There is an ongoing debate about whether sensationalising the news makes media report more accessible and engaging or whether by doing that false impression and lack of accuracy may be generated to the public.
On one hand, by choosing a dramatic and eye-catching kind of language, it is clearly possible for a journalist to attract more readers or viewers. As a consequence of that a piece of information which may have gone unnoticec will be wide-spreaded to a higher number of individuals. Surely by selecting certan images or words it is also possible to transform boring description of an event into something more engaging to the public.
On the other hand, probably because of the enormous amount of information available nowadays, often reporters seem to compete on who is able to utilise the most sensationalised style of communication, sometimes ending up with neologisms which can be perceived being close to malapropism. This way generate false impressions and the public could believe that a theory is this, despite its lack of accuracy. A number of episodes that once were trusted to be historical truths, like, for example, the famous General custer’s Last stand, nowadays are depicted in a very different way.
In my opinion, if the report is clearly oriented for entertainment and if this purpose is openly stated to the public, then sensationalising the news should be considered acceptable, as the aim is not simply, but to sell a story as it happens, In literature, for novels.