1.
GM CROPS

2.
GM crops in the newspaper
(broadsheet)
The discussion on GM crops in the newspaper starts with an open question as the title “Is a ban on
GM crops more harmful than growing them?” This title engages the audience to the issue at hand
without imposing either side on you, and therefore has the potential to attract both sides of the
argument.
The newspaper article talks about each side equally, sharing statistics and quotes from researchers of
each side of the argument, ultimately preventing bias.
There are also no images that would suggest support over one side or the other, the images shown
are just to help the audience visualise what they are discussing.
The language used is also very neutral, the newspaper stays away from hyperbolic words.
The publics opinion seen in the comments were split, discussing views for both for and against.

3.
GM crops in a science blog
The title of the science blog starts off instantly bias “Bad science at GMOs: It reminds me of the
antivaccine movement”. We can straight away see the side the writer of the blog is on by his
comparing it to one of the biggest distribution of false information.
The language used in the blog post was often strong and opinionated. “And don’t even get me started”
“There’s another fishy thing”.
Throughout the blog, the writer only talks about one side of the argument and how wrong it is in his
opinion, using quotes and references but only to support one side.
The publics opinion is also very one sided in the comment section, only furthering the points already
discussed in the blog.

4.
GM crops on TV
TV portrayed both sides of the argument in brief, easy to understand points. They also interviewed
people on both sides of the argument. However, both people interviewed were purely opinionated and
didn’t have any scientific evidence to back up their claims.
The images used are neutral and do not convince anyone to pick one side over the other.
The language as neutral
No statistics were shown or discussed, just pros and cons of both sides.

5.
Summary
There were differences and patterns in how the story in each medium was portrayed.
Broadsheet newspapers tended to be the most scientific and professional, in terms of language and
evidence while TV had professionalism but not the scientific evidence and blogs having scientific
evidence but not professionalism. Images were largely irrelevant on all 3 mediums. Also newspapers
provoked a more divided response from the public whereas blogs the public response to blogs often
agreed with the writer as the people reading are often subscribed to them due to their similar
viewpoints and voluntarily whereas people reading the newspaper have many different opinions and
views on the matter and therefore provoke a more divided response.
All in all each of the 3 mediums portray the same stories but differently and all are good for different
reasons. The public also react differently to all 3 which is fair as the demographic and how the story is
reported may play a factor into which side they’re on.