NDM case study: News on the Tweet

1) Respected news brands are good for Twitter due to the two following reasons:

1. To be aware of what is going on in the World
2. To be connected to people I am interested in but I don't know

These two reasons aren't exactly beneficial for the news brands, in this way, but are beneficial to the audience. However, for this to be amusing to the audience, it will bring more awareness and attraction to the news brands; The audience like to follow the respected news brands for 1 key reason and that is because of the fact that they are a reliable source since whenever news has been published, it will always be verified by those brands.

2) On the other hand, Twitter is also good for respected news brands as it is more accessible, more influential and more connected than ever before. The immediacy and accessibility of Twitter brings valuable readers to newspaper brands that they would not normally read in print or directly online.

4) The following tweets show the focus turns to 'gossip' or 'banter' on different social media sites:

• Neil Ashton - Arsenal are toast
• Grace Dent - Jennifer Aniston's new hair?
• Camila Long - British Sheepskin industry
• Dan Wootton - Red carpet awks moment from last night as my microphone chord gets stuck.

5) In my opinion, I believe that the 'gossip' and 'banter' does have an effect on the reputation of journalists. This is because of the fact that the audience want to look at something that everyone is talking about on their social media sites and I believe that journalists do not have a role in this because it may have started from someone that is just a normal person, who is always on their social media sites without any experience in journalism.

6) The report talks about the relationship between Twitter and newsbrand - They believe that since these two brands have got a good relationship between themselves, it will have a positive impact on the readers and users and the who relationship would be built on trust.

7) I strongly believe that with the development of some social media sites, such as Twitter have made a big impact on the traditional newspapers. Since social media sites like Twitter can start to provide news via links by users to other news websites and the fact that a lot of it is free, the audience would therefore start to buy less newspapers and start using their smartphones more often. The audience may also believe that using the social media sites is a much more quicker service because if you were to type something in the search engine, by using the specific word of the article you may want to read, the result of the search the audience may be looking for will most likely come up as well. Therefore, this means that there have been a major drop in sales for the traditional newspapers, and then means that there will slowly go out of business. To conclude, this means that social media sites have had an impact on traditional newspapers.

8) Since the users on Facebook have started to provide fake news to the other users, it would be hard to start to stop this from happening due to the fact that any user on Facebook is eligible to post whatever they want to on there. However, I believe that Facebook can prevent this from happening with the news brands so the users can see that they are reliable. 

NDM News: end of unit index

1) Institution: the impact of Google on the newspaper industry
2) Ofcom report: how news consumption has changed
3) The future of newspapers: Build The Wall analysis
4) The decline of newspapers: the effect of online technology
5) The future of journalism: John Oliver and Clay Shirky
6) The decline of newspapers: Media Magazine case studies
7) Citizen journalism and hyper-reality: Media Magazine article and questions
8) News Values: theory and updating them for digital media landcape
9) Marxism & Pluralism: Media Magazine article and questions
10) Alain de Botton on the News: lecture and questions
11) Full NDM essay including paragraphs on Marxism and Pluralism
12) Globalisation and news: cultural imperialism
13) Globalisation: taking it further (Google Glass case study and capitalism)
14) Fake news and globalisation - Guardian and New York Times articles
15) News on the Tweet

NDM STORY INDEX (1-28)

1. Nudity and Facebook's censors have a long history 

2. Instagram unveils tool to allow users to filter abusive comments

3. Apple Inc Bombarded With Criticisms Before iPhone 7 Launch

4. Snapchat app launches Discover in France 

5. Snapchat unveils $130 connected sunglasses and rebrands as Snap, Inc.

6. BBC denies iPlayer password plans are part of licence fee crackdown

7. Twitter pays £1.24m in UK tax as revenues increase by 30.5%

8. New research shows there's one big change when cops wear cameras

9. Ad-blockers: are publishers tempted to feed the hand that bites them? 

10. I'm with you on the digital revolution, it's the lack of journalism I can't face 

11. Spotify UK revenues surge to almost £190m as mobile subscriptions take off

12. Netflix paid less than £400,000 in UK corporation tax last year

13. Back to the future: were newspaper publishers wrong to go digital?

14. Channel 4 News defends Facebook live stream of battle for Mosul

15. Make Google and Facebook pay for public service reporting

16. Telegraph paywall initiative is an interesting strategic shift

17. NSPCC records 88% rise in children seeking help for online abuse

18. Facebook staff mount secret push to tackle fake news, reports say

19. Newspapers big and small are facing an existential crisis

20. Facebook and Google move to kick fake news sites off their ad networks

21. Missing iPlayer means your Samsung TV isn’t so smart

22. Tweets ahead: improving public services via Facebook and Twitter

23. Big football clubs take on Facebook with new social media network

24. Here's the truth: 'fake news' is not social media's fault 

25. Defriend everyone on Facebook if you really want to see the world as it is

26. Daily Mail group refuses to rule out sale of newspaper titles

27. Help! I'm caught in a Twitter war and I'm losing (27)

28. Ray Tindle spins away, but journalism will die without a strategy (28)

13/12/16 - Ray Tindle spins away, but journalism will die without a strategy (28)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/dec/13/ray-tindle-spins-away-but-journalism-will-die-without-a-strategy

This article has been evolved around this one man called Ray Tindle. He is a founder of an eponymous newspaper group and is aged 91. In additon, Tindle still carries on with his job despite being diagnosed with throat cancer 20 years ago and has been without a voicebox ever since. The writer talks about what Tindle's beliefs are and find them to be false and tries to talk about the things where the writer believes that Tindle is wrong. First of all, Tindle believes that the newspaper platform (print) is not a dying media and he believes that he can save many different newspaper companies through the use of advertising. However, the writer talks about how the newspapers are never going to go back up and everyone will now be using technology; he gave three different examples: 1)You write that “better newspapers are emerging” as the result of lessons learned and “a more viable, more effective press” is in the process of “arising.”  2) You write that local media are around “in great strength because they are doing a necessary, positive, effective job.”  3)You write of “other forms of media” (meaning digital) that now exist and “will run alongside our newspapers but they will not supplant them.”

• As owner of more than 220 local titles across Britain, the Tindle group is one of the country’s top 10 newspaper publishers and has been responsible for launches and for rescuing papers unwanted by other outfits.

In my opinion, I believe that Tindle is entitled to his opinion about believing that the print platform can become successful again. However, from my point of view, I agree with the writer and believe that this will never be the case again with the great impact that new/digital media has had on the media. For example, people nowadays get their news on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook; no one will ever make a switch again because of the fact that social media sites are quicker as they will not need to wait till the next day to receive their news and this also leads to the social media sites being more active that the print platform. Since everyone is so use to using their mobile phones, tablets etc to check their news (in a routine) no one will ever want to make the switch again, simply because of the fact that it is more simpler and easier to use, despite the cost but only to some extent this may be a problem.

13/12/16 - Help! I'm caught in a Twitter war and I'm losing (27)

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/dec/09/help-im-caught-in-a-twitter-war-and-im-losing

This article is reflecting all the difficult times users have with Twitter. Although it is one of the most popular social media sites in the whole world, there are many consequences which users sometimes have to take with it; Nowadays, if you post something that you deeply believe in which may be controversial, people may then start an argument and therefore, you have to stick to what you have said and reply back to the users to make your point. The writer also says that 'it's not something you want to be doing on social media site' but it's something that goes with the package of using this social media site. A lot of the time, people may right something which is racist or sexist but the other users haven't got the power to stop them from doing that since Twitter enables anyone to type anything they want to. In addition, it also says that it’s an unsettling experience, being on the receiving end of often personal criticism from tens, if not hundreds, sometimes thousands of people.Not every tweet sent your way may be abusive or even snarky, but in the worst cases the onslaught reaches a critical mass where you simply feel overwhelmed and defensive.

• When your risk of being misunderstood is so high, I suggest a succinct but honest response. Own up to what you’ve gotten wrong, but do not reply to every tweet, definitely not any from faceless Twitter “eggs”.
• In fact, it’s been called a “dying medium”.

At the ending of the article, the writer stated that Twitter is a 'dying medium'. In my opinion, I disagree with this statement and believe that it is still an upcoming industry that has still got a lot more to improve. Technology is improving and Twitter is the main cause of this and is a strong reason why there are people such as citizen journalists etc. Furthermore, linking to the whole article, I believe that the users can't do anything about it and should just not think about it as it is in the hands of those specific users that may write the inaccurate and controversial things. We have signed up to a social media sites where we would expect things like this and shouldn't think anything more of it. Twitter is still a better platform than print as it gives the people to write their thoughts and share it with others, where also the other users can give the views on a certain topic etc. Therefore, linking back to the article title, I don't think that anyone is being 'caught in a Twitter war' but they are just being told something which other users may believe in which is allowed.

NDM News: Globalisation and fake news

The Guardian & the global problem of fake news

1) A number of countries such as Germany, France, Myanmar, India and much more are all similar in the sense that they all have been effected by the increase in Fake News. For example, in Myanmar, a Muslim journalist was recently the victim of a campaign by some of these accounts, when a widely followed nationalist posted pictures of him juxtaposed with images of an unknown Rohingya Muslim militant. The post claimed he was involved in attacks on border police and called for his immediate arrest. But, after they had arrested him, nothing happened and the post on Facebook was removed. However, since the people have identified that the specific stories are fake news, they still believe that there is a chance that it may be true and people start to question themselves if it is true or not and therefore become confused.

2) I believe that with the "culture of freedom and innovation" has had a great impact in fake news. First of all, I believe that with the freedom, the audience have had the access to post and share the views as much as they want to. This then leads to people having different views since they believe that whatever they see on the internet is true and then changes what they believe in. However, what they do not know is that since anyone can post anything, there could be a chance that the news given is fake but no one hardly checks whether or not it is true which leads to the fake news happening frequently and I believe that it can't be changed.

New York Times and the creation of fake news

1) Which fake news stories were particularly successful for Beqa Latsabidze, the 22-year-old student in Tbilisi, Georgia, who tried to make money from web articles on Trump? 

The fake news stories that were particularly successful for Beqa Latsabidze was the story that was talking about the US Presidential elections and whom were pro-Trump. Donald Trump's flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. He also went on to say, “My audience likes Trump,” he said. “I don’t want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience.”

2) I believe that to some extent, Facebook and Google can be blamed for the rise in fake news but not as much. For example, Facebook allow their users to post whatever they want to onto the social media sites and even if it is something that may be misleading, Facebook will not be able to do anything about that because of the fact that Facebook have over a billion users and they will not be able to look at everyone's account to check if it fake. In addition, despite that it is being some of their fault they have tried to find ways in which they can prevent it from happening. For example, Google announced that it would ban websites that host fake news from using its online advertising service, while Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, outlined some of the options his company was considering, including simpler ways for users to flag suspicious content.

Globalisation and news

1) In my opinion, I believe that the British news has been effected massively by the American Cultural Imperialism. For example, there are many different things that are being produced which we all look at daily but what the British people don't know is, that a lot of them are owned by American companies. We have now become very reliant and dependent on the US culture on news etc.

2) I believe that the increased globalization of news has improved the audiences experience. This is because of the fact that there is a lot more content in which the audience can now view and now can find out a lot of what is going on in the different countries we would've normally been interested in. A lot of this has come through the use of citizen journalism as nowadays, anyone can post reliant news on different social media sites and can also sell it onto the very reliant news companies such as BBC news. In addition, whoever has got access to the internet means that anyone around the world can explore what is happening in the other countries and this is why McLuhan came up with the 'Global Village'.

3) To some extent, I believe that globalisation has damaged a lot of news institutions especially our home grown institutions. With the use of globalisation, American companies have now started to take over a lot of British companies since they have become the dominant country in terms of the upgrade in technology; Most of the major technology institutions are American grown and nowadays, we have become very reliant on what others have started to produced other than what us (Britain) are doing. 

Globalisation: taking it further

Media Magazine: Globalisation case study 

1) The Google Glass was controversial due to the fact there were a lot of privacy concerns towards it. For example, with the Glass it enables users to recording people via their camera and even on a microphone, therefore this can lead to them having pictures of people on their devices without their permission which is also illegal. And this can also lead to many complaints by the people who have been the victims of this and therefore, have a bad review altogether.

2) A positive element to Globalisation that was found in this article was that people can suddenly have the access of being able to go online for the first time. In addition, the positive things to take from this would be that the world will then become more accessible and people will then become enriched by getting to know and understand technology and the internet, better. Furthermore, there will be an increased choice and opportunities empower people, while access to information can enhance not only the ability to make informed decisions but also to make the democratic process. 

3) However, the disadvantage this can have on globalisation is that the smaller companies will not have the great opportunities because the larger companies, like Google would have taken over. Since these small companies have already been overshadowed, it will be extremely hard for the audience to be aware of those companies and therefore will not have the awareness and money they need to make new technology etc because Google and other large companies will have the power.

4) Techno-panic is similar to moral panic, as in the sense it is a moral panic but it highlights the fear that's going around brand new technology. 

5) In my opinion, I believe that to some extent, this is already a case where the larger companies have already got the personal data of the audience. For example, Google is a major corporation and to access things such as Google+ or Blogger, we all need to have a google email. And, in order to have a google email, we need to give a great amount of detail such as our names, date of birth, address and also our phone number. Personally, I believe that the major corporations shouldn't have access to the personal data but they do and the reason for this is because we, the users, gave it to them ourselves when we sign up for specific things.

Media Factsheet: Globalisation and capitalism

1) McLuhan was the one who came up with the phrase which meant that countries are becoming interconnected or more independent. Also, big companies such as Coca Cola uses this as an example.

2) Zizek believes that the media masks the way in which western institutions 'do business'. He argues that the media reinforces and naturalises the ideology that making money is the right way of conducting businesses, but at the same time allows people to feel less guilty about how these goods are produced.

3) Conscious Capitalism is the emerging integration between awareness and capitalism. Capitalism is a socio-economic system based on the principles of property rights, rule of law, voluntary exchange, wealth creation, and entrepreneurial initiative, and the human activity and social organizations (called businesses) reflecting and embodying these principles. The example that was used in this factsheet was Starbucks. 

4)  The (PRODUCT) RED, was founded in 2006 by U2 frontman and activist Bono to engage the private sector in raising awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS in Africa. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a recipient of (RED) money but (PRODUCT) RED not a product in itself, rather it is a brand licensed to partner companies such as Nike, Apple, Starbucks etc.

5) I believe that the (PRODUCT) red campaign is a positive brand in the sense that it is trying to help every single countries even the ones who are less fortunate and do not get the luxuries they may want but cannot afford  because they may be from a poor background. 

04/12/16 - Daily Mail group refuses to rule out sale of newspaper titles (26)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/01/daily-mail-profits-print-mail-online-elite-daily-dmgt

This article is about how the Daily Mail & General Trust are considering to produce print sales again in the future as they believe that the Mail Online will not have much of a future in terms of making money. The speakers went on to say that, despite the print platform having a major decline with only a handful of audience on the platform, they would only consider making print sales if there is someone out their who 'values the business significantly greater than themselves'. Yahoo are one of the main companies that are interested in this idea. They also say how the Yahoo move tells you where their thinking is at,” he said. “It means they could be open to partnering with a US internet property to create more scale. It is the only way they are going to crack it. They have a foothold, but need to scale up.”

• The company reported a 23% fall in operating profits, to £77m, at its consumer division, DMG Media, which takes in the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Mail Online and freesheet Metro.
• Total revenues for the Mail businesses fell by 2% to £577m in the financial year to September, offsetting a 12% fall in print advertising income. Mail Online increased its revenues 19% year on year, to £93m, up on the 16% growth rate in 2015.
• Operating profits at the Mail businesses fell by 17% to £69m. Metro saw revenues fall 9% to £65m and profits drop 12% to £15m. About 200 jobs were cut at DMG Media over the year.

In my opinion, I think that Daily Mail not giving up hope on the Print Platform has 2 sides to it. There could be a possibility that it will go wrong or it can go correct. Since it is a dying platform and the majority of the users have made the switch over to a digital platform and feel comfortable on it, it will be harder to convince them to switch back to the platform. However, I do believe that if they have the help of Yahoo and other big companies, there could be a chance where these companies can attract the audience back to the platform if they have some appealing advertising etc.

04/12/16 - Defriend everyone on Facebook if you really want to see the world as it is (25)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/04/facebook-creates-political-apathy-shake-things-up-defriend-everyone-who-agrees-with-you

This article is about how we should being using social media sites, such as Facebook in a completely opposite way. The writer goes on to say that we use Facebook in a way in which we agree with what everyone says and that we don't give our opinions on whether they're right or wrong. Instead, us, the users, use Facebook to like their post and not to show any emotions to whether they're right or wrong. They then go on to talk about how we should get rid of or delete our friends of Facebook and start to add people and make other friends, for where, they can be challenged if they have made a racial statement or something that you may believe that it is politically false. In addition, linking back to the last point, they also use the word 'freedom fighter' which of course means that everyone has an opinion and should not let someone get away with what they post on Facebook but to challenge them and show them what they think is true and what's false.

• It is not just left-leaning social media which are guilty of this. I recently visited the Britain First homepage and watched a video of some (and I paraphrase here) “patriots challenging the vile practice of halal meat”.
• I tried to ignore the fact that I was craving this approval more than the love of my family.

In my opinion, to some extent, I believe with what the writer is saying. I believe that everyone who is on Facebook has got an opinion and are entitled to it and for this reason, there is no reason why they should stay back and let the other users talk nonsense; if it was a racial statement and someone disagrees with their point, then they should argue with them or make a statement of their own and should make them a friend where they can have the option to share their views about the specific topic.

Marxism & Pluralism - homework essay

With the development in new/digital media, audience have become more power in terms of consumption and production within the news. Since new/digital media has made a huge impact in peoples lives, some suggest that it has benefited them since they can include their own content, however since a lot of it is UGC, others such as producers believe that it is a way of 'dumbing down' the media. In addition, a marxist would think against the audience being more powerful where as the pluralist would agree with the audience being more powerful.

A Marxist perspective would argue that the so-called “information revolution” has done little to benefit audiences or to subvert the established power structures in society. Far from being a “great leveller” (Krotoski, 2012) as many have claimed, it has merely helped to reinforce the status quo by promoting dominant ideologies. The most popular news website in the UK by a considerable margin is the ‘Mail Online’, which receives more than 8 million hits every month and is continuing to expand rapidly – with forecasts that it will make £100 million or more in digital revenues in the next three years. Similar to its tabloid print edition, the website takes a Conservative, right-wing perspective on key issues around gender, sexuality and race and audiences appear to passively accept what the Marxist theorist, Gramsci, called a hegemonic view. When one of their chief columnists, Jan Moir, wrote a homophobic article about the death of Stephen Gately in 2009 there were Twitter and Facebook protests but, ultimately, they did not change the editorial direction of the gatekeepers controlling the newspaper.

On the other hand, a pluralist would argue that the audience has got more power in terms of consumption and product, with the development in new/digital media. One of the many examples for this case would be the use of citizen journalism and bloggers. Nowadays, the audience have got the power of making their own news and headlines as long as they have something to back themselves up, e.g. a camera and a social media  account. An example of this was the Ian Tomlinson murder case, where the police had made a statement but didn't realise that someone had  the recorded footage, which was completely different too what the police officers said. Therefore, in this case, audiences have the power to show in someone is telling the truth or not; this case being the police officers. It can be useful as it can also save many lives and make the government etc more aware of people, such as the police officers.

However, a Marxist perspective would again argue that this is a way of 'dumbing down' the media. Nowadays, the audience have the access of generating mass media and can view whatever they like when they want to. But from a Marxist perspective, the media is generating them by feeding them different beliefs. This means that the audience will then start to agree with the things they can see on the internet and therefore believe it even when sometimes the information given to them can be very misleading at time, which is another reason why the media is a way of the audience 'dumbed down'; they are slowly becoming more and more gullible and since they are using the new/digital media mainly everyday, this is becoming a routine where they may be checking inaccurate information when they think it's reliable and look at it ever day.

But from a Pluralist perspective, they would believe that the audience have got a great flexibility in terms of the things they can access over the internet. Audience have got the power to manipulate the other audiences with the content they may post online. This will allow them to "conform, accommodate or reject" (Gurevich) with the different things they may be feeding to the media and therefore, suggests that they have more power and are also enabling the concept for the audience having the 'freedom' of doing whatever they want to do online, whether it's being a citizen journalist or wanting to become a blogger.

Moreover, a Marxist may again believe that the internet revolution has done much to benefit the audience. Simply, with the fact that a lot of the information online is misleading, the audience are starting to become hypnotizing with what they are researching and are believing it. A recent example of misleading information would be 'Fake News' which is going on around social media sites such as Facebook and Google. Researchers believe that with the Fake News, this has been a key reason on why recent event have happened, e.g. the UK leaving the European Union and Donald Trump becoming President. However, what the media doesn't know is that this fake news has been published by the audience. Therefore, showing that "web pages and blogs are like a million monkeys typing nonsense" (Andrew Keen). This means that all the unprofessional journalists or bloggers are typing things that are very misleading and are a main cause on why Fake News had happened.

On the other hand, from a pluralist perspective, they can talk about how social media sites are given the benefits of censorship etc. Social media sites such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter etc, have given the benefit of allowing the audience to have the power of their social media sites and having the option on who and who not to allow to see their profiles. This is beneficial to the audience since they are shown to be more powerful as they will have this access. Some people such as Marxists may believe that this is a way of drip feeding their audience (being their helping hand) but I believe that this is a way of giving the audience their privacy etc.

In conclusion, I believe that I would argue this topic from a Marxists point of view. In my opinion, I do think that a lot of the time, the audience themselves have been spoon-fed in terms of the things that they have been given to themselves, especially with the last point mentioned with the censorship on social media sites. I believe that if you have posted something, everyone should be eligible to see and shouldn't hide the content.

Gone Too Far Trip

Review

Gone Too Far. An excellent and well-acted movie about the lifestyle of a young British-Nigerian teenager in Peckham. Yemi, played by Malachi Kirby, trying extremely hard to 'fit in' with the lifestyle in London; he would play football, listen to the 'up to date' music, use the English slang's and yet, was still a polite person in the area. Also, his attention was also on the local princess Armani, who was played by Shanika Warren-Markland. However, his 'goofy' Nigerian born brother, Ikudayisi, moved to London. Since Yemi wants to fit in, he was more concerned about getting his brother to fit in too since he was a portrayed as a 'typical' Nigerian who came on holiday to another country and didn't want his 'reputation' to go downhill if everyone found out about his brother.

In addition, what really got me more amused to keep watching this movie is that even though Yemi didn't want his typical Nigerian, to be anywhere near him, he still allowed him to. Even though he didn't want his brother to go with him to the shops, he still went with him. Despite not wanting the 'reputation' that he may have to go downhill, he still allowed his brother to go with him. At times, he did get annoyed and told him to go away but out of guilt, he went to find him because it showed he cared about him. And, in the end it helped him because when Yemi was in trouble, Ikudayisi was there to rescue him by beating up the people who were beating up his brother. Also, at the time, if you lived in Peckham, having a Nigerian born family relative was shown to be embarrassing and no one would ever tell their friends that they were Nigerian. Instead they would lie where they came from. Therefore, shows that 'blood is thicker than water' in this movie.

"This house believes that films featuring ethnic minorities should only be produced by those who have the ethnic identity being represented".

In my opinion, I have two sides to this debate but I am more for it. One of the main reasons why I believe that only who have the ethic identity should make a specific film of the culture is because they would know every single information that will be needed for a specific movie. For example, with the movie Gone too Far, the writer of this movie was a women by the name of Bola Agbaje who was also of the Nigerian origin; the movie was done perefectly and gave an accurate understanding of the lifestyle of Nigerians at the time of living in Peckham and it was even more better because she was one of those many Nigerians that were living in Peckham. She would have friends that would always lie about where they originated from which is one of the key things that were talked about throughout the movie. Therefore, this is a key reason why I believe that these particular movies should only be made by the people who know the in's and out's of the lifestyle.

On the other hand, I also believe that anyone should be able to create a movie of any ethnicity background as long as they have got enough support and information to back themselves up with which will allow them to make a good movie with great detail. Anyone is eligible to make a movie and doesn't matter whether or not they have to background. For example, I believe that anyone who has lived long enough in Britain, can make a good enough War movie even if they were Black or Indian. This is because of the fact that when they might have been studying in school, they would've been taught about it and therefore, as they have gotten older, they would've studied the topic more and in great depth to cover the movie and make an accurate judgement of the movies they make. In addition, in cities such as Southall or Leicester or even Bradford, the Asian population is increasing even more and nowadays, more and more stereotypes are becoming very well known as it is becoming distributed onto TV etc. Therefore, I also believe that anyone from a white background that is from these particular cities, can also make a good enough judgement of what a typical Asian/Indian movie needs and so, anyone can make any movie no matter what their ethnic background is.

Therefore, I agree and disagree with this statement but I am more for this statement. If someone is trying to make a cultural-based movie and wants it to be successful, then it will be much better if it is produced and written by someone who can relate to the movie. It will give a more accurate understanding to the audience and will be written much better coming from someone with experience.

Marxism & Pluralism: Alain de Botton on the news

1) To some extent, I strongly agree with what Alain de Botton has to say about the news. For example, at the beginning, he talks about instead of waking up in the morning to the 'birding chirping' etc the audience wake up to their smartphones and read articles and videos on their and that is how they go to sleep. I believe that this is an accurate saying about the audience as they like to keep themselves updated every time of the day and in this modern day culture, where ever you go, you'll always see someone on their phones. However, de Botton sounded like as if he was giving this statement in a negative way and I believe that this isn't a negative thing at all. Even though that this isn't the most natural way of waking up etc, the audience will keep themselves update with what is going on in the world and I believe that this is a benefit as the audience are keeping themselves aware with the world.

2) Alain de Botton talks about how instead of the usual large news companies feeding the audience with the news, the audience themselves are publishing their own content across the social media sites and this may be a way in which the news that has been published by them, can become misleading. Therefore, the way in which a Marxist may look at this is that the media itself is 'dumbing down' and we, the media, have become very reliant on User-Generated Content. In addition, the same news keeps getting repeated and the audience themselves believe that it is different news but it really isn't and this is very beneficial for the Marxist as their income will keep rising and they will still look down at the poorer people.

3) A pluralist may believe that they can challenge the views of de Botton. He talks about how the audiences a great difficulty in telling what the difference is between soft news and hard news. However, a pluralist may argue that we the audience have the individual power to control ourselves on how we consume the news and how others may want to post their specific news online.

4) For
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/27/disaster-strikes-caribbean-tour-prince-harrys-ship-breaks/

Against
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/15/brexit-means-were-leaving-the-eu-its-not-a-crisis-its-an-exercis/

29/11/16 - Here's the truth: 'fake news' is not social media's fault (24)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/23/heres-the-truth-fake-news-is-not-social-medias-fault

This article is about how social media sites such as Facebook had nothing to do with the fact that 'Fake News' became a thing. The article, firstly, starts off with talking about Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg about how he first denied that fake news started through the use of Facebook but now, he started to talk about how they have been working on ways how to prevent this from happening. In addition, the writer talks about how fake news has been misleading and very effective; he believes that with the fake news, Donald Trump has become president and the UK have left the EU. However, what they do not understand is that this way all done by the audience themselves. The reason why Fake News became a big thing is because the audience started to believe with everything they had read and didn't even bother checking if it accurate or not.

• None of the 500 or so students currently studying journalism at City voted for the motion. Indeed, only one of them appears to have attended the meeting (and voted against the ban).
• It’s not the fault of social media (you can’t blame the platform), but it is a consequence of it, because lies can be passed on so swiftly and indiscriminately.
• Yet, on Facebook, a number of people - including current and former journalists - misread the stories about the vote and began to criticise City’s journalism students for doing something they had not done.

In my opinion, I disagree with this article and believe that social media are the ones who are at fault. The reason why I believe this because, firstly, if someone has been spreading fake news, the company are the only ones who have the power of preventing this from happening and if they knew about this being a caution, they should've acted upon this quicker rather than having everyone blaming each other for the consequences. In the article, it makes a comment which I strongly agree with - It’s not the fault of social media (you can’t blame the platform), but it is a consequence of it, because lies can be passed on so swiftly and indiscriminately. This is true in the sense that they can't predict the future, but they should've acted quicker so it would spread to a lot of users. Therefore, I do believe they are at fault.

29/11/16 - Big football clubs take on Facebook with new social media network (23)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/28/big-football-clubs-take-on-facebook-with-new-social-media-network

This article is about how many footballers and clubs that are well known world wide have come together to make a website called 'dugout.com', e.g. Man City, PSG, Chelsea and many more clubs have got together to do this. This allows football fans to watch football clips or get news feeds from their favourite clubs etc by showing exclusive contents of the players at the specific club in training or doing their own independent activities. In addition, it will be free to access and will be covered in many different languages so it is accessible properly worldwide, e.g. in Asia. Also, it mentions that the company will also partnering with “leading football influencers and legends” to create their own profiles and provide content to Dugout, including Pele. 

• Dugout.com, which has also signed partnerships with more than 150 players including Gareth Bale, Alexis Sanchez, Edinson Cavani, Joe Hart and Neymar, launches globally on Monday in eight languages.
• Growing interest in Asia means that at launch one of the languages the multi-platform Dugout will be offered in is Indonesian.

In my opinion, I believe that this is an advantage for the football society but a great disadvantage for the online news companies, e.g. BBC etc. The reason for this is because with the access of this site, people would pay more attention to this since it will be more reliable as it will be published by the football clubs themselves. Furthermore, it will be FREE and recently, news online websites such as the Daily Mail have put a paywall on some of the content and since this is free, more of the fans will want to use this since they won't have to buy anything. In addition, I believe that with the videos that they may publish, will make the younger audience more aware as they like watching things rather than having to read what something may be explaining.

NDM News case study: index

1) Institution: the impact of Google on the newspaper industry
2) Ofcom report: how news consumption has changed
3) The future of newspapers: Build The Wall analysis
4) The decline of newspapers: the effect of online technology
5) The future of journalism: John Oliver and Clay Shirky
6) The decline of newspapers: Media Magazine case studies
7) Citizen journalism and hyper-reality: Media Magazine article and questions
8) News Values: theory and updating them for digital media landcape
9) Marxism & Pluralism: Media Magazine article and questions
10) Alain de Botton on the News: lecture and questions

21/11/16 - Tweets ahead: improving public services via Facebook and Twitter (22)

https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2016/nov/22/facebook-twitter-tools-better-government

This article is explaining how the government of countries which allow social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, to become more creative for themselves and the citizens. At the very beginning, the article gave an example of New Zealand's ministry of defence giving live updates etc of the earthquake which happened in New Zealand. It also talks about how Vancouver uses social media to inform citizens about emergencies. Following a fire at the city’s port in March 2015, the local government’s main Facebook post on the incident reached nearly 250,000 people – almost half of the city’s population – and its tweets were trending across Canada.

• This month it put out a blog with a map showing the potential amount of sunshine on roofs of Calgary homes. It was the city’s most popular blog of the year, with 35,000 visits.
• In Australia, Brisbane council uses social media to raise awareness of areas of civic pride in the area, as it felt people didn’t know enough about its cultural sites. It has begun an Instagram campaign, which has 57,000 followers.
• A survey by consultancy BDO in 2015 found that 74% of UK councils believed there was a moderately or extremely high appetite within their organisations to maintain a strong social media presence – an increase of 7% from the previous year.

In my opinion, I believe that this is a good thing for the public as they will be aware of everything around the world as it is taking place, considering that most of them will be on the social media sites throughout the day. So, since they don't watch TV on the news this is a great way which the audience, especially the younger ones, will be more aware and can have a look at it if they think that it is interesting. In addition, I believe that this is more beneficial than the print media as the print media wouldn't give the news to the audience the next day but will get it instantly and therefore, is a key reason why more people are making a switch from print platform to the online.

21/11/16 - Missing iPlayer means your Samsung TV isn’t so smart (21)

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/19/missing-iplayer-samsung-smart-tv-licence-issue

This article is talking about how smart televisions, which were made by huge companies such as Samsung were built for audiences not needing to go onto the different devices such as a computer or tablet to watch a catch up or on demand programme. However, this article was quite negative about the smart TV's with Samsung being the main culprit. The reason for this is because of the fact that they were not meeting the demands of some users that had bought the smart TV. For example, a customer had bought a Samsung Smart TV because of the fact that the requirements listed on the TV was that the users will have the access to watch BBC iPlayer. However. when he bought the TV and started to use it, he couldn't get access to the iPlayer app as there was some fault that was done by Samsung. However, when he tried to phone Samsung helpline, the service was very poor and therefore, he couldn't do anything about it.

• Samsung has admitted that three of the 12 ranges of televisions it has launched this year do not have a working iPlayer app.
•  It declined to say how many individual sets are affected, but it is likely to be at least 18 models.
• The Samsung Smart TV platform is used by content providers to make apps available. Content providers may remove apps from the platform or stop supporting them at any time. When new Samsung Smart TV products are launched, there may be a delay before the apps shown become available on those products.

In my opinion, I believe that this would be very beneficial for the print platform as they can see and increase of audiences moving back to them. I think this because if the service from Samsung is very poor and they are one of the only companies that provide the smart TV's the audience will either back to the computers or either start to buy print copies. In addition, I believe that with a mega company like Samsung, it is very wrong to have a bad service since they make a lot of money compared to other companies and I believe that this needs to be sorted out.

NDM: Marxism, Pluralism and Hegemony

Main Task

1) Traditionally, police officers would try to make them look like the 'better person' in a situation like this and make the ones who are meant to be innocent, like criminals. They can do this as they have power over most people in the general public. Therefore, due to this power, they believed that whatever they say, is automatically true and whatever anyone else says is false. 
However, with the help of new/digital media, a New York Lawyer sent a video to the Guardian of what really had happened in the death of Ian Tomlinson. In comparison to the video and the statement that was given by the police officer, the officers statement was inaccurate to the footage and therefore, helped solve the crime and with the video, it was almost downgrading the police officers as they are meant to be honest and loyal to the public but in this case, they were shown as the criminal since the man who was killed, was killed for no reason.

2) In the MM article it talks about how in the 'pre-internet' day, no family that deserved the justice would've stood a chance. They gave the example of Blair Peach being murdered in 1979 but no one has been charged with his murder to this date. However, with the help of Web 2.0, the police officer that killed Ian Tomlinson, will be charged with manslaughter next year. In addition, the author talks about how without Web 2.0, nothing would've been taken to court and nothing would ever get solved. Furthermore, the author is almost encouraging the audience to take more user-generated content as they will look like as if they are helping the world depending on if they know something, which no one else knows about.

3) In my opinion, I believe that new and digital media challenges the dominant hegemonic views. Hegemony is all about the upper class being more dominant over the lower class. However, nowadays, the use of social media doesn't divide the different classes into their own categories but makes them as one unit. For example, on Twitter, everyone interacts with each other and the users of the social media sites don't bother asking their class rather than how people may have asked in the past. Therefore this isn't reinforcing the hegemony view.

4) In my opinion, I believe that the recent events such as Brexit and Donald Trump being elected as president of the US, are good examples of challenging the dominant hegemony views. Taking the Donald Trump story into account, this has got nothing to do with different classes. Before being elected as the president, Trump didn't have any experience with being in the army or anything within politics but the general public still wanted to vote him as the president because of the fact that he wanted to make a change to the country and therefore, the people listen. In addition, talking about Brexit, this is also challenging because everyone gets their say about it and it is also anonymous.

14/11/16 - Catch Up Work

Marxism

• Marxists believe the mass media are a tool used by ruling bodies to maintain hegemonic control over the masses.
• He also thinks that all of written human history has been divided by economic classes.
• Marxists believes that the transition from capitalism to socialism is an inevitable part of the development of human society.

Pluralism

• Pluralists is defined as a society where multiple people, groups or entities share political power.
• An example of pluralism is a society where people with different cultural backgrounds keep their own tradition.
• Pluralism reflects how social and political diversity are reflected in media content. That is, the representation of different cultural groups in the media as well as divergent political or ideological opinions and viewpoints.

Hegemony

• Hegemony is used to describe the  dominance of one social class over others.
• It's also the political, economic, ideological or cultural power influenced by a dominant group over other groups.

Alain De Botton: What is the point of news?

• Excess - Modern demographic nations think negatively about censoring content.  
• Since there is too much information in the news, people sometimes forget the things that they were interested in and think about a completely new thing afterwards.
• Bias - 'Being Bias towards Unbiased'
  Famous people, e.g. Ghandi are biased judgement and stuck to them strongly.
• News needs to be presented to use by the best kind of biased.
• Narrow-minded - Tells us what happens but doesn't tell us what will and should happen.
• Anger - News will always terrify the audience everything, whether's it's a natural disaster or war, as long as it keeps the audience bothered.
• We only care when something wrong happens and whether or not it effects us, the audience.
• It concerns our era and we think what will happen next and how it may effect us in the future.

15/11/16 - Facebook and Google move to kick fake news sites off their ad networks (20)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/facebook-google-fake-news-sites-ad-networks?CMP=twt_gu

This article talks about Google and Facebook have made the announcement that they will try and prevent their audience from viewing 'fake news' instead of making a profit on this. Fake news is very misleading and can make the audience believe one thing but in fact, the thing they may believe isn't true at all. For example, '70 News' claimed that Donald Trump had won the popular vote by 700,000 votes. In fact, Clinton is currently in the lead by the same margin, according to the AP. Therefore, the audience didn't know which news source to believe and therefore, this meant that they were confused as it was misleading.

• It remains unclear whether Google has the ability to correctly identify such sites, though. For hours on Monday, the search engine’s top news link for “final election results” led to a fabricated story on “70 News” which claimed that Donald Trump had won the popular vote by 700,000 votes. In fact, Clinton is currently in the lead by the same margin, according to the AP.
• The platform already bans ads in sites that show “misleading or illegal” content, and the update makes clear that those terms apply to fake news sites as well.

In my opinion, I believe that what both Google and Facebook is a good thing and is a good example to all of the other major institutions, e.g. Twitter. The fact that they are preventing their audience from reading misleading and illegal content, for a non-profitable amount, is a really good thing because they will not be reading the false information and the audience will only see things that are true. In addition, I believe that when this happens, it will get bring institutions like Twitter, more awareness and this can result in them acting towards this and start to get their audiences to stop reading misleading information on their social media institution.

15/11/16 - Newspapers big and small are facing an existential crisis (19)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/nov/11/newspapers-big-and-small-are-facing-an-existential-crisis

This article is talking about how some of the big and small newspaper companies are going to be facing a closure, if they do not find a buyer due to the fact that their revenue is decreasing in advertising. The two newspapers they compare are the Journal, which makes 1m copies per day and the Advertiser which makes 1,200 news prints per day. With the advertiser, they are needing to find a buyer and if they don't very soon, then they will have to close down and will have their last issue in December. In addition, this will mean that the newspapers in the local area will not have a newspaper to read. Also, the article talks about how the big online companies, such as Google and Facebook are sucking up the advertising revenue and therefore, the newspapers cannot compete with these online companies since the newspaper industry is a dying media platform.

• The Journal sells more than 1m copies a day in print while the Advertiser manages about 1,200 newsprint sales a week.
• In fact, in the Advertiser’s case, the past tense is more relevant. After 168 years of publication, it is losing money and staring closure in the face.
• He pointed out that between 2010 and 2015, there had been “a relatively stable decline” of print advertising (between 5-8% each year.

In my opinion, I believe that the part where they talk about Google and Facebook taking up all the advertising revenue is really unfair. I think this because, mainly, they do not pay any contribution towards this revenue and due to this, the lesser newspaper companies are having to go into decline for their mess and I believe that this shouldn't happen. Towards the end of the article, it talks about these larger companies paying a 1% levy. This is a good idea but I believe that if the government want them to pay this 1% levy, then they should act quicker as it will be beneficial towards them but also for the lower newspaper companies, as they will also be making some advertising revenue.