19/10/16 - How the Committee to Protect Journalists Broke With Tradition to Protest Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-the-committee-to-protect-journalists-broke-its-own-rule-to-protest-trump/2016/10/16/ec49e2c4-9252-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_sullivan-225am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The article stemmed from Trump's views on Journalism particularly him labelling them 'Scum' and 'Corrupt'. Never before has the CPJ (The Committee to Protect Journalists) been so involved in politics. To put it simply Trump Threatens press freedom, and now they are co-ordinating 'attacks' against him. They Said 'With Trump’s rhetoric, it would embolden despots and dictators who are looking for an excuse' Which shows that if Trump comes into power, he can and will control the media to share his own propaganda. This restraint on press rights and freedom will endanger journalism. Trumps Attorneys demanded that the New York Times retract their article based on sexual assault accusations, they responded with the statement. “We did what the law allows: We published newsworthy information about a subject of deep public concern. If Mr. Trump disagrees, if he believes that American citizens had no right to hear what these women had to say and that the law of this country forces us and those who would dare to criticize him to stand silent or be punished, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”

O Facebook Likes 
Trump: 10,174,358 likes.

O Twitter Followers 
Trump: 10.6 million followers
O Reddit Page subscriptions
Trump: 197,696 subscribers
Hillary for Prison: 55,228 subscribers

O it has been suggested that Clinton has paid for people to support her online.

I think the freedom of journalism is an important factor for society, the freedom allows for investigative journalism which brings scandals such as Nixon and Trump's Taxes forward. Without this journalism may not be aware of issues. Trump ideas to bring in more laws would be detrimental to the journalism industry and the world. The sharing of propaganda like information will not only make the news/journalist industry into a pathway for his insanity. To take away articles exposing powerful people is already showing a weakness waiting the news industry because even though they don't have complete control over the content that is created, their influence and wealth can still play a factor and can have the same effects as if they were to have some kind of ownership.

19/10/16 - A New Digital Divide Has Emerged — and Conventional Solutions Won’t Bridge the Gap

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/10/14/a-new-digital-divide-has-emerged-and-conventional-solutions-wont-bridge-the-gap/

The article suggests that, particularly in the US, a new digital divide has been created. 13 percent of Americans do not use the internet. Originally efforts have been made to make sure it was affordable which was once the main issue for the divide. Internet Providers such as Comcast and AT&T have created programmes where low income families can have internet for roughly 10 dollars a month. However in terms of the older generations not using the internet, it's not because they can't access it many say that they wouldn't use it even if it was free. Furthermore a report from the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration highlights that over half of those whose don't have the internet say they don't actually want it or need it.

O According to the Pew Research Centre: 13 percent of Americans don't use the internet.
O Over 40 percent of seniors are offline.
O only 1 percent of millennial are offline.
O A report from the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration highlights that over half of those whose don't have the internet say they don't actually want it or need it.

I do agree that 'Conventional solutions won't bridge the gap' however there isn't a real solution. Older generations have lived most of their lives without the internet, many don't and won't be able to understand. You cannot force people into doing something they don't want to. Rather than this just being a digital divide, it is simply a generational divide. Efforts to reduce the divide aren't particular efforts because the real divide is between MEDC's and LEDC's. There are people who cannot have access to new and digital media, some wouldn't have even heard of the things that we use on a daily basis and take for granted.

NDM News: The Future of Journalism

1) Go to the Nieman Lab webpage (part of Harvard university) and watch the video of Clay Shirky presenting to Harvard students.

2) Play the clip AND read along with the transcript below to ensure you are following the argument. You need to watch from the beginning to 29.35 (the end of Shirky's presentation).

3) Why does Clay Shirky argue that 'accountability journalism' is so important and what example does he give of this?

Shirky Argues that accountability is what keeps corruption of people under control. He talks about the movie 'spotlight' and  how it is based on a group of journalists investigating cases of child sexual assault, including the involvement of the church. Without professional journalism cases like this would not have been found out due to the immense cover-up initiated by powerful people.

4) 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.)?

Advertisers initially had to over pay for he ad services, simply because there weren't many alternatives. they were also undeserved and could tell the newspapers to not report on their companies. However Ad Revenue is what pays for journalism on the most part. The money made allows more quality content including the investigative/accountability journalism.

5) 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?

Online, people are only consuming things that they want to or are relevant to something that they have previously read/watched.Consumers rather than producers are the ones bundling the content together.
For newspapers, all the content would be bundled together and couldn't be changed to suit each readers needs as it is printed, so many would read everything, however people would still have the ability to pick and choose what they read but it is a lot more difficult.

6) 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?

Had the internet been widespread in 1992, it could be said that the limiting effects created by the catholic church and associates. The people could hid their actions all they want but with the internet it is much easier to share the content, it continues to be shared and shared until it reaches a point where the corrupt people cannot control the response.

7) Why does Shirky argue against paywalls?

Shirky suggests that the paywalls are restrictions, even though the public need accountability journalism they still aren't going to pay for it especially since there's a lot of republication and reuse of paid content on free sites.

8) What is a 'social good'? In what way is journalism a 'social good'?

A social good is something that benefits the largest number of people. Journalism can be seen as a social good as the exposure of certain cases such as the the Church sexual abuse scandal would be benefiting to everyone.

9) 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?

He says that We need a class of institutions or models, whether they’re endowments or crowdsourced or what have you — we need a model that produces five percent of accountability journalism. and that you can only replace newspaper with newspapers themselves. He thinks that a bad thing is going to happen  and people aren't taking it seriously. there is going to be a decline in accountability journalism which means corruption will be rife.


10) 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?

I think that it is important to an extent that brand such as The New York Times or The Guardian to remain in business simply because they're one of the only companies that are able to hold powerful people accountable for their wrongdoings. Unless online companies find a  way to pay for quality investigations, it is vital that the previous brands stay in business.

Newspaper: The Effect of Online Technology

Based on the handout you've read and the links provided, answer these questions on your blog with detailed, in-depth paragraphs. Remember, critical autonomy means forming your own opinions on these issues.

 Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?

I do not agree. Because the audience have been consuming online news for free from the beginning, the BBC are also incredibly successful and are funded by the TV licence so there isn't a massive financial downfall with providing free content. Furthermore their news can also be said to be free to a certain extent as they are funded by the TV licence, the point of consumption is always free once that has been paid and the licence isn't just directly for the BBC's content. So making consumers pay for their news online would in fact harm them as their content is already somewhat free and would cause the online platform to be sidelined.
2) Read this blog on the Times paywall three years on.

3) Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?

In a sense he was wrong as Smith rightly suggests that the money the subscriptions make will not counteract their constant loss of profit and the point where Murdoch won't be able to subsidise using money from other News Corp. Companies is still close. Furthermore there is also the suggestion that brand names aren't as important as they one were because people will click a suggested link or one that they've found on social media and will read an article not taking into consideration who wrote it. However they have gone from zero to 140 000 online customers, meaning it is more successful than other competitors.
4) 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.

pauljaymes • 3 years ago

In any business, success depends on delivering one of three things to customers: lowest cost, differential quality, or a niche unavailable elsewhere. Newsprint is no exception, but the lowest cost product in the marketplace is set at zero.

The Times isn't niche, that's the like of aviation monthly, so it has to deliver a product of sufficient quality for readers to be willing to pay the premium. Is it doing this? I would say not really, more work is needed, and it's hard to see how the quality can improve with costs being cut.

blackswede • 3 years ago

It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work.

I agree with the first comment as the lack of funding is making it more difficult for institutions to create unique and quality content that would encourage the audience to purchase their news.
I don't agree with the second comment because the fee model has already been proven to work in certain cases. For the financial times, their niche audience and demographic means that they will pay for the exclusive content that benefits them.

6) Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?

Readership for British national newspapers has fallen by 13%, The independent has had the biggest fall in readership at 34%. The evening standard is an anomaly with a 27%  increase in irculation recorded by the ABC.Being on London may have an impact, are large population know for public commutes mean newspapers are more appealing as a source of entertainment, and are also left on vehicles such as trains to be picked up by others.

7) 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. 

I think that the newspaper industry will potentially die out but the news industry won't providing institutions cater for the needs and requirements of the online consumers. It isn't even a matter of  the older generations still needing papers for the news as most now consume news on TV. This is not surprising, however, Shirky had stated that 'no medium lasts for more than an average of 25 years,' so it is about time that the main news medium changed. The real problem is people ignoring the need for change. But this only affects how news is produced and not news itself. it has become a Habitual action for people to check social media, particularly the trends which contain the news that people consume, even though there is a lack of gatekeepers and people checking the information, on the most part it is factual and up to date. 

Overall I don't believe that the newspaper industry will die out as such, it will just progress onto another platform.

12/10/16 - Clay Shirky: 'Paywall Will Underperform - The Numbers Don't Add Up'

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jul/05/clay-shirky-internet-television-newspapers

In less than 50 years news papers won't exist at all, no medium has survived 25 years. Shirty predicted that '2009 would be a bloodbath for newspapers, he warned – and so it came to pass. Dozens of American newspapers closed last year, while several others, such as the Christian Science Monitor, moved their entire operation online. The business model of the traditional print newspaper, according to Shirky, is doomed; the monopoly on news it has enjoyed ever since the invention of the printing press has become an industrial dodo. Rupert Murdoch has just begun charging for online access to the Times – and Shirky is confident the experiment will fail.' He also states that news was for informing the public and not consumers. There is also a lack of circulation with the paywall, people will be 'locked out'

o Social media is the web's primary purpose for billions of people all over the world

o Mediums don't usually last for more that 25 years.

I agree with Shirky that paywalls will underperform, and also that people are more creative as a result of the internet. Paywalls will underperform simply because the internet is so vast and the ability to have 'exclusive' content is more difficult. Exclusivity is the only reason in may opinion as to why people would actually pay for content online. As a result adding a fee to typical tabloid and broadsheets would actually hasten the decline of the company because it won't counteract their losses each year. I do also think that new and digital media has allowed everyone to be more creative and informed, the ability to receive information, particularly for those who live in secluded areas or those in strictly religious societies, will be exposed to other information that can often comfort them in terms of their thoughts, sexuality e.t.c. The accessibility for all ages and people of different demographics means that it isn't just the upper classes whom are able to create and share things, everyone has the equal ability, not including those on the other side of the digital divide, to do the same thing on the internet, They can blog, read and communicate with people all over the world, sparking their own interest and expanding their knowledge in all fields.

12/10/16 - Even Proprietors are Finding it Hard To Sell Newspapers

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/09/proprietors-find-it-hard-sell-newspapers-media-ownership?CMP=share_btn_tw

Ad Revenue and circulation is falling and people are suggesting that the Barclay Brothers, owners of The Daily Telegraph are going to sell up. The Daily Mail has made 400 employees redundant and people are continuing to deny the need to sell. However there aren't many buyers out there. The Mail reported a 19% fall in print ad revenue while online ad revenue soars. The Brothers are continually trying to save as much money as possible but a growth in revenue seem almost impossible. Crowdfunding for Journalism has also seen a rise in the US.

o The Mail reported a 19% fall in print ad revenue

o The Telegraph still makes between £45 - £60m a year.

I think that Proprietors are still failing to see what is happening to the print news industry, may are leaving it to late to sell the companies and make a profit while they can while giving someone who can potentially help the company build more of an online base, which would be extremely difficult given how late to they game they will be. Furthermore there is a failure on both sides, the institutions and the audience, to recognise the fact that journalism cannot solely  be free. Audiences need to understand that in order to get quality news stories, professional paid journalist have to be paid, it can't just be a hobby. On the other hand the institutions need to understand that due to the news being free since the rise of the internet, they cannot just use paywalls, because people simply won't pay for the same content that they can get for free, especially when the unique and exclusive aspect is not guaranteed. The reason they are finding it hard to sell newspapers to both customers and newspapers is that people can consume the content elsewhere and business owners know that the industry is in a decline.

Build the Wall Analysis

1) Read the article in full.

2) Create a blogpost on your MEST3 Exam Blog called 'Build The Wall analysis'. 

3) Summarise each section in one sentence:

• 
  
• To the two people capable of saving high-end journalism, you need to find a way to make people pay for the content.
• There isn't enough time, people are not paying for what they can equally get for free.
• There are many factors that can save journalism, the internet and maximising subscription revenue
• For the industry it is too late for online paying models, papers such as the times only survive because they are uniques an essential.

4) Summarise David Simon’s overall argument in 250 words.

Getting the audience to pay for the content is the most difficult thing, even for the higher companies who were the last to be impacted by the damage caused by the internet. Given the fact that people are able to get the same news for free, there is no inclination to pay, it is a waste of time. Had the industry introduced subscriptions earlier, there wouldn't be such a great issue. If they do introduce pay-walls e.t.c. there will be only a 'thin' online audience, only those who believe that there are receiving  unique content. however with regional newspapers being hit the hardest there is an opening for local newspapers, circulation costs are lower. If they chose to go completely online, there would be no circulation and printing costs and profits made from ad revenue.
5) Read this Guardian comment by AC Grayling piece on the state of journalism that was published the year before David Simon's essay. What references to new and digital media can you find in AC Grayling's argument? Overall, do you feel the comment piece is positive or negative about the influence of new/digital media on the newspaper industry?

o The fourth estate (Print Media) doesn't have the same impact on politics.
o blogging and interactivity isn't small but compared to the loss and credibility the media has suffered means there isn't as much influence.
o theres equals good and bad sides, there's a massive democratisation of opinion and more people are getting information. However governments may start regulation the internet where inly certain, approved people are able to share their opinion. There is also lot of misinformation 'trolling'
o In places such as the US print media has more of an influence politically that the internet.o the internet allows of the 4 'valuable functions of the fourth estate' to 'inform, challenge, explore and debate emerge more strongly' on the internet furthermore the ability to filter 'where a degree of responsibility, reliability and accountability places positive constraints on the quality of content.' 

I think that the piece is positive about the influence of new/digital media because even though there as constant outline to negatives, there are positives in place and some that can be put in place to counteract it.

'6) 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? Critical autonomy is the key skill in A2 Media - you need to be able form opinions on these issues.

I don't thing newspapers need to out their content behind a paywall to save the journalism industry. Instead keeping their content free and creating a consistent audience and readership would mean that there is an appeal for advertisers, including the fact that if they were to get rid of print, the printing and distribution costs would be removed. They're the ones that are creating losses because people aren't actually buying the newspaper. Ad revenue can be made online and rather than journalism being on a print platform, it becomes an online one rather than a non existent one. I don't think that I would pay for news online just because there is no guarantee that their content isn't going to be the same, even if it was a ground breaking story it is likely that it would be covered by other papers.

NMD: The Decline of the Newspaper Industry

The Future of Newspapers
http://www.economist.com/node/7830218

1) Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?

I do agree with the view because the situation is a simple matter of companies having to adapt to changing times, the only time when 'panic' would be necessary is when the companies refuse to change, they will reach point where the decline cannot be overturned.

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.

o But in the past few years the web has hastened the decline
o Britons aged between 15 and 24 say they spend almost 30% less time reading national newspapers once they start using the web.
o Advertising is following readers out of the door. The rush is almost unseemly, largely because the internet is a seductive medium that supposedly matches buyers with sellers and proves to advertisers that their money is well spent.
o In Switzerland and the Netherlands newspapers have lost half their classified advertising to the internet.
o Newspapers have not yet started to shut down in large numbers, but it is only a matter of time.
o  Having ignored reality for years, newspapers are at last doing something. In order to cut costs, they are already spending less on journalism
o Many are also trying to attract younger readers by shifting the mix of their stories towards entertainment, lifestyle and subjects that may seem more relevant to people's daily lives than international affairs and politics are.
o But the decline of newspapers will not be as harmful to society as some fear. Democracy, remember, has already survived the huge television-led decline in circulation since the 1950s.
oThat is partly because a few titles that invest in the kind of investigative stories which often benefit society the most are in a good position to survive, as long as their owners do a competent job of adjusting to changing circumstances

I believe that some of the writers prediction have come true as there is a definite correlation between the rise of the web and the decline in traditional news media. Only 21% of 16-24 year olds actually read the newspaper in 2014. In 2009 newspapers had closed and many had opted for a sole online presence. This would have been due to the appeal the internet had for advertisers, there was a larger audience on the internet whereas, particularly in the 21st century, certain newspapers were more appealing towards a niche market. i.e tThe Economist. There has also been evidence of less investigative journalism in order to cut costs, Investigations can often take months and wouldn't make a profit. In terms of the ad revenue, 50% of online news is consumed on the BBC app, the larger audience reach would mean that the advertisements that they pay for are being seen by more people.

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 The Scott Trust Limited, in 1992 they identified as  'profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner'  However they have been consistently loosing profits. I think that in order to maintain a companies name and value non-profit organisations will have to back them. Investigative journalism usually includes leaked/leaking information online. In terms if the Panama Papers, they found out about the rich and powerful tax havens, 'There are 11.5m documents and 2.6 terabytes of information drawn from Mossack Fonseca’s internal database.' they all show the details of the people avoiding tax. Without new and digital media not only would we have never been able to have access to the information, the people responsible for investigating it may not have been able to even attempt to access the information. It raises the issue regarding the safety of information, even though the digital age means it is easier to do things, our information isn't as safe as it once was.

05/10/16 - How Facebook could swing the election — and who will benefit if it does

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/09/30/how-facebook-could-swing-the-election-and-who-will-benefit-if-it-does/

The article is targeting the issue of face book's influence on the upcoming US presidential election. There are issues raised such as echo-chambers and hyper-targeted ads. They are driving more and more people to the polls and research shows that they are all leaning towards a more Democrat vote. Facebook encourages its users to vote and even has an 'I Voted' button which tells their friends the they have voted and vice-versa. The banners they have released have also prompted more people to register to vote. The largest so far was a 200 000 person rise in California. However many don't end up turning  up to actually vote.

o“Facebook can influence millions of votes by the literal press of a button,” said Michael Brand
o After the Facebook banner was released last week more people registered to vote, the largest recorded being 200 000 people rise in registering.
oIronically, Kemp is a Republican; his party wouldn’t benefit, in all likelihood, if “all Facebook users” heeded his call. Georgia’s current active electorate skews white and Republican. Facebook’s demographics, on the other hand, favor young people, people of color and women.

I think that ultimately the public benefit the most, even by a small amount. more people actually signing up to vote is already a large step, potentially the largest step that has come as a result of any platform advertisement, however the echo chamber is a large and potentially detrimental factor to the democracy, People may only follow others who have the same view as them and the algorithms of Facebook show them things that are related to what they have liked and shown an interest in, so rather than being exposed to other ideas and opinions, or anything from the opposing side for that matter. This means that rather than being able to fully be a aware of both sides of the political campaign, they are only aware of either what they knew or thought about in the first place or what their friends and family thing. The lack of variations of views and values means that there is not a proper debate or even understanding of what is going on and the consequences. Furthermore, despite the rise in people registering to vote, people still aren't turning up, so nothing is actually being done. Something else has to encourage them to use the vote that they have registered for and what is their right and obligation as a citizen.

05/10/16 - Donald Trump says America needs to control the internet to protect its freedom

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/09/22/donald-trump-says-america-should-control-the-

The article is based on Trumps idea that the Internet needs to be controlled but at the same time needs to still allow freedom. It follows after his comments on the control of the internet that relate to previous suggestions that the internet should be shut down at certain times to fight terrorism. He also states that China and Russia should not be trusted as they can over censor the internet. There is also the suggestion that even though the US is in a certain way responsible for the development and distribution of the internet, 'giving it up' can be detrimental to the freedom people have on the internet.

o“The US created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. US oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship.”o 52% of 6 - 12 year olds use a laptop or desktop (the impressionable ones)

This is probably one of the only things I even remotely agree with that Trump has said. The internet does need to be controlled but at the same time users still need to have a level of freedom, it's about finding a balance between the two. However the shutting down of the internet is far to extreme and almost impossible. In a sense the over censoring that Russia and China are believed to be capable of and the censorship that is believed to be occurring in North Korea - in moderation - can be a good thing especially in terms of fighting terrorism. However terrorism has been given a new meaning that has potentially been influenced by new/digital media. Now, rather than a terrorist being someone who commits an act of terror, the label has changed to only concern those of an islamic religion, thus creating the harmful racist stereotype. Controlling certain areas of the internet such as social media where there is a large amount of conversion and extremist influencing happening would definitely help tackle the big problem which Trump may be trying to hint on.

NMD Baseline Assessment:Learner Response

This essay will be exploring the extent at which audiences are empowered by the developments of new and digital media. Within the past 20 years the internet has become a more prominent player within the news industry.According to Briggs and Burke the internet is the most important medium in any and every aspect of the century. However its influence on news is the most controversial of all developments. The lack of censorship is probably on of the most controversial aspects. On one hand the lack of censorship allows for a greater deal of freedom of speech which results in the audience having a larger variety of views and values. Snowdon, one of the main figures who leaked information onto the website wiki-leaks, gave the public access to information based on scandals, failings e.t.c of powerful figures. Had this information been found by a journalist working for a newspaper, we may still not know about certain things as larger organisations and bodies control what is being said. Paradoxically this causes an increase of misinformation and a rise in conspiracy theories. Even though people are exposed to more views and values, the lack of reliability can harm people and cause moral panics. In most cases, predominantly on twitter hoaxes are harmless and usually concern the fake death of a celebrity figure. However recently there was a trend on twitter using the hashtag #SaveMarinaJoyce, where theories of kidnapping and control from either a boyfriend or even ISIS were created. The automatic assumption of ISIS is becoming a regular occurrence on social media and raises the question as too whether social media is responsible for the rise of terrorist organisations.

34/48 - B 

WWW: Clear, engaging answer; developing critical autonomy.

EBI: A better introduction; a conclusion; more on the institutional side of things- Pareto's law e.t.c.

This essay will be discussing the extent to which audiences are empowered by their consumption of new/digital media. 

NDM Case Study: How Has News Changed

-  What are the most popular platforms for audiences to access news and how has this changed in recent years?

- 

How do different age demographics access news in the UK?

TV 

67% UK Adults - 8% decrease since 2014.

51% of 16-24 year olds compared to 86% of 55+

    

Newspaper

31% UK Adults - 9% Decrease since 2014

21% of 16-24s compared 44% aged 55+

Radio

32% UK Adults - 4% Decrease since 2014.

23% of 16-24s compared to 37% of 55+

Online 

59% 16-24 compared to 23% of 55+

Men are more likely than women to use any of the four main platforms for news (TV, internet, newspapers and radio)

- Does socio-economic status change attitudes to news? If so, how?

People in the AB socio-economic group are more likely than those in the DE socio-economic

group to consume news on any of the four main platforms: TV (71% vs 67%), the internet

(50% vs. 29%), newspapers (38% vs. 26%) and radio (46% vs. 23%).

- How many different sources of news are used on average? How does differ between different groups?

Of the four main platforms, 31% only use one platform for news,

19% use only the TV , 11% using only the internet, 3% 

use only radio and 2% using only newspapers. 

26% of over 55s use only the TV in the AB socio-economic group

In the DE socio-economic group 28% (55+) use only the TV

16% for 16-24s in DE (TV)

those in the AB socio-economic group (14%)

- How has news consumption through television changed in recent years?

each adult watched 108 hours of national and international news on

television in 2014. There's a decrease of seven hours since 2013.

- How much has news consumption through newspapers declined since 2005?

There has been a 27% decline in consumption through newspaper since 2005.

- How does newspaper reach differ by age group?

Reach of national newspapers varies by age group:

 29.3% of 15-24s are newspaper readers, compared to 67.9% of over-65s

- Which are the most popular newspapers and websites in the UK? What do you know about those newspapers' political viewpoints?

the Daily Mail had 1.8 million users, while The Sun had 0.06 million. 

The Sun’s lower online readership could be explained by its paywall, whereas the Daily Mail

offers its website content free of charge. 

The Sun switched support to the Labour party on 18 March 1997

The Daily Mail is Right-Wing Conservative 

- How does online news consumption differ for age, gender and socio-economic status?
41% UK adults say they use the internet for news.

59% aged 16-24 use the internet or apps for news whereas only (23%) of those aged 55+

53% of those in the ABC1 socio-economic group use online sources for news

32% of those in the C2DE socio-economic group

Men (45%) are more likely than women (37%.) to use internet for news.

- What percentage of users only use social media sites for their news?

43% respondents say they use social media sites

10% of online news users use only social media sites for news, 16% are aged 16-24.  

- What percentage of 16-24 year olds access news mostly from social media?

61% 16-24s who use the internet/ apps for news say they use social media sites

- How do audiences find stories online? Do you follow links or go to the homepage of the news provider?

56% of online news users used the BBC website or app

29% for Facebook 

15% for the Google search engine 

14% for Sky

New/digital media: audience and institution

- What are the benefits for audiences from the changes new and digital media have had on the news industry?

- Investigative journalism - The audience has an awareness of what powerful people and institutions are doing.

- It is more easily accessible

- Citizen journalism and UGC allows for stories that may never have been covered to be covered an talked about, especially with ignored issues such as police brutality
- What are the benefits for institutions from the changes new and digital media have had on the news industry?

They are able to appeal to a larger audience, typically 16-24 year olds would be less likely to engage with the news especially by using newspapers, their online presence has helped with this as news

18) What are the downsides for audiences as a result of new and digital media in news?

for  audiences there is the issue of the lack of gatekeepers and regulators so information they read is not always accurate or true.
There also another issue of being exposed to things such as pornography, extremism and  bullying which can have harmful effects.

19) What are the downsides for institutions as a result of new and digital media in news?

The downside for institutions is that there is a loss of ad revenue because more companies are moving to advertise on online content. Furthermore the failure to move their own content online proves detrimental to them because audience are less inclined to purchase and consume print content.

20) Who has benefited most from the changes new and digital media have had on the news industry - audiences or institutions?

In my opinion I think that audiences have benefited the most from the changes in new and digital media. They are exposed to a larger number of opinions and stories. 56% consume their online news from the BBC which means they are in-fact consuming correct information. Furthermore they are more inclined to continue to consume news because they are able to choose stories tailored to their taste which means they aren't forced into reading/listening to stories they don't to listen to or don't agree with. However this could create an echo chamber where they aren't learning about other news stories and opinions, they're only hearing similar things to their own views.

To help you, use this set of points for a very similar question (although not specifically about news) - you'll need to log in to the Media Edu website to access it. Username: greenford; Password: greenfordedu