Through an in-depth examination of the progressive shift in reporting standards, delivery tactics, and the non-partisan presentation of facts to the public, the point where miscommunication stems from should become clear. This analysis should consider three key areas where misinterpretation flourishes: monetary gain, legitimate error, and the government’s heavy hand.
To gain a more comprehensive viewpoint on how the dynamics of news reporting and media shifted, it’s essential to start from the onset of employing manipulation tactics in news and media. So when did it all take a turn for the worse? When did the lines between media, journalism, facts, advertising, politics, and the pursuit of profit start to blur together, in a polluted evolution to become what we now know as the ‘news’?
Did the diminishing of science in the public’s eye start with its unwanted involvement in the ad industry? A time when stark claims of product hype promise the authenticity of their product with the backing of science, most of which were lies. Or was the beginning of the end of news as we knew it always a predestined fate?
I feel the topic of your article is unclear. Are you looking at how information dissemination to the public has changed the way the public view the news. Or are you looking at how the lack of scientific facts in news has changed the way news is disseminating information. You seem to have a lot of ideas for this topic. I'm sure everything you're mentioning plays a role in how modern news media works, but without a clear thesis this topic can easily get off track. I think you need to find what the core of your argument is and structure the rest of this topic around it. If you do that it should lead into the rest of the points. – Blackcat1304 years ago