Nl J 0

passage l: Amy Bruckman wriles .....




Cybersp€ce is not Disneyland. lt's nct 3 polished, perfect place built by p.ofessional des;gners for the public to obedienlly wait on line to passively experience. ft is rnore'tiie a nnge._p"inti-ng pirty. Everyone is making things, there's paint everywhere, and most works only a parent would love. Here and,there, works emerge lhat most people would agree are achieverients of note. variety of work reflects ihe.diversity of participants. An-d everyone woutJ agree, the The ric"tr creaiive s process and the ability for self expression matter more than lhe p;oduct.

On the n€i, everyone- is becoming an arlist.. On the World Wide Web, millions of people are constructing multimedia self-portraits on lhej. home pages. people aOorn tne;r nome pages wiii photos of themselves and their pets, lists of their.favou;te things (web sites, restauranls, ptaces to rollerblade), and news aboui iheir lives. Each home page iJan expression of self. Tne at ti rhe self podrair has never been so popular


The lnternet is a community of aatists with own rituars, rules for incrusion and excrusion lhe conrmunity, and standards for what constilures good work. of course ihe traditionar from 'ts arrs made up of many overlapping artistac communities. The net is fertite :::". ,1u. .:l*uy:. leen of a mynad of such artislic protrleration communities and culiures. As the number t5 ::^r^1"1:.r-ll: Increases, more people or { ommun[Les ate able to ftnd a group lhat suits lh-.n I gave -a lalk on this subject at the 1995 Ars Etect.onica in Linz, Austria. During the questions period, an arlist stood up and delivered a long, indignant speech_ How can you call ordinary people "a(ists"? Adisrs' he said, hord a fundamenra|y differeni rerationship with iociety. Their jo6 is to be critlcal of the broader culture-to commeni on it from a unique perspective. Besides, 20 would you call someone who does science expenments in their basemdnt on Saturdays a "scientist"? My answer was an unequivocal yes_ ,iscience. is just a way of seetng the world, and the world woutd be a better place if more people saw themselvLs n. sci6niists
People are flocking to computer nebrorks nol for a more convenient way to find siock quotes and movie aeviews, but to send email to friends and relalives, to partici'atJ in discussions of issues, 25 to expaess who they are on home pages, people come to the net to parficipaL anr; create, not to receive in{ormation Dassive!),. 'The lnformation Superhighway. is a misnomer. It is not aboLlt information; it is aboui community, participation, and creatlon. -

Tools for individuar artistic creation have rong been widery avairabre-,in industriarized nations, p€per and pdints, pape_r.and pencil, wood and chisels, are aiiordahle to everyonF. as is ddequ.le 30 lree time lo use them. I he tools and the opporlunily f or anistic ct eaLion have long e <islpd, bul a, e not used as often as they could be, The missing ingredient that lhe net contnbutes is audience. People design home pages not to look at alone, bul to present themseives to the wortd. Having an audience motivates creation. Most home pages don't get looked at by very many peopre-but a few friends and reratives is 35 the concept potentia y large audience that matters. And white having an :Ti-91 ll: an essentiar of having.a motivating creation, audrence rs erement in it's the individuals creative processlhat Jnatters more than the product. The main benefit is to the creator, not the viewer, but the vjewer is slill an essential element The net is not a place for 'professionals. to publish and the masses to merelv download. Online, 40 b:loming an arlrst; everyone is a creator. Ihe networ;\ is pro!idrnq new opporluniliL. :^v-e?-::'eerprersion, lor sell ls and demands a new ktnd of ar|sl: the artisli; instigaror, someone !!ho inspires other people to be creative by settrng a positive u"u-jf" ,itn in"i, own work, and providing others with tools, conlext, and support_ That support can be technical, aestheiic, or emotional--encouraging others to believe in their own capabitiijes ancl take the risk of trying to 45 make somF I'lo pprsonally mpJninglu.


Cyberspace is not Disneyland, ll is not a place to wait on line to see the virtual pirates of the Caribbean. li's a piace to bui'ci your own pirates, your own Caribbean, your own seJf ponrall. vour family history, your animation demo, your ihoughtful essay, your silty poem. Online. it is ttue you can download paintings from lhe Louvre--bul much more inleresting is lhe fact that you can upload your own. Or better yet, inspire others lo do so. Passage



Neil postman writes.....

lraq invade Kuwait because cf a lack ol information? lf a hideous war should ensue between lraq and the U,S., will ;t happen because of a lack of information? If children die of starvation._. does it occua because oi a lack of information? Does racism_.. exist because of a lack ol information? lf !/oui chiidren misbehave and bring shame to your family, does it happen because of a lack of information? lf someone in your family has a mentat breakdown, will it happen
because of a lack of informaiion?

-,.what ails us, what causes us lhe mosl mlsery and pain... has nothing to do with the son oi information made accessible by computers. The computer and ils information cannot answer any of the fundamenlal questions we need to address to make our lives more meaningful ani humane. The iomputer cannol provide an organizing moral framework... tt cannot piovide a means of understanding why we are here or why we fight each othea or why decency eltrdes us so oflen, especially when we need it the most. The computer is, in a sense, a magnifiaent ioy that distracts us faom facing what we mosl needed to confront -- spirilual emptiness, knowledge of ourselvas, usable conceptions of the past and future.



Does one blame the computer for this? Of course not_ ll is, after all, only a machine. But it is presented to us, with trumpets blarjng_.. as a technological messiah.Through the computer, lhe 15 heralds say, we will make education better, religion bettea, politics beter, our minds betier __ best of all, ourselves better. This is, ot colrse, nonsense, and only ihe young or the ignorant or the foolish could believe it. I said a moment ago that computers are not to blame foa lhis. And that is true, at least in the sense that we do not blame an elephant fcr ils huge appetite or a stone for being hard or a cloud foi hiding the sun. That !s their nature, and we expect nothing different from 20 them. But the computer has a nature, as well. True, it is only a machine but a ma;hine designed to manipulate and generate information. That is what computers do, and therefore they have an agenda and an unmistakable message.


The message is that through more and more information, more convenienfly packaged, more swiftly delivered. we wlll flnd solutions to our problems. And so aI the brillia;t yotrnglmen and

women, believing this, create ingenious things for the computer to do, hopinq that in this wav. we will become wiser and more decent and more noble. And who can blame lhem? By becoming masters of this wondrous technology, they will acqijire prestige and power and some will even become famous. ln a world populated by people who believe that through more and more informaiion, paradise is attainable, the computer scientist is king. But I maintain thal all ofthis is a monumenial and dangerous waste of human talent and energy. lmagine what might be accomplished if this talent and energy were tumed 10 philosophy, to theology, to the ;ds, to imaginative iiterature oi to education? Who knows what we could learn fro-m such people _ perhaps why there are Wars, and hunger, and homelessness and menlal illness and anger.


As thjngs stand now, the geniuses of compute. technology will give Lls Slar Wars', and tell us ihat is the ansu/er to nuclear war. They will give us artificial intelligence, and te us that this is the way to self-knowledge. They will give us instantaneous global communicaiion, and tell us this is the way io mutual understanding-_. Bui that is only the way of the technician, the fact_mongerer, the information junkie, and the technological idiol.

'saielllte defence system designed to shoot down nuctea. missites befo.c they reach theirtarqei.

NYJC 2004 Reao Fassage 1 and ihen answer ihe followjng questions below. From Paragraph 1: 1a. ldentify the two phrases that the author uses to illuskate her concept of cyberspace. [1]
'1b. How does she use the phrases to develop the concepl of cyberspace? 12]

From Paragraph 2 2. ln your own words, identify two ways by which people express ihemselves on their homepages? I2l From Paragraph 3-8: 3. According to the author, how does cyberspace encourage the "creative process" and "self expression"? Summarize your answer in not more than 120 words. [8]


From Paragraph 9l ldentafy the author's attitude towards uploading. Justify your answer [2] Read Passage 2 and then answer the questions belou

5. What poini is the author trying to make by listing a series oJ questions in the

opening paragraph? I1l From Paragraph 3: 6a. ldeniify the imagery used to describe how we perceive the compLrter [1]
6b. Why is this an inaccurate description of the computer? I2l

From Paragraph 4: 7a. According lo the auihor, what is lhe "message" (line 22) that computerc put forth? I1l
7b. Why is it "dangerous" (line 29) to believe in this message?

From Paragraph 5: B. According to the author, who is the "technica! idiof? [1]
From both passages: 9. Give the meaning of each of the tollowing words as they are used in the passage. You may write the answer in a word or a shod phrase. [5] a. adorn b. myriad c. Unequivocal

d. misnomer e- eludes

Lewis Thomas writes.._
Among the most important eihical dilemmas journaiisis face today are problems 10 do v/ith ihe publlc's right lo know. Joumalists often coniront conflicting responsibilities in this regard: on one side is the journalist's human relaiionship wilh the subject or source, and her duty not to exploil people or treat them contemptuously. The dLrties on the other side are more difilcull to descrilre, or even to identify. Journalists sometimes speak of their obligation to ie a story as

they see il, or their obligation 10 the truth or to the public interest. Or lhey talk about.the public's right to know. lndeed, the Society of Professional Journallsts asserts that the public,s right to know is "the dverriding mission of the mass media" and that "journalisls must be free of obligalion 10 any inleresls other lhan" promoiion oi this right.
Clearly, however, there can be no general right to know a righi to know anything and everyihing. The queslion is what factors are relevant to decidlng wheiher information damaglng to an individual ought to be published. ln the fllm Absence of Malice, a crime suspecl's friend provides an alibi for him to a reporter, claiming the suspecl accompanied her to an arboftion during the time when ihe crime was being committed The friend is emotionaliy unstable and a devout Catholic, and commiis suicide when the slory, including her name, ts published the next day in the local newspaper The reporter ctairns thai the credibility of the soLrrce, in which another innocent person's repulation is at stake, depended on printing the woman's name. Another example is that of a prominent conservalive businessman vacationlng on Florida when his hotel burns down. The wire seruice s1ory lists hirrr arno g those who escaped uninjured and identiiles the holel as a gay resort. The businessman threalens suicide if his name is published in ihe story run by his hometown newspaper. llli.)rld the newspaper publish the story as it is, or without his name, or omitting the gay 3ngle? Or should it killthe story? To decide such cases, several issues are retevani: the importance of the sloryi the likellhoocl and nlasnilude of harm to the individual; the retevance of the disputecl information io the story (car titlr story be usefully tolci without it?) and, finally, the extent to which the person rn questlon has chosen the limelighl or is rcsponsibte for finding himsetf in it. Each of these queslions may be difficult to answer. When we complicaie the iss!e by asking about the appropriateness of reporting ostensibly lrri\/ate behaviorrr (such as sexual aclivity) of a public olficial or publjc flgure, the questions bccome even more difficult. We may agree that the answer to the question "When should repoftei3 viiite about the private lives of publc afficiats?,'is ,,When the behaviaur is relevant ta thei ftlness fot office." BUI agreement about when that condition fulfilled is diffjcult to achieve. There is profound disagreement jn Western society about whether, or to what exieni, 's a per:jon's private character, and character flaws, reveal something signiflcant about his abiljty to lead and to govern.
Nothing is simplified by the iact that the pubticiiy journalists create by their reports radica y changes the public environmeni and may therefore atso alter the answer io the fjtness question So, for example, one might believe that a political leader's sexual peccadilloes are not in and of themselves relevant to his fitness for office. However, once these become public knowledge or the object of public obsession, what was fomerly private behaviour can no longer be considered as such_ When US presidenls Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy carded on with women who were not their wives, it was not public knowledge at leasl par y because journalists of the time chose to exercise discretion about what lhey knew. Some might siill argue that these indiscrelions were not only moralflaws but that th;y undermined tha presidents' public success and greatness_ But unless their sexLral escapade; inlerfered in a direct way - say, by taking up too much time or distracting lhe men from jmportant public b!:iin,'s it is implausible to maintain that such acts, unknown to the public, could be ielevrnt lo evaluating their public success. We may wish lor a kind of moral unity in the Lrniverse according lo which all the virtues go together and all the vices do 1oo _ but, alas, there is no necessary connection bet\,r'een privale morality and public greainess.





Unlike lheir predecessors, contempo€ry journatrsjs have cho;en 1() report on the sexual activilies of polilicians. So they must assume responsibility for their own considerable role not only in helping to determine the course of historicat evenls, bul also in making some things

lrue that mighl no1 have otherwise been irue are relevant to his ab;liiy to lead


such as wheiher a polilician's sexLlal practices

journalists cover these issues, they have little choice but to reporl them ii they hope to remain in business. The competitive pressures defense is widespread- lt is also quite persuasive. At the very least, even if only one media outlet reported a seamy story (one ihal would have remained unknown in earlier times), once reported such stories often take on a life of their own that make ii hard forjournalists to ignore them.

Of course, journalists and news organizations are likely to argue ihal, as long as other

'lhus iar, we have considered journalisiic practjces thal overslep the bounds these generally suggest behaviour that is harmful or offensive to someone covered by ihe media.
Bul they can also include praclices that offend audiences, such as the use of profanity or the publication oi shocking pictures ln some cases, we may find both at once:lhe photographer newspaper readers or ihe viewing audience. Perhaps lhen, lhe right to know needs balanced againsl the possible harm that can be caused by such reporls



Yel it can be argued that the more common problem confronting journalists is not ihe belrayal of sources and subjects bul rather the opposite: a too cozy relationship in whlch both joumalist and source have an interest in remaining on good terms, even ai the cost of other values tfrat are supposed io serue. To be eifective in their respeciive positions, the journalist needs the source, especially when the solrrce is a politician, public olfcial, or some oiher figure with an endurlng role and the pohtician or public official needs the journalist. But such syrnbioiic relationships can endanger the journalist's role as t.uth-seeker and walchdog of the public interest This lension between the joLrrnalists need lo cultivale sources and the impodance of delachment from them can result in a profound conflici of interest and a bias in the way in which evenls are reported or, equally important, noi reported






Ethics nACanpdnion


llpplied Ethics.

R(; I;rct.V

C H. rlrellnan




Bht.kvell nE Lkl.


pApER 2 (50 marks)
Read the passage and then answer all the question.:

-hich follow belor,v. Note that up to flfteen marks will be given for the quality and accuracy of your use of English throughout this paper.
Note: When a question asks for an answer lN YOUR OWN WORDS AS FAR AS pOSStBLE and you select the appropriate material from the passage for your answer, you must still use your own words to express it. Little credit can be given to answers which only copy words or phrases from the passage.

1. ln paragraph '1, what is ihe ethical dilemma or conflict confronting journalists today? Answer in your own words as far as possible. [2rnl 2a. What issues in paragraph 3 must be considered before decjding on what to publish? in your own words as far as possible. l4ml

Answer .

2b. How dc'the examples in paragraph 2 illustrate any 2 of ihe issues you have identified above? Answer in your own words as far as possible. I2ml 3. ln paragraph 4, what is the disagreement in Western society? Answer in your own words as far as possible. [2m]


Explain the author's attitude in his choice of the word .obsession' in line



5a. Explain in your own words as far as possible what the writer means by .We may wish for a kind of moral unity in the universe" (line I2ml


5b. "We may wish for a kind of moral unity in the universe... but alas..." What is the author implying v/ith reference to the words in bold? [1m]
6- Why do the

journalist and the public figure need each other in order .to be effective in their respective posiiions' (line 73)? Answer in your own words as far as possible. I2mJ
7. The passage discusses the media's insistence on the public,s right to know.

What are the potentially harmful effects of this? Summarise in no more than 110 words, using material from paragraphs 2 to B. Use your own words as far as lTml


B- Give the

meaning of the following words as they are used in the passage. you may write your answer in one word or a shod



(a) overriding (line B) (b) fitness (line 40)

(c) undermined (line 45) (d) implausible (line 48) (e) symbiotic (line 76) 10. The writer explores the potentia'ly harmfut elfects ofjournalism arising from the public,s right to know. To whai extent shoutd people in yodr country have the righi to know? Justiiy your answer with reference to the ideas in the text and to your own ideas and experience. 16l