28/09/16 - Publishers and Journalists Must Work Together to Save Journalism

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/sep/23/publishers-and-journalists-must-work-together-to-save-journalism

The digital revolution has caused newspapers to go out of business in the UK, USA, Canada, and Australia and other European countries. However it isn't negative fore everyone as Journalists and publishes want very different things. On the whole publishes want profit an journalists are criticizing them for cutbacks particularly in the way they are done. Commercial effects of technology have caused losses throughout all print media so the cutbacks are indeed necessary what isn't necessary is the fact the ordinary people are losing their jobs while the people in charge are continuing to receive excessive rewards. However both parties are still having to ensure their products remain alive within the industry and the changing times in most cases rather than making a profit people are having to look at keeping their losses to a minimum, this is the point it has reached. Reporters are the ones hit the hardest as you spend more money on them that hey bring back, they often spend months on one story but the commercial downfall, due to the movement online, means that even though they can bring in a story that could help the reputation of the newspaper and can become something incredibly important for the audience. They lose money.

o In 2009 105 Newspapers closed (many were beginning to be replaced by websites.
o Overall Ad Sales for print fell by 30% in 2009.
o FREE daily newspapers accounted for 7% of newspaper circulation

I think that publishers and journalists have separated and has sped the effect of the digital revolution, on both sides their have been failings to adapt and cater for the changes. Many failed to or created websites to late, the rise in AD revenue on line corresponded with the fall of AD revenue for print. Transferring to an online platform wouldn't have remade all losses but would have helped greatly particularly in terms of building and appealing to a larger audience. Between the two sides there is immense censorship on what is shown and there are too many dominant ideologies that are only shown, the rise of news channels on sites such as YouTube, not only showed people news stories in their entirety as they could be dedicated to a video of any desired length, but also had fewer restrictions so certain things can be talked about and shown, regardless of powerful figures that may have been involved. However recently Google has changed their YouTube monetization which has resulted in a lot of controversy and  criticism of control especially with the rule against news channels. The censorship against a predominantly educational aspect of the internet mirrors the actions of people who owned newspapers and raises the question as to whether institutions in power are trying to remain in power by reducing the freedom of online creators and whether they only want certain ideologies to be shown on their sites? However it wouldn't be easy to have complete control as trends change all the time, people are always creating a new site/app, so if one becomes to censored and the audience feels that they are not able to speak freely. They can easily find somewhere else to share their unchanged and uncensored views.

28/09/16 - The Idea of a 'Post-Truth Society' is Elitist and Obnoxious

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/sep/19/the-idea-post-truth-society-elitist-obnoxious
 The article is based on the Post truth society, particularly surrounding the EU Referendum. There's an argument suggesting that we are moving away from believing confirmed facts and policy details an are much more interested in something that appeals emotionally. Brown even suggests that topics that caused the referendum such as Immigration and public spending were not discussed during the campaign due to the aforementioned reason. There is also reason to believe that experts are not longer as respected as they once were.

o 85% of people want politicians to consult professionals and experts when making difficult decisions
o 83% want government to make decisions based on objective evidence
o The higher the level of education the higher the EU support.
o Those aged 65 and over were the highest 'leave voters'
o London voted remain (60%)

I personally believe that it's not the audience who don't want the facts, its the lack of faith in them due to an abundance of 'fake facts' during the EU referendum for many the ultimate appeal was the £50 million a day for the NHS of they were to choose to leave. Less than 24 hours after the result Farage himself said that this could not be promise. Politics now is more based around lies to try an appeal to an audience, there seems to now be more of a desire to be in a powerful position that to actually help people, for years the manipulation of information has had a negative impact on everyone and the movement towards an emotional appeal is because it is ironically more trustworthy than expert calculations. This was particularly evident on social media during the referendum where opinions and debate cast on sites such as Twitter was more sought after than debates on TV, even though the rise of new and digital media has caused a decline in TV consumption there is a definite argument to suggest that the increased internet debate on the EU referendum was because there were 'ordinary' peoples views, unedited views. However people choose who they follow and can easily unfollow those that don't share the same views so rather than debates occurring there may have been more of an 'echo chamber' where the same views were thrown around repeatedly. Nevertheless people were more inclined to favour things that often didn't include facts from the experts which raises the question: Has social media benefited the audience when it comes to politics? rather than simply having powerful people feed you the same information the audience is exposed to other views which is more positively influential than just being exposed to 'fake facts' and potentially even makes politics more fair for those whom aren't receiving facts that haven't been manipulated to suit a party.

'The Last 20 years have been more significant in terms of media and its role in society than the whole of the previous 200 years.' TWEDYA

I don't think that the last 20 years have been more significant in terms of media and its role in society. In the past 200 years there was the invention of Gutenberg's printing press, the Renaissance, reformation and scientific revolutions. These are arguable more significant than the last 20 years as the main impact now would be the development and forced transition onto an online platform, whereas the revolutions constructed the development of the media. The most important period would have been during WW1 and WW2 where the medias role in society was the most important in terms of informing people what was going on and making sure that families had some knowledge of their relatives serving. The creation of the radio and cinematic news reel, allowed for news to be more up to date, which supports the importance within society as a fundamental part of day to day life.

There was also the development of investigative journalism, particularly with Watergate and the Nixon Scandal posted by the Washington Post, there is an argument to suggest that we need journalism to know the truth about larger organisations and powerful people, without journalism no one would have know about Nixon or many other issues for that matter. So without journalism the public would be oblivious to the abuse of powerful figures and those people would be able to continue doing certain things.

Despite these advantages institutions have benefited the least particularly recently which is why there is a valid argument to suggest that the Last 20 years has in fact been the most significant. The corporate management and the rise in people such as Rupert Murdoch has resulted in journalism following certain ideologies and has reduced the ability to investigate certain organisations out of fear of ruining corporate relationships.

Moreover there is certainly going to be a drastic change within the next five to ten years particularly for media companies who fail to use the online platforms efficiently and keep up with the trends, failure to keep up will cause audience numbers to fall and could even damage the reputation of the company. Thus causing a change in the path of  media.

Over all the past 200 years has been more significant in its role in society however the next five to ten years could be even more significant as it slightly mirrors the change in the early 1900s.

21/09/16 - The Great British Bake Off disaster: why the BBC got burned

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/13/the-great-british-bake-off-disaster-why-the-bbc-got-burned

The article is based on The Great British Bake Off's recent changes, both presenter and channel wise, it shows potential reasons why Mel and Sue had quit and also the ownership of BBC shows. Most people assume everything that is on the BBC is made and owned by them when in fact they aren't. There is also reference to a lot of loyalty towards certain companies and people.

o The Great British Bake Off accumulates 13 million viewers.

o The show is actually created by Love Productions

o 1/5 of viewers watch the show on demand.

If you link this to the Top gear change, shows lose their stability and ratings once familiar faces are removed even if they remain on the same channel, I think that this highlights brand loyalty from the audience as everyone is aware of certain strengths of different channels and to have a firm favourite change from one to another that values something completely different, even before a single episode has even been recorded people are already creating and sharing their own opinion of the next series. It also makes people question the things that the BBC actually own, as may people didn't realise that another institution actually created the show and with further research many shows are not in fact made by the BBC. However There's also evidence to suggest that given the BBC rules and regulations they aren't able to reach creative and entertainment potential so they are incredibly restricting and the move to Channel 4 could mean that the GBBO is able to be more creative and entertaining.

21/09/16 - Typecast as a Terrorist

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/15/riz-ahmed-typecast-as-a-terrorist

The question is disturbing not only because it endangers artistic expression, but because it suggests our security services don’t quite grasp the nature of the terror threat we all face. A training presentation outlining Al-Qaida’s penchant for “theatrical” attacks may have been taken a little literally.

The article is based on the struggle Riz Ahmed has faced particularly with airport security based on judgements based on his appearance. Ahmed follows a young in cheek recollection of his time mainly in airports and how he is almost always held back to be investigated because people assume that he is linked to terrorism. It highlights changes within society that have been amplified by 9/11 where certain Asians and Europeans are automatically presumed to be terrorists and how many commit unlawful acts that do effect the victims lives.

o 1,700 percent increase of hate crimes against Muslim Americans between 2000 to 2001 (after 9/11)

oTwenty-five percent of participants reported verbal assaults, 22 percent reported workplace discrimination, 19 percent reported unprovoked interrogation by government agents and 19 percent reported physical assaults. (out of 102 Muslims living in New York)

Personally I think that not enough people talk about targeted hate towards certain groups in the news,  the hate that has been caused by certain individuals and has resulted in everyone being ridiculed. So Ahmed being talking about this and sending things to journalists, despite taking a more comedic approach, is a good first approach at attempting to show people the truth that most ignore. However the more comedic approach that he has took could easily be misunderstood by the audience and suggest that the issue is minuscule which it evidently is not.

The Impact of Google

1) Why has Google led to the decline of the newspaper industry?

Google has lead to the decline of the newspaper industry as they have taken advertisement from them meaning they are receiving less ad revenue which is one of the main revenue makers for them.
2) Find a statistic from the article that illustrates the decline of traditional news media.

While google has made about $44 billion dollars from ad sales, print publications have lost $60 billion minimum from ad sales.
3) Looking at the graph featured in the article, what period has seen the steepest decline in newspaper advertising revenue? 

2003 - around the same time online revenue started to be measured.
4) Do you personally think Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs? Why?

I think that google is only partially to blame for newspapers closing an journalists losing their jobs because on one hand, google is more appealing to advertisers as there is a larger audience to potentially attract. On the other hand there have been many opportunities for companies to use the online platform, many have already created sites in which you can consume and create news, if a company has not done this efficiently to cater for various audience then google cannot be blamed.
5) Read the comments below the article. Pick one comment you agree with and one you disagree with and justify your opinions in detail.

I agree with this because it acknowledges the change in technology that journalists need to cater for and that there are many other large companies that are perhaps receiving a lot of ad revenue, in the graph there's still $16 billion unaccounted for which could be taken by companies such as Facebook, who despite being quite outdated now is still able to make money from ad revenue. Journalism hasn't reached a peak in which it matches the internet which is why people actually get their news from other sources such as social 

   Media.









I don't agree with this because firstly creator are payed regardless of how minuscule it is and secondly the entire point of something being an advertisement is so people are attracted to a brand and are encouraged to buy their product, for content creators google is the third party within this ad revenue so only being paid in small amounts is inevitable when third parties are included and this is evident in all industries because more people are involved. When regarding reporters work, many are in fact credited those who lose out are in fact the ones from smaller co-orporations whom don't have any legal ownership over their own content. Finally there's only a certain amount of news daily and many News broadcasters/publishers release the same content google is just putting it all together for ease of access as many companies fail to talk about some world stories.

14/09/16 - Absolute Radio founders launch DJ - less national station

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/09/absolute-radio-founders-launch-dj-less-national-station

The original founders of Absolute Radio have decided to create another radio station in which listeners are able to choose the songs that are played. They are aiming to target an older audience (40-54) and those who enjoy Classics as well as some of the new hits.

o Radio started in the 1920's, commercial radio came about in the 1970's
o There are 40 local BBC Radio stations and over 200 independent commercial stations
o Internet radio is on the rise and Podcasts are also taking over.

The radio is said to still only exist thanks to cars, however even this is becoming threatened by the use of new technology and the improvement of bluetooth. I think that this new station is an attempt to bring people back to the radio scene despite and older audience only being targeted. being able to choose the songs that are chosen would definitely appeal to almost everyone however due to the people able to cast their votes a large divide may be caused where only certain genre's are continuously chosen, thus potentially alienating some people whom enjoy different styles. This is a good attempt at trying to save radio however there's a lot of alternatives that bring things that radio is incapable of even trying to include such as portability, most phones don't include radio anymore so alternatives such a podcasts and Spotify benefit consumers more, this also brings the ability for people to listen to things when and wherever they are where unlike radio repeats are still rare and are usually up only for a certain period of time. Something else that would apply to particularly the younger generation would be data/battery usage, many apps give people the ability to download content to their devices so are able to use them offline which conserves both battery and data.

14/09/16- 'Facebook needs an editor': media experts urge change after photo dispute

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/10/facebook-news-media-editor-vietnam-photo-censorship

Facebook had censored a the Napalm Girl image which is one of the most well known photos taken from the Vietnam war. There is an algorithm in place that automatically blocks things that follow certain restrictions that have been put in place. However certain 'breaches' aren't necessarily breaches, i.e not all nudity is for sexual or pornographic purposes. In this case it's "documenting a particular moment in time”. and is mainly used in educational respects. This had created a lot of controversy including many comments based on the freedom of speech. It also raised a debate on whether Facebook has become outdated.

o 44% of US adults get their news from Facebook.
o  Facebook has 1.65billion users

I don't think that Facebook should have censored the photo, there was no intention to use it for pornographic reasons and actually served the community well in terms of learning about the implications of the Vietnam war. I think that it raises questions as to whether we are leaning towards a time where we need to stop relying on algorithms because there is/should really be an acceptance and equal ideology based on many things, in this case nudity would be the main example. It also raises very similar issue where censorship is often deemed sexist, and women, particularly those whom are confident in their bodies or doing something that was intended by nature i.e breastfeeding, are often ridiculed by these community guidelines. There's also a line of argument to suggest that such graphic images from history are an attempt to ensure people believe the ideological intentions of larger organisations. So removing certain content may be seen as the company avoiding issues or favouring others.