Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Mendoza
12-Einstein
Read the succeeding case study and answer the question that follow.
1. If the second part of the report was aired, what do you think would its
content be? Do you think the truth - that the “mysterious” disease was in
fact psoriasis and leprosy - would have been presented?
ANSWER: Well, I think that the content of the second part of the
report was a continuation of the network’s claim about the
mysterious disease happened in Pangasinan. Yes, the DOH
disclaimer was correct since it was scientifically proven. The DOH
data was undergoes in different examination and experiment before
they claim that it was a psoriasis and leprosy and not a
mysterious disease.
2. What do you think are the lapses of the people and group involved in
creating the report?
3. In what way could the network have prevented the lapses to happen?
ANSWER: They must always consider the the both sides before they
make a report, like this, in order for them not to deliver a fake news
to the people. Since they are a reporter, they need to gather an enough
data first before giving a conclusion on a particular event.
Researching about this topic and putting citation as well can
strengthen their claim.
4. What did the network do upon learning about the DOH disclaimer?
5. If you were put in a similar situation, what would you do to fix the
inaccuracies?
ANSWER: Well, if I am on a shoe of a reporter, I must follow the
correct steps in making a reliable news. Even if I am only a student I
will always consider the professionalization in making any article.
First, I will do a background research with regards to this topic and
starts disseminating the correct information to my fellow reporters in
order for them to know what is the topic all about. And before I
published it online or broadcast in air, I will review it first to avoid
any uncertainties.