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

In this memo, the speaker claims that a society cannot expect any heroes among contemporaneous figures. To support this claim, the reputation of anyone will be stained with obloquy due to the media scrutiny. At first glance, this claim seems paradoxical since media scrutiny may be able to diminish their fames, nevertheless, the claim is an unfair generalization in that it fails to account for other empirical evidences serving to discredit it.

A threshold problem with the speaker’s claim is that its internal logic is questionable. At first impression it would seem that a well-known fact that media scrutiny is so severe that few celebrities have survived from it could obtain utmost confidence in this claim, yet one cannot have a great deal of confidence in explaining the flaws of inaccuracy in media scrutiny Every human beings are not perfect and can make mistakes. Diminishing some celebrities’ reputation might be possible, but it is too hasty to determine that they are not heroes despite their contribution to their own field. For instant, Tiger Woods used to be the Golf Emperor contributing in raising the popularity of Golf to current state. Although he was stigmatized for sexual perversion, it is hard to deny his contributions and still his accomplishments of winning several competition and world records are remarkable enough since no one has defeated his record yet. Thus, it is too hasty to regard no living person could be a hero.

Nevertheless, as the tendency to venerate celebrities who are examined morally are more likely to be adhered by people is pervasive, once their reputation is stained, it is hard to recover it to its prior state. Despite one’s contribution and accomplishments, claiming the one as hero is so controversial that support and culpability will likely to coexist during his or her lifetime. For example, Morgan Freeman had been accused of sexual harrassment recently. Although his contribution to the film industry, by just one media article, his reputation has been stained so hard that many people expected he could not overcome its pressure and actually, many tend not to see him in screen anymore because of his moral inappropriateness. As celebrities have a huge influence to our society, if he keep shown on screen, then social tolerance could be indifferent or even obvious thing later. To inhibit such situations, disinclined manner toward morally inappropriate celebrity is required not to exacerbate our society.

However, giving full support and believe solely depending on media scrutiny can sometimes be vulnerable. For example, #MeToo movement occurred to divulge men’s sexual violence to women and propagate to extirpate tacit but long-lasting sexual inequality. Despite its sincere attempt, there are some women who are using it for obtaining their advantageous position by spreading false information of the counterpart with weening appeal. Mostly, people are likely to be sympathetic and hastily support only one side’s opinion without examining both sides. During this period, some ambitious media will likely to find more provocative sides of the men and tries to induce more rages from people. However, some situation has inversely changed that the woman was charged with making a false accusation, eventually evincing that the man have been attacked with false information by media scrutiny. This case shows that not all media scrutinies are accurate and people should be alerted that they need to rear their reasonable decisions.

In sum, while at first glance, the claim seemed mutually exclusive, but it appears it is not, thus the speaker’s claim has some merit. Nevertheless, no one could deny what has been already accomplished and as such influence to our society cannot be masked, claiming them as a hero could still have a supportive voice. Also, not all media scrutiny means they are conveying only truth without overstatements. Therefore, the correctness of the speaker’s assertion must be determined on a case-by-case analysis.