abilities. And the mass media, while sometimes damages the image of heroes in some aspects, plays a wholesome role in building up heroes in the society through their capacity of publicizing. | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-7-30 19:40:25
收藏
收藏
楼主
