The point of John Carroll’s speech is that pseudo-journalism is not journalism at all, because it is used to manipulate the public opinion. In his speech, Carroll compares pseudo-journalism to propaganda.
I agree with Carroll’s point of view on pseudo-journalism, because I think that by giving the reader false and distorted information on events (for what it’s also got a name “pulp journalism”) it drives them to erratic conclusions and opinions.
To support our opinion we will cite some outside sources. In his book “The Human Journalist” Jim Willis notes: “The focus (of pseudo-journalism) is often more on pseudo-events than real events. What is a pseudo-event?…In fact, the only impact many of these events or characters have on the public is a titillating one, making them laugh or utter an omigosh! The problem is this is a manipulated omigosh?
And it is outside the arena of real news and inside the arena of public relations and/or sales itself” (Willis, p. 29). It is only natural to interpret this statement of J. Willis as a strong opposition to pseudo-journalism itself. The keyword here is “manipulated” – the same word that J. Carroll uses to define the role and aim of pseudo-journalism. Is manipulating public opinion a good thing? Certainly, not.