27/09/16 - BBC denies iPlayer password plans are part of licence fee crackdown (6)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/27/bbc-iplayer-password-tv-licence-fee

The article above shows a debate between the BBC and their audience that uses BBC iPlayer for free, without a TV license. Since a lot of people who use iPlayer for free, the BBC have now came up with a way in which the BBC can stop them from using it without a TV license. They have come up with the idea to add a password to it, so people who use the iPlayer and have a TV license can still view their soaps etc but with a password. However, the BBC are still researching on this investigation and therefore, the password idea will not happen until 2017. A BBC spokesman was interview and this was their response to this: A BBC spokesman said: “There are no current plans for passwords to be used for enforcement but that could change.” The article also talks about how they want the BBC to be personal to the audience.

• A password will be added to those who don't have a TV license
• Many people use the iPlayer without a TV license
• The password setting will be added in 2017

In my opinion, I believe that the password setting is a good idea. This is because of the fact that people are getting BBC iPlayer for free and some of the audience are having to pay for it. Therefore, I believe that this is unfair and if some of the audience have to pay for it, then everyone should pay if they want to view it. In addition, I also believe that the whole idea of charging the audience to view BBC iPlayer is a bad thing. I think this because ever since iPlayer was found, it was always free and no one had a problem with it costing. However, now that everything is in demand, all of a sudden they went to charge everyone. There are many arguments about the fact that this is the only on demand source that has gone from being free to charging the audience; the only reason it was very popular is because of the fact that it is free. Therefore, this is why I believe that this is bad idea.

27/09/16 - Snapchat unveils $130 connected sunglasses and rebrands as Snap, Inc. (5)

This article is about Snapchat introducing their first hardware item. The item itself is a brand new experience for the people who will be buying it; they're sunglasses that allow people to record and view videos and pictures on Snapchat but by only using the sunglasses and not their mobile phones. Many people think that this is a positive idea as this is a brand new thing and is much cheaper than something similar to what Google had came up with. Google had invented the Google classes but it turned out to be 10 times more expensive and therefore, not that many buyers would invest in this product. So, these Snapchat sunglasses are a new way to view photos.

• 150 million daily users on Snapchat.
• The sunglasses can record 10 second snippet videos.
• The camera itself can employ a 115 degree lens.
• The Google glasses were priced at $1500 and the Snapchat glasses will be revealed at $130.

In my opinion, I believe that this idea on a brand new product is a very good idea. As shown in the article, there has been a product like this that was invented. However, this is a product that will allow more of the audience to use a product like this due to it being so cheap. Also, the effects on this new product is also very positive; People can live their experience and actually feel it as they're using it. On the other hand, I also believe that this is a very bad idea on inventing a product like this since they're are many disadvantages, e.g. safe and healthy hazards. One example is that if the audience are using this product out on the streets, there is a possibility that they can be involved in an accident; if they're are walking on the road and are crossing over without looking and paying more attention to their Snapchat glasses, there could be major consequences. 

How has the news changed in the last 20 years?

From my point of view, I believe that the news has changed massively over the past 20 years. One of the first major changes that have been made is the online copies. Around 20 years ago, many of the audience and public would either get their news from newspapers or even by word of mouth. However, nowadays, the majority of the public would get their news on brand new technology, e.g. on their smartphones, tablets and even on the laptop. 20 years ago, people would still be able to watch the news on TV but back then, there was only one on-going 24 hour news service. But now, there are numerous news services that also come in many different languages other than just English. Another way in which the news has also changed in through how quickly news is received; thanks to the upgrade and demand in technology, people can find out the latest news instantly as it would be broadcasted live as it is happening. An example of this is 9/11; as the plane had attacked one of the trade centre buildings, live coverage would have been taking place as the terror attack was taking place. We were able to see the second plane crash into the other trade centre.

Who has benefited the most?

In my opinion, I believe that everyone who is involved in the news, whether you're the audience or producing the news, it is beneficial to everyone. It benefits the audience as they can receive the news quickly and do not have to wait years and months for the news. Also, they can look at the news whenever they want to, if it's on the tube to work or if you're sitting at home.

Furthermore, I also think it's beneficial to the institutions as they can also find out about the news quickly and can also distributed it whenever they would like. Since there are many different journalists nowadays, it is more easier to find out about what's happening around the news and therefore, the workers behind the news, can quickly access it and explain it thoroughly.

20/09/16 - Snapchat app launches Discover in France (4)

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/15/snapchat-app-launches-discoverin-france

This article is about Snapchat launching it's first non-English partnership with France. It has recently launched its app in French and has, for the first time, published the discover section in French. Many successful people have made this happen, e.g. Emmanuel Durand who was the former marketing vice president for Warner Bros. The article also talks about how Snapchat reaches the younger audience and motivates them to read the news since the majority of them do not look at the news on the TV Channels, e.g. Sky News or BBC News. Therefore, Snapchat is a brand new way in which the younger audience can find out information around the news via using Snapchat. Furthermore, the French discovery section has included some of the most popular French newspaper companies, e.g. Le Monde. Newspaper companies like 'Le Monde' are really reliable and this will persuade the audience and users of Snapchat to use it more which will educate them further.

• Snapchat have published brands to publish content and sell advertising
• Snapchat discover has been established worldwide since 2015.
• The discovery section has been able to educate the younger audience as well as them socialising with their friends.

In my opinion, I believe that the French discovery section is a good thing for the world, especially for the younger French audience. I strongly think that this is good because of the fact that this will make the younger audience more aware of the news and what is happening around the world. The fact that these French newspapers will most likely makes the articles more appealing to read will suggest that the younger audience will enjoy the articles and will eventually be addicted to it and will want to read more. This is good for the long term as technology is increasing massively and Snapchat is becoming more and more popular, daily.

20/09/16 - Apple Inc Bombarded With Criticisms Before iPhone 7 Launch (3)

http://www.itechpost.com/articles/25494/20160824/apple-inc-iphone-7-iphone-6-iphone-6-plus-iphone-6-problem-iphone-6-touchscreen-flickering.html

The article that I have been researching is about the new iPhone 7. In the moment of writing this review, the iPhone itself has already been launched but this article was written a few weeks before the actual launch. Furthermore, this article is about apple facing criticisms before the phone has actually been released. A numerous of different forums have been discussing the problems that the iPhone 7 may have due to the many problems that had occurred with every other iPhone that had been released. Forums, for example, 'Forbes' would talk about the disadvantaged that this phone may have and discussed the many problems that happened with the previous iPhone, the iPhone 6 and 6S.

• The iPhone 7 is criticised even more it is released
• iPhone 6s touchscreen had problems with the chip inside

In my opinion, I believe that the way that the Apple have been treated is very poorly. My first reason is that way before the iPhone has even been launched, many popular forums and the majority of the audience have started to criticise it. This gives a very negative feeling because many of the audience are expecting something bad to go wrong with it and are comparing it to the older version. In addition, I think people shouldn't act like this because they haven't thought of the fact that Apple may try and change the faults with the newer version and it can be potentially better. Therefore, I believe that the audience and people who are writing articles like this are over reacting and are jumping to conclusions, rather than actually waiting how this model of the iPhone will function.

Research Activity

Rupert Murdoch 

Murdoch owns British companies such as :

• BSkyB
• The Times
• The Sun (News corp)
• 2014 : 1/3 of the newspaper market.

Has a net worth of US $ 11.7 billion.

BBC

5.1 billion pounds

BBC is owned by the Government of the UK. It is a very trust worthy source to get your news from as it is always gives a well balanced view.

ITV

Revenue of 2.972 billion pounds.

Mailonline : 18 million users per month.

The impact of Google

1. The main reason on why Google is a huge factor on newspaper industries declining is due to the fact that users can start to find their information online. Since Google is a search engine, it can lead users to different sites which can also give them updates about the news; it can lead them to social media sites and also news sites, for example the daily mail online. Therefore, since there is an increase in the users having smartphones, and brand new technology, no one bothers buying newspapers when they would have access to Google on these gadgets.
2. Google critics note how much advertising money has disappeared from the newspaper business over the past decade or so — more than $40 billion, or about 60 percent of the ad revenue the industry generated at its peak in 2000, according to figures from the Newspaper Association of America
3. The steepest decline that has been noticed was between the years 2005 and 2011. It had never seen any improvements since it was at its peak in 2000.
4. In my opinion, I do believe that Google is a cause that had a huge impact in newspapers declining and journalists losing their jobs. However, I do not believe that one major company alone did this; many companies also had an impact in this, e.g. Yahoo. Furthermore, the reason why I believe that they are the main cause is because of the increase in technology. Nowadays, Google search can allow you to find anything on the internet including newspapers. This is why some of the newspaper companies have stopped publishing newspapers and have started to update their news onto their websites which is also easier for the users to read because it will allow them to find what they're looking for, easier.
5. Obviously, Google is not to blame. I don’t think it’s about blame. I think the Internet is incredibly poorly designed. Rather than being free, everything on it should cost something in order to compensate creators. We have a proven system for doing this through organizations like ASCAP and BMI. The principal of royalties for profiting from the content of others is well established. Google came along, and, at least in the case of Youtube, knowingly robbed content creators for years in order to build up the business. The ideal system would be one in which every click resulted in a nano-charge on your phone bill, maybe 1/1000 of a cent for a news story, for example. Sites like Google that link to other sites could also pay in very tiny increments.

With that comment shown above, I disagree with it. The reason for this is because I do think that Google are to blame but not in a negative way. Google are looking out for the people in the future and for many people, it is very useful to use google to find their news rather than buying a newspaper. Furthermore, the comment said that the internet is 'poorly designed'. Personally, I also disagree with this point because the internet itself is quicker and easier for people to find information and it is also free. 

Sorry, you didn’t convince me. So what if they didn’t invent the Internet. They did figure out a good way to advertise on other people’s content without sharing anything with the people who did the work. They could have built a system that actually paid the content creators. They could have tossed in a microcent every time someone clicked on a search link. But no, they kept ALL of the money for themselves. And they still do it. They seem to think that Google News is a service. It’s just a leech on the hardworking reporters.

With this comment shown above, I agree with it. The fact that Google had been created isn't their fault. No one had thought of the idea back then but Google, so they had reached out for the opportunity and now are extremely successful. YouTube is a prime example on sharing advertisement. Since YouTube is owned by Google, they have found this way to advertise when people publish their video which is a good way.

13/09/16 - Instagram unveils tool to allow users to filter abusive comments (2)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/13/instagram-tool-users-filter-abusive-comments

This article is about Instagram and its security which should be helping its users. Instagram is a photo sharing mobile app which is owned by Facebook and millions of people use it everyday. The article itself is about a recent tool that they had invented which allowed users to remove comments which they found were very inappropriate. This tool was more advertised and created for celebrities who also have Instagram accounts. When a celebrity would post a photo or video onto Instagram, they would gather a lot of hate from jealousy and maybe because that celebrity had an argument with another celebrity that they are more fond of. This tool was pre released to celebrities, e.g. Taylor Swift. In the article, it talks about how she had an argument with Kim Kardashian West and whenever Swift would post something on Instagram, her comments section would've been flooded with snakes emoji which some people would find this very upsetting if it's a reoccurring thing. 

• Criticism was shown to Facebook as they hadn't taken any action on it sooner.
• They can block any sorts of keywords they want to
• It was released earlier for celebrities. This was controversial because a lot of hate was shown to other users too.

In my opinion, I believe that what Instagram have done is a great idea. This is because of the fact that people, especially celebrities would get constantly abused and didn't know how to remove the viscous comments show by other users. Now that this new tool has been invented, users on Instagram can become more free about what they would like to post on Instagram and would need to read the that may be shown by the users as they would then have that option to block them out. However, I also think that Instagram should've thought of this tool sooner because of the fact that people have always been abused on Instagram and didn't have any option to escape. For example, Justin Bieber had to delete his Instagram account because of the fact he would get constant hate due to his lifestyle and had no choice but to delete his account.

13/09/16 - Nudity and Facebook's censors have a long history (1)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-history-censoring-nudity-automated-human-means

This article that I have chosen is one about Facebook and how they are very sensitive when it comes to users on Facebook posting nudity, especially when it comes to women. Throughout the article, the writer has included many sorts of examples where Facebook are being sensitive and what are the actions taken when the users do post something onto their wall. One of the main things that the writer had come across what that users weren't allowed to show pictures with a females nipple in it. The reason why Facebook do not allow the users to post things like this onto Facebook is because of the fact that other users on Facebook may also find this very offensive. Facebook also had quoted that the reason they do not allow display of nudity is due to other users 'cultural background' or the users 'age'.

The following are some key facts that were written in the article:

• Accounts can potentially be banned or even removed from Facebook
• Even though nipples cannot be shown, people are still allowed to post videos of women breast feeding if the nipple is hidden.
• An automated system is used to decide if the photos posted by users is allowed to be shown on Facebook.

In my opinion, I believe that Facebook's policy on nudity has got some positives and negatives. Firstly, I think that what Facebook are doing, is a good thing because of the fact that nowadays, young users are now on Facebook and they will not be able to see it due to their age. On the the hand, I believe that Facebook should allow their users to be able to post whatever they want to. In the article, it talks about how the users can post brutal things, e.g. self harming themselves and showing other brutal content on their Facebook walls but cannot be able to show something that's 'natural'. To conclude, I am more towards allowing nudity content mainly because of the fact that it's natural and isn't something that brutal and an 'eye-sore',