Each of the three approaches to proving a correlation between violent video games and criminal behaviour has its flaws. Studies that look for correlations between exposure to violent video games and real-world aggression can never prove that the games cause physical aggression1. Randomized tests, which assign subjects to play violent or nonviolent games and then compare levels of aggression, depend on lab-based measures of aggression that are difficult to compare with real-life aggression. Finally, longitudinal tests, which assess behaviour over time within a group, are a middle ground between the other two but similarly cannot prove it was the video games specifically that leads to increased aggression. In contrast to the claim that the effects of violent video games are worse than those of TV, a Potter study in 1999 found that 'children are more likely to be affected and more likely to imitate aggressive acts if the violence is depicted more realistically.'2  1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:  2 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from


Research has shown violent video games encourage criminal and anti-social behaviour  Both experimental and non-experimental research have shown that violent video games damage young people playing them in both the short and long term, leading to criminal and anti-social behaviour. Exposure to violent video games causes aggressive thoughts and feelings. It also creates unwanted psychological arousal and belief in a 'scary world', especially among young children. This is particularly significant as video game graphics develop to become ever more realistic. The effects of violent video games are even worse than those of films and TV because of the interactive element that exists in video games. In addition, most video games are played alone, whereas cinema and television are usually a social experience, allowing social pressures to filter the experience of violence upon the viewer. An Australian Senate Committee established to look at this issue in 1993 concluded 'there is sufficient anecdotal evidence of a linkage…that the community cannot fail to act to control a situation which has the very real potential…to affect young people’1.  1 Senate Committee, 1993.


Violent video games, far from causing psychological disturbances, are beneficial to the mental health of children. Experiments show visual, tracking benefits from video games, particularly shoot-em-ups: US scientists Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier, were commissioned to perform a study in 2003 by the National Institute of Health. According to the BBC, "they found that regular players of shoot-em-ups, such as Half-Life and Medal of Honour, have much better visual skills than most of the population1. The researchers have shown that gamers were particularly good at spotting details in busy, confusing scenes1. Experimental tests show positive focus effects of video games: US scientists Green and Bavelier found focus benefits from shoot-em-up games, even to the extent that they could be used as a beneficial tool to treat Attention Deficit Disorder2.  1 BBC News. (2003, May 28). Video games 'good for you'. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from BBC News:  2 Olsen, S. (2005, November 8). Attention deficit disorder? Try video games. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from CNet:


Violent video games desensitise users  Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2  1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily:  2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:


Desensitisation is not altogether a bad development. 'For patients suffering from arachnophobia, fear of flying, or post-traumatic stress disorder, therapists are beginning to use virtual realities as a desensitization tool.'1Furthermore, society has decided to embrace violent video games, which as a result are very profitable. These games are written for adults, rather than children, and the ratings system warns of any violent content. In a modern world, the role of protecting young people should lie with responsible parents who know their kids best and take an active interest in their leisure time, discouraging or barring them from unsuitable activities. In this case, there is not enough justification for governments to intervene in people's leisure time.  1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:


The government has no such right to restrict the right of free speech inherent in all video games. In a 2011 judgement, the American Supreme Court ruled "while states have legitimate power to protect children from harm, 'that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.'"1 This is in part due to the fear that to restrict violent video games would be a step towards the banning or restriction of books considered antithetical to the views of the government. A state could ban all books or films that paint a negative image of society or encourage revolution, however that is clearly the action of a dictatorial or authoritarian state. Stan Lee, the creator of comic book characters like The Hulk and Spiderman, sees a comparison to the attempt in the 1950s to restrict the sales of comic books. "Comic books, it was said, contributed to 'juvenile delinquency'. A Senate subcommittee investigated and decided the U.S. could not 'afford the calculated risk involved in feeding its children, through comic books, a concentrated diet of crime, horror and violence.'"2 As Lee notes, in hindsight this appears comical2. The same mistake cannot be made with violent video games.  1 Holland, J. J. (2011, June 27). Can't ban violent video sales to kids, court says. Retrieved June 28, 2011 from the Associated Press  2 Lee, S. (2010, September). Defend video games with Stan Lee. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from Video Game Voters Network:


Violent video games can cause psychological disturbances  Multiple groups contend that the interactive nature of computer games considerably blurs the line that separates fantasy from reality1. As a result, game players are likely to become psychologically disturbed by the violence contained within these products. It is conceivable that many young gamers will view the new age of video games as fair depictions or representations of reality, real-world themes, real-world personalities, real-world violence. Because violent video games frequently develop and an exaggerated level of violence and destructiveness, they may arouse a belief that in a "scary world". If this is true, a greater level of fear and paranoia can be expected from such gamers in the real world than is justified. This may have the potential to lead to many adverse social effects from these gamers, such as social disengagement.  1 Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Jounral of Adolescence


The government has a right to restrict the sale of violent video games, in order to protect law and order.  The government has the right, and indeed the obligation, to impose restrictions that increase the security of citizens and encourage peaceful relations between them. The foundation of the social contract is the state providing security for all participating citizens. If the state believes that violent video games increase the propensity of users to commit violent acts, it is obligated to impose restrictions that will prevent such effects. The rights of individual citizens to do as they wish, and play the video games they like most, however violent, is subordinate to the government's right to increase security through the enforcement of restrictions. For example, one accepts the government's right to restrict what we carry onto aircrafts in order to prevent violent attacks. That is not to say there aren't limits to what we can carry on, just as violent video games are still available to adults we can still carry laptops and mobile phones onto aircrafts. Ultimately however, it must be accepted that the government's right to protect society includes a right to restrict the sale of violent games.


If restrictions on the sale of alcohol can be effective, there is no reason to believe restrictions on violent video games cannot also be similarly effective. The primary role of a government is, ultimately, to protect its citizens from damaging themselves and society as a whole. It is considered acceptable and beneficial for governments to restrict the sale of dangerous things such as alcohol and tobacco to minors or even to enforce movie ratings or the use of seatbelts. Though illegal downloading programmes would permit the download of old, violent action games, video game creators would nevertheless be forced to turn their creative capacities and technology towards better, less violent games that would, over a short space of time, saturate the market.


The fact there are many other contributing factors to aggressive behaviour should not lead to a blind eye being turned to the effects of violent video games. As Dill & Dill found in 1998, 'if violent video game play indeed depicts victims as deserving attacks, and if these video games tend to portray other humans as targets, then reduced empathy is likely to be the consequence…thus putting the player at risk for becoming a more violent individual’1. An Anderson and Dill study in 2000 also found that ‘students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents’2. Whilst it is a truism to say that the banning of violent video games will not prevent youth aggression, it will no longer be able to act as the catalyst for it in certain cases.  1 Goldstein , 2001.  2 Walsh , 2001.


Video games are an outlet for childhood aggression  Video games are a useful outlet for childhood aggression. As psychologist Cheryl Olson writes, kids 'use games to vent anger or distract themselves from problems.'1 Play violence has always been a natural part of growing up, especially for boys. In the past it was considered normal for young people to act out violent fantasies in harmless way, for example with toy guns in games of cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, war, pirates, etc. These games were often inspired by films, television or comic books and magazines, just as computer games commonly are today. Now that these traditional activities are frowned upon and "enlightened" parents prevent children from having toy guns, aggressive play has simply moved indoors, on to the computer screen instead. Suppressing these natural instincts is not only pointless, it is probably more dangerous to remove yet another harmless outlet for aggression from the young.  1 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:


Restrictions would be ineffective  Not only is it wrong for the government to take censorship-like steps against violent video games but it is also impossible to do so effectively. Violent video games will still be available on the internet and, in fact, by restricting the sale of violent video games the government will push would-be users to illegal downloading programmes (through file-sharing systems such as Limewire) and therefore to an increasingly prevalent black market. Furthermore, most games are bought by parents or with their consent. According to industry statistics, 9 out of every 10 video games are sold to adults. Moreover, there is little evidence to say that parents don't know what they are buying because a very descriptive labelling system exists for violent video games since the establishment of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) in 1994.


There is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour  Many researchers 1/2/3 conclude that there is no causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Other influences, such as social environment, family background and peer pressure cause aggressive behaviour. Additionally, even if video games might create violent thoughts, according to researchers there is no reason for these thoughts to display themselves in action more than the aggressive thoughts caused by frustration in non-violent video games, or by the fast pace of action films (rather than their content). The small number of people who would be affected by such aggressive thoughts are people who already are habitually violent.  1 Scott, D. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Aggression. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from The Journal of Psychology:  2 Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluation of the impact of violent video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 86-90.  3 Provenzo, E. F. (1991). Video kids: Making sense of Nintendo. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.


Video games are not useful outlets for childhood aggression. Modern video games cannot be fairly compared to traditional childhood play. Computer gaming is a largely solo experience, with none of the team play involved in games of war, cowboys, etc. Playing alone also makes it easier for the boundaries between fantasy and reality to become blurred, especially with the highly realistic graphics possible with modern technology. In any case, civilisation is about taming our base instincts, not celebrating the worst parts of human nature. Furthermore, and unique to video games, aggressive behaviour or its imitation at least is rewarded and repeated during gameplay1. Video games thereafter are not merely an outlet for aggression, but the fostering and feeding of that aggressive urge.  1 Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003, October 16). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence Hazard. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from


Violence towards women is a common and world-wide phenomenon, occurring on every continent and throughout history. Therefore it seems crazy to suggest that levels of domestic violence are related to this small sub-culture of music that depicts violence towards women. If we are arguing that it exposes people to situations where they hear (in lyrics) or see (in music videos) then it could be countered that if anything this music is just highlighting these incidences of violence that are still occurring and we might as well ban the news or television drama as they expose people just as much without an age reference.


Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence.  Music depicting violence to women causes and sustains the cycle of violence. The Scottish Home Affairs correspondent Lucy Adams reported in 2005 the levels of domestic abuse committed by 16-18 year olds grew by around 70%. One of the reasons suggested for this dramatic raise is the culture of music that depicts and glorifies violence towards women [1] (heraldscotland.com). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology reports that a study conducted in a variety of US states illustrated that music that depicted acts of violence 'led to more aggressive interpretations of ambiguously aggressive words, increased the relative speed with which people read aggressive vs. nonaggressive words, [...]The violent songs increased feelings of hostility without provocation or threat'. Although they are quick to assure that it is NOT the music type that has this affect, it is simply the lyrics, as even humorous aggressive songs have this effect. They conclude with the idea that 'Repeated exposure to violent lyrics may contribute to the development of an aggressive personality' and thus lead to more aggressive behaviour. While currently there is little to no research specifically on the link between domestic violence and lyrics that depict abuse to women, the current information that we have on violence and music lyrics suggests we can expect a similar effect. Thus if we were to ban music depicting violence towards women, people could not be influenced by it and levels of violence would drop.  [1] Adams, L. Why rap drives teenagers to domestic abuse; Songs blamed for 70-per cent increase in young victims. Herald Scotland 7 October 2005


The difficulty with this is that games, DVD's and films are all very visual medium, whereas music is audible and arguably a more imaginative medium. Other non-visual mediums, such as literature, are not restricted by age ratings and therefore it seems unfair to restrict music on these grounds.


This type of music is degrading to everyone, not just women.  While music depicting violence towards women appears on the surface to only demean women, it can be offensive and degrading to a range of people. One popular culture reference to a situation like this comes from the British television show called The Office, in the episode 'Merger'1. In this episode the character David Brent tells a racist joke and while this did not offend the black character present, many other characters were still offended by this joke.  People may be offended by the ideas behind the music, as it seems that people who glorify violence towards women in song appear to think that this violence is acceptable. Men could be offended by these ideas just as much as women might. As songs like this become 'mainstream' in some cultures, everybody in that culture becomes affected by it, and some men and women may feel degraded by this association. Finally some people may argue that the person who writes and/or sings lyric that depict violence towards women degrade themselves in this act.  1 DailyMotion. The Office (U.K.) - Explaining a Joke. Retrieved August 23, 2011.


The issue of whether music is degrading to women or any other demography in society is irrelevant to the question of whether it encourages violence or aggression towards women. In fact, the proposition undermines itself through this claim by suggesting that this music should encourage violence to all segments of society; should we therefore ban all music?


The music is not the reason for the lack of respect for women; rather it is a much broader problem that cannot be prevented simply by targeting music. Within the part of that culture that is music the problem is not that music depicting violence toward women provides negative role models but rather that there are no positive role models to balance this. Banning music depicting violence towards women would not solve the problem as it still would not provide positive role models in order to replace the previous depiction. Therefore rather than putting energy into banning music depicting violence towards women, we should create a counter culture of strong, independent women who will not stand by domestic abuse or violence.


It would be easy to apply restrictions on music.  We already give films, DVD's and games an age appropriate rating. In the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America is charged with the responsibility of providing ratings to consumers [1] .  It would seem that it would be simple to stretch these criteria to a similar music body. Therefore people would only be subjected to violent lyrics when it is deemed they are old enough to hear or buy this material, and it would stop younger people from being exposed to this kind of music. This also means that no new state-run institution needs to be created; it would operate, like the MPAA, independently of government control. As such, claims that any form of music censorship would suffer from practical problems are short-sighted, we simply need to extend the medium that already exists.  [1] Motion Picture Association of America


Music depicting violence against women encourages men (and women) not to respect women.  Asha Jennings began a boycott of misogynistic music in hip-hop, resulting in the 'take back the music' campaign supported by essence magazine. Jennings claims that this type of rap/ hip hop music is 'telling people [black women] are bitches and hos and sluts and not worthy of respect [...] And that's exactly how society is treating us'1. She continues that images of women 'tends to be objectified, degrading, very stripper-like' or as nagging vicious and manipulative money grabbers1. Jennings' worry is that in these videos women are depicted as menial, subservient and purely as the object of men's entertainment. The lyrics that go with these music videos compound these ideas of women as undeserving of male respect e.g. 'wouldn't piss on fire to put you out' (Eminem), 'Then I straight smoked the ho [...] and she thanked me' (NWE) (All lyrics in full are in the scrapbook). These images in themselves are violence towards women, as they dehumanise them. As this becomes a dominant image in society, young people who look up to these rappers mimic their behaviour and believe it is ok to disrespect women,2 as that is what they have been exposed to. This works in the same way for young girls, who cannot relate to the male rappers and so instead mimic the women they talk about, while also following their views on women. This idea that women are not deserving of respect must affect the levels of violence towards women as if you abuse someone you cannot fully respect them. Therefore if music depicting violence (and for this argument, disrespect) towards women was banned, then violence towards women in the real world would be reduced and this must be seen as a good thing.  1 CNN, Hip-Hop Portrayal of Women Protested, 2005  2 Burnham, L. Nightmares of Depravity. Durland 21 June 1995.


However, while freedom of expression is definitely an important concept to consider, such freedoms can only go so far. When it comes to language that promotes violence then freedom of expression is no longer sufficient reason not to ban something as a physical harm outweighs the right to freedom of expression. Many countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India ban hate speech because it has severely damaging effects injuring people's dignity, feelings and self-respect and potentially promoting violence.1 Similarly, if we accept the arguments in the proposition arguments above, and we believe that this type of music can be harmful, then it seems that perhaps freedom of speech can be over ridden in order to protect those that this music injures (i.e. some women). Furthermore the banning of music which glorifies violence towards women may perhaps overtime lead to people's attitude toward this style of lyrics changing, and therefore any harmful attitude that arise from it may begin to be unacceptable by the majority.  1 Liptak, Adam, ‘Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.’, The New York Times, 11 June 2008


None of these arguments pose a significant problem. While setting criteria may be difficult and there will always be cases where it is a matter of interpretation this is not a reason not to create a strict and detailed set of criteria. There could be an appeals process to make sure that a song is not banned based purely on one individual's opinion.  That a ban on recording and selling the music could be avoided through pirating or songs being passed down orally does not matter as if this was happening the ban would already have enough of an impact. The ban does not have to be totally comprehensive in order to have the desired effect of reducing violence towards women simply that it prevents many people listening to the music. The audience would be reduced to a tiny minority and those who remain would be aware of the lyrics as they would have to specifically seek out the music rather than simply being exposed to it with little thought of what it may contain.  Finally there is unlikely to be a large forbidden fruit effect, some people may want to try it in order to find out what it is like. But unlike for example drugs there are direct substitutes that would be almost exactly the same but without the violent lyrics so there is little point in going to the extra effort to get illegal versions.


To ban this type of music encourages the viewing of women as helpless, victim figures.  Many feminists criticise the idea of banning music that glorifies violence against women, as they perpetuate the idea of women as helpless victims who cannot cope with male criticism or violent language. One such group of people are 'power feminists'1 These power feminists believe that by complaining that men are depicting violent language towards women, and attempting to get this banned, the gender stereotype of women as a victim is reinforced; thus undoing any feminist progress that tries to assert men and women are equals. Power feminists believe that instead women should take this language in hand, assert/ defend themselves and retaliate in order to state that women are equals to those who produce this violent music.  1 Campbell , R. L. Part I: Power Feminist or Victim Feminist? 24 March 2004.


The 'Slippery-Slope' Argument  Banning music that glorifies violence is at risk of the 'slippery-slope' of censorship, which occurs on two levels. Firstly that while music depicting violence towards women may be banned for the best intentions, this censorship may end up extending to other unpopular pieces of art, literature, film or news stories. It may follow that once music depicting violence is banned, that definition of violence may be expanded, afterwards that it is easier to ban songs that contain a political message as there is already precedent. While it is unlikely that it would ever be carried to such an extreme this could continue, until simply anything that is disliked by those in control of the banning is prohibited. It may also discourage people to say or publish expressions of their own for fear of them being considered pornography and being prosecuted1. Equally likely would be the spread of such bans to other forms of media as mentioned in opposition argument one.The second concern of the 'slippery slope' argument is that banning this type of music may cause a stagnation of creative output as people are scared to produce any music that might be considered offensive. This might result in no new styles of music being created and thus styles of music may begin to become torpid.  1Schauer, Frederick F, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)


To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would  Many of those who argue that censorship of music depicting violence towards women would be a bad thing do so on libertarian grounds. That is, they believe that to restrict the creation, circulation and consumption of this type of music would result in a restriction of people's freedom of speech/ expression. As some people enjoy and relate to the type of music that depicts these images, to deny people the right to listen to this music is to unfairly restrict their enjoyment and marginalise their tastes.  Some people take this further to say that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, and one common way is desensitizing ourselves to the idea, perhaps through subjecting ourselves to an environment awash with death, i.e. music that depicts violence. This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya who invoke gruesome violence for effect1 and who also receive critical acclaim; Stanley Kubrick won an Oscar nomination for directing A Clockwork Orange, a movie rampant with violence, sexuality and misogyny. Both these examples show violent art which have had both critical and commercial success. Therefore for the proposition argument to successfully defend the banning of music depicting violence towards women it would seem that we would equally have to ban films and paintings that display similar themes. This would result in a huge restriction of expression and society would potentially loose a vast amount of creative output. Furthermore from the examples given above it would seem that a ban would go against popular desire.  1 Francisco Jose de Goya. 'Saturn Devoursing his Son.' Wikipedia.


It would be highly impractical to ban this music glorifying violence.  There are many reasons it would be impractical to ban certain types of music: First, who would choose what music counts as inappropriate and on what criteria? This would include concerns such as the Rolling Stone's song, 'Brown Sugar' which depicts sexual violence towards a slave by a slave owner (see scrapbook). It would be up to this censor to assert whether this song is highlighting and mocking a distressing moment in history, or whether it is glorifying this incident or merely describing it with no moral judgement. The censor would also have to then choose which of these where fitting reasons to ban the song. This is just a matter of opinion and thus no-one can be unbiased in making a decision. If this is true then it seems that no-one should have the right of it over someone else's opinion.  Second while there could be a ban made on recording or selling songs that depict violence towards women, or prohibit them being played on the radio, with current technological advances it would be very difficult to enforce a total ban. Music is widely available on thousands of websites via video/internet radio etc. More basically, music is a very communal activity and people may sing in crowds or to each other. Country songs (as a genre) have one of the highest percentages of music depicting violence towards women, and these songs tend to have an oral history. Thus even if there was a ban on new songs being recorded, these old songs would continue to be heard and new songs may be heard to a smaller audience. Thus people would still be exposed to these lyrics of women being abused in music.  The final reason it would be difficult to ban music that depicts violence towards women is that this runs a risk that this will only encourage musicians to write such songs, which become more popular for being 'forbidden fruit'.


No 'slippery slope' situation exists. It would be clear that the ban only applies to music that glorifies violence. This is not a justification that could be infinitely expanded to cover more and more music and art. It could not be considered a precedent to ban music with a political message as most political messages do not promote violence.  Far from stifling creativity it is likely to stimulate it. Artists would need to find new styles of music and would attempt to find ways around the ban while still keeping their music as near to its previous style as possible.


To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would not be met with claims that their ban merely encourages the view of children as victims (as an argument against the practise). Why is that any different in this case?  improve this  We desire freedom of expression.


This argument is just specious. There have been plenty of times in history when medicine was ‘learnt on the job’, it didn’t make it a good idea. However, and medicine is an excellent example, we now realise that there is a huge benefit to having students acquire a theoretical underpinning of their discipline before going on to get some hands on experience. Of course there is some need for practical training but there is little reason why universities cannot offer this rather than individual artists.


The Arts should be learnt on the job – it’s a craft  The idea that the best place to learn an artform is a classroom is fantastically modern. The idea of teaching them at all is fairly recent. If ever there were an example of ‘those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’, then it’s the arts. Novelists, poets, painters, dancers, composers, musicians and others have been learning from each other as they practiced their art for, quite literally, millennia.  Practitioners learning by doing has worked perfectly well for most of history and produced, for example, the extraordinary works of the renaissance or classical art mostly without the benefit of a university degree. All a degree in this area does is extend the period of delusion that an individual is good enough to cut it as a professional artist [i] .  [i] Goldman, Jeremy, ‘Actors dilemma: Theatre major vs. No theatre major’ USA Today, 25 June 2012.


This isn’t an either/or discussion. Despite Prop’s efforts to suggest that there are masses of homeless, would-be engineering students roaming around university campuses, the reality is that universities pack their bankable courses just fine and ensure that they have the capacity to do so. The fact that universities do not just churn out an endless round of vocationally-focussed graduates is hugely to be welcomed. If nothing else, it ensures that the university experience itself is a well-rounded one.  The very fact that students continue to apply for these courses, and universities continue to meet that demand, suggests that applicants are interested in something more than money. Presumably the very students who are applying for such a degree – and will shoulder the repercussions of having one – form part of society and are quiet happy to ‘afford’ their degree.


Creative arts graduates are rarely well rewarded  It is a simple fact that degrees in the Arts offer less earning potential than those in all other sectors (except Education and social work) [i] . As well as being an issue for the individual, this affects wider society, as those on lower incomes are more likely to become dependent on the state at some point in their life and are less well placed to stimulate other sectors of the economy through their own consumption.  The median earning figure across Arts degrees is, itself deceptive. The median in the US is $45,000 but this disguises the lower end of the scale, with 25% earning $30,000 a year or less.  Unlike education and social work which at least tend to have the consistency of a government salary, the Arts are also fantastically unreliable as an employment sector. Teachers and social workers may have comparatively low salaries but at least they can be assured of job security. The Arts offers low and unstable wages, frequently at an ongoing expense to the taxpayer, when the jobs exist at all.  As a result, encouraging the creative arts through university qualifications places both an initial and, potentially, ongoing cost on the rest of society. It also means that graduates are likely to be destined to long term financial instability because of a decision they made as a teenager.  It is difficult to see who benefits from such an arrangement.  [i] ‘Arts’, Georgetown University,


Very few go into the arts expecting a high income, they do so because they enjoy it. Likewise, the very fact that people pay for the arts – both through their own purchases and social funding, suggests that the pleasure that performance - and other creative arts – gives is recognised by wider society. The output of the Arts sector provides entertainment and pleasure to others in a way that really cannot be said of, for example, banking or derivatives brokerage.  By the by, it would also be interesting to see how any graduates in, say, the humanities are likely to match the earning potential of a movie star or an ‘it’ artist.


Arts degrees limit opportunities for Universities to offer other courses  Universities have to provide a range of courses, some of which are going to be more financially viable than others, that fine. However, investment in one area inevitably means that there are resources not being focused elsewhere. It’s not a huge factor but some subjects – creative arts, Theology and a few others do represent a ‘back door’ into universities for those who didn’t get the grades to get onto more demanding courses.  Those students still need to sleep, study and socialize somewhere – in place of those who could have taken their places on Engineering, Medicine, Economics or similar courses had the space been available.  By keeping these courses, universities are turning away students for other disciplines and those studying the arts courses are learning in a way that may not be the most productive – as mentioned in the previous argument. It’s difficult to see who wins.


Opp’s case sounds excellent, and reasonable and sensible. And complete nonsense. Those countries that have changed their fee arrangements for students in recent years, such as the UK, have seen that students are very concerned with whether their degree is likely to cover the cost of taking it – now that they are expected to pay for it. When it is society at large footing the bill, unsurprisingly, they are less concerned. Of course the financial outcome of doing a degree is of paramount interest to both the student and wider society, suggesting otherwise is sophistry.


Opp makes an excellent case for further refining the role of Higher Education but not a very satisfactory one for keeping it structured as it currently is. The whole point here is that nobody benefits – not the graduate, not the Arts and not the society that is footing the bill. The benefit to society of art would remain if the arts were no longer taught as university degrees.


The Arts pay their way in film, heritage and design industries  The major film, theatrical, dance and other artistic ventures of any nation provide an enormous benefit in terms of reasons to visit as country, or travel within one. Going to the theatre, for example, has knock on benefits for the catering, transport, and retail sectors as well as crating employment in its own right for many who never went anywhere near a degree in the Arts [i] .  For many nations one or two key sectors of the arts are massive revenue generators – especially film, television and music. Theatres and galleries have considerably more pulling power than heavy industry or high finance for tourists [ii] – and Prop has been very quiet on the subject of architecture, without which the bankers and financiers they so admire would be homeless. The arts may not square up to banking in terms of the amount of money earned for the economy but they also have much less of a record of damaging the rest of the economy through sparking crises.  Even just focussing on the finances of the sector, the Arts justify their presence not only through their own revenue but also through those other sectors that benefit as a result but pay nothing towards their development [iii] .  [i] Lord, Clayton, ‘The Value of Arts is Not Going to be Found in Economics’, New Beans, 19 May 2011.   [ii] The National Campaign for the Arts. Theatre: Contribution to the Economy. 2010.   [iii] National Endowment for the Arts. ‘Art and GDP.’,


The notion that money is the best way of judging value is far more damaging to society than the Arts  If the value of a degree is judged purely on the likely salary at the end of it, then society has a very real problem. Even without rehearsing the fact that other disciplines would vanish by the wayside, it also ties into the myth that a degree is simply a vocational tool to increase the salary of the person taking it [i] .  The mindset that insists that everything can be reduced to the level of individual income has also brought us the obscenity of the bonus culture in high finance and, so far, five years of recession. The value of the arts is primarily non-monetary; it comes from the psychological benefit of well-designed buildings [ii] or the happiness and creativity stimulated by engaging with a work of art. [iii]  University fulfills a far wider societal role in terms of training the mind and socializing the individual. For the vast majority of students, it also provides a respite between the constrictions of the family home and those of the workplace.  It is also just possible that people select their degrees primarily because they are interested in them. That in itself is something that cannot be said of significant parts of the world of work.  The logic of this motion is that all members of society are employers – or at least wealth generators – first and last. Their role as voters, community members, parents, and plain human beings seems to be irrelevant to both the spirit and wording of the motion and the Proposition’s case.  [i] Edgar, David, ‘Why should we fund the arts?’ The Guardian, 5 January 2012.   [ii] Steadman, Ian, ‘Study: school design can significantly affect a child’s grades’, Wired.co.uk, 3 January 2013,   [iii] Alleyne, Richard, ‘Viewing art gives same pleasure as being love’, The Telegraph, 8 May 2011,


The Arts provide huge benefits to society; easily comparable to humanities or theoretical science  It has already been mentioned that there are plenty of degrees where it is unlikely that graduates will ever use the knowledge they acquire, per se, in their later careers. Proposition has failed to give a reason – other than earning power – as to why the creative arts should be singled out on this ground [i] .  However, in terms of the general utility provided to wider society, it would be hard to point to a discipline that out performs the arts.  Every TV drama, theatre production, concert and so on is likely to include at least a smattering of participants who studied the subject. It is in the nature of the arts that its audience massively outnumbers those participating in its production. Beyond that the trickle down affect of knowledge into every area of public life from ideas and concepts initiated by artists is enormous.  However, if Prop’s entire case is that artists should be paid more for the enormous amount of good they do, we are quite happy to concede the point.  [i] McCarthy, Kevin F. et al., ‘Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts.’, The Rand Corporation, 2005,


This is a little like saying that the petroleum industry benefits from medicine because of the need for ambulances. People would still go out for dinner and still take holidays. More to the point, as has been suggested, they will still go the theatre or cinema, where people will still act. The issue here is that Universities are unnecessary in the process of training creative artists.


Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’ play that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.1  Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.2  1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker  2 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE


Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and discourages the value of hard work and an education  Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships for the entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.'2 Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the generally misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars they watch on their televisions. 1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian: 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today


Reality TV programmes are not corrupting. They do reflect our society, which isn't always perfect, but we should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. When Adam Lambert, an openly gay contestant on American Idol, lost in the final of the show despite being widely regarded as the best singer, many rightfully pointed out what it demonstrated about the homophobia of American society. To deride reality shows as 'corrupting' therefore is misguided; it is society who is corrupt and reality shows that offer a potential solution. To solve a problem first requires accepting one exists, and reality shows provide a means to do that; they are a window into society, permitting everyone to reflect on the issues that are most harmful to society. As such, reality show producers should not be accused of a lack of creativity or laziness for their programmes, but congratulated for drawing attention to important issues.


The sheer number of reality programmes is now driving TV producers to create filthier, more corrupt reality shows  Reality TV is actually getting worse as the audience becomes more and more used to the genre. In a search for ratings and media coverage, shows are becoming ever more vulgar and offensive, trying to find new ways to shock. When the British Big Brother was struggling for viewers in 2003, its producers responded by attempting to shock the audience that little bit more1. "Big Brother" programmes have also shown men and women having sex on live TV in a desperate grab higher ratings to justify their continued existence. Others have involved fights and racist bullying. Do we let things continue until someone has to die on TV to boost the ratings?  When reality is "constructed" then it substitutes the "natural" reality. This in turn has adverse effect on the natural growth of the children who are either actively involved into it or as audience become a passive recepient. We therefore in a pursuit of commercialization are taking away an inalienable right of children i.e. full personality development in a natural environment which is not contaminated by "constructed" reality.  1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:


Reality shows are not becoming more corrupt or more filthy. What has changed is rather what the public defines as acceptable viewing. In other words, the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality is closing thanks to modern reality programs. And the gap is closing due to popular demand to see reality on their TV screens. For example, the sex shown on Scandinavian episodes of Big Brother is not shocking or unrealistic, it is only unusual in the context of what we expect to see on television. The fact it was shown only illustrates that the gap between what is actually real and what is presented as reality on television is closing. If the proposition has an issue therefore with what modern reality shows are presenting, they have an issue with society at large, not reality programs. Even if were the case that reality programmes are getting more corrupt and filthy, viewers should take the advice of former U.S. President Bush Jr. and 'put the off button on.'


Reality shows are real; they are real people operating without scripts and often, live. The fact that characters are often cast to encourage disagreements or tension does not take away from the reality of the program, in fact it only adds to it. The unrealistic settings of shows like Big Brother and Survivor do not take away from the educational value of observing how they cope. In fact, without such shows, most people would have little concept of how a group of strangers would be able to survive, co-operate and develop in such environments. As Time describes, 'they provoke, they offend but at least it's trying to do something besides help you get to sleep'. The insight therefore into the human condition is invaluable, and it is little surprise that viewers are eager to watch such programs. What is real is not always the same as what is normal, the events on Survivor Island are no less real for being in an unrealistic setting.


Reality shows make for bad, lazy and corrupting television, encouraging such behaviour in society  Reality shows are bad, lazy and corrupting television. They mostly show ordinary people with no special talents doing very little. If they have to sing or dance, then they do it badly – which doesn’t make for good entertainment. They rely on humiliation and conflict to create excitement. Joe Millionaire, where a group of women competed for the affections of a construction worker who they were told was a millionaire, was simply cruel. The emotions of the contestants were considered expendable for the sake of making viewers laugh at their ignorance. Furthermore, the programmes are full of swearing, crying and argument, and often violence, drunkenness and sex. This sends a message to people that this is normal behaviour and helps to create a crude, selfish society. One American reality show, “Are You Hot?”, in which competitors submit to a panel of judges for ‘appearance-rating’, was blamed by eating disorder experts as encouraging the notion that ‘appearance is the most important thing’ (Becker, 2003).1 Furthermore, Paul Watson, a former reality TV show producer, believes they are ‘predictable and just creates more of the same and makes our film makers lazy’ (Jury, 2007).  1 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women.Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today  2 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent


Reality shows are not 'real', therefore they have no education value  Reality TV is dishonest – it pretends to show “reality” but it actually distorts the truth to suit the programme makers. The shows are not really “real” – they are carefully cast to get a mix of “characters” who are not at all typical. Mostly they show a bunch of young, good-looking self-publicists, who will do anything to get on TV. Usually the programme makers try to ensure excitement by picking people who are likely to clash with each other. They then place them in unnatural situations, such as the Big Brother house or the Survivor island, and give them strange challenges in order to provoke them into behaving oddly. In The Bachelor, where a group of women compete for the affections of an eligible male, the ‘intimate dates’ they go on are filmed in front of any number of camera; that is not reality (Poniewozik, 2003).1 Finally the makers film their victims for hundreds of hours from all angles, but only show the most dramatic parts. Selective editing may be used to create “storylines” and so further manipulate the truth of what happened.  1 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE


Reality shows are driving out other sorts of programmes, so that often there is nothing else to watch. Reality TV is cheap and series can go on for months on end, providing hundreds of hours of viewing to fill schedules. TV bosses like this and are cutting back on comedy, music, drama and current affairs in favour of wall to wall reality rubbish. This is even worse when reality shows crowd the schedules of public service broadcasters. Stations such as the BBC in the UK, France Télévisions, or Rai in Italy have a duty to inform and educate the public. They should be made to meet that responsibility – as Rai has by saying it won’t have any more reality shows.


Reality television is not what audiences want, it is watched simply because it is ‘there’. It is what John Humphrys calls ‘carbohydrate television’, it ‘probably hasn’t done you much harm and if it leaves you feeling a bit bloated…well you can search out of a bit of quality stuff’. [1] With tens of television channels and twenty-four hours of programming to fill, reality is simply a cheap means to ensure there is always something on TV to watch. In Italy, the evidence supports such claims, with the state broadcaster Rai deciding to scrap reality programmes in 2008 due to low demand. [2] As Rai’s President stated, ‘I don’t believe they are the type of shows the majority of our viewers expect or want from a public service broadcaster’. [3]  [1] Humphrys, John. “Take this oath: First, do no harm.” 28 August 2004. The Guardian. 4 July 2011.  [2] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011.  [3] Fraser, Christian. “Italian TV bins reality shows.” 3 April 2007. BBC News. 4 July 2011.


Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in society in a way other television programmes do not  Reality TV can be very educational. They educate people by displaying disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus deterring others from doing unplanned and silly actions. Programmes such as "The Apprentice" have made people think about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit Club" has got people thinking about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's inaugural reality show, 'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the 'chance to train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school meals'1. Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and school meals would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they should be eating. Such effects on society are beneficial and should be encouraged, not restricted. 1 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent


Reality television forces us to analyse our own behaviour as a society  Reality TV actually has a lot of value to our society; they are effectively anthropological experiments, allowing the public to study people and societies from the comfort of their living rooms1. Humans are endlessly different and endlessly interesting to other humans. In these programmes we see people like us faced with unusual situations. Shows like Survivor, which place a group of strangers in remote environments, make us think about what we would do in their place, and about what principles govern human behaviour in general. It also shows us people who look and act very different from us, and helps us see that actually we have a lot in common with them. MTV's reality show 'Making the Band 2', a 'hip-hop American Idol', gives centre stage to inner-city kids who would be portrayed as criminals or victims on a cop drama. There is nothing immoral about reality shows, merely the society which demands them; these shows are just a product of our values and desires. We should face up to these issues rather than censor television in order to hide them. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker


The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else  Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres.


Reality television is popular and TV producers should give audiences what they want  Reality television programmes are very popular with audiences of all ages and types. They may not be high culture but most people do not want that from television. Most viewers want to be entertained and to escape for a while from the worries and boredom of their everyday life. American Idol rejectees who stubbornly insist that they have talent provide such escapism. [1] Furthermore, and importantly, such contestants are good natured in doing so, they are not exploited but offer themselves to reality shows. [2] Therefore, there is no harm in giving the people what they want – that is what the free market is all about. Reality shows are also popular because they exploit new technology so that millions of people can participate in the programme – typically by voting. Britain is believed to have had as many as 176 reality TV shows in a single year. [3] Such supply can only be driven by excessive demand.  [1] Poniewozik, James. “Why Reality TV is Good for Us.” 12 February 2003. Time. 5 July 2011.  [2] Poniewozik, James. “Why Reality TV is Good for Us.” 12 February 2003. Time. 5 July 2011.  [3] Jury, Louise. “The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it?” 4 January 2007. The Independent. 4 July 2011.


Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into) entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today 3 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian:


The few reality TV programmes that are educational and beneficial do not balance the bad majority. The majority are not educational, either to the public or the participants, and the insight they purport to offer into the human psyche are misguided. As Vanessa Feltz, a contestant on the British Big Brother series, describes, contestants and viewers alike 'subscribe to this utterly specious notion that fame is entirely desirable' (BBC News, 2001), whilst Narinda Kaur, another contestant on the show, admitted "I came away from this experience thinking 'oh my God, did I really say that?" (BBC News, 2001). As Claudio Petruccioli, head of the Italian state broadcaster Rai, notes, 'reality TV shows put people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive'1 Any lessons learned are therefore inapplicable to real-world situations. 1 Fraser, C. (2007, April 3). Italian TV bins reality shows. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from BBC News:


PSBs are a thing of the past. People no longer sit around the Television together. Commercial broadcasters provide more cultural freedom and choice for people. The idea of TV bringing a nation together no longer holds any merit in fragmented globalizing media markets where individualism dominates. TV is now more often than not a solitary experience rather than a communal one. This can be demonstrated by the amount of TV sets owned per household. A marketing report from Nielsen shows that in 1980 49% of US households had only 1 TV set and that 15% had three or more. Compare that with data from 2010 and only 17% of people in the US own only 1 TV set whereas 55% have 3 or more. [1]  [1] Nielsen (2010) U.S. Homes Add Even More TV Sets in 2010. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:


PSBs bring nations and people together and are an actively positive force within the mediasphere  As well as airing programming for minorities which the private broadcasters would not provide, by providing and presenting content in a manner that resonates with the society in which they operate and by offering universal and affordable access to such content (see definition in the introduction) PSBs can also help bring people together and thus promote social cohesion. PSBs are able to put people and society first before financial and commercial interests. For example the BBC in its 2005 “Building Public Value” report states that it “aims to serve its audiences not just as consumers, but as members of a wider society, with programmes and services which, while seeking to inform, educate and entertain audiences, also serve wider public purposes”. [1]  [1] BBC (2005) Building Public Value. [online] [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:


The same could be said equally about PSBs. They are unlikely to broadcast items which may damage their funding stream. In the case of networks using the underwriting model they are also unlikely to broadcast things which underwriters do not approve of. Due to the fragmented and competitive broadcasting market place there will always be a home for programming which challenges businesses and other entities if there is enough public interest in the given issue.


PSBs provide quality and original content that can cater for niche or commercially unattractive market segments  PSBs create unique content which private broadcasters would be unable to produce as they strive for mass market appeal to satisfy the demands placed upon them by commercial interests looking to purchase advertising. PSBs create more educational and minority output which enriches society rather than just entertaining it.  PSBs can concentrate on creating high quality programming across all genres rather than simply producing mediocre populist programming such as low-cost game shows and reality TV. For example it is unlikely that commercial broadcasters would have aired nightly university lectures as the BBC did with its partnership with the Open University. PSBs are usually among the highest investors in the domestic content industries and nurture local creative talent.


Commercial broadcasters have to directly interact with their audience to ensure that the programming being provided is what the public actually wants to consume. Commercial broadcasters have to pull in audiences whereas the (partly) publicly funded PSBs have a financial safety net which allows them to push content onto the audience in an elitist manner and allows them to essentially tell their audience what is good for them. It is also erroneous to suggest that minority tastes are not served by commercial broadcasters. Technology has allowed for a greater number of broadcast channels and as a result many of these specialize to cater for particular niches, for example, The History Channel.


PSB are better equipped than private broadcasters to air accurate, objective and impartial information and programming  Advertising limits the types of programming and stories commercial networks will run as they may fear losing lucrative advertising deals with large corporations. As PSBs do not rely (solely) on advertising they are more likely to air programming which is critical towards the practices of large corporations and serve the public interest. For example, In August 2011, PBS aired Food Inc., a documentary that ‘lifted the veil on (the US’) food industry…exposing the underbelly that’s hidden from the American consumer with the consent of (the) government’s regulatory agencies’. [1]  [1] PBS (2011). “Food, Inc. – Synopsis”. [Accessed 6th September, 2011]. Available at:


Public ownership of broadcasting is good for the citizen/consumer, as it is free once your license fee or taxes have been paid. With the erosion of advertising revenues streams, private broadcasting companies are seeking to make popular programming (such as sports events, concerts or films) subscription based, a trend which risks excluding poorer audiences and threatens social cohesion. Nor is it in the interest of current private broadcasters to see their public rivals privatized and forced to accept advertising, as the overall increase in advertising space would drive down the amount broadcasters could charge advertisers for a spot, reducing their revenues and profits.


It is true that government should not be allowed a monopoly over broadcasting, but that is very rare outside totalitarian states. Usually countries have at least one privately owned broadcasting network competing with the public media and so limiting political manipulation by the State. In addition, corporatization, as with the BBC in the UK, or CBC in Canada, sets the broadcaster up as accurate and impartial, allowing for the benefits of public ownership without the risk of political interference. Instead, the greatest risk of bias lies within a purely private broadcasting sector, where the high costs of entry and technological development encourage consolidation to the point where powerful individuals, such as Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, can manipulate the broadcast agenda in their own interests. Without the balance guaranteed by public service media, meaningful participation by all citizens in the social and political lives of their societies and fair elections might become impossible.


Privatising PSBs would improve the efficiency of their operations and the quality of their programming  Privatization would be good for public broadcasters, exposing them to the bracing impact of proper competition and forcing them to focus more effectively upon their strengths while producing efficiencies. When it was privatized, it was expected that New Jersey Public Television could save the state $11million a year. [1] Freed from government control, they would be less exposed to political decisions about the level of license fee or direct subsidy, and better able to raise finance in the capital markets. This would allow them to compete internationally in the changing digital marketplace, developing commercial operations, and ploughing increased profits back into better program making for their domestic market.  [1] McGlone, Penny. (2011) “N.J. public television to undergo name change, cuts in staff”. The Star-Ledger, 7 June 2011. [Accessed 23 August 2011] Available at:


PSBs funding sources give them an unfair advantage in the broadcasting market, harming competition.  Public ownership of the media distorts competition, harming private companies in their domestic marketplace and their ability to compete internationally. It does this because the government is funding a service that could be supplied profitably by the private sector - for example, a pop music radio station or the broadcast of sporting events. The market share of private companies inevitably suffers, along with their ability to raise advertising revenue based upon the size of their audience. This means that private broadcasters end up with less money to spend on their programmes and are less well placed to compete internationally. James Murdoch, son of the medal mogul Rupert Murdoch, in his MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival in 2009 echoed this opinion stating that the free news output by the BBC “"threatens the provision of news in Britain". [1]  [1] The Independent (2009) The BBC’s Unhealthy Dominance. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:


The relationship between governments and PSBs can be problematic  The broadcast media has so much power to form opinion that it is dangerous to give politicians too much influence over it. Once in government, a political party can use public ownership and control of television and radio stations to manipulate both the news agenda and its editorial policy - as many Middle-East regimes did during the 2011 Arab Spring. For example in Egypt, during sustained and substantial protests aimed at removing President Hosni Mubarak from office the state run media described protestors as “... ‘Vandals’ and ‘hooligans’. A few hours after Mubarak’s fall, the ‘vandalisers’ had become ‘heroes’, and what [they] had previously described as ‘chaos instigated by foreign powers’ had suddenly become ‘a glorious revolution.’” [1]  [1] Diab, O. (2011) New Egypt, New Media. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at:


PSBs are already exposed to competition as their audience figures are compared with those of their private rivals, and they constantly have to justify the level of their license fee or subsidy. Outsourcing most actual program making, as the BBC does, provides a competitive environment in which costs can be controlled effectively. Nor does public ownership prevent organizations from raising money - government bodies often resort to bond issues to fund investment. The BBC has successfully launched BBC Worldwide and developed a profitable commercial arm while remaining a public corporation.


Indigenous populations have no more right to special government treatment than other minority groups. Even indigenous populations did not inhabit their current territory from the dawn of time, and many ethnic groups around the world live where they do because they were pushed out of some other territory hundreds or thousands of years ago. Virtually every ethnic group in the world has been conquered and abused by some other group. Tracing the entirety of human history to determine which group owes reparations to which other group is unproductive; rather, governments should move forward to promote a better standard of living for all citizens.


Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions  The Indian Removal Act of 18301, the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, and the 1887 General Allotment Act are just a few examples of legislation used to destroy Native American communities in the US2. Settlers in Australia are similarly responsible for a multitude of massacres3, as well as several decades of forced separation of aboriginal children from their parents in an effort to "Christianize" them4. While the current citizens of Canada, the US, and Australia are not guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, they nevertheless reap the benefits of those atrocities while today's indigenous populations still suffer from the lasting impact of oppression. When chemical companies make huge profits at the expense of damaging the surrounding community's environment, those companies are expected to pay reparations. A government that destroys an indigenous culture must similarly work to reverse their destruction.  1 Indian Treaty and Removal Act of 1830, U.S. Department of State. 2 Preamble to the Trail of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper: An Indian Manifesto. American Indian Movement, 1972. 3 History of Australian Aboriginal Massacres, Treaty Republic, 2011. 4"Living With the Past," FOCUS September 1997, Vol. 9, Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center.


The government should rely on just legal systems to protect the rights of indigenous people, not cultural preservation. A constitution that enumerates rights and a court system that scrutinizes government activity is a much more direct and reliable venue of protecting indigenous rights than sporadic funding for cultural programs.


All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture  Across the United States, Australia, and Canada, native customs are often tied closely to the land. For example, while descendants of the Sioux Indians of the American Midwest may no longer hunt buffalo, learning about traditional means of hunting, animal use, rituals involving the surrounding wildlife, means of ensuring a sustainable food supply, and other cultural norms related to the land gives people a greater appreciation for the land they now inhabit. Exposure to traditions that have been practiced in one's land for thousands of years helps us to appreciate the legacy we have inherited. This does not just benefit the direct descendants of those practicing these traditions but the whole of society.


Protecting indigenous culture is unlikely to have a significant impact on the general population. Native groups often live in relative isolation, thereby having little contact with people outside the community. Furthermore, antiquated forms of hunting and cultivating food that were used over a hundred years ago have little relevance to the modern environment in which people live. Learning about these traditions is unlikely to impact the public's perception of its environment because the public is unlikely to make an emotional connection between these traditions and their modern homes.


Governments also ignore or destroy culture all the time. Historic and significant buildings are built to build infrastructure, traditions are lost through an unwillingness to provide funding to prevent it from dying. When governments protect culture they inevitably protect one over the others. This is nearly always the culture of the majority. Instead it is not for the government to promote or protect any culture over others rather it should be left to private individuals and each cultural group to promote their own culture.


The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression.  Notions of cultural superiority virtually always influence displacement and abuse of indigenous cultures. For example, when the government of Botswana expelled the Kalahari Bushmen from their land in 2002, President Mogai defended his actions by describing the bushmen as "stone age creatures."1 This cultural insensitivity, in addition to the incentive of material gains, led the Botswani government to violate the tribe's rights. By preserving indigenous culture, governments recognize the value of these groups and prevent future hostility.  1 John Simpson, "Bushmen Fight for Homeland," BBC, 2005


Governments protect culture every day  Governments already protect culture so it is not a big step to apply the same protections to aboriginal culture as well. In school, students learn about traditional art and their national history. For example, the state of California compiles reading lists that largely include Shakespeare, Virgil, and John Steinback, though also including ethnic authors like Maya Angelou1. Governments recognize days like Christmas and New Years and fund programs that promote the arts. States recognize marriage and structure divorce and custody laws based on cultural norms of gender roles and family responsibility. If a government can protect the norms on one culture in society, there is no reason that the government should not also protect the culture of those who first inhabited the land. This current protection makes it easy to build on, to make highlight more aboriginal culture, recognize their festivals etc.  1 California Reading List, California Department of Education, 2011.


Mainstream cultural norms are so pervasive in every aspect of society that without an active effort, indigenous values and traditions will be lost. Preserving culture often involves funding- whether it is for a theatre group, art show, language program, or other means of cultural expression. In countries like the US and Australia, indigenous groups make up less than 3% of the current population; 1;2 without assistance from the government, it is unlikely these groups would be able to sustain such cultural efforts and as a result their culture would not have any chance to evolve.  1 Race - Universe: Total Population, U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2009. 2 Experimental Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 1991, to 2021, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009.


Cultural preservation enriches society; just because it cannot be measured quantitatively does not mean it is not worthwhile. Without government assistance, many museums and theaters would have to close down, or would be too expensive for the general public to access. Government support for cultural enrichment contributes towards the public's education and allows citizens to develop an appreciation for traditions other than their own. This does not mean arguing that the government should abandon its basic duties, but simply that a small portion of the budget be dedicated to preservation of indigenous culture.


Government interference is not necessary to preserve culture  Plenty of ethnic groups immigrate to countries like Canada and the US and preserve their culture without government aid. They do so through religious education for children, speaking their native language at home, schools at the weekends that teach their culture and communication and cooperation within the ethnic community. This cultural preservation demonstrates that government assistance is unnecessary and thereby a form of excessive government involvement.


Culture is an incredibly complex concept  Culture contains many elements; it is the food one eats, the clothing one wears, the holidays one celebrates, and the names of the spirits one worships. However, it is much more than that; culture dictates parent-child relationships, courting customs, family size, gender roles, healthcare, education, and every law, regulation, and standard a society holds. Governments rarely give blanket approval to an indigenous customs; children are often compelled to attend school and receive vaccines, substances used in religious rituals may be banned, and customs that infringe on the rights of group members are not permitted. These restrictions may be reasonable, however, they create a false sense of cultural preservation. Rather than ostensibly protect aboriginal culture, governments should leave it alone.


Culture evolves over time and is largely impacted by improved standards of living and exposure to other cultures  Virtually all cultures around the world have changed radically over the past two hundred years; if a government takes action towards "preserving" an indigenous culture, it is interfering with the group's ability to mold their identity to fit the modern world on their own terms. For example, the Australian and American governments have tried to appease native groups by offering land for reserves where they may lead a traditional lifestyle. Native individuals, however, often do not want to live in isolation, and would rather adapt their culture to an urban environment where they can have a higher standard of living.


Culture provides no tangible benefit that justifies the use of government funds to preserve it.  If indigenous populations feel strongly that their unique culture is worth preserving, they may direct their attention and funds towards this endeavor. However, a government's first priority must be services that improve the standard of living for its citizens. Society, including indigenous people, would be better served if tax dollars were spent on services like healthcare and law enforcement.


Anarchy is not necessary for culture to exist. Legal restrictions do impact cultural norms; for example, Native American use of peyote for religious ceremonies is permitted only at the discretion of state governments1. However, restrictions on drug use have not turned native cultural expression into a meaningless practice. Rather, the fact that native groups must conform to external standards is more reason for the government to make an active effort to protect indigenous culture. In the previous example, the US government acknowledged that Native American use of peyote in religious ceremonies is different from typical drug use, and consequently permits such peyote use (with limitations). It is this active effort to respect native culture that allowed Native Americans to preserve their religious practice.  1Elijah Sweete, "Peyote in Short Supply," The Moderate Voice, 2010.


Immigrant populations generally do not retain their cultural distinctiveness in the long run; while the first generation may be heavily influenced by their parents' culture, this influence fades by the second generation. Immigrant assimilation is actually proof that government assistance would be useful to native groups.


Anyone setting out on such a career is aware of the legal requirement to undertake service in the armed forces. There is absolutely nothing to stop them doing it before they start their career. There are plenty of jobs where it is inconvenient to have to take an extended break. Anything relating to technology or research, for example, where there is a need to keep up to date with the latest developments in the field is fairly unforgiving of such a break and so people build their careers around it, knowing that at some point they will be out of the loop for 24 months or so.  To suggest that it is more important that a pop star is able to keep on recording but that it is for scientist and technicians in the most wired country in the world to keep up with changes in technology is as inconsistent as it is unfair. The case of the performer is clearly weaker it’s simply that they have the status and fame to mean that they can make a big fuss about it and people will notice.  Whatever the vanity of celebrity may suggest it’s just another job and it’s questionable as to how much benefit it actually provides to society at large.  Further pandering to that vanity by suggesting that society can’t cope without a particular singer or actor for two years is ridiculous. There is no shortage of people wanting to do the job.


Celebrities are in the unusual position of requiring constant media attention  The career path of celebrities is unusual in that it accretes over time on the basis of the performers standing in the public mind. Unlike other professions this does not lend itself to taking two years out of the limelight, especially years when fame is coming to its height.  The media is notoriously fickle and equally well-known for having a short memory. It generally struggles to stay interested in a celebrity if they’re out of the limelight for more than a few weeks. It is simply unfeasible that they would remain interested when someone has been out of the spotlight for over two years. In effect this means that for a Korean musician or actor their career will finish at the age of 29.  In other profession it is possible to build a career around national service and employers know that at some point any young man they employ will need to undertake their military service but celebrities simply aren’t employed in this way.


Again, there is nothing to stop celebrities doing their military service before they start performing but, even were that not the case, military service is not something that is undertaken because it is convenient or easy but rather something that is done because it is necessary. The country is at risk of invasion, it is still technically at war with the North and in the last Kim Jong-Il has become increasingly erratic.  Of all professions surely performers, with their peculiar interest in the combination of a consumer society and the right to freedom of expression have the greatest interest in insuring that the north doesn’t invade. Neither wars nor dictatorships are particularly known for encouraging the performing arts.


Celebrities, like athletes, enhance the nation’s image and generate revenue  The South Korean government issues occasional exemptions to athletes who have won an Olympic gold medal or achieved a similar feat. If we accept that the law ought to be consistent then there is no reason why entertainers should not be proffered the same opportunity. Both professions tend to favour the young and the requirement that military service needs to be completed before the age of thirty mean that either career would be interrupted just at the point when the individual is likely to be at the height of their skills.  Equally both groups bring prestige for Korea as a nation. Entertainers like Jung-Ji Hoon (Rain) have just as much of a following as athletes such as Park Ji-Sung who, along with his team mates on the Korean national team was exempted from military service for reaching the semi-finals of the world cup [1] .  Indeed Rain predominantly works in Korea and has a following throughout the country and the region whereas Park has spent most of his career playing for foreign teams.  [1] Arsenal Forum , August 30 2011


Celebrities, unlike athletes, work for themselves whereas athletes represent the country. Military service means representing the nation to the rest of the world as does being an athlete, that’s the reason for the exemption, not simply a matter of celebrity.  The psychologist Hwang Sang-Min [1] has made clear that “Entertainers are thought to work for their own sakes. That’s the difference.”  Park Ji-Sung and his teammates were representing their country and achieved a national first. Granting an exemption recognised their accomplishment on behalf of the country. In a very literal meaning of the phrase they performed national service.  Equating such an accomplishment with a performer who is simply doing their job – for which they are well paid – misses the point of the exemptions. Singers and actors happen to be Korean; they are not acting or singing for Korea. Indeed given the speed with which some performers have given up their nationality in a bid to avoid national service, comparing it to a genuine national accomplishment seems absurd.  When actors such as Song Seung-heon attempted to avoid national service they were rightly decried and their actions have far more in common with the sons of politicians and businessmen who seek to use their status to avoid the draft.  [1] Salon.com , Jim Lee, Pop Sensation Rain Joins the South Korean Army


Having the age of 30 as the cut-off point is uniquely unfair to performers as this is the age when they are likely to be at the height of their fame and towards the end of their career.  For most professions, getting military service out of the way early in one’s career makes sense. Nobody would suggest that members of other professions should be expected to interrupt it when they are at the height of their profession. In reality for most people this would be when they are in their fifties. For professions like acting and music this tends to be the late twenties and early thirties. Indeed, for pop singers in particular their career is likely to be over when they are 35.  In the light of this setting the age limit where it is is uniquely unfair to performers – just as it is to athletes.  Military service anywhere in the world is considered to be something you undertake before your career, not in the middle of it. Regulations should reflect reality, in this instance that means allowing performers to get on with their careers.


There may well be a case to be made that certain other professions or groups should be given exemptions. That does not, however, demonstrate that celebrities should not. This simply reflects the fact that, by definition, celebrities are not typical citizens.  They provide a valuable role in society and that should be recognised. They provide entertainment and glamour in peoples’ lives, they promote Korea around the world and they are also very few in number.  News reports whenever a celebrity undertakes national service are always keen to stress that they will not receive special treatment, it is difficult to see why. Historically, entertainers serving in military forces around the world are always used to build national morale and yet in South Korea they are not. It is this instance that is the exception to the rule.


It could be done in much the same way as with sportsman where ‘exceptional achievement’ is recognised concept and, while difficult to define, is easy to apply. As long as the whole process takes place transparently it should ensure that it is not abused. The issue is not so much introducing exemptions to the universality of the current system but, rather, ensuring the transparency of the process.  There are already abuses of the system with the children of the powerful, the so called ‘sons of gods’ often finding ways around the law. That is not a difficulty of definition, it’s simple corruption.


One of the great strengths of national service is that it demonstrates that everyone is equal  Both the Constitution and the National Security Act [1] make it explicitly clear that there are occasions when individuals in South Korea must surrender some of their liberty in the interests of preserving the state. These pieces of legislation and others reflect the reality of living next door to North Korea. The whole point of legislation that preserves the state is that it applies to everybody.  Particularly in the instance of national service, the moment it becomes optional it ceases to work. No doubt many of those who have been arrested under the NSA took the attitude that it really didn’t, or shouldn’t, apply to them. It does.  Even if a compelling case could be made for celebrities to have the right not to serve, it is inconceivable that such a case could be made exclusively for celebrities. It is hard to see how the national interest is well served by having someone appear in a soap opera or a record sleeve but not by having someone in an emergency room or classroom.  [1]


Celebrities are respected by young people and this is a way in which they can act as a role model and set a positive example.  At a time when the 1950-53 war is becoming less relevant to peoples’ daily lives and all generations, particularly the youngest, are becoming reluctant to fulfil their duty in a country that is still at war, celebrities have a powerful opportunity to act as role models for others to fulfil their national service obligations.  Allowing them an opt out would set a terrible example. By definition they are of a generation with others entering the military and there is a powerful symbolism in their doing so as well.  By contrast allowing them an exemption would encourage others to try and find a way out of serving.  Although it seems probable that in the event of a conflict the main protagonists would be the USA and China rather than the conscript armies of North and South Korea, there would seem to be a definite benefit in having the male population trained sufficiently well to take on civil defence duties and to be able to ensure their own safety and that of their families.


There are many professions that could more sensibly be given exemption such as teachers  Only in a world truly and unhealthily obsessed with the cult of celebrity would pop singers and soap stars be at the top of the list for exemptions to military service. Surely scientists and surgeons would have a better claim. Indeed with shortages of professionals reported in both science and technology [1] it would seem to make far more sense to offer opt outs there in an effort to encourage more people to study the subjects at university and to make their careers in those areas.  On the basis that people are not even given an exemption on the basis of religious or moral conviction, it seems perverse to give exemptions on the basis of fame [2] .  [1]   [2]


In practical terms how would you define who should be given an exemption and how do you prevent abuse?  The advantage of the current system is its universality, it does not require any interpretation of who is and is not included. Who exactly is a celebrity? How do you define that and how do you insure that it isn’t used to cover the children of law makers and other influential individuals?  Celebrity, almost by its nature, is impossible to define and the moment you attempt to do so – ‘all professional singers’ for example – you create a loophole that people will rush through.


It seems, frankly unfair to ask people to destroy their careers on the basis that it will encourage others to do something that the law already requires of them. The legislation for national service was structured on the basis of a country that was very different from modern day Korea. In 1953 Korea was the poorest country in the world and national service was, among other things, a useful tool for training and providing employment for the young. That is simply no longer the case. The legislation and the principals that underpin it are simply not designed to deal with a Korean in their twenties who is already recognised around the world and has a staggeringly successful career.  It’s clear that the framers acknowledged that there was at least one profession where people could excel while still young – hence the exemption for highly successful athletes. The fact is that 60 years ago the idea of a rapper, singer or actor who could genuinely promote Korea around the world was simply not there.


Celebrities fulfill two important roles that allow them to demonstrate that they are better serving the national interests by pursuing their careers. The first is the unifying and moral building effect on the nation. It is even possible to argue as some scholars have [1] that in an increasingly fractured society, celebrities may be the only people who can have a unifying effect.  The second role is taking an international profile. They act as a constant reminder to the world of the existence of South Korea and that it is a free country with a thriving arts scene. These roles make a far greater difference to the process of protecting the state and the freedoms for which it stands than they could ever do as just another man in fatigues.  [1]


A white Christmas is not traditional. Even in northern countries such as Great Britain snow has always been very rare in December – it is much more likely to fall later in the winter. It’s all Charles Dickens’ fault – he grew up in the unusually snowy 1810s, and later wrote snowy scenes into his popular Christmas stories, such as “A Christmas Carol”. Even in the 19th Century, snow at Christmas was uncommon, and in many places today it is quite rare (Western Europe, most of the USA) or impossible (southern hemisphere countries like Australia). It is better to enjoy Christmas for what it is rather than feeling sorry every year that it doesn’t live up to some storybook picture.


Christmas is inextricably linked with an image of a snowy wonderland.  We all love the traditional white Christmas. When we think of Christmas we see snowy scenes, with people skating and sledging, and children making snowballs and snowmen. Later the families gather inside around a warm fire to celebrate. This is the sort of Christmas shown on greeting cards and celebrated in so many songs (for example, White Christmas, Jingle Bells, Frosty the Snowman, Walking in a Winter Wonderland, etc.). It isn't a proper Christmas without snow. "The interest in snowy Christmases has its origins in the colder climate of the period 1550–1850 when Britain was in the grip of a ‘Little Ice Age’[2] That way, the traditional image was created.


It might suit the non-religious people who run much of the media to say that, but it strips Christmas of all real meaning. The truth is that anyone can celebrate Christ's birth at Christmas, whether they are in snowy Lapland, summery Australia or tropical Africa. Christmas has nothing to do with snow; it is the celebration of Jesus Christ's birth in a Bethlehem stable. Snow is not mentioned in the Bible story and it is very, very rare in Bethlehem. Seeing the holiday as just a snowy winter festival is a way of taking Christ out of Christmas.


The dream of a white Christmas satisfies a need for hope deep within us.  The ideal of a white Christmas also speaks to the old pagan festivals. The winter solstice (Yule, Saturnalia) was a time of hope in the cold and darkness, as nights stopped getting longer and people looked for the promise of new birth in springtime. The Christian Church recognized the power of existing winter festivals and chose December 25th for their own nativity celebrations. People still feel a need to move in time with the seasons, and snow represents winter at its most extreme. For these reasons the dream of a white Christmas satisfies a need deep within us.


If the idea of a white Christmas is pagan then we should drop it. We are not pagan anymore and we have a modern understanding of the seasons. If the festival was all about the shortest day, then much of the world's population would be left out. Everyone in the southern hemisphere would have to celebrate the festival in June. Those near the equator would never get to celebrate at all. Christmas should unite humanity, not split it apart.