I am going to argue that sources 10 & 11 agree that the Amritsar Massacre created widespread and long-lasting hostility among Indians towards British rule. In contrast, I will argue that source 12 disagrees and that the Indian people appreciated British rule. Source 11 strongly highlights widespread hostility towards the British. The source uses words such as ‘dishonest’ and ‘evilly manned’[1]. This shows the lack of respect the Indian people were beginning to progress against the British Government.
One of the most controversial conflicts in our Nations history is definitely the Vietnam War. Today there is a lot of skepticism with America’s involvement in the War and I believe the biggest thing that gave people so much skepticism is the media’s portrayal of the War. The mainstream news stations of the time seemed to care more about entertainment, trying to get the most interesting story in order to keep their ratings high and keep people on the edge of their seat. The Documentary we watched in class gave a good look at how the media was more into story telling and less into giving people the facts that they deserve. I think that the film did a really good job at exposing the media for it’s horrible performance during the Vietnam War.
Muslims are living in fear from the public hate and the government’s intentions on dismantling the civil rights of this minority, using three specific factors which have instigated this fear. These factors are government action, irresponsible media, and the hate speech of some national leaders. ‘Government action ' has done a great deal to undermine the self-confidence of Muslims. Arrests, special registration, police raids, FBI interrogations, profiling at airports, and secret evidence have left Muslims, particularly men, feeling insecure and even paranoid. Since 9/11, mainstream media, generally, have taken up the cause of the government and fully support the 'war on terror.'
The foreign policy failures of the British governments 1951-64 were due to the lack of realism in the post war world? This essay will ascertain the truth behind the statement and ask the questions as to whether the respective prime ministers, could have done more to secure a better and more efficient foreign policy. The statement has some truth to it, as Britain was for the best part of the 13 years under the Tories accommodating the notion that they were a great superpower, this ultimately lay with the prime minister, this view was shared between two consecutive prime ministers, notable Anthony Eden who for the most part of his appointment spent the majority of the money on military and nuclear projects, this very idea of sitting at the big table was catastrophic for Britain and shown by the Suez Crisis. This showed Britain how much they needed American aid in boosting their economy, and that the lack of communication with the rest of Europe created a bubble around Britain. Also holding on to this great superpower status was largely to do with the fact that Britain still had an Empire, inevitably making them feel more superior to the other European countries, this was a lack of realism as after both Suez Crisis and the formation of the EEC Britain began to understand that they were missing out.
It can be agreed that the popularity of the rebellions and the slow reaction of the government made it possible for them to pose some challenge to the monarch and state. However, the lack of efficient leadership, causes and locations of the rebellions limited the amount of challenge posed. The protests in the sixteenth century could pose a dangerous challenge to the monarch and the state in the years 1536-69 because of their popularity. The rebellions, especially the Pilgrimage of Grace, involved a wide variety of people who shared similar grievances. Like Source W says: ‘the Pilgrimage of Grace mustered enough support to take
The source depicts Nightingale in a very traditional manner in a way that most people still think about her today, this traditional British heroin is very stereotypical of British culture at this time especially with names such as the ‘ministering angel’ being used to reflect the religious nature of the British Empire during this period. This propaganda to represent her as the ‘lady with the lamp’ was most likely employed by the media to raise morale back in Britain. This would give them a hero or heroine to look up to and bring back hope across Britain which had been lost over the previous years due to military mismanagement such as the Charge of the Light Brigade. This positive portrayal Florence was receiving would also have benefitted ‘The Times’ newspaper in particular more than others, as they had taken to championing her efforts in the Crimean. This was to such an extent that that paper even set up the Crimean fund to raise money for medical and cleaning supplies in Scutari.
This is just another example of how TV has had a negative impact on Presidential elections. Whether it be image or ratings, television has had a negative effect on presidential elections and America may be suffering for it. As a nation we are more likely to choose the better looking candidate even if we aren't so sure about his views and ideals. Elections used to be all about views and ideals and now it has become a popularity contest, of who has the best hair and who gets the better ratings on
The existing franchise laws excluded soldiers from voting due to their lack of a long term residence. And due to the courage shown by the men during the war politicians knew this would have to change and if they changed the law they must include women as they worked very hard in the war to. Politicians knew that women worked very hard during the war and they grew in admiration for them this helped decision to grant women the vote as ultimately it was the MPs who could actually change the law. The resignation of Prime Minister Asquith also helped as the new PM, Lloyd George, was in favour of given the women the franchise. Under Lloyd George the coalition government removed the divisions among parties and encouraged co-operation which made MPs feel that if they did vote yes not all women would vote for the same party through gratitude and so many agreed to vote yes for women’s
Due to a lack of stories, the media made ‘mods’ and ‘rockers’ into folk devils, folk devils are groups of people who are associated with moral panics. The media made people categorise themselves into one of the two groups, this helped in creating the violence between the two groups, consequently meaning that both the ‘mods’ and ‘rockers’ were labelled as ‘troublemakers’ by the public. Item A expresses that moral panics can lead to a range or responses by the public, by agents of social control and by the criminals or deviants themselves. The result in the intervention of the mass media created a negative association against the two groups and an unneeded moral panic for the public on crime that, before the mass media created a moral panic, were nothing to worry about. Although the theory does well at explaining the effects of the mass media, it doesn’t explain why and how they create moral panics; despite this, the theory understands the consequences of moral panics.
Televisions were considered to be anti-war influences because the media showed horrible things happening in Vietnam that cause the public to give less support. The media not only affected the nature of the war to the public but it also changes the minds of Americans on their own people. "Critics in the government, the military, and elsewhere claim that the media was dominated by the antiwar journalists who poisoned the American public against the war by delivering superficial and negative coverage of the conflict. (pg 177 Walter). This shows how Walter noticed that people attentions were grabbed by the over coverage the news released.