Prompt: The media pay too much attention to the lives and relationships of celebrities such as actors, singers or footballers. They should spend more time reporting the lives of ordinary people instead. To what extend do you agree or disagree?

The rush exchange information is monopolized by media nowadays. Illustrious people are exposed to public regularly although some people argue that media should focus on spreading of common people instead. I firmly believe that media have more advantages if they report ordinary people rather than expose outstanding people. This is because common people provide rewarding of moral values and tangible condition of human whereas the news of famous people provides more hedonism lifestyle recently. Ċ Blowing up ordinary people as an object of news brings viewer to realize moral value. This can educate citizens because ordinary people especially who live under poverty line create the sense of gratefulness. For instance, a youngster in South-Eastern Africa, William Kamkwanba, inspired other children in his village because he build a series of windmills to generate electricity and attracted the attention of media. As a result, many teenagers were inspired to learn science. From this case, moral value like the way of person to deliver aid can be emerged. Ċ On the other hand, the news of outstanding people supplies luxury, redundancy, and comfortable zone which cause our citizen following their hedonism lifestyle. It is evidence that most of famous lifestyles influence the viewers to follow their manner like using well-know branded product as en extravagant activity. Consequently, the citizen is created as a hedonism person. Ċ In conclusion, reporting ordinary people shows positive impact to improve the sense of moral value like gratefulness. Where possible,the media should provide the information in balance position to expose famous or ordinary people.