Read each passage carefully and answer the questions that follow it
All over the world till lately, and in most of the world still today, mankind has been following the course of nature, that is to say, it has been breeding up to the maximum. To let nature take her extravagant course in the reproduction of the human race may have made sense in an age in which we were also letting her take her course in decimating mankind by the casualties of war, pestilence and famine. Being human, we have at last revolted against that senseless waste. We started to impose on nature’s heartless play a humane new order of our own. But, when once man has begun to interfere with nature, he cannot afford to stop half way. We cannot, with impunity, cut down the death-rate and at the same time allow the birth-rate to go on taking nature’s course. we must consciously try to establish an equilibrium or, sooner or later, famine will stalk abroad again

The endeavor to maintain proper standard of fairness in journalism must be pursued. It is fatally easy for the journalist to deviate from the straight path. There is his natural desire to ‘make a story’ and insidious temptation to twist facts to square with his paper’s policy. Both are as indefensible as the framing of misleading headlines for the sake of effect. The conscientious journalist must check any tendency to bias, and guard against the dangers inherent in personal antipathies or friendships, and in traditional oppositions between rival schools of thought. When a political opponent, whose stupidity habitually provokes attack, makes an effective speech, honesty requires that he be given credit for it. Where personal relationships might make it easier and more congenial to keep silent than to criticize, the journalist must never forget his duty to the public and the supreme importance of recording the truth

Time was when boys used to point toy guns and say ‘Bang’. Now, they aim real guns and shoot one another. Nearly 4,200 teenagers were killed by firearms in 1990. Only motor vehicle accidents kill more teenagers than firearms and the firearms figures are rising. The chance that a black male between the ages of 15 and 19 will be killed by a gun has almost tripled since 1985 and almost doubled for white males, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics.

Who could disagree with Health and Human Services Secretary, Donna Shalala, when she pronounced these statistics ‘frightening and intolerable'? In the shameful light of this ‘waste of young lives’ in Ms Shalala’s words, an often-asked question seems urgently due to be raised again. Would less violence on television, the surrounding environment for most children and young adults make violence in actual life less normal, less accepted, less horrifying?

 

It may be difficult to prove an exact correlation between the viewer of fantasised violence and the criminal who acts out violence after turning off the set. But if the premise of education is granted-that good models can influence the young, then it follows that bad models can have an equivalent harmful effect. This is the reasonable hypothesis held, by 80 per cent of the respondents to a recent Time Mirror [poll who think that violent entertainment is ‘harmful’ to society. Witness enough mimed shootouts; see enough ‘corpses’ fall across the screen and the taking of a human life seems no big deal. Even if a simple causal relationship cannot be established between watching violence and acting it out, is not this numbed sensitivity reason enough for cutting back on the overkill in films and TV?