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

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

What are some qualifications for intensive media coverage? The statement purports that under intensive media coverage, a society cannot regard any living man or woman as a hero. Although it is undeniable that intensive media exposes one’s thorough personality including drawbacks to the public, I beg to differ for mainly two reasons which consider the meaning of hero as well as the role of media to the society.

To begin with, A hero’s contribution and his or her personality defect are not mutually exclusive. Why is someone a hero? A ‘hero’ is regarded by the public in consensus for making good contributions that impact the society positively or at least sacrificing one’s time and value to promote the society. In saying this, at least there is nothing wrong with his or her intention casting aside other factors. Therefore, though under the intensive scrutiny of media, the contribution a hero devote to the society would not be blamed by his or her blemish outside that contribution. To support this, Roosevelt’s New Deal dragged people and businesses from the extreme misery of recession by implementing the government regulation policy. Encomium has not disappeared since then and those complements would enough for a man to be called a hero. However, later in that period, reports regarding Roosevelt’s scandals and affairs have emerged. People may question his personality of honesty in response to his negative report but would less likely to deny Roosevelt’s influential contributions devoted to the financial crisis. That is, outside his potential defected personality, people will still accept his dedication.

Additionally, the media would less likely focus only on the negative sides of society. Why mainstream media report and celebrate a hero? This is mainly because a hero brings a positive influence on society, who sets a good exemplar for us. With the impulsion of media, the intension to transfer superior dominant value is better reached. Despite media, as a voice for reliability and truth will inevitably debunk scandals, this would not indicate that they have affection with doing this. Rather, as government and political leaders are more willing to see, a more optimistic and positive value would be advocated in media. Therefore, the statement which maintains that the intensive media coverage will forestall people to regard one as a hero is questionable.

To sum up, given the aforementioned reasons, to some extent, the speaker neglects the essential reason why people celebrate a hero and oversimplify the function and primary intention of media. From my point of view, the optimal approach would be to take a critical stance of media and exploit its advantages, in here the power of leading positive values, to the full.