- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)