# data[].attributes.body
Use ONE EVALUTATIVE FRAMEWORK:

Majority vs. minority

Short term vs. long term

Ideal vs. actual

Evaluate your stakeholder’s perspective on the question: Is the public too easily influenced by sensationalised media?

# data[].attributes.body
Take 5 mins to read through your friends’ posts.

Each group needs to comment on 1 other group’s post.

Groups are to give feedback as:

1 strength in their evaluation

1 question you have for the group (as a stakeholder)

Extend the group’s argument by offering your stakeholder’s perspective.

Be prepared to share.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Individually, take one article (stance, goals, fears OR concessions).

2. [2 mins] READ the article and identify what are the key points.

3. [10 mins] Share these points with the rest of your group and compile a profile.

# data[].attributes.body
Stance: Tend to support sensationalism indirectly because it drives engagement, but may claim neutrality. They tend to follow where their audience show support.

Goals: Want their products or services seen by as many people as possible. Sensationalised stories drive high traffic, which translates into more impressions and potential sales.

Fears: Worry that being associated with overly controversial or misleading stories can damage brand reputation. They also fear that a fatigued, distrustful public may disengage entirely, reducing ad effectiveness.

Concessions: Accept that sensationalist content creates short-term gains in reach, but admit that it may harm long-term trust in both the media platforms they advertise on and their own brand image.

# data[].attributes.body
Stance:

Goals:

Fears:

Concessions:

# data[].attributes.headline
Media Organisations [GRP MEMBER NAMES HERE]

# data[].attributes.subject
Media Organisations [GRP MEMBER NAMES HERE]

# data[].attributes.body
Stance: They tend to support sensationalised media indirectly, this is because it boosts engagement for them, however they are adopt a defensive stance, they tend to follow where the readers and audience shows their support.

Goals: They would like more attention from their audience, they see sensationalisation as a bridge between their duty to inform and survive commercialism

Fears: Censorship from government due to publishing controversial content. Over utilisation of sensationalisation due to losing it credibility and reliability since the truth is always over exaggerated.

Concessions: They publicly defend sensational coverage as audience driven and design content to capture more emotions than reason, this is to help them maximise engagement. They will publish more clickable stories to capture more attention despite their substance.

# data[].attributes.body
Stance:

Goals:

Fears:

Concessions:

# data[].attributes.headline
[INDIVIDUAL] Post your reflections in this section.

# data[].attributes.subject
[INDIVIDUAL] Post your reflections in this section.

# data[].attributes.body
What are your thoughts on the learning experience today?

How did looking at different perspectives change your answer?

# data[].attributes.body
fears: public is scared that the fake news become the truth

stance: the public only believe the news only if it is legit & it is credible otherwise they do not accept the news

goals: sensationalised media can have goals aimed towards the older generation which take their exaggerated news to a higher degree of seriousness, compared to the younger generation who decensoritse overlydramatic media

concessions: the scandal must have some exaggerations & urgency for the public to believe

# data[].attributes.headline
[Example] Review for JOURNALISTS from Advertisers

# data[].attributes.subject
[Example] Review for JOURNALISTS from Advertisers

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths: Your group made a strong point about how sensationalised media grabs attention quickly, which is important for journalists who need to compete with so many stories fighting for attention. We liked how you explained the tension between speed and accuracy in reporting as it really showed the pressures journalists face.

One Question: If journalists rely heavily on sensationalism to pull readers in, do you think that undermines trust in the long run, and therefore makes it harder for advertisers (and you) to attract sustainable audiences?

Extend: From our side, advertisers benefit when media stories go viral and pull large audiences. That’s how ads get seen. However, if people start distrusting those stories because they seem “too exaggerated,” advertisers may be less willing to buy space on those platforms. So while sensationalism can create short-term engagement, we would add that long-term credibility is just as important for keeping advertising revenue flowing.

# data[].attributes.body
Advertisers expect sensationalised stories to bring them quick attention. More clicks and shares mean more people see their ads, which helps them sell products. In the short term, this works well as a dramatic headline can boost traffic and brand visibility. However, in the long term this may tarnish the reputation of these advertisers, thus, losing public trust. If the story turns out to be misleading or offensive, advertisers can be blamed for supporting it, which hurts their reputation. So while advertisers benefit when the public is influenced by sensationalism, they also face the danger of being linked to unreliable media.

# data[].attributes.headline
Journalists (Sheryl, Arsheya, Deng Chang, Enzo, Jing Ling)

# data[].attributes.subject
Journalists (Sheryl, Arsheya, Deng Chang, Enzo, Jing Ling)

# data[].attributes.body
Stance:

Journalists have power in making media sensationalised and though it is their responsibility to state facts, they need to try and not create public unrest or oversensationalise their headings.

Goals:

Journalists have to figure out how to balance amplifying facts and stories that matter with the ability to have a far reach, without cheapening their works and distorting information.

Fears:

Journalists are afraid that when they emphasise certain details it may lead to sensationalised events which may lead to misrepresentation.

Concessions:

Willing to accept that they have power over their own craft because people bring their own experiences and feelings into their own craft that they are able to not take full responsibility for how the public reacts.

# data[].attributes.body
Ideal

Social media allows for an outlet to bring neglected issues into light, such as drunk driving incidents.

Advocacy groups have used moments of sensationalism to bring neglected issues into public view.

Victims and advocates aim to use publicity to gain traction by evoking emotions and raising awareness of neglected issues.

Actual

Bringing light to such issues places victims in a vulnerable position, as they may be remembered for bravery or as a laughing stock.

Details are sometimes cherry-picked for impact, and images are circulated without consent, which amplifies harm.

This results in victims reliving trauma and having their credibility questioned.

Sensationalism risks defining victims by their most painful moments, locking them into roles they never chose.

Victims’ experiences may be distorted, and they are often dismissed after the ‘hot topic’ dies down.

# data[].attributes.headline
Journalists (Sheryl, Arsheya, Deng Chang, Enzo, Jing Ling)

# data[].attributes.subject
Journalists (Sheryl, Arsheya, Deng Chang, Enzo, Jing Ling)

# data[].attributes.body
Journalists expect sensationalised stories to bring them quick attention and suggest urgency, pushing their work into the spotlight where it has a chance to be read. More clicks and shares mean more people see their articles, which helps them raise awareness. Ideally, this works well as a dramatic headline can boost traffic and brand visibility. With a far reach, journalists can amplify stories they think matter, as well as give voice to those often unheard. However, in actual context, sensationalism can risk cheapening their words in the process of trying to catch attention as the public, with shortened attention spans and endless content, deem carefully researched articles obscure. Thus, while journalists can benefit when the public is influenced by sensationalism, they also face the danger of losing quality articles and misrepresenting detailed facts.

# data[].attributes.body
Stance:

Goals:

Fears:

Concessions:

# data[].attributes.headline
public: lidiya, zara, snehil, maha, elijah

# data[].attributes.subject
public: lidiya, zara, snehil, maha, elijah

# data[].attributes.body
When evaluating sensationalised media, the divide between the majority and minority is evident, as older generations often take exaggerated reports with heightened seriousness while younger audiences tend to dismiss or even ridicule them. In the short term, sensationalism grabs attention and provokes strong reactions, but in the long term, it threatens to erode trust and blur the line between fact and fabrication. Ideally, media should inform responsibly and the public should only believe credible news, yet in actuality, many scandals rely on exaggeration and urgency to appear convincing, with some audiences falling for them while others remain sceptical.

# data[].attributes.headline
Victims Chong Huey, Wei Jian, Kwok Sin, Brandon

# data[].attributes.subject
Victims Chong Huey, Wei Jian, Kwok Sin, Brandon

# data[].attributes.body
Stance

Social media allows for an outlet to bring neglected issues into light, such as drunk driving incidents.

Advocacy groups have used moments of sensationalism to bring neglected issues into public view.

Goals

Victims and advocates aim to use publicity to gain traction by evoking emotions and raising awareness of neglected issues.

Concessions

However, bringing light to such issues places victims in a vulnerable position, as they may be remembered for bravery or as a laughing stock.

Details are sometimes cherry-picked for impact, and images are circulated without consent, which amplifies harm.

Fears

This results in victims reliving trauma and having their credibility questioned.

Sensationalism risks defining victims by their most painful moments, locking them into roles they never chose.

Victims’ experiences may be distorted, and they are often dismissed after the ‘hot topic’ dies down.

# data[].attributes.headline
public: lidiya, zara, snehil, maha, elijah

# data[].attributes.subject
public: lidiya, zara, snehil, maha, elijah

# data[].attributes.body
fears: public is scared that the fake news become the truth

stance: the public only believe the news only if it is legit & it is credible otherwise they do not accept the news

goals: sensationalised media can have goals aimed towards the older generation which take their exaggerated news to a higher degree of seriousness, compared to the younger generation who decensoritse overlydramatic media

concessions: the scandal must have some exaggerations & urgency for the public to believe

# data[].attributes.headline
Government (Mariya, Megan, Nabil, Lixiang)

# data[].attributes.subject
Government (Mariya, Megan, Nabil, Lixiang)

# data[].attributes.body
The public is not permanently swayed , they want to be attentive to citizen concern

In the short term, exaggeration of media may bring about changes to perspectives of citizens. However, in the long term, it brings about more distrust in citizens as the government keeps dismissing the sensationalised media as false and overly exaggerating the situation, this causes the public to feel skeptical of the government as they may appear to only be trying to protect their image and ability to govern the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
Media organisations (Jiya, Rachyl, Isaac, Caden, En En) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Media organisations (Jiya, Rachyl, Isaac, Caden, En En) 

# data[].attributes.body
The public is not too easily influenced by sensationalised media. In the short term, it is ultimately the public’s choice to view the sensationalised media, the organisations are just accommodating to them . From this perspective, media companies are not coercing individuals but supplying content that sustains their viewership and advertising revenue.

However, in the long term, media organisations face the risk of damaging their own credibility. Constant reliance on over-exaggeration can distort reality and gradually shape the audience’s perception of events in misleading ways. This erosion of trust may undermine the organisations’ reputation as reliable news sources, reducing their authority and influence over time. Hence, while sensationalism may bring immediate engagement, its prolonged use carries reputational costs that media organisations must weigh carefully.

# data[].attributes.body
Strength: Showed both short- and long-term effects, making your argument balanced.

Question: Do you think audiences really have full choice, or are they influenced by algorithms and emotional appeals?

Extend: However, sensationalism also harms victims, who may be defined by their trauma and dismissed once the issue dies down.

# data[].attributes.headline
Review of public from media organisations 

# data[].attributes.subject
Review of public from media organisations 

# data[].attributes.body
Strength, they use 2 evaluative framework such as majority vs minority and short term vs long term.

Question, How are the different generations affected by sensationalised media especially the younger generation.

Extension, The media organisation publishes more clickable stories so that they can benefit from the attention of the public

# data[].attributes.body
Strength: it shows both the good of awareness and the harm victims face

Question: How can groups raise awareness without exploiting victims’ pain?

Extension: Advocacy should be the center if consent and the bigger issue so victims are not reduced to just their trauma.

# data[].attributes.body
strength; Clear use of evaluation: ideal vs actual context

question; if journalists only write on stories which they think matter, what about those stories which are left behind?

# data[].attributes.body
strengths: Your point about the short-term versus long-term effects of sensationalised media is strong, especially the way you linked exaggeration to initial shifts in citizen perspectives and eventual distrust. We liked how you connected this distrust not just to the media itself, but also to the government’s responses, as that shows awareness of the bigger political implications.

One Question: Do you think the public’s skepticism is directed more at the government for dismissing concerns, or at the media for exaggerating them? Clarifying this could strengthen your argument about where distrust ultimately lies.

Extend: Building on your idea, we would add that distrust in both media and government could create a vicious cycle—citizens may feel they cannot rely on either institution for the truth, which weakens democratic accountability. This suggests that in addition to avoiding exaggeration, governments may need to actively engage with citizen concerns to rebuild credibility in the long run.

# data[].attributes.body
I learnt how each stakeholder considers thing very differently as they have varying priorities and concerns

Looking at different perspective brings in a shift from objective benefits to a unified perspective which considers morals as well.