I was reading the papers the other day about some gang fight where two youths were injured. Can't remember which one? It was the one that involved the student from Raffles Institution. I bet you can remember it now. And why not? The media subtly emphasized the educational institution the youth was from. Yet, if I were to ask you which school did the other youth come from, what would you respond?
You would probably think 'he got go to school meh?' After all, there was no mention of his school. What you just displayed or had participated in, is the effect of media on the unknowing. If you were able to find the article and read it again, you would realize only RI is mentioned and not any other schools. Subconsciously, you would recognize that as students from RI cannot be involved in gang fights; otherwise why would it be mentioned in the news article?
If that were true, the reverse would also be true. It is alright for students from other schools to be involved in gang fights. Most of you would vehemently object to that statement. But, most of you wouldn't object to the earlier statement either.
So which is which? Is your judgement being clouded by information, or lack of thorough information in the article? Is there an underlying presumption that it is a major head-turner for students from RI to be involved in gang fights?
If these were true, what about the other articles that you have read? Are you basing them on presumptions as well? Or personal knowledge? Or authenticated articles backed up by facts and statistics?
You decide.
