1. i think this is a bad thing as it will encourage companies to try and make their stories stand out and it may begin to become inaccurate and try and make up rumours to make their stories sell and get publicity. Smaller companies will have no publicity as the bigger companies get all the footage. An example of this was the frantic sale of Fernando Torres to Chelsea on transfer deadline day, in which sky and the bbc were the front runners in finding out informations and only after they brought news would other companies have a say and be able to broadcast. the bigger companies had different stories for example sky said he was not at training with liverpool and on his way to london where as BBC showed him coming into training early.
2. information is portrayed differently. for example the Torres deal, sky had two men, one at Liverpool and one at Chelsea reporting on any breaking news, where as in the studio people were ringing around for any kind of information to broadcast. BBC updated their website regularly with any information obtained. Twitter was also used as famous people would post what's happening for example Liverpool players or friends of Torres etc and these were then re tweeted.
3. yes, some stories are made biased on purpose to get ratings, like sky made up rumours about Torres leaving etc. this made more people tune into the station. this is more so in national stations. like lybia tv will say that rebels are wrong and negligent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu5rTuqfSEo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8P3vWRBfxw&feature=related
No comments:
Post a Comment