The Instigator
digitalpackets
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
anon17
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Quality of headline news

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/28/2016 Category: News
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 90322
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

digitalpackets

Con

Is it WHERE it happens or WHAT happens?

If a building collapse in New York, Its news!
If a building collapses in Malta ( the smallest, uninportant nation on earth) Its no news!
Does this make sense?
Is New York more important than the subject?
anon17

Pro

It is where it happens that matters rather than what happens. Reflecting on a global scale, the Rwandan genocide occurred with absolutely no coverage in the Western countries. This genocide occurred over the span of 100 days and 70% of the Tutsi were eliminated. It is estimated that up to one million people lost their lives during this genocide. The United States government was aware of the preexisting conflict that was happening in this area (power struggle between ethnicities), yet fear of interfering kept them from stopping a mass genocide. The Israeli government was confirmed to have sold firearms throughout the conflict to the Rwandan government, but refused to release any documents saying so. Western countries did not even hear a whisper of what was happening until reporters began to tell their personal experiences after the genocide had occurred. Reporters had the information and were not allowed to fly back home until the conflict had settled and was safe enough to leave; even with making phone calls and connections back home, there was no media coverage or attention brought by the United States government. When you turn on the television and listen to the news, you are mainly going to hear what is happening locally (within the country) rather than news on an international scale. Even so, when global news is being broadcast, it only focuses attention on the violence in other countries, feeding into the idea that Western countries are better than any other. When people hear of international conflict, they are selfish in the sense that they feel bad for a split second and then change the channel, or it creates a great conversation piece at the next dinner party. There are numerous events that occur every single day outside of North America that are extremely serious and news-worthy, yet remain clear from the media. The question really boils down to, do people really care what happens outside of the Western world? If so, it the sympathy genuine, or is it just moral conformity?
Debate Round No. 1
digitalpackets

Con

When the media refers to the history of the end of the cold war, the Malta Summit Bush -Gorbachev is never mentioned or given any importance, when actually it was the beginning of the end, certainly, not the fall of the wall, which came after.

This is a classic example of how our so called professional journalists react -Malta, WHERE it happened is not worth of news coverage, But, was the WHAT happened- the summit, worth of prime coverage?

Big brother is influencing , or dictate, the main stream head lines, very unprofessional!
anon17

Pro

I can agree to some aspect that main stream media has ultimate control over what they share with the public. There is plenty of news worthy subjects that should be discussed but are not, such as the Malta Summit. As a Canadian citizen I can give you an outsider perspective on American media- it is completely different than news in Canada and anywhere else. Usually, the news is based around violence and feeds the citizens this violent nature and fear. I feel like this fear that the media instills into it's citizens distracts those same people from the larger subjects they should be paying attention to, as you mentioned. There is absolute truth in that what happens is 100% controlled by the government and what they are willing to share for the sake of their own benefit, but the combination of where also plays into it. A majority of the Western world has no real understanding of what goes on outside of their homelands, for they do not care enough to pay attention. This can also be because of the fact the government wants to censor certain things and events from mainstream media in order to implement ignorance- telling us that our country is the best and therefore rotate consumerism in the Western world. I suppose what can be considered important or worth news coverage is subjective, but I can agree with you that Big Brother ultimately controls these headlines for the sake of their benefit.
Debate Round No. 2
digitalpackets

Con

When the media refers to the history of the end of the cold war, the Malta Summit Bush -Gorbachev is never mentioned or given any importance, when actually it was the beginning of the end, certainly, not the fall of the wall, which came after.

This is a classic example of how our so called professional journalists react -Malta, WHERE it happened is not worth of news coverage, But, was the WHAT happened- the summit, worth of prime coverage?

Big brother is influencing , or dictate, the main stream head lines, very unprofessional!
anon17

Pro

anon17 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by digitalpackets 1 year ago
digitalpackets
Was not the Bush-Gorbachev summit in Malta an important issue?
Yet, when the media recals the end of the cold war, they mention every event except this summit
Why?
Because it happened in Malta, not Berlin, Rome, Madrid , Paris etc etc
Does this makes sense to tou?
Posted by iamfromdebatewars 1 year ago
iamfromdebatewars
These days isis is the headline of all newspapers and tv channels.
No votes have been placed for this debate.