The media should limit how much bad news they report because it discourage people from doing activities which usually involve very little sick. Do you agree or disagree?

There is no doubt that the media has played an important role at this time. So, any institution can obtain information as you like. However, most news coverage tends to exaggerate events occurring all over the world. This may cause little risk to people

As far as my experience is concerned, many people follow real news, even if someone tends to announce informal news. For example, the crime rate may be the main factor impeding people who want to visit the city. Another example is that terrorism attacks local residents, stops activities, and takes a rest for a while. So, in my opinion, the government should restrict some truly unpleasant news.

On the other hand, there are good reasons to believe that the media should not limit its coverage. First of all, it may be because the information is freely available for its own analytical decisions. Second, people have to be told to understand what is going near at hand. In addition, they must be able to judge on their own which risks are involved in a particular activity. For example, it seems to me that I will not stop driving when an accident happens on the road, I like driving cautiously and going forward.

In a nutshell it is important to recognize that the media is responsible for reporting all major events. As a result, people felt their work was enjoyable. In addition, it also attracted their confidence in journalists. And that increased their freedom to act in the way that best suits them.

As it becomes a topic of celebrity's private life, some of us will be satisfied to agree that celebrity private life should be a restriction on the media. However, some people agree that celebrities' private lives should not be limited by the media once this agreement is over. Since both parameters have valid points, there is no simple solution to this parameter. In my opinion, I agree that celebrities should not limit the private life of celebrities to media, as celebrities have privately owned rights rather than being open to the world. Celebrities should be media as they are

Regarding online communication, there are some points that seem to have agreement or disagreement with others, but there is no one in between. This is because when you are online you may share opinions or sometimes do not agree with others. I do not think so. Both are very unlikely because they tend not to go offline. Our interests and values ​​will change as usual. We often support or disagree on the web, often because we can not provide more sophisticated work in the media we often use. We are inherently lazy creatures. Entering comments about complex issues in your spare time is not the best way to create complex words. Making anger and keeping in touch with our partners is a quicker solution than identifying small differences and recognizing commonalities. The problem with writing is whether to click the "Like" button or not.

In the UK, do people generally respect and consider each other in public places? (Score on a scale of 1 to 6; 1 means 'strong and strong', 6 means 'strongly oppose'.) People of a certain group in the UK will have no respect for others Do you tend to treat it openly? Which group of public do you think they think they tend to deal with others in the UK and lack respect and consideration among the public? (Young man, middle age, old man, white man, minority ethnic group, British, immigrant, working people, unemployed, retired, rich, poor