Based on the example of the Amos Yee case, we would like to demonstrate and analyze the work of the media towards the definition of deviation, or more simply how the media affect the formation of the generally accepted norms of behavior. In general, the media always overestimated an importance to the public opinion. The journalists are always trying to build information in the form, in which it will be taken by as many people as possible. In this case, it turns out that many of the events, and many of the individuals are a bit exaggerated in their deeds. The media as a result of the transfer of information have a broad impact on the recipients. Experts studying the media, are considering the overall impact through consideration of the main activities of the mass media. In academic circles, there is used a notion of "media functions," and their impact is determined as the "mass media roles." A lot of questions arise in connection with varying degrees of exposure of the major media. Media due to the spread of the specifics have an impact on the mass consciousness of ordinary people. In such a situation, the media in fact completely manipulate people's minds, to indicate that the behavior is common, and what is a deviation from it. And in this situation, there are victims of excessive burdening of events on the part of the media. One of these people, in my opinion is Amos Yee from Singapore.
First of all, we would like to talk about strengthening of deviance in the media. This increase indicates that a significant proportion of those activities that are considered deviant in society, is an unintended consequence of censure control, the public reaction to the media products, determined by the existing stereotypes. According to the theory of deviance amplification, distortion of information and ignorance of features of various kinds of minorities in mass society generate an inappropriate response to what is perceived as deviant. The result of this type of reaction is the further strengthening of deviance. In other words, the societal reaction in combination with deviant reaction generate "a spiral of deviance", which may be exacerbated by relatively minor deviance samples. For example, the concept of deviancy amplification has played a useful role in studies of the reaction of law enforcement agencies on the use of drugs and sexual offenses. It has been argued that the identification of drug addicts with evil or immorality leads to the adoption of legislative acts and certain actions of police, which resulted in the fact that the people who use drugs were placed into the category of deviants or perpetrators, which in turn gives rise to calls for further action and a new cycle of interventions by the police. The theory of the spiral of deviance was criticized by John Ditton on the grounds that it does not show how this spiral eventually terminates or reduces or how individuals come out of them. The theory of deviance amplification is associated with the theory of "labeling" and the concept of stigma, due to the existence of crime and deviance. This theory, being quite acceptable in relation to certain crimes may be valid for other analysis. In fact, the public reaction to crime is much more volatile and uncertain than that assumed by the theory of deviance.
But it is necessary to distinguish the two concepts of deviance amplification and a deviant behavior. The starting point related to deviant behavior can be the concept of social norm, which is understood as the limit, the measure of permissible behavior or activities of people. Deviant behavior consists in making a social choice: when a person who set a goal of social behavior has real possibilities of achieving them, they just could use other tools to achieve them. For instance, some people pursuing illusory dreams of wealth or power sometimes use socially proscribed items, and sometimes illegal, and are either offenders or criminals. Another kind of deviation from the norm is a defiance and protest, demonstrative rejection of the values and standards accepted in the community, inherent revolutionaries, who are actively struggling against a society, in which they are. In all these cases, the deviation appears a result of the inability or unwillingness of individuals to adapt to the environment and its requirements. Based on the above, a deviant behavior could not be described better than through the case of a young rebellious blogger from Singapore named Amos Yee.
However, to the case of a Singaporean teenager the most suitable is a sociological term “Moral panic”. It is a social phenomenon, which consists in the spread of mass hysteria about something in the society (whether it is an ideology, the tendency of development of society, a person or group of people), allegedly threatening the security of the society or its moral values. The main features of a moral panic are the belief that the behavior of a social group or an individual, who caused panic, has a negative impact on society. The requirement to "immediately take strict measures" usually is unnecessarily rigid in comparison with the real threat posed by a given individual. However, the majority of the society agree that they are in the face of grave danger. It is not necessary that all the members of society without exception have been convinced of this - enough to have a small but organized and persistent promoters of the group, and the inability of the scared victims to give them an adequate response. Moral panic, as a rule, very quickly comes to naught, and is forgotten after the termination of the discharge of hysteria in the media, or after the appearance of other popular topics for discussion in the community.
We believe that the whole case of Amos Yee was perceived by the press extremely harshly and critical. We want to say specifically that the Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who made the so-called Singapore’s "economic miracle", has been criticized by a teenager in a social network right almost immediately after his death. It is a fact against which nobody argues. As for the Prime Minister, it is not for anyone a secret that he ruled with, say so, tough hand. If the American media called him “a soft dictator”, it was only because they respected his merits of an economic nature. He became famous for his rigidity and intransigence in the fight against corruption, which he was able to successfully eradicate, so having made possible a rapid economic growth. On the question of "How did you manage to fight corruption?", he replied, "Begin with the fact that you lock up three of your friends. (Lee, 1998)
You know exactly for what, and they know why". It is also a fact that Singapore's dictator managed to successfully lift the economy. Progress in the development of Singapore has been achieved at the expense of civil liberties. And although older people who remember the country before coming to power of Lee Kuan Yew, are willing to put up with some restrictions, the youth can no longer accept them. Amos Yee is just a teenager, who expressed his opinion about Lee Kuan Yew as a dictator. There was nothing remarkable, in our opinion. In his video on the Internet there were other offensive statements, which touched the feelings of Christians. The world's media, in turn, determined the teenager in the category of offenders of the general social norms. He became thus a deviate for the entire world. In our opinion, in this case the media overestimated deviation, placing Amos Yee into the category of one of the most hated people (Ramzy, 2015).
In addition, I would like to consider this case in terms of classicism and positivism. Positivism bases any knowledge exclusively upon empirical experiences and facts. In turn, classicism does not cast an emotional perception of things. That is, from the point of view of classicism, if Lee Kuan Yew was really a great reformer, who in a relatively short time raised Singapore's economy to the world level, the fact that he was a dictator in this pales into insignificance. It is viewed through the eyes of journalists, who put all of it from the point of view of classicism. However, when viewed through the eyes of a young Yee, his actions can be explained by the concept of positivism, which states that it is a fact. If Lee Kuan Yew oppressed civil rights, even for the benefit of economic development, he was still a dictator and that no one can argue. So in this case, it turns out that the criticism of the Prime Minister is quite justified.
As for the trial, it is also worth noting that the laws, which limit the manifestations of hatred, under which the case of Singaporean teenager falls, were introduced just under Lee Kuan Yew, ostensibly to guarantee peace among the multi-ethnic population of Singapore and the prevention of racial clashes that occurred in the country in the first years after independence. We believe that the case itself is directly intra-process, which should not have interested the world community. But the world's media have decided to inflate the Singapore’s scandal to the world, so that the people heard about Amos Yee in almost every little corner of the world.
References
Lee, K. (1998). The Singapore story. Singapore: Prentice-Hall.
Ramzy, A. (2015). Singapore Frees Amos Yee, 16, Blogger Who Criticized Lee Kuan Yew. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 11 March 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/07/world/asia/singapore-amos-yee-lee-kuan-yew.html?_r=0
