In this age of intensive media coverage, it is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero.

The statement asserts that with the effective coverage of media, no living hero can rise again. The unspoken assumption of the writer is that every human being has his/her own foibles. Having their weak points been revealed, individuals cannot be qualified as a hero. I disagree with the assertion. First, although some misbehavior can tarnish one’s reputation forever, people recognize their heroes as individuals who made great contributions to their society rather than what personal life they had. Secondly, it is because of the media itself that many heroes had the opportunity to be known globally.

To begin with, with the advent of the media, whether from the scandal mongering, sensationalism, or Iconoclastic attitude, the media tried hard to make divulge personal flaws of the popular people. While audience cannot be indifferent to shocking news, the profit-directed media concentrates on tarnishing one’s reputation to attract more and more audiences. It shows no mercy for the living heroes nor are the old established heroes immune to them. Consider Benjamin Franklin. Media laid bare the fact that he was a slaveholder, and he was directly involved in the slave trades. His newspaper featured the slaves for sale. Thus, we see that he has imperfections to be known as a perfect hero.

However, heroes are symbolized for the specific contributions they made for their society and their personal foibles does not necessarily cloud their position. The idealist approach _to define heroes as perfect persons in all dimensions of their lives _ has no use in the current society. Nowadays, people accept their heroes with all their foibles. Benjamin Franklin might not be the symbol of a human right activity. But he made invaluable contributions as a scientist, inventor, politician, and a leader, which stands firmly enough in the history that we recognize this man as a hero in particular fields of his endeavors.

Furthermore, coming back to our era, the media even helps heroes to emerge and become famous. Again the media has a financial reason to provide grounds for someone to become known as a hero. Audience cannot be indifferent to someone who made a great contribution to the humanity. For instance, think about Malala. A girl in one Pakistani villages gains a global reputation. Despite the threat of Taliban forbidding the education of women, Malala compromised her life to educate the local women. Beholden to the media, now she has a global reputation as the youngest winner of the Nobel Prize.

In short, as discussed, the media’s attitude toward heroes is a double edged sword. Media provides grounds for heroes to be known as such. At the same time, it tries to divulge foibles and scandals to disrepute the heroes for the sake of its revenues. After all, heroes do not need to be perfect in all dimensions of their life, and it is enough for a hero to have a significant contribution to for others. Therefore living heroes can exist.