How would the today's media treat a slow ocurring possible global crisis?

Question

A)They would down play it and not give it the attention it needs.

B) They would scream like chicken little and exaggerate all facets of it.

C)They would report it accurately and not politicize it so that a course of reasonable action could be taken.

Answer 1

B. They would milk the story for all it was worth with all the drama they could muster and exaggerate it in the process. I do believe in a free press, of course, but one would think that given that right, the press would act responsibly. Not so. There are so many reasons not to trust reporters who let their bias enter into every story they do. Thus, often times they are making, not reporting, the news!!

Chow!!

Answer 2

If the event was a "new tax driven crisis" they would only present facts that back up the claim.
The media has long supported any new crisis by one sided reporting in order to create fear and suport for any newly formed tax based revenue.

I wish you would have put up:

D) follow the money

I would have picked that one.

Answer 3

It really depends on what they thought people would want to hear. Basically what they think would make the most people tune in to watch. T.V. News is very much ratings driven and what you will be shown will be directly effected by what you want to see to a major extent. We want more bird flu stories because we know it isn't really that scary ... we don't want overpopulation stories because ... damn ... that's too scary to sell Ford's with now isn't it?

Answer 4

it depends on what the crisis was & who it would affect first