1) Please paste your thesis and topic sentences, in order.

2) What do you notice about them when you do this? What is working well? What needs improvement?

3) What are you going to change as a result of this exercise?

The comment that I got from my professor was that my thesis is vague.

Essay is below

Examining Media Influence: A Comparative Analysis of Marty Kaplan's Views and Recent News Coverage

In today's media landscape, the interplay between money and media power is a crucial issue affecting public perception and information diffusion. Marty Kaplan's documentary emphasizes the enormous impact of big money on media content and the implications for democracy. Conversely, a recent PBS News Hour story focused on the increase of COVID 19 infections, raising concerns about another possible summer outbreak. This essay will look at how Kaplan's argument of media commercialization applies to how current news coverage impacts public perceptions of health emergencies. By comparing these two sources, this essay will show that media commercialization influences not just the framing of the news, but also public reaction to key topics such as pandemic management.

Kaplan's documentary makes a persuasive argument that putting huge money into media institutions damages journalistic ethics. According to Kaplan, "the pursuit of profit leads to sensationalism and prioritization of entertainment over substantive reporting." This commercialization undermines news coverage, making it about luring viewers rather than providing truthful information. Kaplan's complaint is since media organizations are motivated by financial incentives, which can lead to a dilution of news quality and an emphasis on dramatic stories that draw larger viewers, potentially distorting public opinion.

Kaplan illustrates this point with examples of how media outlets often prioritize dramatic headlines and eye-catching visuals to boost viewership, even when such tactics compromise the accuracy of the information presented. As an example, sensationalist news about natural disasters or political crimes often focuses on the dramatic parts to get people's attention, even if it means oversimplifying complicated issues or leaving out important background information. According to Kaplan, this trend is not because of a desire to provide complete and unbiased journalism, but because media companies need to bring in advertising and make money.

The PBS News Hour program on the rise in COVID 19 infections exemplifies a different aspect of media coverage. It emphasizes the recurrence of infections and the hazards connected with a probable summer increase. The part emphasizes the necessity of public health measures and offers professional advice on how to manage the outbreak. However, the framing of this issue focusing on the possibility of a rise and the importance of continuing vigilance can be seen through Kaplan's lens of media influence. The emphasis on potential disasters may increase audience, but it also may increase concern and sensationalizing the subject.

Yet some readers may challenge my view by insisting that the media's focus on COVID 19 spikes is necessary to inform the public about real risks. Supporters of this method argue that letting people know about possible surges makes them more alert and more likely to follow health rules. For instance, by showing information about rising infection rates and the chance of new waves of sickness, the media can encourage people to take precautions like getting vaccinated and staying away from sick people. While it is true that emphasizing risks can promote vigilance and encourage compliance with public health recommendations, it does not necessarily follow that such coverage should ignore the potential for media distortion and its effect on public perception.

On the one hand, I agree with Kaplan that sensationalism can distort public perception and contribute to unnecessary fear.However, it is also crucial to acknowledge that public health reporting must balance urgency with accuracy. Proponents of focusing on COVID-19 spikes are right to argue that raising awareness is essential for public health.But they exaggerate when they claim that such coverage is solely beneficial and free from the influence of sensationalism.While emphasizing the risks of COVID-19 is important, it should not overshadow the need for clear, contextualized information that helps people make informed decisions without inducing undue panic. This balance is essential for effective public health communication and can mitigate some of the negative effects of sensational reporting.

Of course, many will probably disagree on the grounds that the media's focus on potential surges is justified to prevent complacency among the public.Here many public health experts would probably object that without highlighting potential crises, compliance with health measures could diminish. They argue that emphasizing the dangers of a potential surge is a necessary strategy to ensure that the public remains engaged and proactive in mitigating health risks.While it is true that alerting the public to possible risks can encourage adherence to guidelines, it does not necessarily follow that such coverage should sensationalize the situation or ignore the possible consequences of fearmongering.Sensational reporting can sometimes lead to public fatigue or desensitization, where repeated exposure to alarming headlines may reduce the effectiveness of health messages over time.

On the other hand, I still insist that while media coverage must strive to inform and engage the public, it is equally important to avoid sensationalism that distorts reality and contributes to public panic.Kaplan's critique provides a framework for understanding how sensationalism in health reporting might impact public attitudes and behaviors. For example, if media coverage continually emphasizes the worst-case scenarios of COVID-19, it might lead to increased public anxiety or reluctance to engage with health measures, counteracting the very goals of raising awareness and promoting health compliance.

Integrating Kaplan's critique with the current news coverage reveals a complex interaction between media practices and public health communication. Kaplan's insights into media commercialization underscore the importance of examining how news is presented and its potential impact on public attitudes and behavior.Proponents of focusing on sensational aspects of health crises are right to emphasize the need for urgent public communication.However,they exaggerate when they claim that such an approach is devoid of negative consequences like public panic or misinformation.It is crucial to balance urgency with accuracy to ensure that media coverage serves the public's best interests without resorting to sensationalism that distorts reality.

The interplay between media commercialization and news coverage is crucial for understanding contemporary public discourse.Marty Kaplan's critique provides valuable insights into how financial interests can shape media content, while the PBS News Hour segment exemplifies the current approach to reporting health crises. By comparing these perspectives, it becomes clear that media practices not only influence public perception but also impact responses to critical issues.Recognizing and addressing the effects of sensationalism and commercialization can help ensure more accurate and responsible media coverage.This understanding can lead to more thoughtful media consumption and encourage news outlets to prioritize responsible reporting over sensationalism.