The use of stunts by artistes to obtain more generous donations is controversial. While there is no denying the bravery of the artistes, is it perhaps too excessive? Are the extra donations garnered worth the risk of injury (during the 1997 an actress fell and broke her nose during a rehearsal)? Stunts would also raise overheads through equipment costs and insurance. In my opinion these stunts are unnecessary as similar effects can be accomplished with other less risky performances.
First, let us look at why these charity shows are held in the first place. The key objective is to reach a wide audience, gain publicity and of course garner donations. Celebrities help to provide the publicity by giving a higher profile to the show and perhaps drawing their fans to watch the show. Thus, having the celebrities sing or dance etc. already satisfies their fans and gains the audience attention. This has been the recent trend in the President’s Star Charity with less stunts being performed. This has not resulted in a decrease in donations, instead the stunt-free 2007 show (raised $5.46 million) outperformed the 2008 show (raised $5.05 million). In addition, in 2007, the American Idol charity show also managed to raise US$ 76 million without the use of stunts.
In addition, stunts can be seen as overly dramatic and overdone, spoiling the effect. In the 2003 show, Hong Kong actress Zhu Mi Mi andMediaCorp artiste Pan Ling Ling Dangled from wires overhead and had to unlock chains that bound and submerged actors Aaron Aziz and Jeff Wang. While submerged to her chest, Mi Mi made a plea to viewers to donate. In my opinion, this is overdone and seems to be a blatant use of pity for the actress to garner donations. Other comments to the article this was reported had similar feelings. The knowledge that there are safety measures in place and thus not likely to suffer serious injury spoils some of the suspense. It also allows for allegations that the actors are merely faking.
Stunts themselves may be outweighed by other factors such as the economic condition. The 2003 show, which along with four stunts in all, including the above mentioned one garnered $540,000 from the hotline tally, down from the previous year’s $920,000. In addition, it raised $2.46 million, compared to the 2007 show’s tally of $5.46 million. This relatively figure was likely due to the economic downturn during that period.
Other factors such as public trust are also important. Events such as the NKF scandal can cause viewers to doubt if their donations are going to those in need. Thus, factors such as transparency of the charities are also important, not just a celebrity endorsement.
In addition, the stunts may detract the viewers’ attention from compassion for the less fortunate and the charities to their idols. They may thus donate on a one off basis, merely a spur of the moment decision inspired by their idols, with no lasting impression of the charities.
In my opinion, stunts may be needed only initially, to draw viewers’ attention and make them take notice. However, established shows like the President’s Star Charity are already well known so stunts are not needed. The effect of the stunts is also likely to decrease, with stunts being performed each time, there is the danger the stunts will become repetitive. Repeated use of stunts also makes the viewer “desensitized” and may lead them to treat the stunt as just another part of the show. Instead, the focus should be the plight of the less fortunate. Some viewers may not be aware of their plight or the severity of their situation and be moved to make consistent donations.
All in all, I feel while charities may have needed stunts initially to draw attention, this is not required in subsequent shows. Repeated use of stunts also reduces their impact. The extra cost and distraction from the plight of the less fortunate are other reasons why stunts are unnecessary.
Sunday 22 March 2009
Regulation of political commentary on the Internet in Singapore
Hi everyone,
This is the first blog post/essay I'm doing. It is actually rather relevant to me since future topics may involve politics and I definately don't want to be prosecuted under ISA. Anyway, here it is:
As most of us know, Singapore is not exactly a model for free speech. There are strict regulations of newspapers and television stations along with libel suits against critics. However, the Internet is a different story as it is such a vast medium. Thus, it is the regulation of political commentary on the Internet that is a big issue since some of these would come from bloggers who feel they are just expressing their opinions. I feel that these laws are overly restrictive and stifle the elections.
Most of the regulations about political commentary on the Internet are contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA). The other likely regulations would probably be defamation and any racially biased or revolutionary blogs. The gist of the PEA is that sites that consistently write political articles have to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA). These sites will be banned from conducting election advertising during an election. The problem with this is that election advertising, defined as promoting or improving the standing of a candidate or party, can include many things. For example, in describing a rally, saying something like “the crowd cheered enthusiastically”, while it may be an accurate description, can be considered as promoting a candidate. The statement that only sites that are registered have the above limitations is also vague. The blog Yawning Bread states my above view but a Today article states just the opposite. This uncertainty is coupled with very wide police powers such as the ability to intercept messages online, conduct pre-emptive arrests (arrested to prevent you from committing a crime) and detained without trial. The potential for police arrest, vague definition of the law, along with the government’s previous reputation for harsh actions (e.g. law suits against opposition politicians and the Wall Street Journal) would probably discourage most bloggers from writing political commentary during elections.
Of course, there are several sites that have political elements such as TalkingCock.com and mrbrown.com. Both of these poke fun at politics in Singapore including the PAP. TalkingCock also contains articles that refer to Lee Kuan Yew as “heartless” and stating that both North Korea and Singapore have a “Great leader” and “Dear leader”. While these can be classified as defamatory, the government has taken no action. Could this show the government is prepared to be more accommodating? Not really as you have to look at the context. TalkingCock has a very clear disclaimer that they have no political agenda. TalkingCock articles are satirical, very humorous and “make stuff up” (their articles are clearly fake such as an article about a highway built on reclaimed land to Pedra Branca). Thus, they are not taken seriously.
These censorship laws are based on the principle that the government has to maintain its authority and a unregulated system will lead to chaos. These laws were applicable in the past with violent race riots and Communist instigated strikes and fighting. However, Singapore society has stabalised and such concerns are no longer valid. Thus, could these regulations be put in place to ensure a continued PAP dominated government? This is definitely possible as the internet restrictions are tightened during elections. In addition, websites with political content that the government does not intervene in such as mrbrown.com and TalkingCock.com are not meant to be taken seriously and are not a threat to the PAP. This seems to indicate that the PAP wants to have as much pro-PAP coverage as possible (since the media is more biased towards the PAP) by eliminating a potential source of criticism. While the PAP may think that a government dominated by it is in the best interests of Singapore, this does not justify such restrictions. The PAP should promote its excellent track record in governing Singapore rather than leaving a dark track record of censorship to taint its election victories.
This is the first blog post/essay I'm doing. It is actually rather relevant to me since future topics may involve politics and I definately don't want to be prosecuted under ISA. Anyway, here it is:
As most of us know, Singapore is not exactly a model for free speech. There are strict regulations of newspapers and television stations along with libel suits against critics. However, the Internet is a different story as it is such a vast medium. Thus, it is the regulation of political commentary on the Internet that is a big issue since some of these would come from bloggers who feel they are just expressing their opinions. I feel that these laws are overly restrictive and stifle the elections.
Most of the regulations about political commentary on the Internet are contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA). The other likely regulations would probably be defamation and any racially biased or revolutionary blogs. The gist of the PEA is that sites that consistently write political articles have to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA). These sites will be banned from conducting election advertising during an election. The problem with this is that election advertising, defined as promoting or improving the standing of a candidate or party, can include many things. For example, in describing a rally, saying something like “the crowd cheered enthusiastically”, while it may be an accurate description, can be considered as promoting a candidate. The statement that only sites that are registered have the above limitations is also vague. The blog Yawning Bread states my above view but a Today article states just the opposite. This uncertainty is coupled with very wide police powers such as the ability to intercept messages online, conduct pre-emptive arrests (arrested to prevent you from committing a crime) and detained without trial. The potential for police arrest, vague definition of the law, along with the government’s previous reputation for harsh actions (e.g. law suits against opposition politicians and the Wall Street Journal) would probably discourage most bloggers from writing political commentary during elections.
Of course, there are several sites that have political elements such as TalkingCock.com and mrbrown.com. Both of these poke fun at politics in Singapore including the PAP. TalkingCock also contains articles that refer to Lee Kuan Yew as “heartless” and stating that both North Korea and Singapore have a “Great leader” and “Dear leader”. While these can be classified as defamatory, the government has taken no action. Could this show the government is prepared to be more accommodating? Not really as you have to look at the context. TalkingCock has a very clear disclaimer that they have no political agenda. TalkingCock articles are satirical, very humorous and “make stuff up” (their articles are clearly fake such as an article about a highway built on reclaimed land to Pedra Branca). Thus, they are not taken seriously.
These censorship laws are based on the principle that the government has to maintain its authority and a unregulated system will lead to chaos. These laws were applicable in the past with violent race riots and Communist instigated strikes and fighting. However, Singapore society has stabalised and such concerns are no longer valid. Thus, could these regulations be put in place to ensure a continued PAP dominated government? This is definitely possible as the internet restrictions are tightened during elections. In addition, websites with political content that the government does not intervene in such as mrbrown.com and TalkingCock.com are not meant to be taken seriously and are not a threat to the PAP. This seems to indicate that the PAP wants to have as much pro-PAP coverage as possible (since the media is more biased towards the PAP) by eliminating a potential source of criticism. While the PAP may think that a government dominated by it is in the best interests of Singapore, this does not justify such restrictions. The PAP should promote its excellent track record in governing Singapore rather than leaving a dark track record of censorship to taint its election victories.
Intro
Hi everybody,
As part of my english homework, I'm supposed to do this blog. I'll be posting up my bloging essay assignments up so please don't get scared and perhaps try to read my long posts.
As part of my english homework, I'm supposed to do this blog. I'll be posting up my bloging essay assignments up so please don't get scared and perhaps try to read my long posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)