Rationale:
This written task relates to my study on every topic that's related to the mass media, particularly the media manipulation involved in a certain type of media, specifically newspaper.
In addition, my written task is structured by my study of media manipulation, independent of what type of media it's in. In this task I considered the effects that a trademark would have on a newspaper by sponsoring it, having to deal with concepts like the censorship and bias in articles and the body itself of a newspaper.
I have learned that censorship matters and that it shouldn't be ignored. I have written a letter to the editor making a critic about how the "LionSprouse" bank has affected the content in the articles of the "Daily Reader".
Furthermore, I adopted a tone made out of anger and disconformity to critically discriminate manipulation on the newspaper.
My letter tries to show the point of view of this mad reader. I discuss how articles have changed their content due to this sponsorship.
The letter is concrete and intends to look authentic. That is to say that I included rhetorical questions, recommendations and a counter argument that sets the tone and mood I wanted to convey.
Relevant links/bibliography: "Language and Literature for the IB Diploma" by Brad Philpot, Cambridge Editorial
Letter To the Editor:
Santiago de Chile
Chile
Anthony Lang
Driver Lane 334
California - United States of America.
Dear Mr. Lang,
As a foreign reader of your online newspaper "Daily Reader", and a student from "The Mackay School" where I studied mass media and mass communication, I feel the necessity to write you this letter to inform you about some changes that have been troubling me in terms of the newpaper you're an editor in. I personally don't feel so comfortable with the last changes that have been taking place between articles and format of the online page I so graciously read.
As an online community that reads your newspaper, we are grateful for all the news you have provided and published online for everyone to read, however, I believe that since your newspaper has started to grow, it has been affected by certain sponsors, particularly the LionSprouse bank. As a result of this your content has changed in many ways affecting the actual newsworthiness of the articles that you published. Articles have been censored and the main idea of some articles has changed totally, as I see it, to protect the identity that a bank is representing. This has totally been an unfair decission to your public, since we have the right to know the truth in each article we read.
As I see it, the content regarding any political news has changed in order to establish a point of view that defends the politician(s) involved in the article. Euphemisms and vague language are exposed to anyone within a critical thinking. Last Saturday's article about the politician Mark Green was so incomplete that it became vague to read. The facts presented were taken in a way that they wouldn't compromise the integrity of the politician, protecting him in every moral sense, while the article was about how he had committed fraud to the state by evading taxes. What's next? Changing facts to make him look like he had given away money? I arive at the conclusion that the bank's desire is to evade any conflict that could occur between politicians at issue and the newspaper the bank is sponsoring. This has driven us to serious censorship that hide information form the community. News in which the truth lies are getting lost in oblivion because of the decisions you're taking.
What is more, articles involving artistry and music haven't been taken in consideration while editing the newspaper. They have been slowly disappearing from this one and taken over by any type of news that could create a single window to acclaim a politician or the bank itself. In other words, the ideal of the newspaper is slowly morphing into a controlled newspaper, that would only serve to benefit the image of politicians, instead of the modern unabridged newspaper we so like to read.
One of the other observations I have is how the online page has been getting full of advertisement. Online newspapers allows to browse through different types of news freely by the internet. In contrast to that, the ads that you have been setting throughout the page has barely taken over some news. As far as the comments on your page goes, I have read that many readers also share my thought. As a recommendation, I would suggest to organise better the space and layout of your online page, setting the advertisement in a way that in doesn't affect the news and freedom of what we read.
Although I agree that reading a newspaper that's made out of real paper is more comfortable and the community really appreciate that you also have a printed version of your newspaper. But as there is people that work almost all day and doesn't have the time or money to read a newspaper, you should also take more in consideration the online version that also covers a huge amount of your overall readers.
It seems that the recent sponsorship of your newspaper has affected not only the page layout, but the actual content that you publish. Therefore I cannot agree with the path you took. I am doubtful wether you should end the sponsorship or not because of obvious monetarily issues involved in the production of the newspaper, but I would recommend to reduce costs if needed to keep the newsworthiness you were giving, or taking a stand in the relation between your newspaper and the sponsors you relate to.
We have seen many changes in your newspaper, since the genesis to where you are now. You give us the alternative to read the news we couldn't, to us, the people that work all day and has just a little time to visit the online "Daily Reader" to get informed, and we appreciate it. I wrote you this to contrast the actual state of what's happening and for you to take a stand and realise the facts.
I hope that by writing this letter, I've helped you realize the changes that have been ocurring lately, and given you helpful advice.
Sincerely Yours,
Kiyoshi J. Shinya
2.- The worst technique its probably the Name Calling, because if people know you are creating a negative point of view, independant of what's about, they will consider you an unfair producer and probably turn against you. In the Burger King example, its obviously referring to the McDonalds franchise, saying that their hamburgers are not as big as they say.
