So, we would like to pose the following questions: What do you think about the Telegraph's decision of inventing information about the research? Do you think this is a common practice in journalism? Why? Why not? What do you think about the damage that the US government is causing to beaked whales?
As you can see, there are different questions that arise from this subject, and we would like you to watch the following video to contextualize a little bit this issue.
We hope you find this presentation insightful.
I'm really enjoying your presentation guys, it does not mean that I'm not aware of the harm provoked to whales.
ReplyDeleteThe media coverage using specific information from the text and the using of quotes by the piece of news seems something positive to me, given that the credibility in the point of view assumed concerning the topic depends on facts and specific language.
The telegraph "adding" more information, apparently, looks like something that makes audience not to relay on the information given, but the information is about the "effects of the wind farms on the whales movement." So, don't you think that in this case the intervention of an article was positive and well-aimed?