论文代写

美国论文怎么写:新闻质量高低的差别

美国论文怎么写:新闻质量高低的差别

通过对这两篇文章的分析,可以明显地看出,高质量的新闻与低质量的新闻之间有很大的区别。仍然有一群重要的读者,他们对高质量新闻和新闻的渴望一直在增长。这样的数字时代反过来可以为每一种目标受众提供丰富的评论和新闻。本质上的问题是,定义质量是困难的,因为质量具有与之相关的主观关注,而质量是被普遍接受的。根据Picard(2000)的观点,人们认为,由于新闻活动有其质量的基础,新闻活动的高水平反过来会提高质量(fly, 2009)。总之,面试和其他信息收集的时间越长,结果越好。因此,新闻使用的时间成为一种评估质量的媒介,因为良好的时间使用反过来又会提高质量和活动。

美国论文怎么写:新闻质量高低的差别
相反,对时间的不合理利用会导致质量和活动的下降。此外,根据Monch(2008)的研究,例如,有一个案例中,报纸《太阳报》编造了一个故事,讲的是在康沃尔海岸看到的一条大白鲨(Wolfsfeld, 2011)。这遭到了其他媒体的反驳,但这并没有给报纸带来任何压力。事实上,在2010年发表的《鲨鱼的故事》中,这篇论文的销量有所上升。因此,根据Monck(2008)的说法,没有必要的研究将读者数量的下降与特定的可信度问题联系起来(flying, 2009)。简而言之,这样的故事甚至不会造成任何经济上的损失,反而往往是通过读者来奖励的。

美国论文怎么写:新闻质量高低的差别

From analysing the two articles, it was evident that there is a major difference between good quality and bad quality journalism. There remains an essential audience whose hunger for high quality journalism as well as news has been ever increasing. Such digital age can in turn offer abundance commentary and news for every type of target audience. What is essential problematic is the fact that defining quality, as universally accepting is difficult as quality has subjective concerns related with it. According to Picard (2000), it has been argued that as activity has its base on quality, high levels of activity for journalism in turn results in increasing quality (Flew, 2009). In brief, higher the time given for interviewing and other gathering of information, the better is the results. Therefore, the time of journalistic use becomes a medium to assess quality as good time usage in turn increases quality as well as activity in a consequent manner.

美国论文怎么写:新闻质量高低的差别
Poor use of time on the contrary results in decreasing quality as well as activity. Also, according to Monch, (2008), for example, there was a case in which the newspaper, the Sun fabricated a story on a large white coloured shark seen off the Cornwall coast (Wolfsfeld, 2011). This was contradicted by other media but this did not cause any tension to the newspaper. As a matter of fact, there was an enhanced rate in the sales of the paper during the stories of shark that the paper published in the year 2010. According to Monck (2008), therefore it has been said that there is no essential research to link conclusively the drop in reader’s number towards particular credibility issues (Flew, 2009). In brief, such stories do not even cause any penalty of financial nature rather it is found that they are often awarded through readers.