Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
It Is No Longer Possible For A Society To Regard Any Living Man Or Woman As A Hero - With A Free Essay Review
Prompt: “Claim: It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero. Reason: The reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.”
"Reputation" and "Media Scrutiny" are closely related words; the first one takes a man to the summit while the later always tries to push him down from there. Any common man is regarded a hero only by his accomplishments which make him stand out among the rest. Once he is raised to the position of a hero, the media's eyes start gazing at his activities. This scrutiny into the life of the hero may at times damage his reputation but for that reason we cannot totally keep away from regarding any living man or woman as hero. This is because every human being is prone to do mistakes but when heroes do, it comes to the limelight conquering the headlines of the newspapers; but their accomplishments are still there holding good reputation. Another fact which adds to this is, today's public are more aware and they are not misguided by any information and they always know media mostly exaggerates things.
First consider the respect any golf learner would have for Tiger Woods, the American golf player. He is the youngest player to recieve Gland Slam and the only one who achieved it three times. He is a "role model", a "hero" for anyone who wants to learn golf. Media din't leave him too. He was alleged of having extramarital relationship. He was annoyed at every interview with the media persons. He always speaks about the games and people are always more interested in knowing his personals. This disturbed him a lot, but he is not totally out of fame. Besides the media scrutiny, we still speak of him just because he is a hero. So his reputation as a golf player still stands in our minds.
Though the impacts of media scrutiny about any hero as in case Tiger Woods does not affect the reputation, it is true only when the scrutiny reveals something of the personal life and not about their path of accomplishments. For example if the media scrutiny reveals that a celebrity has won at a horse race by injecting drugs to horse or a player has won a match by using performance enhancing drugs then, that would surely damage the reputation and bring them down from their position as "heroes". As in case of Maria Jones, when she admitted the use of drugs, she was banned from taking part in any more games and the medals were also seized.
From the stated examples another major factor responsible for anyone holding a position of a hero is the public. It is they who decide whether the scrutiny is worthy to prove anyone is not worthy of the fame. They are not just misguided by any wrong information. As in the former case they do not disregard Tiger Woods because of his personal issues and in the latter case they do not accept Maria Jones anymore.
So I would like conclude that though the media scrutiny affects the reputation of a hero, we cannot totally avoid considering anyone as hero. Their genuine accomplishment are more worthy than the small flaws focused big by the media. "To Err is Human; To forgive is God"
So the small mistakes of the heroes are not worthy when juxtaposed with their achievements.
There are two main questions that you need to answer here: 1. Is it true that the reputation of anyone who is subjected to media scrutiny will eventually be diminished? 2. If it happens that a person’s reputation is diminished, does that mean she or he cannot be regarded as a hero?
Your answer to the first of these questions is not explicit or direct enough. You say the “scrutiny into the life of the hero may at times damage his reputation.” That implies that you think that the reason on which the claim is based is false. Say so. You think only the reputation of some people will be diminished under media scrutiny. Say that. It follows that you think either that some possible heroes have not made the kind of mistakes that are liable to damage their reputation or that the media is not always effective in ferreting out their mistakes. Say that too. The whole argument is implied by what you say, but none of it is explicitly stated in the essay. Try to make every aspect of your argument as explicit as possible.
Your answer to the second question is ostensibly “no.” You claim that sometimes even if a hero’s reputation is diminished by wrongdoing of one kind or another, that does not necessarily mean that her or his status as a hero will be negatively impacted. Again, you need to make that argument explicit. It would also be helpful to explain why you think the public might forgive the crimes or misdemeanors or peccadilloes of their heroes. You offer a partial explanation of this point. In your view, as long as the misdeed is not related to the reasons for which the hero was chosen as a hero in the first place, then the hero can remain a hero. You devote a sizable portion of your essay to illustrating this point by way of two examples (the positive example of Tiger Woods, and the negative example of Maria Jones). In my view, I think you devote too much space to these illustrative examples. I think your essay would be argumentatively more interesting and comprehensive if you addressed other reasons why the public might not be so moved by the scandals created by the media as to abandon their heros.