Is the role of Media justified in creating a hype?

Question

Can any one speak for the topic plz......................

Answer 1

Interesting question. The answer to this is no, unless it is warranted. For example, if the groudnwater is contaminated with nuclear waste, sure, the media has a responsibility to to speak, and to speak loudly. On the other hand, Paris Hilton going to jail...well, I rather see this kind of crap relegated to the inside of the paper, but as a reporter, I don't make those decisions.
Unfortunately, in the news business, and at the paper I work at, I've seen terrible examples of things blown out or proportion, which left me questioning the wisdom of editors, and left me feeling slightly ill. Every newspaper I know does this at some point or another – such as a bomb threat at a school, for example. It's always a prank, bt the schools have to take action. It's the sort of thing that makes an editor's mouth drool. It screams front page coverage with photos. The next thing you know, the TV stations and other papers are circling the area over something that should have been downplayed.
Your question is a good one, and it seems to me editors need to think about their actions a little bit more before they blow everything out of proportion.
But the sad truth is, and I hate to say this, but the public eats this sort of thing up. Look at what happened to Anna Nicole Smith and now Paris Hilton. They have photos of Paris blubbering to the California Governor asking to be pardoned. I've never seen anything so pathetic, and yet everyone is covering it because it sells. That's why news media does it...sex, violence and tragedy sell papers like nothing else.
People say they want to see good news, but I hate to say it, good news doesn't usually sell. At my paper, we've tracked circulation numbers, and the numbers increase when sex, violence and tragedy are the big story for the day. It's a sad commentary, but very real.

Answer 2

It is amply justified by the money they make.

Answer 3

to stay in business