- Decline in Newspapers
- Ofcom Statistics
- Newspaper Paywalls
- Marxism/Pluralism - Quotes/Theory behind it
- Future of Journalism
- News Values
*All improvements have been added onto the original post of the Marxism/Pluralism Essay.
Monday 12 December 2016
Essay LR
Topics to consider for revision:
NDM Case Study Index
1) Institution: the impact of Google on the newspaper industry
2) Ofcom report: how news consumption has changed
3) The future of newspapers: Build The Wall analysis
4) The decline of newspapers: the effect of online technology
5) The future of journalism: John Oliver and Clay Shirky
6) The decline of newspapers: Media Magazine case studies
7) Citizen journalism and hyper-reality: Media Magazine article and questions
8) News Values: theory and updating them for digital media landscape
9) Marxism & Pluralism: Media Magazine article and questions
10) Alain de Botton on the News: lecture and questions
11) Full NDM essay including paragraphs on Marxism and Pluralism
12) Globalisation and news: cultural imperialism
13) Globalisation: taking it further (Google Glass case study and capitalism)
14) Fake news and globalisation - Guardian and New York Times articles
15) News on the Tweet
2) Ofcom report: how news consumption has changed
3) The future of newspapers: Build The Wall analysis
4) The decline of newspapers: the effect of online technology
5) The future of journalism: John Oliver and Clay Shirky
6) The decline of newspapers: Media Magazine case studies
7) Citizen journalism and hyper-reality: Media Magazine article and questions
8) News Values: theory and updating them for digital media landscape
9) Marxism & Pluralism: Media Magazine article and questions
10) Alain de Botton on the News: lecture and questions
11) Full NDM essay including paragraphs on Marxism and Pluralism
12) Globalisation and news: cultural imperialism
13) Globalisation: taking it further (Google Glass case study and capitalism)
14) Fake news and globalisation - Guardian and New York Times articles
15) News on the Tweet
Globalisation: taking it further (Google Glass case study and capitalism)
1) It was feared that google Glass was being used to invade privacy by recording actions that the user would do in a daily basis recording this and using it to their advantage to try and make sure that they could tailor adverts to their users.
2) What are the positive elements to Globalisation that the article highlights?
One of the major positive elements is the fact that wider audience can have access to the internet. For example, Google had launched various balloons which had internet antennas attached to them, what this did was it gave some parts of New Zealand (which do not have internet access) the ability to access the internet for the first time. Another positive factor is that it will allow individuals to make informed decisions.3) What are potential negatives to Globalisation?
There will be way too much competition on the online servers, that smaller companies who have the intention to break that barrier, cannot simply do so due to the more dominant firms taking majority of the market share. For example, companies such as Amazon or Ebay are businesses that dominate the shoping market in the online world, making it nearly impossible for smaller firms to compete with them due to the stronger branding and powerful publicity the internet can offer.
4) What is a techno-panic? How does it link to moral panics?
Issues with the privacy of the device has risen some concerns. The device has the ability to record ones voice and sound nearby as well as record the movement of the user. What is worrying, is that firms such as Google are now trying to invade peoples privacy with the new products their create. This is clearly evident with the Google Glass product, as it has the camera qualities and sound recording mode.
5) What is your opinion on the privacy debate and major corporations being able to access large
quantities of personal data?
I believe that us consumers have to be aware of this technological crisis and need to tackle it in a suitable manor. For example, boycotting the product (and has seen to be quite successful in the past) where the business is inclined to listen to the views of the users and take that forward. Its quote common that privacy invasion has occurred ever since the internet was born, and with every new and fresh technology device, comes a new way of breaching privacy policy for example, finger print scanning. Or even GPS data, these are all things that are 'good' in the eyes of the consumers, but is valuable for the big institutions.
1) Who coined the phrase 'a global village' and what multinational companies illustrate this?
The Global Village concept was developed by Marshall McLuhan and is where countries become interconnected and independent especially in economic terms. An example of multinational companies that illustrate this idea of 'global village' would be news paper organisation such as the BBC. These online newspapers have had a tremendous impact on the print paper institutions making them shut down rapidly.
2) What role does Slavoj Zizek suggest the media plays in global capitalism? How can you link this to our previous work on Marxism and Hegemony?
Capitalism is when there is no free movement of gods and service's with other countries, and 'only' occurs within the country keeping its domestic businesses safe and money within the economy. The reason this links to Marxism is the fact that big named institutions are exploiting the liberal classes in the West by drawing up a perception of helping the 'endangered world' through their brand image. This is clearly linked to Marxism as the powerful ones at the top of the chain want to control the minds of the lower class and gain revenue from it.
3) What does 'capitalism with a conscience' mean?
Global media has raised awareness about social issues, but in order to sustain (to keep hold of) Western capitalist dominance, institutions have created a marketing campaign that construct this idea of 'capitalism with a conscience'.
4) What is the (PRODUCT) RED campaign?
5) Based on what you've read in the Factsheet, what is YOUR opinion of the (PRODUCT) RED brand? Is it a positive force helping to fight AIDS in Africa or a cynical attempt to make multinational companies look more ethical than they actually are?
I believe it is a good way of trying to tackle diseases such as aids, however does have elements of where it is trying to build this 'capitalism with a conscience-esk' theme. The idea of aiming at all these big name institutions really delivers a message that, that's who they ultimately want to partner with, and not any of the lower charity organisations. It may be that they want to ensure that big corporations play their part in sharing their profit for better change, but their is that side of the argument where it can seem as a cynical way of trying make the institutions seem more ethical by slapping the charity brand over their sponsors.
Monday 5 December 2016
Globalisation and news
1) Is our news influenced by American cultural imperialism? Give some examples arguing for or against this perspective.
Our news can be influenced by American cultural imperialism. This would be because of big stories such as the Presidential Election in America. The argument for this would be that the content that would be distributed does involve some sense of globalisation that would reinforce the view of the global village. This would mainly be featured as one of the main examples as to how the news would be influenced by American cultural imperialism.
2) Has the increased globalisation of news improved the audience experience? How? Why?
It can be argued that it has improved the audience experience since now audiences would be more informed about different countries and their cultures. As well as that there is also the benefit that it has made accessing the news more accessible which means that audiences could also look into more stories that may have different politics. Examples of this would be the different areas that are covered.
3) Has globalisation benefited or damaged major news institutions? How? Why?
It can be argued that it has damaged major news institutions. This would be because of how wide spread the stories would be. This would then mean that an audience wouldn't have to go to the source of the main article that would cover it and instead have it covered by other websites that would also look into it. And since this might damage their income then this would be financially harmful. This would result in the loss of journalists only to cut back on losses. It is mainly because of not willing to pay for the news that there isn't enough finance. This had then lead to the decline of quality in journalism since news stories would mainly rely on click-bait titles in the hopes that people are interested in the over dramatised and intriguing titles that would catch an audience's attention. As well as that there is also the different areas in which this would also look into it. As well as that there is also the other known areas in which this would also look into it. As well as that there is also the other known places that would also look into it. However there is also the different side to this. The other side could also suggest that globalisation has benefited news institutions. This would mainly be because of citizen journalism. With citizen journalism, institutions now have sources that can present the perspective of the bystander on the incident.
Our news can be influenced by American cultural imperialism. This would be because of big stories such as the Presidential Election in America. The argument for this would be that the content that would be distributed does involve some sense of globalisation that would reinforce the view of the global village. This would mainly be featured as one of the main examples as to how the news would be influenced by American cultural imperialism.
2) Has the increased globalisation of news improved the audience experience? How? Why?
It can be argued that it has improved the audience experience since now audiences would be more informed about different countries and their cultures. As well as that there is also the benefit that it has made accessing the news more accessible which means that audiences could also look into more stories that may have different politics. Examples of this would be the different areas that are covered.
3) Has globalisation benefited or damaged major news institutions? How? Why?
It can be argued that it has damaged major news institutions. This would be because of how wide spread the stories would be. This would then mean that an audience wouldn't have to go to the source of the main article that would cover it and instead have it covered by other websites that would also look into it. And since this might damage their income then this would be financially harmful. This would result in the loss of journalists only to cut back on losses. It is mainly because of not willing to pay for the news that there isn't enough finance. This had then lead to the decline of quality in journalism since news stories would mainly rely on click-bait titles in the hopes that people are interested in the over dramatised and intriguing titles that would catch an audience's attention. As well as that there is also the different areas in which this would also look into it. As well as that there is also the other known areas in which this would also look into it. As well as that there is also the other known places that would also look into it. However there is also the different side to this. The other side could also suggest that globalisation has benefited news institutions. This would mainly be because of citizen journalism. With citizen journalism, institutions now have sources that can present the perspective of the bystander on the incident.
Marxism/Pluralism Essay
The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view.
In this essay I will look into whether the new/digital media has either empowered the audience and use real life examples to try and reason with that. This will look into how whether the development of new/digital media makes the audience more powerful. Or does it do the opposite in the sense that the new/digital media is empowering institutions with information.
The argument for this view would be that the development of New and Digital Media can in fact empower the audience in terms of production. In this case seeing as to how platforms such as YouTube can enable an audience to distribute content means that they can be considered just in competition with other big news institutions such as Fox or Sky who would also distribute content in this platform. This can present how online can really empower an audience into creating their own UGC. As well as YouTube, digital media has also empowered an audience through citizen journalism. Now news corporations are relying on citizen journalism to portray the narrative of a story to put perspective into it. This has also empowered an audience as they would be considered just as newsworthy. As well as producing content, audiences are also empowered with the freedom of speech that online can offer. Whether it is message boards or social media, the audience now have been empowered by having a following that may support your ideologies. Social media can be considered a strong and empowering force for an audience that it would also change the way that they consume the news. Because of the ease of access of digital media, audiences are informed better than in comparison to newspapers. This would be evidenced with the Buenos Herald going weekly. This would be because of the way that an audience would consume the media. This change from daily to weekly can suggest that the newspaper would be a much weaker option. A quote that would enforce this would be "Paradigm Shift - on par with the printing press". This quote would suggest that the digital media would be considered just as important of a revolution as the printing press. This can highlight its significance that would also look into this. As well as that there is also the other quote that would support this which is "The internet is an empowering tool...an exciting and revolutionary prospect". This can also reinforce the how it can be empowering to an audience since social media can influence companies. Examples of this would be how Starbucks had presented tweets on a screen and hate tweets had also appeared on the screen questioning why they are avoiding tax.
In addition to this there is also the empowerment of an audience through consumption. Compared to then past when video broadcasting platforms like YouTube or before the internet had introduced catch-up television, the audience had to always rely on the broadcasting schedule of the channel. As well as that there is also the limited time for news to be live on television with the varied 6pm and 10pm news that the BBC has. Each channel broadcasting different content. Since the 6pm news slot for BBC1 is set before the watershed, this would mean that less explicit news stories would have aired. In comparison to the 10pm news which would show more explicit content and also have a target audience of adults. This scheduled news would be revoked with the introduction of the BBC News website that would host a wide array of news that would present any sort of news at any time. This would empower the audience because now they can look into different stories without the worry of having some of the different areas in which this would also allow for audiences to read about various topics. This will also look into the different areas in which this will also be one of the different areaqs in which this will also be produced.
However the argument against this view would be that the new and digital media isn't empowering an audience but rather big companies. This view would take a more Marxist view into this as it looks into how an audience are only being influenced by the media to behave in a specific manor that is deemed acceptable. This would be evidenced with the theory of hegemony. This theory looks into how the media would portray or reinforce "common sense" into the audience whether it would be by making an audience seem to see what is acceptable and what isn't. Seeing as to how it would require the media to make an audience understand what is acceptable, it would reinforce the quote of "Web pages and blogs are like a million monkeys typing nonsense". This would go against the uses and gratification theory and present that audiences wouldn't be able to make a valid response rather than hating on something for no reason. As well as that there is also the quote which is "Top 5% of all websites accounted for almost 75% of user volume". This can present a Marxist view as to how a small percentage of websites would hold the most web traffic in the sense that there would be a small list of websites that consumers would definitely go to. This can also suggest how audiences rely on these institutions and try to make sure that the audience would be considered as a reliable source of content. This could then show as to how there would be an institutional empowerment.
In conclusion, I think that audiences are empowered to a certain extent. This would be because it can be argued that institutions have the potential to influence audiences. However it does vary dependent on which side would be in favour. As well as the situation as controversy can empower the audience.
In this essay I will look into whether the new/digital media has either empowered the audience and use real life examples to try and reason with that. This will look into how whether the development of new/digital media makes the audience more powerful. Or does it do the opposite in the sense that the new/digital media is empowering institutions with information.
The argument for this view would be that the development of New and Digital Media can in fact empower the audience in terms of production. In this case seeing as to how platforms such as YouTube can enable an audience to distribute content means that they can be considered just in competition with other big news institutions such as Fox or Sky who would also distribute content in this platform. This can present how online can really empower an audience into creating their own UGC. As well as YouTube, digital media has also empowered an audience through citizen journalism. Now news corporations are relying on citizen journalism to portray the narrative of a story to put perspective into it. This has also empowered an audience as they would be considered just as newsworthy. As well as producing content, audiences are also empowered with the freedom of speech that online can offer. Whether it is message boards or social media, the audience now have been empowered by having a following that may support your ideologies. Social media can be considered a strong and empowering force for an audience that it would also change the way that they consume the news. Because of the ease of access of digital media, audiences are informed better than in comparison to newspapers. This would be evidenced with the Buenos Herald going weekly. This would be because of the way that an audience would consume the media. This change from daily to weekly can suggest that the newspaper would be a much weaker option. A quote that would enforce this would be "Paradigm Shift - on par with the printing press". This quote would suggest that the digital media would be considered just as important of a revolution as the printing press. This can highlight its significance that would also look into this. As well as that there is also the other quote that would support this which is "The internet is an empowering tool...an exciting and revolutionary prospect". This can also reinforce the how it can be empowering to an audience since social media can influence companies. Examples of this would be how Starbucks had presented tweets on a screen and hate tweets had also appeared on the screen questioning why they are avoiding tax.
In addition to this there is also the empowerment of an audience through consumption. Compared to then past when video broadcasting platforms like YouTube or before the internet had introduced catch-up television, the audience had to always rely on the broadcasting schedule of the channel. As well as that there is also the limited time for news to be live on television with the varied 6pm and 10pm news that the BBC has. Each channel broadcasting different content. Since the 6pm news slot for BBC1 is set before the watershed, this would mean that less explicit news stories would have aired. In comparison to the 10pm news which would show more explicit content and also have a target audience of adults. This scheduled news would be revoked with the introduction of the BBC News website that would host a wide array of news that would present any sort of news at any time. This would empower the audience because now they can look into different stories without the worry of having some of the different areas in which this would also allow for audiences to read about various topics. This will also look into the different areas in which this will also be one of the different areaqs in which this will also be produced.
However the argument against this view would be that the new and digital media isn't empowering an audience but rather big companies. This view would take a more Marxist view into this as it looks into how an audience are only being influenced by the media to behave in a specific manor that is deemed acceptable. This would be evidenced with the theory of hegemony. This theory looks into how the media would portray or reinforce "common sense" into the audience whether it would be by making an audience seem to see what is acceptable and what isn't. Seeing as to how it would require the media to make an audience understand what is acceptable, it would reinforce the quote of "Web pages and blogs are like a million monkeys typing nonsense". This would go against the uses and gratification theory and present that audiences wouldn't be able to make a valid response rather than hating on something for no reason. As well as that there is also the quote which is "Top 5% of all websites accounted for almost 75% of user volume". This can present a Marxist view as to how a small percentage of websites would hold the most web traffic in the sense that there would be a small list of websites that consumers would definitely go to. This can also suggest how audiences rely on these institutions and try to make sure that the audience would be considered as a reliable source of content. This could then show as to how there would be an institutional empowerment.
In conclusion, I think that audiences are empowered to a certain extent. This would be because it can be argued that institutions have the potential to influence audiences. However it does vary dependent on which side would be in favour. As well as the situation as controversy can empower the audience.
Monday 21 November 2016
NDM News Case Study index
1) Institution: the impact of Google on the newspaper industry
2) Ofcom report: how news consumption has changed
3) The future of newspapers: Build The Wall analysis
4) The decline of newspapers: the effect of online technology
5) The future of journalism: John Oliver and Clay Shirky
6) The decline of newspapers: Media Magazine case studies
7) Citizen journalism and hyper-reality: Media Magazine article and questions
8) News Values: theory and updating them for digital media landscape
9) Marxism & Pluralism: Media Magazine article and questions
10) Alain de Botton on the News: lecture and questions
NDM News Stories
#1 Broadcasters warned against using children's photographs from social media sites
#2 Facebook and Twitter join coalition to improve social media newsgathering
#3 Meet Snapchat's 'dudeocracy' of talent
#4 BBC Radio 1 aims to be 'Netflix of music radio' with phone-first strategy
#5 Rinstagram or Finstagram? The curious duality of the modern Instagram user
#6 Facebook inflated video viewing times for two years
#7 Twitter pays £1.24m in UK tax as revenues increase by 30.5%
#8 Ad-blockers: are publishers tempted to feed the hand that bites them?
#9 I'm with you on the digital revolution, it's the lack of journalism I can't face
#10 Trump's groping boasts inspire thousands of women to share sexual assault stories on Twitter
#11 Social media can be a pretty ugly place if you're a woman in politics
#12 Newspaper websites suffer post-Olympic dip as print sales hold steady
#13 Local newspaper content too full of listicles and clickbait - lecturer
#14 Lessons to be learned as the Buenos Aires Herald goes weekly
#15 The new social: brands are embracing private sharing
#16 Invasion of the troll armies: from Russian Trump supporters to Turkish state stooges
#17 Facebook faces calls for greater transparency amid 'fake news' row
#18 Twitter suspends American far-right activists' accounts
#19 Fake news clampdown: Google gives €150,000 to fact-checking projects
#20 Platforms v creators: the battle for the internet economy
2) Ofcom report: how news consumption has changed
3) The future of newspapers: Build The Wall analysis
4) The decline of newspapers: the effect of online technology
5) The future of journalism: John Oliver and Clay Shirky
6) The decline of newspapers: Media Magazine case studies
7) Citizen journalism and hyper-reality: Media Magazine article and questions
8) News Values: theory and updating them for digital media landscape
9) Marxism & Pluralism: Media Magazine article and questions
10) Alain de Botton on the News: lecture and questions
NDM News Stories
#1 Broadcasters warned against using children's photographs from social media sites
#2 Facebook and Twitter join coalition to improve social media newsgathering
#3 Meet Snapchat's 'dudeocracy' of talent
#4 BBC Radio 1 aims to be 'Netflix of music radio' with phone-first strategy
#5 Rinstagram or Finstagram? The curious duality of the modern Instagram user
#6 Facebook inflated video viewing times for two years
#7 Twitter pays £1.24m in UK tax as revenues increase by 30.5%
#8 Ad-blockers: are publishers tempted to feed the hand that bites them?
#9 I'm with you on the digital revolution, it's the lack of journalism I can't face
#10 Trump's groping boasts inspire thousands of women to share sexual assault stories on Twitter
#11 Social media can be a pretty ugly place if you're a woman in politics
#12 Newspaper websites suffer post-Olympic dip as print sales hold steady
#13 Local newspaper content too full of listicles and clickbait - lecturer
#14 Lessons to be learned as the Buenos Aires Herald goes weekly
#15 The new social: brands are embracing private sharing
#16 Invasion of the troll armies: from Russian Trump supporters to Turkish state stooges
#17 Facebook faces calls for greater transparency amid 'fake news' row
#18 Twitter suspends American far-right activists' accounts
#19 Fake news clampdown: Google gives €150,000 to fact-checking projects
#20 Platforms v creators: the battle for the internet economy
Marxism & Pluralism: Alain de Botton on the news
1) I agree to a large extent on Alain's view of the news. The fact that the two possibilities of keeping control of the population is very fascinating. First possibility is, to stop all news from being given to the population to ensure that they have no idea about the out-side world they they won't care for it anymore. The second one (which is what still happens in today's society), give the audience so much news that they will forget about it. This is something that still is in use today, as there will be so many news headlines the audience member will find it hard to keep track of what they just read a few hours later.
2) News corporations are very much trying to control and influence the consumers by the content they give out. This links in with the Hegemony theory as the news tires to inflict its power amongst those below it, be it the lower class etc.
3)
With the birth of new technology such as the internet, it has given more freedom to the consumers and they are not as passive as they once were. What de Botton argues is that the consumer is very passive in today's society due to the overflow of news being given to them all at once. However, there wasn't a lot of reflection on the other side of the argument. That digital media has allowed audience members to challenge those views.Things like blogs and comment sections allow the audience to give their opinion on a news story and if a particular issue is found, it can quickly raise awareness than it previously wouldn't have had.
4)
2) News corporations are very much trying to control and influence the consumers by the content they give out. This links in with the Hegemony theory as the news tires to inflict its power amongst those below it, be it the lower class etc.
3)
With the birth of new technology such as the internet, it has given more freedom to the consumers and they are not as passive as they once were. What de Botton argues is that the consumer is very passive in today's society due to the overflow of news being given to them all at once. However, there wasn't a lot of reflection on the other side of the argument. That digital media has allowed audience members to challenge those views.Things like blogs and comment sections allow the audience to give their opinion on a news story and if a particular issue is found, it can quickly raise awareness than it previously wouldn't have had.
4)
News story: De-railed train
The story of the train that de-railed in England was a story that was quite significant locally, but was a story that the majority of society had forgotten. Stories such as Andy Murray's number 1 ranking was one of many stores that week that overflowed this stories significance. Even as a consumer myself, I had completely forgotten that this story even existed as there was so much news being pumped out that it was hard to remember what had even happened yesterday. So much news is being reported, that there will only be 30% that we will remember the next day and will probably forget the next week entirely.
News story: US election
The story of the train that de-railed in England was a story that was quite significant locally, but was a story that the majority of society had forgotten. Stories such as Andy Murray's number 1 ranking was one of many stores that week that overflowed this stories significance. Even as a consumer myself, I had completely forgotten that this story even existed as there was so much news being pumped out that it was hard to remember what had even happened yesterday. So much news is being reported, that there will only be 30% that we will remember the next day and will probably forget the next week entirely.
News story: US election
This was a story that again was covered in so much detail that it made the consumers sick and tired if learning more about it. News coverage of the candidates for the election was non-stop for the last 6 months leading up to election day. so much coverage, although it got people knowing about the event, it made people (including US citizens) uninterested in learning more about the election as they had been fed too much of it.
Friday 18 November 2016
Platforms v creators: the battle for the internet economy
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2016/nov/11/platforms-v-creators-battle-internet-economy
This would mainly talk about how social media sites try to make sure that they are advertising on videos that are "advertiser-friendly". This would be because of the controversy that a business assumes it wold have if it is advertising on controversial content. However when a big company like YouTube tries to make it easier for its audience to understand what may not be "advertiser-friendly", then this had outtraged the consumers who use the service with the hashtag "#YouTubePartyOver".
In my opinion, I think that the masses are just over-reacting when they realise that they won't be paid for distributing controversial content. Although it would be their main source of income with the monetisation of these videos, then this would highlight th distraught and anger that they would've had. Although the users should understand it from an advertiser's perspective in the sense that there shouldn't really be a lot of drama over the updated notification that would help users understand that their content may not be advertiser friendly.
Fake news clampdown: Google gives €150,000 to fact-checking projects
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/17/fake-news-google-funding-fact-checking-us-election
This news story would look into the fake news stories that would have sprung up. Google is now trying to debunk the fake stories since they would have a negative influence on its users.
- "Google has given €150,000 to three UK organisations working on fact-checking projects to help journalists and the public avoid falling for fake stories and bogus claims"
- Another €50,000 is being given to a project called Factmata, developed at University College London and University of Sheffield.
In my opinion i think that this would bring in a positive impact on news distribution as it could crack down on fake stories. As well as that Google have also made it a financial incentive to take down false news websites that would change the perception of an audience. This would be good because it could prompt websites to try and make sure that they ban them and present more truthful reporting on the news.
The decline in newspapers: MM case studies
The New Day
1) The New Day was trying to get into a new market. In this case it had tried to be a lite version of The Daily Mail.
2) It is stated that "about 6 million people but newspapers everyday. However it has decreased as another statistic that talks about the downfall of readers state that "Over 1 million people stopped buying newspapers in the past 2 years".
3) This newspaper would mainly target men and women aged 35-55 and it would look in to the modern approach to news.
4) In my opinion, I think that the main reason why The New Day had failed spectacularly would be because of its "bite size information". Considering that newspapers are known to be extensive upon its method of distributing the news, since The New Day was designed to be short. An example that was mentioned in the post was that the coverage for The Panama Papers would be covered in two brief paragraphs that would total to less than 50 words. This could show that The New Day wasn't really known for its extensive research into their coverage.
The Guardian
1) Garnered over 120 million readers with a daily average of 9 million online readers on the month of June 2016. A third of the 9 million readers are from the UK. Although there is a "poor circulation" wit the print as that has only had 161,000. In comparison to The Telegraph which had 472,000. In 2015, The Guardian had lost around £70 million.
2) The Guardian had tried to reverse this loss by cutting back 20% and shelving of plans for the Midland Goods Shed which would've been used for community gatherings and public events.
3) The global event that The Guardian had won awards for was their coverage of the Paris Attacks.
4) In my opinion i think it would be enough for them to try and globalise The Guardian since it would be able to help them survive from the losses from the print version of The Guardian. As well as that there is also the option to try and make sure that they could rely on advertising. However advertising might be considered very intrusive and therefore it may not be a welcome addition to the globalisation.
1) The New Day was trying to get into a new market. In this case it had tried to be a lite version of The Daily Mail.
2) It is stated that "about 6 million people but newspapers everyday. However it has decreased as another statistic that talks about the downfall of readers state that "Over 1 million people stopped buying newspapers in the past 2 years".
3) This newspaper would mainly target men and women aged 35-55 and it would look in to the modern approach to news.
4) In my opinion, I think that the main reason why The New Day had failed spectacularly would be because of its "bite size information". Considering that newspapers are known to be extensive upon its method of distributing the news, since The New Day was designed to be short. An example that was mentioned in the post was that the coverage for The Panama Papers would be covered in two brief paragraphs that would total to less than 50 words. This could show that The New Day wasn't really known for its extensive research into their coverage.
The Guardian
1) Garnered over 120 million readers with a daily average of 9 million online readers on the month of June 2016. A third of the 9 million readers are from the UK. Although there is a "poor circulation" wit the print as that has only had 161,000. In comparison to The Telegraph which had 472,000. In 2015, The Guardian had lost around £70 million.
2) The Guardian had tried to reverse this loss by cutting back 20% and shelving of plans for the Midland Goods Shed which would've been used for community gatherings and public events.
3) The global event that The Guardian had won awards for was their coverage of the Paris Attacks.
4) In my opinion i think it would be enough for them to try and globalise The Guardian since it would be able to help them survive from the losses from the print version of The Guardian. As well as that there is also the option to try and make sure that they could rely on advertising. However advertising might be considered very intrusive and therefore it may not be a welcome addition to the globalisation.
Twitter suspends American far-right activists' accounts
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/16/twitter-suspends-american-far-right-activists-accounts
Twitter ends up removing accounts based on hate crimes.Especially considering that this would be the twitter of those who are far right that are known to have a very discriminant view on politics.
- "So far, though, the service has just 12,000 users, making it small in comparison to other far-right meeting places such as Stormfront".
In my opinion, this would highlight how Twitter are trying to regulate its website. Although the internet is known to be a place where there is freedom of speech, this would present the contrast that Twitter is a restrictive place that wouldn't allow for discrimination to be publically viewed. This is a good way to prevent criticism from spreading which can show that social media websites have a slight form of control and regulation.
Facebook faces calls for greater transparency amid 'fake news' row
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/17/facebook-transparency-fake-news-advertising
This story highlights how Facebook has had to now try and make sure that people know what stories a re fake and what aren't. This would mainly be because of the lack of truth that may actually influence an audience into believing the lie. This would be bad as it would have negative impacts o those featured as an audience might use these websites to influence others.
- "The errors include over-reporting time spent reading Instant Articles, on which Facebook partners with publishers including newspapers to run stories and split ad revenue, and overstating how many people see a Facebook page a month by 55%."
In my opinion I think that Facebook is finally cracking down on a bad aspect of Facebook. This although should've been done earlier because of political events such as the Presidential Elections would suggest that an audience doesn't know what is right so they would believe in the stories that are in their social media because of how much easier it is to go to an article online. And since articles are known to be trustworthy, audiences may believe in these stories.
NDM: Marxism, Pluralism and Hegemony
1) In my opinion i think that the hegemonic view on the Ian Tomlinson case would be that without citizen journalism, it would've reported that he had collapsed wit the police force trying to help with medics. However if it wasn't for new and digital media, the view point of the Police Force as a violent force wouldn't have been investigated. Since the footage took the perspective of the recorder, then this would've presented a new story that flips the perspective of the story to bring a negative light on the police. The fact that ther police statement was published as "news" would present that those with authority are seen as trustworthy sources since the police are generally seen as enforcing the law against those who don't follow. Following the law would be seen as common sense so those who would go against the police with the footage presenting a new light presents how hegemony can be disrupted.
2) The writer argues that hegemony is being argued. However it isn't entirely being argued to the extent that the masses would understand what is common sense and what isn't. Although the internet can be considered a place where people can state their opinions, it has also become the place where it would feature opinions but to a good standard. This would be because of how the internet has shifted thew power so that people can then express their opinions.
3) I believe that to this day, there is some form of hegemony seen across news papers, but it isn't as used, or seen often than it previously was. This was because before the digital age where consumers could have the voice and ability to challenge stories, they were passive readers. The news was something far more than information, it was a way of life. It was the only way to know what was actually happening on the other side of the world, and since there was no media platform to challenge this, readers grew passive and believed (consumed) every peace of news given to them
2) The writer argues that hegemony is being argued. However it isn't entirely being argued to the extent that the masses would understand what is common sense and what isn't. Although the internet can be considered a place where people can state their opinions, it has also become the place where it would feature opinions but to a good standard. This would be because of how the internet has shifted thew power so that people can then express their opinions.
3) I believe that to this day, there is some form of hegemony seen across news papers, but it isn't as used, or seen often than it previously was. This was because before the digital age where consumers could have the voice and ability to challenge stories, they were passive readers. The news was something far more than information, it was a way of life. It was the only way to know what was actually happening on the other side of the world, and since there was no media platform to challenge this, readers grew passive and believed (consumed) every peace of news given to them
4) I believe that the media will find any possible event or news story to attempt to use hegemonic ideologies in their piece. This is because it is something that the whole world 'cares' about and that they will consume every piece of news to benefit their interest. Since demand for news stories such as the ones above were so big across the world, this gave the media the ability to try regain their power and influence amongst its audience. News stories by The Sun did this to a large extent where they shared their views on the US election showing who they believe to be better and focusing their entire article slamming the other candidate. Why?. Because they know how passive their audience members will be, and internet is of no power when it comes to stories such as this. Broadcast and newspapers are the ones that gain the most power during events like these.
Monday 14 November 2016
Invasion of the troll armies: from Russian Trump supporters to Turkish state stooges
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian
This would look into the troll culture that has been in the internet. This has mainly been around because of the anonymity that the internet can give to a user. With this as a bonus that would explain how comments can be said without consequence no matter the topic, can be infested by trolls that might make fun off or tease the topic into annoying people. This culture has now also affected their political values that we would have.
In my opinion I think that the culture of trolling isn't as much of a threat as people like this article make it seem. Although they may have their reasons for doing these actions, it just shows how reasoning with people has now gone if trolls can influence undecided voters into which side they vote. This would just present how it may not be as much of a threat as to why they would influence a vote. And if people are easily deceived by sarcastic comments then this would ruin a democracy. However it does depend if the user understands that the comments are just poking fun at the elections rather than making valid points.
The new social: brands are embracing private sharing
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2016/nov/02/new-social-brands-embracing-messaging-services
This story would mainly be about messaging services. It would also talk in the end about how it could also replace email. Alhough it does mainly talk about the option of advertisng in messaging services and how this might be intrusive since it might distract the user from typing a message.
- Gartner predicts that by 2021, 20% of all activities an individual engages in will involve at least one of the top seven digital giants
In my opinion, I think if they end up advertising in messaging services, then this would be a distracting element for users as they wouldn't be accustomed to the change of having adverts while they are typing a message. This could have a negative impact on the company that might use this advertising scheme since it would put users off.
NDM: News Values
1) Conflict: Syrian War
Progress: Brexit Aftermath
Disaster: Earthquake in Italy
Consequence: Sam Allardyce a former England manager has been sacked due to price fixing of players
Prominence: American Presidential Elections (Dependent on view point)
Novelty: Facebook needs an editor
2) The example used to display Galtung and Ruge's News Values was with the british Servicewoman who was killed in the bomb blast located at Afghanistan. This was considered newsworthy as although it is located at Afghanistan, the victim that had died from the blast is British. This would therefore give the story a cultural connection with the audience. As well as that it can also be argued there is an aspect of shock factor in this story. This would be because of the mention of the second servicewoman who would've died. This might also be significant as it would be surprising for the readers that a bomb disposal member would've died as they aren't normally associated with the death toll since they would be known for disarming bombs.
3) Gatekeeping is the process that would filter out any news items that would be considered not "newsworthy" and instead would keep the stories that may align with their agenda or political position. As well as personal agenda, it would also be used to filter out any content inappropriate to the audience that the content is being distributed to so that it is safe for for the audience to consume.
4) It has been highlighted that there are six ways in which bias can be news.
Progress: Brexit Aftermath
Disaster: Earthquake in Italy
Consequence: Sam Allardyce a former England manager has been sacked due to price fixing of players
Prominence: American Presidential Elections (Dependent on view point)
Novelty: Facebook needs an editor
2) The example used to display Galtung and Ruge's News Values was with the british Servicewoman who was killed in the bomb blast located at Afghanistan. This was considered newsworthy as although it is located at Afghanistan, the victim that had died from the blast is British. This would therefore give the story a cultural connection with the audience. As well as that it can also be argued there is an aspect of shock factor in this story. This would be because of the mention of the second servicewoman who would've died. This might also be significant as it would be surprising for the readers that a bomb disposal member would've died as they aren't normally associated with the death toll since they would be known for disarming bombs.
3) Gatekeeping is the process that would filter out any news items that would be considered not "newsworthy" and instead would keep the stories that may align with their agenda or political position. As well as personal agenda, it would also be used to filter out any content inappropriate to the audience that the content is being distributed to so that it is safe for for the audience to consume.
4) It has been highlighted that there are six ways in which bias can be news.
- Bias through selection and omission: As previously mentioned in gatekeeping, this would represent bias by choosing which stories are to be in the news as they would be considered "newsworthy" for their suggested audience.
- Bias through placement: This would be considered bias because it would determine where on the paper the story would be. Most of the stories that might catch a readers attention or one that is controversial. Although stories that aren't going to entice readers would be the placed somewhere in the middle or maybe last.
- Bias by headline: This would be bias as it might use language that only readers of that newspaper might want to hear. An example of this would be a newspaper that would be left-wing. Most of the headlines would then have to align with their needs by simply having it.
- Bias by photos, captions and camera angles: Newspaper outlets might also use photos that would place a certain perspective on the topic. This could either have a positive or negative impact on the topic or person.
- Bias through names and titles: Even the choice of name would also have the reader assume that they know who they are talking about. Since they would choose these people for their article then that would mean that the target audience would know who it is.
- Bias by choice of words: Even the choice of words can be considered as bias. The wording of the article could also have the same effect as the photos in the sense that it could have a positive or negative effect on the topic. Although it does depend on the stance of the news outlet.
5) These media outlets allow the audience/people gain access and freedom over news they want to here from, that may have been mediated for censored prior. This is because news used to be the dominant factor over its audience, whatever they produces their audience consumed. However, the digital ages has allowed news that was censored to give that freedom t the audience who deem it important compared to mediated version. In other words, it gives the audience the true perspective of the story rather than being edited and been shown a specific angle.
6) There was a video that was captured using Facebook's latest feature 'Facebook live' which allowed a black woman to record her husband being shot in a car by a police officer. She captured the entire scene and it was used as evidence in court. This was a coverage that wouldn't have been world news as it would have likely to have been sealed in American doors and the whole world would have forgotten about police brutality.
7) It shows how dominant the social media platforms are on the audience. If news were to ever break, we (the audience) view it on a social media site like Twitter as that is the most convenient and efficient way of receiving news than compared to Sky as they have to spend hours of filing and checking their facts before publishing their articles, and audience acknowledge that.
8) This effect in tern has changed the role of journalists. In the 21st century we (the audience) are now experiencing a range of citizen journalism being reported to news. Citizens who report the news are effectively replacing the journalists in the news industry as the news is being solved before someone has to go out and solve it themselves.
9) The audience have gained a more significant role ever since the digital age rose. It has given the audience the most power, and the institutions have lower power. There is a power reversal where it is no longer the audience being passive and consuming the news, but institutions are the ones consuming the audiences news and reporting it.
10) Quality. It is said that citizen journalism brings with it a lot of pros to the industry and to news in general. However, it seems to have brought along many cons, many of which is the loss of quality for news. Previously, news was very top quality report, file checks and numerous hours of source checking to ensure that all data is accurate for the audiences to consume. However this 'new' story telling has lost that quality, shaky footage and screaming really draws the attention away from news as it is not what news is.
Final tasks
8) The introduction of the digital age upon news industries is something that has effected the news values to a great extent. The way in which audiences receive these stories effects every one of the factors that contribute to news story-telling. Things like, immediacy has become irrelevant (to a somewhat large extent). This is because as soon as news is broken by a citizen, social media and the WWW all con tribute to help deliver this piece to as many audiences as possible and it generally comes across really fast. Audiences don't have to look for news, news will be given to them like that.
9) Immediacy- news no longer creates the sense of 'need' amongst audience member. The internet has taken that immediate need away, and whenever there is a news story to be consumed, it will find its way to the audience.
Unambiguity- citizen journalism has created the sense of 'the unknown'. We don't quite understand what's going on and why we are being shown this, it is a story that is kept (often) behind closed doors and creates a sense of anonymous[sy].
Balance- Often when a news story is to be told, their is a twist and a turn to which and how the story is told. It isn't the original core story and therefore has been mediated to a large extent. Now, thanks to the internet, we have the audiences to argue this change. They may know the bitter truth that audiences are hiding through their titles, their wording or even their views. The digital era has opened to doors for the audiences to fight back and they are no longer passive.
Monday 7 November 2016
NDM News: Citizen journalism and hyper-reality
1) Notes-
- examples
The news had dominated its stories at the time, it would create news and deliver it to a passive audience to consume and believe. Now, due to the rise of technology, audience members are no longer passive to news, but creating their own form of content. Audience have become the users, and the users have become the publishers. We are now in the era where UGC has now eroded the dominance of institution over audience members.
- theory (audience reception etc.)
Receptive audience= an audience member that receives and consumes the news without having their own opinion and believing what is being shown to them
UGC= content created by audience members and spread around to the public, becoming creators of news content.
UGC= content created by audience members and spread around to the public, becoming creators of news content.
- benefits to institutions
Institutions have news given to them rather having to pay journalists to go out and collect news stories. This is because it takes a great effort to go out and find stories that will entertain the audience, and so UGC has had a good impact in that regard. They can use the content that society has submitted and use that as their news story.
- benefits to audience
Audience members can now have a more trust worthy source as majority of UGC content is not been mediated in any way. Meaning that it hasn't been edited to show one side of the argument like typical news channels/papers are.
2) What is meant by the term ‘citizen journalist’?
Citizen journalist is someone who is not doing journalism as a career, and rather captures news/evidence in public and submits it for the whole world to see. The difference is, is that it is the public who do citizen journalism as anyone present at an event can capture moments and key details that can draw up concern for the government such as racism caught on streets etc.
3) What was one of the first examples of news being generated by ‘ordinary people’?
The Rodney King case of 1991. This was when a speeder was caught by police and beaten (he was an African American), and the event was captured by a onlooker who recorded this event and published it to the world. This had sparked a lot of evidence of police brutality and is one of the most iconic citizen journalism ever.
4) List some of the formats for participation that are now offered by news organisations.
One of the main difference between professionally shot footage and UGC journalism, is the quality. This is because those who capture footage don't think about the smooth shots, they want to capture the moment as it is happening and at times, expresses their emotions. For example, shaky footage can show horror and being scared through the movement of the camera. In addition, professionally shot footage have a lot of smooth shots and generally has a presenter talking to the audience/news presenters to give context to what is being shown.
6) What is a gatekeeper?
4) List some of the formats for participation that are now offered by news organisations.
- Comments
- Message boards
One of the main difference between professionally shot footage and UGC journalism, is the quality. This is because those who capture footage don't think about the smooth shots, they want to capture the moment as it is happening and at times, expresses their emotions. For example, shaky footage can show horror and being scared through the movement of the camera. In addition, professionally shot footage have a lot of smooth shots and generally has a presenter talking to the audience/news presenters to give context to what is being shown.
6) What is a gatekeeper?
A gatekeeper is someone who is in an organisation (preferably a news co-operation) who decides whether or not to publish a form of news that they have seen as well as preventing certain things to be broadcasted. They essentially prevent certain news, regardless of their content, to be viewed by audiences as they have other news that they deem to be more important.
7) How has the role of a gatekeeper changed?
7) How has the role of a gatekeeper changed?
Independent media on the web is the way to go around gate keepers. This is a system where UGC can be submitted and it can reach a niche audience, and often people who before thought they didn't have a voice, to now feel as if they do.
8) What is one of the primary concerns held by journalists over the rise of UGC?
8) What is one of the primary concerns held by journalists over the rise of UGC?
One of the primary concerns that journalists have over the rise in UGC content is that news corporations may decide to rely on citizen journalists to do the stories for them, as they don't have to pay them for their work, and it will cut down their costs. Journalists are afraid that their jobs may no longer exist as there are people doing their jobs for them.
9) Offer your own opinion (critical autonomy) on the following:
9) Offer your own opinion (critical autonomy) on the following:
What impact is new/digital media having on:
- news stories
A wider variety of news is available than ever before. People are not restricted to a few pages of content, like traditional news papers did. They can see a whole range of stories and ones that are of best interest to the reader.
- the news agenda (the choice of stories that make up the news)
It is having a major impact on the news agenda. This is because online sites such as Twitter and Facebook may own a 'hot' news story that one of their users have broken out. This will become the 'hot' topic of the week, and it will influence news companies to get hold of that information and attempt to do their own news coverage in order to gain more readers.
- the role of professionals in news
NDM is having more of a negative impact on professionals. This is because the internet allows their content to be published and shared around for free, and they are not getting paid for the work they done. This will appose a threat to this job position as the company wants to survive and to do so, they must cut down their costs such as employees.
Hyper-reality and the digital renaissance:
1) The article was written in 2009. Offer three examples of more recent social networking sites or uses of technology that support the idea of a 'digital renaissance'.
- Snapchat
2) How do live streaming services such as Periscope or Facebook Live fit into the idea of a 'digital renaissance'? Are these a force for good or simply a further blurring of reality?
This is more of reality than anything else. This is because the apps and services mentioned all have a key feature; being live. This means that what people see, is the reality of what is actually happening and there is very little, if any' editing actually being presented. This is the difference that videos and these services have different. Services such as FB Live are showing the reality whereas videos have been edited and are not showing the reality of it.
3) How can we link the 'digital renaissance' to our case study on news? Is citizen journalism a further example of hyper-reality or is it actually making news more accurate and closer to real life?
3) How can we link the 'digital renaissance' to our case study on news? Is citizen journalism a further example of hyper-reality or is it actually making news more accurate and closer to real life?
Citizen journalism if anything, is making us a viewers/audience becoming closer to real life than ever before. Yes, to an extent the footage captured can be showing one side of the argument, however it is content which the viewer can relate to. It expresses the emotions which current news doesn't have, which is why news needs to be changed. It needs to feel more like 'news'. News is information that is informing the viewer on events and real life issues, however they need to express emotions and power, which is why news isn't as effective as it doesn't succeed in that prospect. Citizen journalism can really change the way news comes across the the audience/viewer.
Friday 4 November 2016
Lessons to be learned as the Buenos Aires Herald goes weekly
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/26/lessons-to-be-learned-as-the-buenos-aires-herald-goes-weekly
This looks into how Buenos Aires Herald are now firing full time journalists because of their struggle to stay on as a successful newspaper. They have changed from a daily to a weekly distributed platform.
- “as many as 2,000 journalists may lose their jobs in the country in 2016, a staggering number which will damage the profession greatly”
This could indicate that online news outlets have been preferred over the print platform because of its ease of access. Although it has made it more accessible, it has sacrificed the jobs of journalists which could also look into the negative impacts of New Digital Media.
Local newspaper content too full of listicles and clickbait - lecturer
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/26/local-newspaper-content-too-full-of-listicles-and-clickbait-lecturer
This article would look into how journalism isn't gaining the credibility it used to. in this case it would instead look at the "listicles" that have been produced as well as more user generated content that wouldn't really "offer any news values". This would indicate a decline in quality with journalism.
I would agree with this article as lately "listicles" have been appearing more frequently in articles and with the click bait that also makes the content even worse. As well as that, the credibility of journalism is also declining which can also show the change in quality over the years.
Friday 21 October 2016
Newspaper websites suffer post-Olympic dip as print sales hold steady
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/20/newspaper-website-print-sales
This article looks into the decline that print media in the form of newspapers would have as well as its online counterpart.
- "The best digital performer, relatively speaking, was the Sun which saw daily average browser numbers drop by just 1.52% month on month to 2.9 million, according to the latest figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulations published on Thursday."
- "Mail Online saw its daily unique browser numbers fall by by 3.2% month on month in September"
In my opinion I think that this decline is mainly due to the online variation of newspapers. In this case there have been dips in the performance of these newspapers. In this case I think that this highlights the transition to digital versions of newspapers. However as previously discussed in previous tasks, this would be quite a negative impact because of the efforts of journalism. In this case there isn't much investigative journalism that there was for newspapers to survive. However there can be an argument that online would normally report on these revealing events such as the dark aspects of each Presidential Candidate on the Presidential Race. This would tend to be trending. Especially considering that the final debate was approaching soon. So therefore there is potential for journalism.
'Social media can be a pretty ugly place if you're a woman in politics'
Source:https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/oct/21/female-politicians-social-media-abuse-european-parliament
Social media can be a place for politicians to express their opinions and promote their opinions to the wide masses. However there can be some backlash considering that social media would welcome freedom of speech. Therefore although they can interact with the public, there will be those who just want to bully and online is no exception.
- Globally, only 22.8% of national members of parliament are women, and there are still 38 countries in which more than 90% of MPs are men.
In my opinion, I think that this just shows that social media is one of the biggest hosts for opinions. Places like twitter where people can voice their opinion can also be countered with harmful and hateful comments.
NDM News: The future of journalism
1) Accountability journalism is important because it has the potential to expose the corruption of institutions. In this case it would look into how the press are responsible for possibly damaging the image of a brand by revealing what is happening behind the scenes. The example that was stated was the Boston Globe receiving content that had showed that Father John Geoghan had been a paedophile and has had over 100 victims in his care.
2) The relation between both advertisers and newspapers would be that big newspapers would be the place that advertisers are willing promote in. One of the demotivating things that advertisers would face are the huge costs that would come with promoting in newspapers as the 20th Century was still a time when newspapers were the main source of content. The websites that he mention would be websites such as Craigslist and Monster and Match since they would tailor their adverts much more to the expected audience.
3) He suggests that the way that an audience gains their audience is not from the actual institution but rather the audience. This would be because they would tweet about it. This would mean that now news corporations would have to make sure that audiences are sharing the content online so that they could attract more digital readers. However this does lead to a divide in audience. As some may want their news as a print, others may much prefer the online variation. This would meanly be because it is free, and would also offer stories from a variety of genres. By genres i mean categories such as Political News, Technology News and many more. Since this would categorise the news in a way that audiences can read what they are interested in, this would make it more tailored to them in comparison to the newspaper which tries to include categories that may not intrigue their audience however they deemed it more important.
4) If the internet had wide spread in 1992, then this would mean that the audience could have easily gained access to the story. This would be because of people sharing the story to many people to the extent that it would get trending. This would mean that it would've been widely talked about. As well as that, since an audience would've showed interest to this story, there is likely going to be news channels trying to report in on the story.
5) The main argument against the paywall seems to be how it would inform the audience. In this case since the paywall wouldn't interest an audience into reading online, this would mean that they wouldn't be informed. As well as that the way distribution of the news has changed since the 20th Century which means that online would be a good method to share stories. However I think that if there is a paywall, there would be less online readers since they have grown accustomed to reading free news.
6) Journalism is a "public good" because of how it is offered online. They are willing to create this content for the audience to access. Especially digitally since it has made reporting stories a lot easier. This would mainly be because of the lower costs in comparison to the past.
7) He thinks that newspapers aren't replaceable. Although the decline in accountability journalism has declined. This is something that needs to be addressed as this would mean that there should be 5% of accountability journalism. It shouldn't be held by big institutions and so this should expand so that a variety of sources.
8) I think it is because of the advertisements that would surround their website. Since ad revenue appears to be their primary source of income, it could explain how they would survive. As well as that since the adverts would be tailored to its audience, this would help the online news distribution better. However there is the print newspaper which is declining and is considered a costly platform in comparison to the low cost that online would be.
2) The relation between both advertisers and newspapers would be that big newspapers would be the place that advertisers are willing promote in. One of the demotivating things that advertisers would face are the huge costs that would come with promoting in newspapers as the 20th Century was still a time when newspapers were the main source of content. The websites that he mention would be websites such as Craigslist and Monster and Match since they would tailor their adverts much more to the expected audience.
3) He suggests that the way that an audience gains their audience is not from the actual institution but rather the audience. This would be because they would tweet about it. This would mean that now news corporations would have to make sure that audiences are sharing the content online so that they could attract more digital readers. However this does lead to a divide in audience. As some may want their news as a print, others may much prefer the online variation. This would meanly be because it is free, and would also offer stories from a variety of genres. By genres i mean categories such as Political News, Technology News and many more. Since this would categorise the news in a way that audiences can read what they are interested in, this would make it more tailored to them in comparison to the newspaper which tries to include categories that may not intrigue their audience however they deemed it more important.
4) If the internet had wide spread in 1992, then this would mean that the audience could have easily gained access to the story. This would be because of people sharing the story to many people to the extent that it would get trending. This would mean that it would've been widely talked about. As well as that, since an audience would've showed interest to this story, there is likely going to be news channels trying to report in on the story.
5) The main argument against the paywall seems to be how it would inform the audience. In this case since the paywall wouldn't interest an audience into reading online, this would mean that they wouldn't be informed. As well as that the way distribution of the news has changed since the 20th Century which means that online would be a good method to share stories. However I think that if there is a paywall, there would be less online readers since they have grown accustomed to reading free news.
6) Journalism is a "public good" because of how it is offered online. They are willing to create this content for the audience to access. Especially digitally since it has made reporting stories a lot easier. This would mainly be because of the lower costs in comparison to the past.
7) He thinks that newspapers aren't replaceable. Although the decline in accountability journalism has declined. This is something that needs to be addressed as this would mean that there should be 5% of accountability journalism. It shouldn't be held by big institutions and so this should expand so that a variety of sources.
8) I think it is because of the advertisements that would surround their website. Since ad revenue appears to be their primary source of income, it could explain how they would survive. As well as that since the adverts would be tailored to its audience, this would help the online news distribution better. However there is the print newspaper which is declining and is considered a costly platform in comparison to the low cost that online would be.
Sunday 16 October 2016
Newspapers: the effect of online technology
1) In my opinion I partly disagree. For starters the main reason I would disagree would be accessibility. In this case the news should be a very accessible source of information so that the audience are informed. This would be because if they would need to know what it happening in their local area, they can just read what is happening. Having a paywall restricts the amount of people who read the stories that the BBC produce. In this case there has been the different sorts of places that might also look into it. However the contrary to this argument of whether it should be paid for is that being informed should be something that an audience is willing to pay for. This would be because of decline of newspapers as they transition to digital media. in this case journalism isn't as rewarding as it used to be. Therefore paying for a news service could also help with journalism as it could increase the amount of journalism since this is lowering over time. I think that it should be paid for. Although people may not be willing to pay the BBC for something that was offered for free for many years, they may see this as a cash grab.
2) Rupert Murdoch may be right in having to have his content behind a paywall. This would be because it presents that there are people willing to subscribe to digital news. From this it could also try and recover from the financial losses that they have made with still distributing newspapers. Although this might also help financially, this would also look into how there might be a decrease in the online readers.
3) Favour - "What the management of MailOnline have done is show that the free model might just work ever so slightly, but probably not in a robust, profitable way. What News UK have shown is that they can move over paying customers, and keep a healthy ratio of decent content to preserve the brand equity."
I partially agree with this statement as this looks to take the business perspective of the subscription programme. I partially agree because it does have a valid point of potentially working. Although I disagree as it just talks about the free model.
Against - "It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work.
Jerry Harris"
2) Rupert Murdoch may be right in having to have his content behind a paywall. This would be because it presents that there are people willing to subscribe to digital news. From this it could also try and recover from the financial losses that they have made with still distributing newspapers. Although this might also help financially, this would also look into how there might be a decrease in the online readers.
3) Favour - "What the management of MailOnline have done is show that the free model might just work ever so slightly, but probably not in a robust, profitable way. What News UK have shown is that they can move over paying customers, and keep a healthy ratio of decent content to preserve the brand equity."
I partially agree with this statement as this looks to take the business perspective of the subscription programme. I partially agree because it does have a valid point of potentially working. Although I disagree as it just talks about the free model.
Against - "It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work.
Jerry Harris"
In my opinion my agree with this comment because it focus on how free content would transition behind a paywall. This does take the perspective of someone who seems to understand an audience who don't like paywalls.
4) The main reason why The Evening Standard would be the anomaly in this case wold be because of the customers that are willing to pay for the service that they offer. In this case since the Evening Standard is available through print, the increase in distribution which would also make it more accessible to its customers.
5) In my opinion, I think that the print platform will eventually die out. This would mainly be because of how it isn't as rewarding as it would be. In this case there would be media outlets such as the internet which has made the news free for everyone to access. Since it is free people wouldn't be willing to pay for the service since they are so used to it being offered for free. However if there is a paywall, there could be a negative backlash for the distributors of the digital news content since they might be considered "money greedy". However this could also financially help them since they might have a strong readership that are willing to subscribe to their content.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)