Hey,
I was wondering if someone can give me some ideas for the following prompt:
"Press should be held accountable for presenting both sides of every issue."
Weighing in as a "S" mcat taker for this section for 2 mcats. That's right, the one section no one cares about, that's the one where I just clean up.
Anyway, here are suggestions.
1) define each major term in the first paragraph. "press being defined as journalists and other public speakers and writers that are not compensated by a vested interest" (that is, a Pfizer spokesman should not be included in this statement and should not be required to discuss how bad Pfizer does things). "should" infers that this is not an absolute but rather something that would be better if it occurred. "held acountable" meaning that there would be some negative ocurrence if both sides of an argument were not held up, i.e. prison time, fine, slap on the wrist. "both sides" is interesting, it assumes that every issue can be broken down into one of two alternatives. Either you were speeding, or you were not. Either an action is good for the environment, or it is not. no gray areas in between. "every issue". How is an "issue" defined without spending too much time on minute details? what about the typical pro-union person who is against the union in this one area? Do we support the pro-environmental person who owns five large houses although some might see this as hypocritical that must be addressed as a separate issue?
Next, discuss "Agree" - discuss possibly that the press have a large impact on persons who get most info from the press, that it is in the interests of society to allow persons to understand both sides of an "issue" and determine for themselves which has more merit.
"disagree". That said, it is difficult to determine who exactly the "press" is, and to determine how to hold them to a standard. If the press includes all paid writers who are not clearly paid by one "side" (i.e. company spokesperson), is the freelance writer a member of the "press"? Or the company executive who speaks at a community event? The danger of regulating the "press" is that due to ambiguity of who exactly is "press", many individuals may be less willing to share information for fear of getting in trouble.
"bring these together". In some instances, the press should discuss both sides of an issue; specifically, where there is limited ability to obtain information such as a radio program for the blind, or a radio show in a country that has limited radio programs. However, one must be careful in organizing the "enforcement" of press providing "both sides of the story" in order to promote open sharing of information, even if all information on both sides of the story is not immediately available.
good luck!
