The Instigator
avanti
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
kingy
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Media today is sensationalizing news.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2007 Category: News
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 8,484 times Debate No: 27
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (12)

 

avanti

Pro

The media today is sensationalizing news so that everyone watches news. There is coverage on every topic from politics to entertainment. There is hardly any subject not covered by the media today.
kingy

Con

The topic is sensationalism of the media. Not only do you fail to miss the point of what sensationalism is entirely, the postulate of your argument is wrong at its core, and there is absolutely no proof or examples you cited that correlate to your argument.

First of all, I'll provide the definition of sensationalism from a variety of sources:

Merriam-Webster: empiricism that limits experience as a source of knowledge to sensation or sense perceptions

Dictionary.com: subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste.

Cambridge: when newspapers, TV, etc. intentionally present information in a way that is intended to excite or shock people

Any one of these definitions work. Coverage is not the same as sensationalism; in fact they are unrelated concepts entirely, so your second two sentences are absolutely worthless, they provide nothing to the context of this debate, and whether or not they're true have no bearing whatsoever on what we're here to discuss: sensationalism. Anyone watching, be aware that the affirmative case is
irrelevant to the stated topic, and that coverage has nothing to do with the topic, and is not the topic of discussion.

Onto the topic of sensationalism: The news does not "sensationalize". They simply report what they're paid to report, and report it well. While it may be true negative news is presented more frequently than positive news, this is hardly because "shocking" or "thrilling" people is the point - how can murder actually "thrill" anyone whatsoever?

Sensationalism is not what's going on, the are reporting news that is interesting, relevant, and indeed vital for everyone in the reporting area to know. They report what people need to know, what's going on in the community, what's happening with the government they elected, and although they're might be a slight skew for more negative than positive news, the great majority of news is neutral: only good or bad relative to your stance on various issues (e.g. who got elected, when an event of interest is going to happen).

In closing, the news is not sensationalist: they are at the core neutral, and there to report the relevent and important news of their community.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by petebax 3 years ago
petebax
Dr David Kelly"s evidence as the weapons instructor for Iraq was sensationalised by three BBC journalists who embellished his dossier with misleading exaggerations of Iraq's military capabilities; specifically, a claim that Iraq had the ability to launch a strike using "weapons of mass destruction" within 45 minutes.

These were reported by by Andrew Gilligan on 29 May 2003, by Gavin Hewitt on the Ten O"clock News and by Newsnight on 2 June. On 1 June. Gilligan repeated his allegations in an article written for the mail on Sunday naming government press secretary as the driving force for alterations of the dossier.
This is according to Lord Hutton"s inquiry High Court Judge

This led to the Iraq War
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I like what Rush calls the media- DRIVE BYs!

LOL!
Posted by gack1224 9 years ago
gack1224
Why was this debate 1 round? And the PRO side needs more arguments.

I agree that the Con arguments are better, but I'm just stating my view on what could have happened in the debate.
Posted by rha819 9 years ago
rha819
PEOPLE, VOTE FOR CASES, NOT FOR SIDES
Posted by gack1224 9 years ago
gack1224
They sensationalize the news by 1. following the most controversial news (and most often the most crude), 2. analyze it to death (using analysts who you either wish would die or that you'd like to invite to dinner), 3. talk endlessly about a tragedy (a shooting isn't that interesting/I'd rather they'd present me a solution not an explanation), 4. TV hosts are becoming more like radio hosts in that they have a following and definite political views emphasized in their line(s) of questioning.

I am not recommending legislation to force TV stations to be neutral on every issue, but I warn against hanging on every distasteful and hypnotizing word of anchors.
Posted by Harlan 9 years ago
Harlan
Not really having a firm opinion on this or really caring at all, I'd like think back to this:

When Hilton was put in jail, all of America cared about nothing more than the fact that one rich girl went to jail.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jack_samra 7 years ago
jack_samra
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by swellness 9 years ago
swellness
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Maddy 9 years ago
Maddy
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by rha819 9 years ago
rha819
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gilson 9 years ago
gilson
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jurist24 9 years ago
jurist24
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
avantikingyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03