Despite its pitfalls, 86% of women politicians use social media. A new report is taking on the trolls and looking at how to empower women in the digital age.
The first time I put up a tweet and I got a negative reaction to it, I recoiled into my corner,” says Irish MEP Mairead McGuinness. “We’re all human beings. One negative comment outweighs 1,000 positive ones.”
While negative portrayals in traditional media can put women off politics, social media can be a way for female politicians to engage the public on their own terms and become known without relying on journalists or political parties. According to the report, 86% of female politicians use social media. It is low cost, which is good for women because they receive fewer private donations on average than male politicians
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.
This article is about women in politics and the use of women on social media. This article talks about the difference between women in politics using social media and men using social media.
In my opinion, I agree with this article and how it states that it's much harder for women in politics than men, as it states that "only 22.8% of national members of parliament are women". Therefore, it's much harder for women to make it through politics in comparison to men.
Sunday 30 October 2016
Week 7 - Why do we still accept that governments collect and snoop on our data?
In recent weeks, the Hollywood film about Edward Snowden and the movement to pardon the NSA whistleblower have renewed worldwide attention on the scope and substance of government surveillance programs. In the United States, however, the debate has often been a narrow one, focused on the rights of Americans under domestic law but mostly blind to the privacy rights of millions of others affected by this surveillance.
"This bulk surveillance violates rights to privacy and freedom of expression – rights that are guaranteed not only under US domestic law, but also under international human rights law. That latter legal framework speaks a universal language, enumerating fundamental rights that every person enjoys by virtue of our common humanity."
As the debate over mass surveillance continues, it is vital that we consider the ways in which this spying violates the fundamental rights of millions of individuals throughout the world. Should the European court of human rights rule against mass surveillance, its decision will have far-reaching implications for the rights of Americans and non-Americans alike.
This article is about the government having access to our personal data and whether it should be allowed or not.
In my opinion, I believe that the government shouldn't have access to our personal data because most of the times we don't actually know what data they can access and it's always against our consent.
NDM News: The future of journalism
1)Why does Clay Shirky argue that 'accountability journalism' is so important and what example does he give of this?
Clay Shirky's argument is that 'accountability journalism' is so important, he talks about how much he values journalism. He further goes on to talk about how journalism actually benefits the public. The example Shirky uses to argue the importance of accountability journalism is the story of the Catholic Church crisis in which the Boston Globe had the power of exposing the Church for allowing children to be abused by Father John Geoghan. However, if the Boston Globe didn't have the power of being able to expose the Church, the public would carry on believing everything was fine and therefore, Shirky uses this story to explain why accountability journalism is so important.
2)What does Shirky say about the relationship between newspapers and advertisers? Which websites does he mention as having replaced major revenue-generators for newspapers (e.g. jobs, personal ads etc.)?
Shirky's main point about the relationship between newspapers and advertisers is that, advertisers didn't really get the recognition they deserved. Shirky states that people/journalists would use their advertising in order to get their stories out and publicised. He therefore, goes on to speak about the importance of advertisers and says that without advertisers journalists wouldn't be as successful. Shirky mentions that Monster and Match and Craigslist are two websites that have replaced major revenue-generators for newspapers.
3) Shirky talks about the 'unbundling of content'. This means people are reading newspapers in a different way. How does he suggest audiences are consuming news stories in the digital age?
He suggests that audiences in this day and age are completely forgetting about newspapers, and mainly viewing/accessing their information online. He believes that a reason for this is because it's easily accessible online rather than going out and getting a newspaper. He also states that people mainly go on social platforms such as Twitter to read news, rather than websites such as the Times or the Daily Mail.
4)Shirky also talks about the power of shareable media. How does he suggest the child abuse scandal with the Catholic Church may have been different if the internet had been widespread in 1992?
Shirky believes that if the Internet was more successful back in 1992 and people were more aware of it, the scandal with the Catholic Church would've gone in a completely different way. He believes that the Priest would've been caught and convicted much quicker and more people would've been more aware of it. However, due to the internet being not so popular or successful the story got out much slower and less people were aware of what had happened.
5)Why does Shirky argue against paywalls?
He argues against paywalls because he believes that having these paywalls, they in fact spoil general news, and instead has more of a benefit financially for news. He also states that having these paywalls on high/well-known institutions just gives audiences to go on websites that have free online news, and therefore well effect higher institutions as nobody will go on their sites anymore, but instead just go on sites with free news.
6)What is a 'social good'? In what way is journalism a 'social good'?
Social good is something that benefits a large number of people is the largest possible way. One example of journalism being 'social good' is through journalists investigating certain matters and being able to expose certain events that will later lead to good/justice, for example the story of the Catholic Church.
7)Shirky says newspapers are in terminal decline. How does he suggest we can replace the important role in society newspapers play? What is the short-term danger to this solution that he describes?
Shirky strongly believes that newspapers are something that can't be replaced, and believes that us as an audience need to find an effective way in order to save the industry of newspapers or they will decline.
8) Look at the first question and answer regarding institutional power. Give us your own opinion: how important is it that major media brands such as the New York Times or the Guardian continue to stay in business and provide news?
In my opinion, I do believe that major media brands such as the New York Times and The Guardian need to stay in business because there's still a vast majority of people that still look to newspapers such as the New York Times. Also, I believe people still enjoy reading newspapers and therefore, it's very important that media brands such as the New York Times stay in business.
Clay Shirky's argument is that 'accountability journalism' is so important, he talks about how much he values journalism. He further goes on to talk about how journalism actually benefits the public. The example Shirky uses to argue the importance of accountability journalism is the story of the Catholic Church crisis in which the Boston Globe had the power of exposing the Church for allowing children to be abused by Father John Geoghan. However, if the Boston Globe didn't have the power of being able to expose the Church, the public would carry on believing everything was fine and therefore, Shirky uses this story to explain why accountability journalism is so important.
2)What does Shirky say about the relationship between newspapers and advertisers? Which websites does he mention as having replaced major revenue-generators for newspapers (e.g. jobs, personal ads etc.)?
Shirky's main point about the relationship between newspapers and advertisers is that, advertisers didn't really get the recognition they deserved. Shirky states that people/journalists would use their advertising in order to get their stories out and publicised. He therefore, goes on to speak about the importance of advertisers and says that without advertisers journalists wouldn't be as successful. Shirky mentions that Monster and Match and Craigslist are two websites that have replaced major revenue-generators for newspapers.
3) Shirky talks about the 'unbundling of content'. This means people are reading newspapers in a different way. How does he suggest audiences are consuming news stories in the digital age?
He suggests that audiences in this day and age are completely forgetting about newspapers, and mainly viewing/accessing their information online. He believes that a reason for this is because it's easily accessible online rather than going out and getting a newspaper. He also states that people mainly go on social platforms such as Twitter to read news, rather than websites such as the Times or the Daily Mail.
4)Shirky also talks about the power of shareable media. How does he suggest the child abuse scandal with the Catholic Church may have been different if the internet had been widespread in 1992?
Shirky believes that if the Internet was more successful back in 1992 and people were more aware of it, the scandal with the Catholic Church would've gone in a completely different way. He believes that the Priest would've been caught and convicted much quicker and more people would've been more aware of it. However, due to the internet being not so popular or successful the story got out much slower and less people were aware of what had happened.
5)Why does Shirky argue against paywalls?
He argues against paywalls because he believes that having these paywalls, they in fact spoil general news, and instead has more of a benefit financially for news. He also states that having these paywalls on high/well-known institutions just gives audiences to go on websites that have free online news, and therefore well effect higher institutions as nobody will go on their sites anymore, but instead just go on sites with free news.
6)What is a 'social good'? In what way is journalism a 'social good'?
Social good is something that benefits a large number of people is the largest possible way. One example of journalism being 'social good' is through journalists investigating certain matters and being able to expose certain events that will later lead to good/justice, for example the story of the Catholic Church.
7)Shirky says newspapers are in terminal decline. How does he suggest we can replace the important role in society newspapers play? What is the short-term danger to this solution that he describes?
Shirky strongly believes that newspapers are something that can't be replaced, and believes that us as an audience need to find an effective way in order to save the industry of newspapers or they will decline.
8) Look at the first question and answer regarding institutional power. Give us your own opinion: how important is it that major media brands such as the New York Times or the Guardian continue to stay in business and provide news?
In my opinion, I do believe that major media brands such as the New York Times and The Guardian need to stay in business because there's still a vast majority of people that still look to newspapers such as the New York Times. Also, I believe people still enjoy reading newspapers and therefore, it's very important that media brands such as the New York Times stay in business.
Friday 21 October 2016
The decline in newspapers: MM case studies
The New Day
1)What was the New Day trying to achieve?
The New Day was launched to tap into a new market, not to 'pinch' readers from other newspapers. The newspaper was targeted at both men and women. The newspaper tries to achieve a balanced view of following any political party line. It tries to go for a different type of newspaper look, The look and feel of the newspaper,with its turquoise masthead, was
often closer to a magazine in format,in theory fitting for a newspaper marketed to people who don’t like newspapers.younger. Furthermore, much of the content would seem to be aimed at twenty-somethings, or parents with young children. The majority of the articles seemed to target young women particularly, and the lack of space given to topics such as sport, coupled with the fact that sport was not positioned in its customary space on the back pages, meant that sports fans (often, but by no means exclusively, men) were not especially well catered for.
2)List the key statistics on the first page: how many people buy newspapers in the UK? How has this declined in the last year?
About six million people buy
a newspaper in Britain every
day.
Over a million people have stopped buying a newspaper in the past two years
3) What audience were the New Day trying to attract?
1)What was the New Day trying to achieve?
The New Day was launched to tap into a new market, not to 'pinch' readers from other newspapers. The newspaper was targeted at both men and women. The newspaper tries to achieve a balanced view of following any political party line. It tries to go for a different type of newspaper look, The look and feel of the newspaper,with its turquoise masthead, was
often closer to a magazine in format,in theory fitting for a newspaper marketed to people who don’t like newspapers.younger. Furthermore, much of the content would seem to be aimed at twenty-somethings, or parents with young children. The majority of the articles seemed to target young women particularly, and the lack of space given to topics such as sport, coupled with the fact that sport was not positioned in its customary space on the back pages, meant that sports fans (often, but by no means exclusively, men) were not especially well catered for.
2)List the key statistics on the first page: how many people buy newspapers in the UK? How has this declined in the last year?
New Day are trying to attract both males and females to read the newspaper. However The majority of the articles seemed to target young women particularly, and the lack of space given to topics such as sport. Furthermore, by reaching a different look to the newspaper, they are trying to attempt to attract audiences that don't normally like reading newspapers.
4) Why do you think the New Day failed so spectacularly? There are several possible reasons listed in the article but do develop your own opinion here as well.
During the first month of its publication
Trinity Mirror sticking to its pricing strategy; the newspaper cost 25p for two weeks after launch
it failed to reach its target of 200,000;
after starting around 150,000, sales
fell to 90,000. Furthermore, I think it failed due to
day and later rose to 50p (price movements announced in advance), allegedly causing a further fall to 40,000. Not only did this make the newspaper more expensive, but it put it alongside other newspapers such as; the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and the Sun.
Therefore, the New Daily due to may reasons, such as, not being to reach it's predicted target audience. Also, by raising the pricing of the newspaper lead to further downfall of the newspaper being successful.
The Guardian
1) List the key statistics on page 10: How many unique digital browsers used the Guardian website in June 2016? What are The Guardian's latest print sales figures? How does this compare to the Telegraph? In terms of finances, how much did the Guardian lose in 2015?
The Guardian is very successful online,
nearly 9 million ‘average daily browsers.Putting it a long way behind the market leader MailOnline (14 million)but way ahead of the Telegraph (4million). Meanwhile, the print circulation
but is struggling to maintain circulation
figures for its print edition. The February statistics of 2016 state that the Guardian have
of the Guardian was only 161,000. It is the poor relation in print sales of quality national dailies, way behind the Daily Telegraph (472,000). Throughout the year of 2015 the Guardian reportedly lost around £70 million.
2) What has been The Guardian's strategy for reversing this decline?
The Guardians strategy in reversing this decline was by having 20% cutbacks and shelving plans for the Midland Goods Shed, a former train depot near GMG’s offices in King’s Cross.
3) What global event did The Guardian's digital coverage win awards for?
The Guardian won an award for covering the Paris attacks in November 2015. They didn't just win the award due to their readers, but they also received the award from the Society of Editors.
4)In your opinion, will the global website strategy be enough to save The Guardian?
In my opinion, i believe the global website strategy is an effective way to save the Guardian. It offers subscription services for those who want to download/read the print format online, and it offers a membership programme. Not only does it do this but it allows readers to access exclusive content and therefore is a positive way in order to keep the Guardian up and running.
3) What global event did The Guardian's digital coverage win awards for?
The Guardian won an award for covering the Paris attacks in November 2015. They didn't just win the award due to their readers, but they also received the award from the Society of Editors.
4)In your opinion, will the global website strategy be enough to save The Guardian?
In my opinion, i believe the global website strategy is an effective way to save the Guardian. It offers subscription services for those who want to download/read the print format online, and it offers a membership programme. Not only does it do this but it allows readers to access exclusive content and therefore is a positive way in order to keep the Guardian up and running.
Thursday 20 October 2016
week 6 - Consumers Turning Their Back on Social Media Branded Content, By Jonathan Davies
Over a quarter of consumers now say thy 'actively ignore' branded social media posts or content, despite soaring usage of platforms like Snapchat and Instagram.
Scepticism is highest in Scandinavian countries with 57% of respondents in both Sweden and Denmark stating they actively ignore content from brands. At the other end of the scale, just 15% of those in Saudi Arabia and 19% of Brazilians would avoid branded content. China and South Africa sit closer to the global average with 24% and 26% of respondents expressing cynicism, respectively.
The popularity of Instagram and Snapchat has soared in the last two years as internet-users seek out real, personal and ‘in-the-moment’ content, according to a new study of over 70,000 consumers from global research consultancy Kantar TNS.
Almost one quarter (23%) of internet-users are now on Snapchat, a huge jump from just 12% two years ago. Instagram has also seen a surge in popularity, with global usage jumping to 42%, up from 24% in 2014.
The new research from Kantar TNS reveals that brands will struggle to get internet-users to engage with them as many consumers feel bombarded by presence of brands on social platforms, with 34% saying they feel ‘constantly followed’ by online advertising. Kantar TNS’s study found that influencers and celebrities hold the key to swaying people’s views of brands. Two out of five (40%) of 16 – 24 year olds say they trust what people say online about brands more than ‘official’ sources, such as newspapers, brands’ own websites or TV adverts.
I agree with these facts, and I do believe now that technology and new/digital media is developing, people are feeling like they're being constantly watched, and many things are becoming repetitive. Therefore, people are no longer finding apps such as Instagram and Snapchat interesting.
week 6 - It's a great time to be a journalist, says Channel 4's Jon Snow
News anchor praises young reporters in Aleppo, points to ‘unbelievable’ Facebook hits and dismisses newspapers for being ‘in the business of lies’.
It is the most exciting as well as the most frightening time to be a journalist, says Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow.
Exciting because of the amount of news stories around at present and because of the willingness of enthusiastic young people to report on those events. Frightening because of the threats to journalists who are trying to report from arenas of conflict, notably the Middle East.
It is the most exciting as well as the most frightening time to be a journalist, says Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow.
Exciting because of the amount of news stories around at present and because of the willingness of enthusiastic young people to report on those events. Frightening because of the threats to journalists who are trying to report from arenas of conflict, notably the Middle East.
He praised young people who, unlike him, are multi-skilled: “They blog, which means writing, they take pictures, still and video film, and then they edit.... I still can’t edit film myself”.
C4 News’s Facebook page is loaded with segments from its TV output, but Snow noted: “There’s no money in it... we’re talking to key elements of online community about how to make it pay... I’m certain we will be attracting investors”.
He was scathing about newspapers, referring to them as having a “snooty attitude about being the bastions of truth” when “quite a lot of them, the mass-market ones, are in the business of lies.
“They needed to wither away. I’m sorry for people who work there, of course, but I don’t mind them [papers] going. People are looking for quality”.
He thought the media, papers and broadcasters, failed in their coverage of the EU referendum debate that led to Brexit because editors did not recognise the motivation of people who felt alienated. They voted to leave, he said, as “a kind of fuck you” to the establishment.
In my opinion, I disagree with Jon Snow's statement of it being a great time to be a journalist. I believe it may be the worst time in fact, to be a journalist as due to new and digital media progressing and technology developing, more and more journalists are losing out on jobs as the newspaper industry is falling apart.
Furthermore, I agree with his statement of those journalists that do have jobs can be in danger due to going to areas with conflict.
Sunday 16 October 2016
Newspapers: the effect of online technology
1) Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?
I do agree with James Murdoch's statement of the BBC not being allowed to provide 'free' news online, as I believe we as audiences pay for other types of media, e.g netflix or online movie sites. Therefore, just because it's news I don't believe we shouldn't have to pay for it, as we pay for most other types of media. Also, if audiences don't pay for News, loads of news industries will begin to decline.
So I think audiences should have to pay for online news.
2)Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?
In my opinion, I think Rupert Murdoch was right in putting his news content, The Times, The Sunday Times behind a paywall. By putting his content behind a paywall managed to improve the number of subscribers of both The Times and The Sunday Times. Figures show that The Times managed to gain 3,000 new subscribers in the first half of 2013. Nonetheless, the effect of free online news is still effecting these websites as they're still losing out on money/profit. Therefore, this portrays that even though Rupert's idea of putting his news behind a paywall won't be effective for a long time as there's still other online news that is free.
Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
"Or in other words, what's the point of having a web presence if you make no money?" - patricksmithjournalist
"One thing's certain: there are no received truths any more. Maybe a locked-down paywall is the answer after all, to preserve a newspaper as an institution." - jasperjackson
These two quotes quote are in favour of the paywall, as they state that there's no point in having a website if you're not making any profit from it and therefore agrees with the point of having a paywall. Also, the second quote states having a paywall may be the only to preserve the newspaper institution.
I agree with this statement, as I believe there's no point investing your time into something if you don't benefit from it or make any profit.
"These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work."
-Jerry Harris
This quote is completely against the idea of having a paywall on online websites as he believes audiences won't pay for news if there's institutions that are providing news for free. I agree with this statement as I believe audiences would rather look at free news instead of paying for online news.
Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
One main reason due the evening standard increasing as it doubled the number of copies they were distributing. Not only did it benefit due to it's copies increasing, but it benefited due to it's audience remaining loyal and not buying other newspapers. The fact that the company increased their number of copies distributed more portrays that the customers enjoyed the content they were viewing.
Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.
In my opinion, I don't think the newspaper industry will completely die out. I believe there will always be a generation that are always be interested in reading newspapers, and prefer reading paper copies of news rather than online news. However, I do believe it will be targeted at a smaller audience due to many people already switching to online news. I also believe journalists will start to lose out on jobs as there are always more than one story online and therefore journalists won't be able to investigate as much. Furthermore, despite the newspaper industry not completely dying out, I don't think there will be as many institutions left for audiences to switch from, as many institutions are already losing out on profit.
I do agree with James Murdoch's statement of the BBC not being allowed to provide 'free' news online, as I believe we as audiences pay for other types of media, e.g netflix or online movie sites. Therefore, just because it's news I don't believe we shouldn't have to pay for it, as we pay for most other types of media. Also, if audiences don't pay for News, loads of news industries will begin to decline.
So I think audiences should have to pay for online news.
2)Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?
In my opinion, I think Rupert Murdoch was right in putting his news content, The Times, The Sunday Times behind a paywall. By putting his content behind a paywall managed to improve the number of subscribers of both The Times and The Sunday Times. Figures show that The Times managed to gain 3,000 new subscribers in the first half of 2013. Nonetheless, the effect of free online news is still effecting these websites as they're still losing out on money/profit. Therefore, this portrays that even though Rupert's idea of putting his news behind a paywall won't be effective for a long time as there's still other online news that is free.
Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.
"Or in other words, what's the point of having a web presence if you make no money?" - patricksmithjournalist
"One thing's certain: there are no received truths any more. Maybe a locked-down paywall is the answer after all, to preserve a newspaper as an institution." - jasperjackson
These two quotes quote are in favour of the paywall, as they state that there's no point in having a website if you're not making any profit from it and therefore agrees with the point of having a paywall. Also, the second quote states having a paywall may be the only to preserve the newspaper institution.
I agree with this statement, as I believe there's no point investing your time into something if you don't benefit from it or make any profit.
"These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work."
-Jerry Harris
This quote is completely against the idea of having a paywall on online websites as he believes audiences won't pay for news if there's institutions that are providing news for free. I agree with this statement as I believe audiences would rather look at free news instead of paying for online news.
Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?
One main reason due the evening standard increasing as it doubled the number of copies they were distributing. Not only did it benefit due to it's copies increasing, but it benefited due to it's audience remaining loyal and not buying other newspapers. The fact that the company increased their number of copies distributed more portrays that the customers enjoyed the content they were viewing.
Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.
In my opinion, I don't think the newspaper industry will completely die out. I believe there will always be a generation that are always be interested in reading newspapers, and prefer reading paper copies of news rather than online news. However, I do believe it will be targeted at a smaller audience due to many people already switching to online news. I also believe journalists will start to lose out on jobs as there are always more than one story online and therefore journalists won't be able to investigate as much. Furthermore, despite the newspaper industry not completely dying out, I don't think there will be as many institutions left for audiences to switch from, as many institutions are already losing out on profit.
Friday 14 October 2016
Week 1 - -The Guardian view on sexual harassment in schools: "action is needed
More than a fifth of girls aged 7 to 12 have experienced sexual jokes from boys; almost a third of 16- to 18-year-old girls have suffered unwanted sexual touching. Nearly three-quarters of teenagers heard girls denigrated with words such as “slut” or “slag” regularly. Teachers report frequent incidents of girls sending nude pictures to their boyfriends – then finding they have been forwarded to others.
Unveiled is a culture that is damaging not only to girls, but also to boys, who are sometimes victims and often face pressure to “prove their masculinity” by objectifying and baiting their schoolmates.
Almost a quarter of young people were 12 or younger when they first saw porn, and what was previously considered hardcore material has become increasingly mainstream.
Thursday 13 October 2016
Week 5 - Spotify UK revenues surge to almost £190m as mobile subscriptions take off
Revenues at Spotify’s UK business grew to almost £190m last year as subscription income soared by over 40% thanks to music fans flocking to the company’s mobile service.
Spotify, the world’s biggest music streaming service with an $8.5bn (£6.9bn) valuation, saw total UK revenues rise by 18% from £159m to £187.2m last year.
This was fuelled by a 44% surge in subscription revenues from £119m to £171m.
“This increase can be attributed to the transition from desktop to mobile as today the majority of new users signing up for Spotify are mobile,” the company said. “2015 was a big year for Spotify and we had some very significant successes. In many ways, it was our best year ever.”
Subscription income accounts for over 90% of Spotify UK’s total revenues, the remainder comes from advertising.
Week 5 - Are mobiles changing how we shop?
- Industry data suggests technology is finally catching up with impulse-buying urge.
It has transformed our working days and social lives alike but now, it is claimed, the mobile phone has finally conquered our wallets.
New industry data suggests that, for the first time, the majority of online shopping sales in the UK are now conducted through smartphones and tablets.
According to IMRG (Interactive Media in Retail Group), the trade body for internet retailers, 51 per cent of online sales between November and January in the UK involved hand-held devices rather than traditional computers or laptops.
A year earlier the equivalent figure was just 40 per cent.
In my opinion, I believe the industry data is correct, as it states technology is changing the way we shop. This is correct, as nowadays many people are reliant on their mobile phones. They are reliant on their phones due to many of the facilities being available whenever they're needed and easily accessed. Therefore, many people can stay at home and shop whenever they want.
Sunday 9 October 2016
Build The Wall Analysis
Section 1:
This section of the article is about how important news really is, and why journalists should be paid for the work they do.
Section 2:
Section 2 of the article states how online subscriptions are the way forward and gives examples of online subscriptions such as the the Times and The Post.
Section 3:
Sections 3 goes on to talk about the purpose of online paid subscription, and the advantages it brings, it also goes into detail about the profits industries would benefit from.
Section 4:
This section of the article is about how important news really is, and why journalists should be paid for the work they do.
Section 2:
Section 2 of the article states how online subscriptions are the way forward and gives examples of online subscriptions such as the the Times and The Post.
Section 3:
Sections 3 goes on to talk about the purpose of online paid subscription, and the advantages it brings, it also goes into detail about the profits industries would benefit from.
Section 4:
The last section states how news industry's will still be able to benefit from this scheme and will gain more revenue and profit.
David Simon’s overall argument
David Simon argues that the news industry is extremely important, and it shouldn't be allowed to decline. David also emphasises the importance of the role of journalists and states how much of a big role they play in terms of the newspaper industry. David's main point in this article is that he believes people should start paying for online subscriptions in order to make sure industries still benefit by making enough profit in order to remain as an industry and not fall apart. He also strongly believes and puts full blame on online subscription for the newspaper industries slowly falling apart.
Furthermore, the article goes on and David explains the consequences of newspaper industries not gaining their profit needed, and which if it is not gained, this will result in the decline of the newspaper industry.
Finally, David states that if all newspaper industries use this online paid subscription scheme the results will be positive as people won't have the option of using other institutions that are free. Therefore, by all industries using this scheme will result it them gaining their revenue and still being able to remain as a strong institution.
Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online?
I do agree with David Simon's points, in my opinion I think newspaper industries are far too important for them to completely die out, and I believe if people have to pay for online subscription this won't be the case. However, I think it has come to the point where it may be too late for the journalism industry to survive as it would be needed for ALL industries to follow this scheme. Lastly, I strongly agree with the fact that as audiences we should be paying for newspaper content as we would do so for other media.
Furthermore, the article goes on and David explains the consequences of newspaper industries not gaining their profit needed, and which if it is not gained, this will result in the decline of the newspaper industry.
Finally, David states that if all newspaper industries use this online paid subscription scheme the results will be positive as people won't have the option of using other institutions that are free. Therefore, by all industries using this scheme will result it them gaining their revenue and still being able to remain as a strong institution.
Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online?
I do agree with David Simon's points, in my opinion I think newspaper industries are far too important for them to completely die out, and I believe if people have to pay for online subscription this won't be the case. However, I think it has come to the point where it may be too late for the journalism industry to survive as it would be needed for ALL industries to follow this scheme. Lastly, I strongly agree with the fact that as audiences we should be paying for newspaper content as we would do so for other media.
NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry
This article is about who caused the newspaper industry to fall apart. Nixon and the status of print journalism soared. At their best, newspapers hold governments and companies to account. The article goes on to explain how this can be shown through USA, New Zealand and western Europe. Additionally, the article states that Phillip Meyer predicts the newspaper industry will completely die in America by 2043. The article states that the main reason as to why the newspaper industry is dying, is due to the web/internet. Britons aged between 15 and 24 say they spend almost 30% less time reading national newspapers once they start using the web. Furthermore, the article mentions how Switzerland's and Netherlands newspapers have lost half their classified advertising to the internet. According to the Newspaper Association of America, the number of people employed in the industry fell by 18% between 1990 and 2004. The article goes into further detail about how people are also losing their jobs due to the decline of the newspaper industry. However, it also states that the newspaper industry not being completely wiped out, but slowly, institutions are beginning to decline. The article closes on their prediction of independent journalism being backed by charities and thousands of fired-up bloggers and well-informed citizen journalists; "there is every sign that Arthur Miller's national conversation will be louder than ever."
1) Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?
I disagree with this, I believe there is a reason to 'panic', as newspapers are beginning to very rapidly decline and more and more people aren't finding any reasons to go out and by newspapers due to everything being online/on their phone. Also, even if there are a couple of newspaper industries left, I don't think they'll be that successful, or it might even be seen as unusual to read a newspaper.
2) The article is 10 years old - an eternity in digital media terms. Have the writer's predictions come to pass? Use statistics from your Ofcom research to support or challenge the writer's argument.
Majority of the predictions were correct. The article was published in 2006 and there indeed has been a bigger decline in the newspaper industry, from Ofcom research, it is stated that young people are more reliant on the web in terms of getting their news. Furthermore, the research states that the percentage of people who read newspapers fell from 72% to 48%. This therefore, conveys that the Ofcom research was correct and these predictions were true as there's been a bigger decline in the newspaper industry and more and more people have become reliant on the Internet and not newspapers.
3) The Economist suggests that high-quality journalism in the future will be backed by non-profit organisations rather than profit-seeking media corporations. Is there any evidence for this? How is the Guardian funded? What do major stories from the last year such as the Panama Papers suggest about how investigative journalism is conducted in the digital age?
The Guardian is funded by Scott Trust Limited. The Panama papers suggest that using online platforms is a better way to news and information across to people, as it's quick and instant. They therefore use new and digital media to their advantage, rather than being against it.
Saturday 8 October 2016
Week 4 - Taking the self out of selfie – most pictures not about vanity, says study
Australian analysis of more than 5,000 selfies posted to Instagram concludes they are not really about narcissism but simply a part of everyday life.
This article is all about 'selfies' and how taking selfies isn't just about 'vanity', but it's a part of everyday life. The article talks about how Researchers at the Australian National University’s College of Business and Economics assessed randomly selected selfies posted to Instagram over a period of 10 days, and found that only one in 10 were taken to communicate physical attractiveness for the sole purpose of raising an online following.
This article is all about 'selfies' and how taking selfies isn't just about 'vanity', but it's a part of everyday life. The article talks about how Researchers at the Australian National University’s College of Business and Economics assessed randomly selected selfies posted to Instagram over a period of 10 days, and found that only one in 10 were taken to communicate physical attractiveness for the sole purpose of raising an online following.
The rest were simply “aimed at friends and family,” said Dr Toni Eagar, a co-author of the study.
Additionally, the article states that selfies are just visual records of everyday life, shared for the straightforward enjoyment of the self-and-subject and their friends, family and followers.
I agree with most of this article, as not everyone takes selfies for pure vanity, most times it will be with friends or family, and therefore people aren't just self-absorbed.
Week 4 - Streets without shops: how apps are transforming our local neighbourhoods
The on-demand services offered by apps like Uber, Laundrapp and Shoe Drop could be the nail in the coffin for some street-level businesses, and help spur gentrification. But who loses out?
This article is about how apps are becoming the new way to go shopping, buy food, order clothes etc. It goes on to state how restaurants and other food places will soon go out of business due to apps taking over, “I don’t think any London restaurant would survive these days with current rent prices without Deliveroo or similar apps".
Furthermore, the article goes into detail about how London 'used' to
be a diverse place where people used to go
out and buy things or just even go 'window shopping'. However, due to apps, people no longer do this as they're able to access everything and buy everything through apps on their mobile phones. “London areas like Hackney or Newham were the most diverse (in terms of how many people from other areas visit the area) based on our metrics, but also some of most deprived neighbourhoods in London.”
I do agree with this article, as I believe since technology has developed more and more apps have been released where audiences are able to order whatever they want, whenever they want, just with a simple click.
This therefore, impacts restaurants and shopping centers as nobody goes out of their way to buy things, instead they stay indoors and buy everything through apps.
This article is about how apps are becoming the new way to go shopping, buy food, order clothes etc. It goes on to state how restaurants and other food places will soon go out of business due to apps taking over, “I don’t think any London restaurant would survive these days with current rent prices without Deliveroo or similar apps".
Furthermore, the article goes into detail about how London 'used' to
be a diverse place where people used to go
out and buy things or just even go 'window shopping'. However, due to apps, people no longer do this as they're able to access everything and buy everything through apps on their mobile phones. “London areas like Hackney or Newham were the most diverse (in terms of how many people from other areas visit the area) based on our metrics, but also some of most deprived neighbourhoods in London.”
I do agree with this article, as I believe since technology has developed more and more apps have been released where audiences are able to order whatever they want, whenever they want, just with a simple click.
This therefore, impacts restaurants and shopping centers as nobody goes out of their way to buy things, instead they stay indoors and buy everything through apps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)