Nonetheless, the most significant question to be asked is: what brand of truth and in what form and hue does today's television news tell Obviously, 20th century news on television either blow up and amplify or curb and restrict what is being presented on the air. Most often, it leaves out too much of what should have been dished out.
Many of the subject matters on TV news today are worthless to the viewer simply because they focus on incidents that affect only a small sector of the audience (e.g. police-blotter accidents or petty crimes.) Are these events really so important to most people Most probably they're not. However, they get so much attention and focus and are allotted so much air time. But how can that be if they offer no real meaning to most people Yes, the conflict between Lebanon and Israel has in seconds (after its initial broadcast) become a global event but does it really have a direct effect on the poverty-stricken citizens of Haiti or Bangladesh Years back, the affair and eventually the "painful death" of Princess Diana and her supposed lover occupied the airwaves to no end, but how do these occurrences concern the war-torn Iraq or the destitute children of Somalia Evidently, these efforts denote a crack at putting in entertainment to an otherwise boring broadcast. These stories on the news are encouraged by the mounting pressure of the trash news programs which are extremely damaging to the sense of worth of the viewing public and the nation as a whole. Ratings are all that matters now. As a rejoinder to this kind of programming, John J. O'Connor of the New York Times broached a compelling question, "What kind of people do we want to be Are we a society that is driven to topics appealing to our pocketbooks and/or curiosity about celebrities"
Most of what is being seen and heard on TV is fantasy and entertainment. As a consequence, the power of television journalism leaves its viewers with imprecise notions and feelings which often devastate its function to inform. Yes, the news of today still answers the basic questions of what makes NEWS. The who, what, when, why and how's still there, however, supplementary to these functions, the need to entertain has been added. Unfortunately, it has become the most important.
Selected commercials - VISA MasterCard (Pierce Brosnan/Catherine Zeta-Jones); Channel (Nicole Kidman); Nike (Michael Jordan); Close-Up (unknown)
!) Which commercials seem to be the most effective Least effective
For the commercials selected, the use of celebrity endorsement as a strategy is quite effective. These advertisements can surely achieve "recall" from their viewers simply because they are using named stars which appeal to most people. In the case of Channel, at first glance, it looks ineffective in the sense that it looks "too rich," and the not-so-rich citizens may not easily identify with it (obviously, it is a product that may not be a household name for the masses) but the employment of someone possessing classic beauty like Nicole Kidman and the way the whole campaign has been packaged and presented can still appeal to