MEDIA SCRUTINY

In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.

If Napoleon Bonaparte would have been here in contemporary world he would have faced imposed scrutiny of media. Just as contemporary celebrity in business, sports, politics does. It is well evident from cases like Tiger Woods, former president and Mark Elliot Zuckerberg that these days’ people face intensive media scrutiny. Faux pas or fashion crime on red carpet, string operation or any other form of defame that evolves due to media coverage leaves a long lasting impact on our minds. With the passage of time all the quirkiness that media shows us become so called identity of the individual.

Celebrities like Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan are hardly on news for what they should be. The media coverage crosses the boundaries of their personal life and presents us the picture, which if we would not have seen we would have had a different picture of them in our minds. Media has a power to manipulate our perception, by presenting both negative and positive reports about any celebrity. However these reports often hamper the possibility of society regarding them as a hero.

Media in contemporary days has power to deteriorate or enhance the image of any individual in public eyes. Media presents coverage in order to create awe, hype or defame any individual. Anything that would attract people would help media channel to increase its TRP.  The news that has potential to attract business; it would make a way to be telecasted.  It is evident that no potential hero is spared from media scrutiny.

However, certain countries, the do not have free media. The Medias in such countries is controlled by government. Due to political reasons such nations do not get as extensive judgmental news as other nations with no such blocking. With lack of free media, news is often manipulated for sake of politics, wealthy or personal belief. Blocking media channels by government is in no way stopping public scrutiny, it is just another way of manipulating the public for certain cause.

It is evident that media can make or break public opinion, by the daily dose of arcane quirkiness of public figures or by glamour coated and scripted reality. Thus, the claim that "In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero." stands true for most of the cases.

POINT OF VIEW

In any situation, progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view.

How would the world be, if there would be no discussion amongst the people with contrasting view? Imagine a world of no harmony, trust and mutual understanding. If we do not share our views the world would not make any progress. It is because of mutual discussion that we are living in a cultural and technically advanced society. Thus discussion amongst people with contrasting points of view is highly essential.

One of the problems faced by the physicist of late 1900 was discord in the two most popular theories of physics, quantum mechanics and gravitational physics. Physicist supported one or the other of the two theories. However, the two could not go hand in hand with one another. It was only considering the two contrasting works the contemporary physics came up with string theory.

Yet another example is the nature of light. Initially light was considered as wave. However, when further examined it was empirically seen that light was behaving as particle. Science experts held one view or the other claiming that opponent's opinion about nature of light is arcane. It was only after mutually considering both sides the scientist came up with the dual nature of light. 

In politics, all the members of any nations' political system discuss issue in hand with diligence and come up with an ideal solution. The overall capacity of a group is certainly more than that of an individual. People with different outlook can anticipate the various aspect of issue in hand. Contrasting opinion presents various pros and cons of the situation. Only discussion is a way to optimize conclusion by brainstorming of everyone’s opinion.

In judiciary many times the lack of harmony between opponents’ hamper with their capacity of mutually discussing their postulates. Such cases turn more intricate due to lack of discussion. More than offer these complicated cases takes a lot of time to untangle. However, cases where the opponents find mutual settlements by discussion cannot be solved very effectively and easily.

To conclude I believe that “progress require discussion amongst people who have contrasting point of view". It is evident from the field of law, research and government that situations, which are considered with mutual discussion amongst the people with different viewpoints, are always fruit full.

IMPEDING RESEARCH

Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.

There are number of scientific research going on in various countries, from Large Hadron Collider to Fighting with HIV, Cancer, and other potential harms. Man has been to moon, thanks to the scientific research and development, and returned. Solved the age old mysteries and still in process or unearthing many. It is well known that restrictions hamper the process of development. Thus I strongly agree that Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.

Scientific research is often difficult to predict. The outcome is being considered by the process of experiments. These experiments are conducted in various fields of science from physical science, chemistry and medical sciences for the welfare of human race and planet earth. Some studies are centered to unravel the mysteries of universe others are conducted to find cure for deadly diseases. To sum the scientific research are being held to sustain life on planet.

Nevertheless, government or authority restricted on scientific research and development from the very start of civilisation. Any Idea that challenged the belief was impeded by authority and disregarded. History is evident great scientist like Galileo and Charles Darwin were restricted by authority to approach radical but scientific truths. However, they were proved right by further studies. History is full of evidence when scientific research was hampered by restriction.

Although, the time has changed now people are more flexible for radical scientific ideas and we no longer live in the world where radical and noble thoughts are considered as blasphemy! Scientific research faces significantly less restriction. Even though the research and development is highly accepted it needs some ethics to be considered such as testing and experimenting on animals, conducting nuclear tests that are potentially dangerous for environment. (One such test was conducted by India in 1990's, the test resulted a success but, it jeopardized plantation and distorted environmental conditions that year) this kind on tests should be seriously restricted or asked to be done in any harmless manner.

Lastly the lack of funds is the most common drawback in the field of scientific research and development. It is an alluring way of impeding research. Thus government should consider the benefits of scientific research and development and spare the budgets for the same.

To conclude it is evident from history that scientific research and development has worked to the upliftment of human race and helped to understand and sustain our universe and planet respectively. Thus, Governments should avoid restricting scientific research and development provided that it is harmless to, the present conditions and living beings. Government should in fact bolster research. 

ENTHUSIASTIC APPROACH

“In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions.”

The issue claims that in any field of inquiry, a beginner is more likely to make important contribution then an expert. However generalization of such a statement cannot be done.
There is no acceptable basis that takes hold of the statement. Considering the probability of the reverse, Experts making more contribution then a beginner, is more likely. As an expert is experienced and has seen many problems being untangled. However, there is no such statistics that can predict the contribution on the basis of person being a beginner or expert.

The field of inquiry or research in any endeavor requires a person to have full theoretical and practical knowledge of the concept which, comes with experience. Experience in turn has no substitute. It can only be acclaimed with constant work in the concern field for considerable time. With the passage of time and dealing with the problems related in that field one gain an insight and unravel or untangle what so ever paradox is in hand.

Let us take two contrasting example: Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg. Steve Jobs who worked for years to take apple to the present acme was an expert at his field on the other hand Mark is a beginner and attained success in short span. The presented example forfeits any generalization on contribution on the basis of expertize or beginner. However, what they both had in common was a willing and enthusiastic approach towards their endeavors.

As one grows his/her incite, his /her interest and knowledge in the more minute details of the field is increased and this in turn leads to more innovations. Thomas Edison has made a great deal of contribution in many zones of innovation .With the expertise and experience Thomas Edison having high patent on his name. Hence, to contribute in research field a consistent work and persistence is required along with a great deal of enthusiasm.

Thus to conclude; the statement that "In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions." is irrational. Research or inquiry work needs a persistent attitude and enthusiastic approach to contribute. . As Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge". Likewise, who so ever possess the right attitude will be more likely to make a grand contribution.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future.

Precautions are better than cure! The issue claims that government should take care of the present time problems rather than trying to solve anticipated problems of future. However i think government should not forget about any of the problem may it be immediate or anticipated.

The problem that we face today, if neglected, becomes grander in future. In general all the anticipated future problems are somehow related to the present. The solution we chose to solve the immediate problem becomes a problem for future. Usage of nuclear weapon may solve military or war crises for that time. But, it will cause mutation in the gens of organisms of the target location in an irreversible manner.

The problems that we face today if neglected can turn even bigger problems. Considering the example of air pollution faced now a days. During the era of industrialization and auto industries’ booming phase, i.e. during late 19th century, today’s environmental crises could have been anticipated. Earth today is at an edge of global warming and if only we could have anticipated the carbon/hydrocarbon emissions while it was not in the present state of alarm. Then it could have pacified the environmental degradation. However, it is a basic human tendency to avoid problems till it reaches an alarming state. Nevertheless, anticipating a future problem and trying to avoid it, is essential criteria for sustainable development.

Sustainable development is a new way of using resources that claims to make the resource available for long run, by using it wisely. However, if we avoid this approach and try to solve all our problems on the basis of the present need of resource. We will end up with no life support in near future. For example the net population of word today is rising at an exponential rate to support such a high population we need large energy resource. If we use up all the resource to support present population the future is doomed. Hence we have to deal with today’s problem while keeping in mind the problems that might arise due to the course of act we selected for the immediate problem.

Conclusion is that the problems, present or future, should be taken into consideration as both might be interrelated. We should take care of the immediate problem and never forget to anticipate the result of our solution. Nevertheless both problems should be solved in an optimized manner so that the solution to today's problem does not become a problem tomorrow.