How do you feel about the way the press has handled C19?
Is it a continuation down the truly horrifically over-intrusive road that has been peddled for years by an establishment that prefers sensationalism over substance?
Are the stories that are being published factually questionable, or published before due process can occur, due to their emotive nature?
Was the Panic Buying stirred by the press's sentiment and phraseology?
Does repeat utilisation of 'According to' when relating to accessible stats add a subtext of mistrust?
Or
Has the press expose the idiosyncrasies and inaccuracies of government policy in this pandemic?
Do people want/ need to be able to personify/personalise the sheer number of deaths to rationalise them?
Does that sort of reporting mean people are more likely to listen to the severity of the consequences of selfish actions?
Discuss.
To include all branches of the mainstream media- and anything else you feel fits the brief of 'the press'/ 4th Estate
How do you feel about the way the press has handled C19?
Is it a continuation down the truly horrifically over-intrusive road that has been peddled for years by an establishment that prefers sensationalism over substance?
Are the stories that are being published factually questionable, or published before due process can occur, due to their emotive nature?
Was the Panic Buying stirred by the press's sentiment and phraseology?
Does repeat utilisation of 'According to' when relating to accessible stats add a subtext of mistrust?
Or
Has the press expose the idiosyncrasies and inaccuracies of government policy in this pandemic?
Do people want/ need to be able to personify/personalise the sheer number of deaths to rationalise them?
Does that sort of reporting mean people are more likely to listen to the severity of the consequences of selfish actions?
Discuss.
To include all branches of the mainstream media- and anything else you feel fits the brief of 'the press'/ 4th Estate