In the lecture last week, an uproar of laughter and confusion occured after two students began arguing just before Lee Salter finished his power point slides.
The two girls were shouting at each other and the whole class were in amusement as well as a bit pissed off that they were prolonging the lecture even more!
Lee told us to blog about what had happened soon after the girls stormed out of the room. It soon became evident that it was a set up in order to gain a reaction.
Is this what happens in the media? Arguments are set up for the public to percieve in their own way? Or do journalists niavely believe things and instantly report on them? If I was to be niave about the situation, I would be blogging about the argument in disbelief that two people would do this because of how cringe worthy it was! I would be ‘reporting’ rather than analysing why Lee set this up.
Blogging is not a reliable source of information but I personally feel it is a space for individuals to offload opinion about matters occuring in the public domain. Do the public percieve their own ideas about posts? or are they manipulated by the writer into believing certain things about certain topics?
For me, this is why I feel that journalists are essential in the production of news because there are regulations where journalists have to aim to be impartial to allow readers/listeners to have their own opinion. Although with some stories this is not the case. For example war reporting.