Nowadays, news companies spend a lot of money covering international news. However, local news is more relevant to people’s lives and should receive more funding. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
It is often argued that these days, media houses pay maximum attention to foreign news financially than the grassroots which is more important to the masses. Nevertheless, I totally agree with the notion that local news should be financed than international news because they are easy to access and mode of their communication.
In the first place, local news requires more funding than international one in order to serve people better because people in an environment where such organization is situated have access to it than the foreign news organization that is far away located in another country. They are just to broadcast news according to their effort and privilege to the news. However, it is easier and convenient to take your news to the one in your locality than the one outside the shore of your geographical location. For example, a businessman who wants to advertise will need a media house around him/her than the international one. For this reason, it is more beneficial to spend on local news than the foreign one.
Furthermore, it is expected to spend more money on national news because of their efforts to communicate in understandable accent. They speak the language that a common man can easily understand most especially television broadcasts. For example, in my country, it is only a few elites that listen to international news because of their mode of pronunciation. Because of that, most of the media channels in my country go to the extent of broadcasting in local languages.
In conclusion, I am in agreement with the argument that national news is to be funded more than international broadcast because of people’s accessibility to their location and the clarity of their broadcasting to hearing of the listeners.
Follow Us on IELTSFever Twitter