Mar 5, 2016 | 0 comments

Mar 5, 2016 | Miscellaneous | 0 comments



Table of Contents


1) Habermas’s concept of the public sphere. 3

2) Digital Manipulation. 3

3) Graham’s View of Sexual Content In Films. 4



1) Habermas’s concept of the public sphere

It can be said that most of the tenets of insurance are based on Habermas’s concept of the public sphere. According to Herbamas, the public sphere allows all people despite their social status and who may consider themselves to be private individuals to interact and come together. He further states that for this to happen three components must come to place that is the status, the common concern and the inclusivity.

  • Internet and status: the internet has allowed people to come together, stay in touch and build friendships and businesses despite the social status. Social media for example has a complete disregard for status, often ridiculing even those who are highly regarded in society and allowing communication between the high class society and the common people.
  • Recent discussions and popularity of blogs, especially political and social blogs have increased the common concern. groups of individuals are able to come together despite distance and social status to share common interests and concerns
  • The internet has breached the barriers of inclusivity, that is individuals who are considered private for example celebrities and political figures are now approachable through social media, blogs and other arenas of the internet.

2) Digital Manipulation

There are several ethical issues surrounding the issue of digital manipulation. In several instances, there have been claims that digital manipulation alters the reality and in doing so changes how we see our history and future. However, it is also important to note that in some cases digital manipulation is not only acceptable but also vital. For example, where the photographs are being used to draw a campaign or entice contributions towards a specific plea. In this case, the photos become the centre of psychological and emotional drawing. For this reason, they need to be manipulated to draw out the right emotions which in turn translate to the success of the campaign. The best example would be the breastfeeding campaign that has taken over globally. Despite knowing the benefits and importance of breastfeeding, it is only when digitalized photos of women breastfeeding were taken that the campaign took on a frenzied approach.

Furthermore, where digital manipulation is only used to enhance contrasts and bring out the sharpness of the photographs, it is acceptable. This is often done when the photographer wishes to draw attention to a particular image in the photograph rather than those in the background. It can therefore be said that where digital manipulation enhances creativity rather than change the reality of the photograph it is acceptable.

3) Graham’s View of Sexual Content in Films

Graham argues that the use of sexual content and violence in films is utterly harmful.  He insists that exposure to such images and films corrupt individuals and film viewers. He is of the strict opinion that all forms of sexual content and violence should be not just minimized but completely done away with. The troubles of the society and community such as increased violence and sexualized young people can all be traced to exposure to the gratuitous use of sexual content and violence in film.

Grahams view is not ideal, but in an overly sexualized industry it holds some truths. Realistically, there can be no films and success without sexual content. However, producers often cross the line and bring too much sexual content destroying the story. Sexual content should be used to enhance the story line and this sho0uld be done in moderation. 


Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Harris, C. R. (September 01, 2009). Digitization and Manipulation of News Photographs. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 6, 3, 164-174.

Graham, G. (2001). Evil and Christian ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.