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

No matter when it is now or in the past, individuals are regarded as heroes because what they have contributed. What the media scrutiny functions very often is like a “detective” investigating the extent to which the “heroes” deserves admiration. It could help identify a “fake” hero when someone does not deserve the honor. Nonetheless, media scrutiny is not the reason for a “hero” to get or lose his/her reputation. Therefore, I disagree with the claim.

Not everyone whose reputation will be abated due to media scrutiny. Individuals got admired because of the feat they have done. If a hero really did what is known and deserves the reputation, the media investigation is not threatening. His/her fame will not dwindle because of the media. Take Stephen Hawking for instance. Despite his physical boundaries, he had made significant contributions to the field of physics. He is surely a hero for being a great mind and he indisputably deserves it and no media inquiry will harm his standing. There are many heroes in any field. They are highly regarded for the good deeds they actually did, and their reputation will not be destroyed by the media. As we can see, it is not always the case that the reputation of a hero will be diminished because of media scrutiny.

Moreover, though a person’s reputation is diminished, he/she cannot be regarded as a hero anymore. Like what I mentioned above, heroes are honored as heroes for particular reasons. Their fame may be decreased because of some extraneous disgraced stories dug out by the media. Nevertheless, if the particular reasons for an individual to be honored as a hero are still true, the nonessential negative stories would not vacillate his/her standing as a hero. For example, say, a firefighter who saved over 30 lives during the 9/11 incident. He undoubtedly is a hero. At the same time, the media said that he was actually an alcoholic. Will being an alcoholic change the fact that he saved more than 30 lives? The answer is “no.” People may realize the firefighter was not as perfect as they thought; still, he is a hero. Therefore, as long as the particular reasons for someone to be a hero do not change, the media scrutiny may cause the reputation of someone to decrease, but he/she could still be regarded as a hero.

On the other hand, the reputation of someone can be destroyed when he/she deceives the society and does not deserve the title. In some cases, an individual is honored as a hero because people think that he/she has done some feats. Then the media comes in investigating the hero and finds out that he/she does not really deserve the honor. The media scrutiny now helps identify the fake heroes. In cases like this, the fame of the fake heroes will be diminished due to media scrutiny. But this happens only when the so-call heroes are not really heroes in the first place. The media just help reveal the truth and does not cause them to lose their reputation.

In conclusion, what an individual has done give a society the particular reasons to honor him/her as a hero rather than the media investigation. A hero may or may not have some nonessential disgraced stories for the Media to reveal. Regardless of the media scrutiny, as long as the particular reasons considered for an individual to be a hero are true, he/she can still be regarded as a hero. Media scrutiny neither creates nor undermines heroes. I therefore disagree with the claim and the reason on which the claim is based.