media
Posted by: stewart bookworm
16th Mar 2010 01:02pm
Have noticed how the media react to high profile celebrities. They create a mountain out of an mole hill. Referring to their treatment of Laura Bingle. All it needed was an exclamation from both. But no, they had to hound here everywhere. Also with the Premier of South Australia. Were they interested in his political statements, no, more in the line of his interest with someone else? They even tried to stage a meeting just to get a reaction. Another case is with Pauline Hanson. I could never understand her politics because the media have distorted her views. Even with the false photo they did not offer an apology until to late. We can go further back to Lindy Chaberlain and how the media were trying her before she was formally charged. In conclusion if you get on the wrong side of the media they can distort the facts and destroy a beautiful relationship with immunity.
Help Caféstudy members by responding to their questions, or ask your own in Café Chat, and you will get the chance of earning extra rewards. Caféstudy will match these and donate equally to our two chosen Australian charities.
Comments 1
ApHeX
We have to remember that despite them telling us otherwise, journalists and news editors are hired to sell stories. A sensationalist headline on the front page of a newspaper will cause more people to buy it, which means more money. If some of those new readers continue to buy the paper daily, its a new line of revenue. News Ltd is a prime example. They are co-owners of NRL, yet every major, damaging story regarding the NRL comes from a News Ltd paper. They make more money off those extra papers sold than average game attendances. And a major story can stay in the news for weeks or months, meaning more money every day. Example: News Ltd. insist in their stories that Storm have to sell players. First major player that is sold results in News Ltd then running stories questioning the legality and need for the sale. They push for the sale then complain when it happens. We get told that they are just reporting news for the publics sake, but too often the stories getting published are about things that appeal to a small minority. But the right ambiguous headline can appeal to everyone, whether or not they share an interest in the story. I have found that the most honest, clean, REAL news stories can be found online. Even Tabloid websites are different from their papers, as you can't promote a headline in cyberspace as you can in a newsagency. Independent news sites such as WikiLeaks, Drudge and FARK have more substance than any university educated "Journalist" you will find in the Daily Telegraph or Today Tonight. Agendas seem to be left at the door and not put online as blatantly as in Newspapers.