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.

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.

Goals:

Fears:

Concessions:

Goals:

Fears:

Concessions:

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.

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

Goals:

Fears:

Concessions:

• How did looking at different perspectives change your answer?

• 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?

• Be prepared to share.

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.

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

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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