January assessment: Learner response

1) Feedback

WWW: This is a good solid essay that stays focused on the question and offers a variety of appropriate, recent examples. 

EBI: Lacking theory : Surely Marxism + Pluralism could be discussed in an essay on trust? News on the tweet? Journalism as a social good - Clay Shirky?

Handwriting is still worth keeping an eye on...Struggled with a few words and you want to make your examiners job easier.

2) I would think that I am currently working on a level 3. This would be because it would be mainly focused on the question which follows with the feedback that is presented. As well as that the essay also demonstrated some critical autonomy. however the reason it wouldn't be considered a Level 4 would be because it would involve some of the theory that could've been used to try and reinforce points for the topic of trust. I could've improved with the theory that would've given a more sophisticated answer so that it can be along the lines of Level 4. 

3) There were some points that would be argued such as how trusted organisations could be distrusted later on. Also look into democracy in more detail. As well as that it would also look into the different sources offers values that the audience would believe.

4)

• Theory was used very well
• Variety of stories were mentioned in their essays
• Has good focus on the question with the focus keeping the topic in mind throughout.

5) The news would also not be considered as trust worthy as it used to be. This would mainly be because of the democratisation of the internet that people are allowed to freely say what they desire and tweet some of the most absurd of stories that would aid their political views. This would mean that there would be some form of hegemony being placed into the media. The audience would see the news as a place of trustworthy and informative content that would help people stay up to date on issues that that may effect them. Seeing as to how it would be considered common sense to trust the news, this would therefore lead this Marxist view on how the media is controlled by high profile figures that may have an influence on an audience. However it can be argued with a Pluralist view that the widespread of internet democratisation can allow for many more opinions to be heard or considered meaning that an audience may consider who they trust would be dependent on their political view. This would mean that journalism as a whole would be dying with people writing opinionated posts may not identify that some of it may be fabricated and this may lead to the trust in an audience being questioned. 

Identities and the Media: Reading the riots

1) The selection of images and language used for the coverage of the 2011 riots had presented the main culprit to be young people. Especially considering that a majority of the newspapers would use the same image of the young hooded teenager in front of fire which had further reinforced the stereotype of teenagers and the rampant intentions that supposedly have. This would be highlighted with the choice of labelling this event as a form of "Anarchy" in which the news would surround this theme. 

2) Owen Jones' Chav was mentioned because it had highlighted the fear and concerns that the public would have against the lower class. in this case he would highlight how the Daily Mail were shocked when they had noticed that some of the perpetrators of the riots would be middle class. And some of the occupational backgrounds such as Estate Agent and Oxford graduate had surprised them. This would mean that the Daily Mail wouldn't have a good opinion or perspective on the lower class. 

3) The survey had found that it would be 40% of newspaper articles featuring young people are associated to crime. And that 71% would feature a negative tone towards the teenagers. 

4) Stanley Cohen's Moral Panic can be linked to the coverage of the riots because of the view on a negative light towards teenagers had presented with the front cover branding teenagers as an irresponsible group of people. This would be because of the reaction that they had against the damage which was heavily blamed on  the teenagers. This would mainly be because of the appearance that the rioters have in the public. This would be because of the rioters that were questioned were mainly young teenagers. 

5) Most of the blame was put on pop culture. With the lyrics of rap music being anti-establishment and violent video games putting players in the perspective of violent characters may have put an influence on teenagers to take action in a violent manner. This would be one of the most recurring factors towards moral panics as teenagers are seen as consuming this sort of media. 

6) Social Media was blamed for orchestrating the attacks in the London Riots. The freedom of communication that social media such as Twitter and Facebook would do. Sharing out where they would be could've triggered some security as surveillance onto Social Media could've prevented some of the attacks if the message wasn't tweeted or shared. if there were any key words that could be highlighted for the authorities so see where and when the riots would take place it would've benefited them. In this case they could've utilised social media to their advantage so that they could prevent further attacks.

7) The two step flow model can be used for the coverage of the 2011 riots had presented how popular people with opinion would tend to be seen as a trust worthy person or someone with influence. With the influential factor in mind, this would therefore show how an audience would flock and support a certain perspective of the riots because of a variation on hegemony. Seeing as to how whatever news reports would say may have an influence on the prejudice towards young teenagers with a negative tone. 

8) I would agree to a certain extent. With the "tsunami of blogs" it may offer various reasoning towards for or against the riots, it is likely that this democratisation may also allow those who are unaware of what is happening weigh in on the topic. This may mean that this may open new perspectives for the riots topic.

9) The right wing had shared the perspective of the negative view of the young teenagers and further reinforce that sense of negativity with labels like "YOB" which shows that this audience would be against youngsters and have a prejudice. 

10) The left wing responses to the riots describe how there would be inequality in the current social structure. Their views tend to sympathise with the rioters in comparison to the right wing that would make the youth appear as criminals of the present day. 

11) My own views on the main cause for riots would be that it would have rooted from the killing of Mark Duggan. Young teenagers and aggressive adults would then use this reasoning to try and protest. Some people may have seen this opportunity with the public outcry against the authorities as a way to try and riot and gain many products that they would desire. the rioters may have rooted from the case but used Mark Duggan as an excuse to try and reason their actions.

12) Capitalism can be blamed because of those people who are rich and powerful could be exposed for their wrong doings. However this reasoning would suggest that the riots are against the government and their corrupt behaviours. This could be argued as a reason towards the riots.

13) Rioters weren't really given a voice as a majority of the interviews that were taken had mainly consisted of experts and older members that would mainly label young teenagers as trouble makers.

14) Those that had stated their opinion already have hatred against the police and this riot would mainly help them reinforce a negative effect against the police by fighting against them in a violent manner. 

15). In my opinion i think that the riots were slightly unjustified. It would make sense for a protest however to escalate their political opinions in a violent manner wasn't necessary. This riot probably would have caused more harm and those involved probably used the chaos as an advantage to try and gain some good equipment or products.  However I would slightly sympathise with them considering that t=what they were causing was an issue that would need to be addressed with the corruption of politics, they may feel betrayed and that would be understandable. However rioting isn't a good way of trying to convince it.

News on the tweet

1) Respected news brand is good for twitter because they would be known for trustworthy information considering that they can't alter the story as this would risk their reputation of respect. As well as that those that are verified are also good so that they could then try to combat the fake news that has been around social media such as twitter.

2) Twitter is one of the biggest social media sites. It would be odd if big news brands didn't use this ease of sharing their stories on to the platform to garner more of a following. This could also result in more readers from all over the world making it easier to access. This could also mean that a younger audience could also be tailored into the news since they would most likely have twitter accounts and these stories that are shared will help inform them.

3) I do agree to some extent, but it is more of a competition rather than a good thing for news companies. I agree with the fact that there is a lot of revenue combined from both print and online when consumers take in the news. However, it doesn't block out the fact that online is harming print and is continuing to do so. This gives off an everlasting effect that the online world has done more bad than good when it comes to news corporations. 


5) I'd say that gossip might harm the quality of journalism because of the joking manner that might sometimes alter to the truth which might deceive the audience as some satirical articles might look professional enough to the extent that the audience might believe it.

7) I believe that there has been both a good and bad impact. The reasons why Twitter has become a good platform for traditional newspaper companies is because it is the only appropriate social media site that actually allows users to interact with them and actually is notified when a post has gone up. It gives a safety for the number of people who are going to read their latest story as it has been sent to their subscriber's account. On the other hand, Twitter has had some negative impacts on news corporations such as complaints. People who have a complaint or demand answers from these institutions essentially have more power and authority over them when using Twitter as they are viewed by other fellow Twitter followers who follow the same institution. This essentially can instigate a matter and turn it really badly.

8) I believe that the more sources that trust worthy, it will be a good way of helping new brands in the future when creating stories or publishing them. Currently, Facebook isn't currently a safe place for news brands to collect stories or information in general. Sites like social media need to be much safer and only then can the protection be lifted to allow news corporations to take use of these sites.

NDM News: Globalisation and fake news

The Guardian & the global problem of fake news

1) The similarities that the counties had would be that it would involve politics in a negative light. This would mainly be because they would try and create these stories to try and make sure that their political aims would be met to ensure that the party that they support is at an advantage. Although there was also the running theme of Islamophobia that the fake stories would also have as they would tend to associate public figures with the Muslim Brotherhood.

2) In my opinion i think that the freedom that the internet does offer will end up welcoming more news that isn't verified since it isn't checked by an authority to make sure that they are reporting official or actual news stories. This risk would end up hurting whoever is in a negative light for the stories. Since people are more inclined to read what is in their political views then this means that the widespread of fake news is more likely to occur since people are likely to use these fake stories as a way to highlight something wrong with the party that they are against. This does end up sounding familiar with the "Cats and Iraq" statement since this also looks into how audiences are more likely to read about what is more in their favour or view. And seeing as to how this is widespread now, then this would further reinforce the statement.

New York Times and the creation of fake news

1) Some of the stories that Beqa Latsabidze had success with would be stories such as the the Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. 

2) I do not believe that these 'big' institutions are to be blamed for any of these large atrocities of fake news flourishing. They are simply the network, they create a pathway for people to get the information, not to directly produce information and give it out. Ir is essentially a platform for us, to share our views and values. However, this 'freedom' has been exploited and rather it being the platform itself being blamed (which in this case is FB and Google), the blame should be on the users who use the option to share content but don't proof-read their work. There are so many users on both platforms that it will be difficult to monitorise each and every post made in order to check if they are all factually correct. I do believe that it is less of the institutions fault and is more of the users fault as they are the ones essentially who are creating this content and publishing it for the whole world to see.