note:Frankly, this is not a demonstration of writing an essay. I was simply practicing writing discussion and argumentative essays before the GP test. Thought of sharing it, albeit the language standard that i possess at the moment is not as good as most of the people.
First i'd write out the scopes, agreements and refutes.
Scope- mass media, journalism.
Agree- mass media is pressured with financial goals, to emphasis on a larger portion of entertainment rather than information; Veracity of a news is difficult to be justified.
Refute- Mass media still serves its purposes.
Introduction paragraph:
Mass media has been accused of trying to set the agenda for the society and the government. Outside of the academic environment, a harsh and seemingly ever-growing debate has appeared, concerning how the mass media distorts the standpoint of a nation and in the meantime engendering negative stereotypes all over the world. It is censured for influencing political behaviours as well. Few would argue with the notion that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics. Another main argumentation is that, can the mass media be trusted with disclosures on anything? While we all agree that full disclosure or an objective reporting would be helpful, this assumes that the mass media would use the information in a thoughtful manner, a dubious manner)
Supporting paragraph I:
Large segments of the mass media are believed to be pressured, let us say, by financial goals, therefore it has adopted "infotainment"(stories that are short on information and long on entertainment) as their standard. A story's drama content is what appeared most germane. As a result, the mass media focus on trivial, pruprient, incidents. This obscures the truth and speads outward in a kind of journalistic law, in which bad reporting drives out good reporting. Unfortunately, one cannot rely on a large portion of the mass media to practice the responsible, thoughtful journalism exemplifications.
Supporting paragraph II:
Indeed, story always comes first than the facts. Reportings now are presumed to have offer only a whiff of authenticity. Audiences now are often confused by the reliability of the veracity of the press. In addition, there are so much news so much the same every now and then. New templates are so similar worldwide. Much of the international coverage is now handled by agencies, so pictures and sources are more similar than they are different. Context and background are sacrificed regularly to the demands of the quick headline and easy soundbite.
Rebuttal:
I concede that the journalism is in question of many audiences. However, there might have much undistorted images than we have known, as a matter of fact, some of us simply prejudice against the mass media and in the meanwhile have absolutely no clue at all about the falsity of the press. In addiction, to prevent the institutionalized subjective reportings, many departments and institutions are already on the move. Another source of this problem is dued to the passive audiences and receivers. Propaganda activities of the mass media approach directly to the mass society and general public, sometimes compelling the people to be passive towards the press. Gradually, we lose the propensity to leach the messages delivered by the media.
Conclusion:
In despite of all the commentary above, mass media still remains as a sticking point of transmitting all the current affairs throughout the world. Without mass media, it would take months for us to realise what is happening at the other end of the world. In sum, i'd conclude that Objective reporting is not dead, but in a risk of fading away.
.JPG)
*thanks to Chris for this unexpected picture.
+-+Copy.jpg)
+-+Copy.jpg)
+-+Copy.jpg)
+-+Copy.jpg)
+-+Copy.jpg)
+-+Copy.jpg)
.jpg)