Monday 31 October 2016
25/10/16 - Channel 4 News defends Facebook live stream of battle for Mosul (14)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/18/channel-4-news-facebook-live-battle-for-mosul-al-jazeera
This article talks about Channel 4 has defended themselves from a live coverage they did on Facebook about the battle of Mosul. Many people who thought very seriously about this, as they saw this as a war, were okay with the fact that this was being streamed live on Facebook. However, they did not like that there was the option to send emoji's across and like the video because many of the people believed that this stream was shown as a site of entertainment and didn't attract the audiences as of how serious this really is and how seriously people are taking these scenes. The stream itself was shown to the audience that 'it may be the biggest battle of the 21st century', but people thought that this was a joke and started to see this stream as something to find funny.
- Spilling onto Facebook from the Channel 4 News, at 7.55pm the EU protest feed had 2 million views.
- Both feeds attracted debate online with some worried that war had become “entertainment” for commercial gain.
- Sharon Nuro posted: “This is not entertainment for you to get more viewers”.
- Rudaw’s audience on Facebook has increased more than 200% this week, he said.
In my opinion, I believe that this event on Facebook is a good thing for the audience. However, I believe that how this event was taken, was not done properly. Personally, I believe that it was a good idea because many of the audience can get a view and understand what was happening in the world as it was going live. However, I do also believe that if Facebook are allowing Channel 4 to stream something as serious as this, they should try to think all of the negatives that may potentially happen and try and prevent them from happening. For example, since many people were effected by the emoji's, they should've thought of this and blocked the emoji's for this specific coverage. In conclusion, I believe that if there is a specific coverage like this is going onto air again, they should try and learn from this and make it better to suit the audiences expectation.
25/10/16 - Back to the future: were newspaper publishers wrong to go digital? (13)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/19/back-to-the-future-were-newspaper-publishers-wrong-to-go-digital
The article started of talking about this man called Jack Shafer, on how he felt about the impact of switching the news platform to online rather than having the more traditional print copies. He started off with saying "What if?". “What if the industry should have stuck with its strengths — the print editions where the vast majority of their readers still reside and where the overwhelming majority of advertising and subscription revenue come from — instead of chasing the online chimera?” Shafer started to wonder that if moving to the online platform was a benefit or if the companies should've just stuck to the print platform. He also went on to say "While print readership is declining, newspaper readers did not drop print in favour of the same newspaper’s online edition". However, people would've thought to believe the opposite of this statement; since there is a major increase and rise in technology, people would've liked to see a little drop from the print platform and making a switch to the online news platform.
- Chyi and Tenenboim studied the online readership of 51 leading US regional newspapers and compared 2011 online readerships with those in 2015.
- Chyi and Tenenboim note that US newspaper industry digital advertising revenue increased from $3bn to only $3.5bn from 2010 to 2014.
- Although print revenues plunged from $22.8bn to $16.4 bn over the same period, they still represented 82% of total newspaper revenue.
- Chyi’s advice to publishers: accept that the days of 25-35% profit margins will never return and be happy with the 5% margins common in other companies.
In terms of the article itself, it was quite an unusual piece as people would've thought to believe that the Guardian may have talked about something positive about the online platform, since this piece was also shown online and should really be encouraging the audience to read online; instead of people thinking that the print is becoming more of a dying media platform, they believe that it all is dependent on the users themselves. For example, in the article, they talked about how with some particular companies, the audiences didn't make the switch from print to online and most of those print audiences statistics stayed the same. However, these facts were only based on the US, not worldwide.
Sunday 30 October 2016
The decline in newspapers: MM case studies
The New Day
1) The New Day was launched to tap into a new market, not specifically to pinch readers from other newspapers. In a press conference, the editor of the New Day said that it's 'the first newspaper designed for people's modern lifestyles'. With traditional newspapers bought in Britain, people would usually flick through the paper and find out their preference.
2)
1) The New Day was launched to tap into a new market, not specifically to pinch readers from other newspapers. In a press conference, the editor of the New Day said that it's 'the first newspaper designed for people's modern lifestyles'. With traditional newspapers bought in Britain, people would usually flick through the paper and find out their preference.
2)
- Abut six million people buy a newspaper in Britain every day.
- Over a million people have stopped buying a newspaper in the past two years but we believe a large number of them can be tempted back with the right product.
- Sales have been dropping because of the fact that some people have turned to the internet for news - others just wanted a change from traditional newspapers.
3) According to the New Day's editor, Alison Phillips she had said that this specific paper will be targeted towards an audience aged between 35 to 55, as these are the people who would want to see a more modern approach and one of the only younger audiences that still would read print. It would be opinion based and no political approach towards it.
4) The main reason on why the New Day had failed is because of the fact that they weren't making any sales. In my opinion, I believe this was the case because of the fact that they were trying to attract a brand new type of newspaper to the audience, as the newspaper industry itself is going into decline. Since the newspaper is going into decline, this will therefore still attract less customers; most of the news readers have switched to the internet and means that less of the audience will be aware of this and is a great cause on why the New Day had only lasted 2 months. In addition, people like Roy Greenslade mentioned the following :
"Did no-one at the company stop to wonder at the unlikelihood of convincing a target audience composed of people who dislike newspapers to buy a newspaper?"
The Guardian
1)
- In June 2016, a daily average of 9 million unique browsers user the Guardian website with only a third of that audience being the user within the UK.
- In addition, in terms of print, the Guardian had only had a circulation of 161,000 which was way lower than it's rivals Daily Telegraph which had a circulation of 472,000.
- In 2015, the Guardian had made a total loss of £70 million, with both digital and sales revenue falling.
2) In March 2016, MediaWeek reported Guardian Media Group’s ‘plans to make the company more efficient, reduce costs, and attain new growth opportunities.’ However, they still managed to make a loss even with this strategy.
3) In 2015, at the press awards, the Guardian had won the award for Website of the Year.
4) In my opinion, I believe this industry is filled with a lot of opinion leaders and many of the audiences like to hear what others have to say. So, the fact that the Guardian website has the comments section etc, means that people can interact and debate with each other which can allow more people to get involved and could lead to more audiences. However, the majority of the people who uses this website are people that have 'English' as their first language in their country and I think that the Guardian need find a way to make other different countries get involved into the interaction between the other users, globally.
Tuesday 18 October 2016
NDM News: The future of journalism
1) Shirky believes that accountability journalism is a very important thing to the world as they bring out the negative and 'corrupted' things that have been done by people. Then he started to give an example of the movie called 'Spotlight', where journalists were investigating a situation involving a priest. A Priest of a Church was on trial and being investigated well-experienced journalists and Shirky includes that without them, not of this information would've been known about and the world itself could become very different since they are declining, especially in the US.
2) Clay Shirky believes that advertisers weren't getting good recognition online before as it was as a strong platform as it is now. However, back then, people would use their advertising and put it onto the newspapers and therefore, Shirky believes that without having 'Ads revenue', journalists wouldn't be around as this was the thing that kept them going and since there is less use of newspapers, this is a key reason on why different types of journalists are going into decline.
3) Shirky talks about how, nowadays, people don't bother using the newspaper to view their news but have started to view news online. The reason why he believes that everyone uses the news online is because of the fact that they are eligible to view whatever they want to by just typing it in and not having the 'flick through pages'. So, this is known as a quicker process for the audience to view their news and believe that it is also much easier.
4) If the internet was as popular and successful, back in 1992, as it is now then people like the Priest in the Catholic Church would've been caught quicker and would've been a much bigger thing now. Shirky gives an example where in the year 2000, he could send an email to a couple of people and 'no one would see it'. However, in 2002, by 'putting it on a mail list, suddenly a hundred people read it, and they forward it and they forward it'. This shows that if the internet was popular in 1992, many people would've found out more quicker and in larger numbers about this scandal and would've been a greater issue since more people would have known about it, through the influence of social media.
5) Shirky is against new sites having a paywall as he believes that in order of having these restrictions, it should be used as a infinite good but has been used as a finite good. In addition, he believes that this higher and major institutions are using paywalls to pay the accountability journalists but don't understand that the same news can be offered on another, 'free' site and is as reliable as any other site. Therefore, believes that these restrictions are a bad thing and shouldn't happen.
6) A social good is 'a good or service that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way. An example of a social good is journalism as the investigation that was done to find information of the Priest of the Catholic church as what Shirky mentioned in the article.
7) Highlight quote
8) In my opinion, I believe that these major institutions are highly important to stay in the business and provide news. This is because of the fact that these are the most popular companies in the institution and have the greater revenues out of everyone through ad revenue and therefore, if they continue with the business, they will still be able to afford to pay accountability journalism etc which can still provide the news for the public and can help people finding out news which is accurate. In addition, if an audience was looking at the Guardian, those specific audiences would most definitely want to keep the guardian as they do not have a paywall on their site. Overall, I believe that this is very important for the news industry.
2) Clay Shirky believes that advertisers weren't getting good recognition online before as it was as a strong platform as it is now. However, back then, people would use their advertising and put it onto the newspapers and therefore, Shirky believes that without having 'Ads revenue', journalists wouldn't be around as this was the thing that kept them going and since there is less use of newspapers, this is a key reason on why different types of journalists are going into decline.
3) Shirky talks about how, nowadays, people don't bother using the newspaper to view their news but have started to view news online. The reason why he believes that everyone uses the news online is because of the fact that they are eligible to view whatever they want to by just typing it in and not having the 'flick through pages'. So, this is known as a quicker process for the audience to view their news and believe that it is also much easier.
4) If the internet was as popular and successful, back in 1992, as it is now then people like the Priest in the Catholic Church would've been caught quicker and would've been a much bigger thing now. Shirky gives an example where in the year 2000, he could send an email to a couple of people and 'no one would see it'. However, in 2002, by 'putting it on a mail list, suddenly a hundred people read it, and they forward it and they forward it'. This shows that if the internet was popular in 1992, many people would've found out more quicker and in larger numbers about this scandal and would've been a greater issue since more people would have known about it, through the influence of social media.
5) Shirky is against new sites having a paywall as he believes that in order of having these restrictions, it should be used as a infinite good but has been used as a finite good. In addition, he believes that this higher and major institutions are using paywalls to pay the accountability journalists but don't understand that the same news can be offered on another, 'free' site and is as reliable as any other site. Therefore, believes that these restrictions are a bad thing and shouldn't happen.
6) A social good is 'a good or service that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way. An example of a social good is journalism as the investigation that was done to find information of the Priest of the Catholic church as what Shirky mentioned in the article.
7) Highlight quote
8) In my opinion, I believe that these major institutions are highly important to stay in the business and provide news. This is because of the fact that these are the most popular companies in the institution and have the greater revenues out of everyone through ad revenue and therefore, if they continue with the business, they will still be able to afford to pay accountability journalism etc which can still provide the news for the public and can help people finding out news which is accurate. In addition, if an audience was looking at the Guardian, those specific audiences would most definitely want to keep the guardian as they do not have a paywall on their site. Overall, I believe that this is very important for the news industry.
20/10/16 - Netflix paid less than £400,000 in UK corporation tax last year (12)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/oct/13/netflix-uk-corporation-tax
This article is about how Netflix had paid less than £400,000 in UK corporation tax in 2015. In addition, it also says how Netflix have made such high profits especially in the UK; the UK is the land where most users are subscribed to Netflix apart from the US. Overall, Netflix have roughly 80 million subscribers and are on the track to making around £7 billion in global revenue. A spokesman of Netflix also talks about how Netflix is becoming more than an online streaming institution and are starting to engage with films and creating projects with various films such as Brad Pitt's War Machine movie. The article also states that in 2014, Netflix only had 1 UK employee but now how got 13; each UK employee earns around £200,000 a year. So, the spokesman then argues that despite them may not spending that much on 'corporation tax' as a whole in the UK, they still spent a lot of money in other areas of taxation.
- The UK is believed to be the biggest market for Netflix outside the US. The company, which is on track to make $8bn (£7bn) in global revenues this year and has more than 80 million subscribers, says it employs just 13 staff in the UK.
- Netflix paid €441,775 in UK corporation tax in 2015, after it booked a €47,986 tax credit having filed a loss of €261,000 the previous year.
- The company, which is estimated by Ampere Analysis to have almost 6 million UK subscribers, made a pre-tax profit of £1.8m (€1.99m) last year.
- A total of €2.78m (£2.5m) was spent on wages, salaries, social security and other pension costs, meaning each employee received an average of €214,000 (£193,000).
In my opinion, I believe that what Netflix did, which is not paying the correct amount of corporation tax is wrong and considering how much they may, this is a small amount of money they would only need to pay. Even though what they are doing is not illegal, it is still wrong and very unfair to everyone else. The public who do pay tax, most likely will pay the whole amount required and considering that they do not have the 'major' money that Netflix do, they still manage to pay it. Therefore, even though that what Netflix are doing isn't lawfully wrong, it is still very unfair and despite them pay other types of tax, they should still pay what they are required to and not try to avoid not paying it.
18/1016 - Spotify UK revenues surge to almost £190m as mobile subscriptions take off (11)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/14/spotify-uk-revenues-surge-to-almost-190m-as-mobile-subscriptions-take-off
This article is talking about the rise of subscriptions that how made a great impact on Spotify. Spotify is a music app, where people can listen to music whenever they want and they can do it online and offline. Since last year, in 2015, Spotify's total UK revenue had seen an increase by 18%. They had also seen an increase in the number of users that were previously using Spotify for free but now paying it. A spokesman from Spotify talked about how '2015 was their best ever year in the industry' as they had never seen a great increase like they had last year. In addition, the total number of UK staffs had also increased from 167 to 180 due to the major increase in their revenue.
- Revenues at Spotify’s UK business grew to almost £190m last year as subscription income soared by over 40% thanks to music fans flocking to the company’s mobile service.
- The UK company made a small pre-tax profit of £2m, up marginally from £1.67m in 2014, while globally the business made a loss of €173m (£156m) last year. Operating profits in the UK grew from £674,000 to £6m.
- This was fuelled by a 44% surge in subscription revenues from £119m to £171m.
- The streaming service has 100 million users worldwide, of which 40 million are paying subscribers.
In my opinion, I believe that Spotify is a beneficial tool for the upcoming years in New/Digital Media. This is because of the fact that everyone, nowadays, is starting to use a smartphone rather than a more traditional media platform, e.g. the radio. Therefore, since the radio platform is a dying media, then this is an advantage for Spotify as it will start to consume more users and also see an increase in their revenue. In addition, I believe that the £9.99 a month is a good idea as they (Spotify) will gain more money and the users can benefit too by this as they can listen to over 30 million songs of their own choice.
Sunday 16 October 2016
Newspapers: the effect of online technology
1) In my opinion, I disagree with what James Murdoch is saying about the BBC not providing free news online. One of the first reasons I believe that is because of the fact that the audience themselves already pay a TV license. Every family household that has a TV is meant to have a TV license and with that license it already covers the BBC and many more TV channels. Therefore, since the audience are already pay a license towards the BBC, the BBC may feel that they are already receiving money from the audience. If the BBC do put a price tag on the online news, then this would be 'unfair' as the audience would have to pay extra money as they are already paying for the TV license, alone which is roughly around £150 and therefore paying on top of that. In addition, the reason I believe that James Murdoch is saying this because he will eventually take over his father's (Rupert Murdoch) businesses and inherit News Corps which is a major rival to the BBC. The Sun is a major company owned by News Corp and their online news has a paywall before accessing their news.
2) I believe that Rupert Murdoch was right in terms of putting his news content behind a paywall. I think this because The Times and The Sunday Times sometimes face a lot of criticism and therefore if Murdoch put this behind a paywall, he will face less criticism as people would have to pay in order to view the content; many people wouldn't pay to criticize so this is a good thing for Murdoch. On the other hand, this was a bad idea as they had lost a lot of customers as they didn't want to pay to view news.
3) 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. - Jerry Harris
'The company now has lifetime value and renewable revenue attached to its
digital customers where previously it had none' – could this BTW is an analogy for the Labour Party, re shifting from the block vote to individual membership?
The first comment is where one of the audience is arguing against the paywall and the second one is where another audience in favor for the paywall. Personally, I believe in the first comment where the audience disagrees with the paywall. In the comment, the writer was talking about how people wouldn't want to pay for news from a highly recognized institution where they know that they can get news from free online news which is as highly accurate as any other. Therefore, he believes that there is no point in paying when it is out there for free. I also believe this because if I was in a situation where I had to choose between buying to view online content or receiving it for free and is also very reliable, I would go for the free one. However, he also talks about how 'the fee models will never work' but I do believe that with the 'major' companies such as The Sun, it does work. Since the Sun has got a lot of money, as it is owned by News Corp, then a lot of money can be invested into the advertising which will make the audiences more aware etc.
4) The Evening Standard has increased circulation and profit due to the fact that these newspapers are provided for free. From June 2013 to 2014, the number of copies had increased from 700,000 to roughly 900,000. Due to this increase in the amount of newspaper, more workers for the Evening Standard have been distributed around the country and therefore, more people have been aware of this institution and so they have been able to increase in their profit.
5) In my opinion, I don't believe that there is any hope left for the newspaper industry for the long-term. Currently, I do believe that there is hope for the newspaper industries as there are many journalists out there getting information for the news institutions but they will soon become 'extinct' as the institution will not be able to afford their salaries as they wouldn't have much income coming in due to the lack of sales in the newspapers. The reason for the lack of sales in newspapers would be due to the online news sources that people use. According to statistics from the ABC and many other articles, the number of people that read newspapers is starting to decrease every year with most of the hugh branded institution. The many reasons for this is because they are starting to put more work into their news online as the number of audience is increasing each year. Therefore, this will become a reoccuring thing where the newspaper viewers will start to decrease and the online news viewers will start to increase. Therefore, the newspaper industry will become extinct due to the fact that there is a larger number of the audience reading their news online.
2) I believe that Rupert Murdoch was right in terms of putting his news content behind a paywall. I think this because The Times and The Sunday Times sometimes face a lot of criticism and therefore if Murdoch put this behind a paywall, he will face less criticism as people would have to pay in order to view the content; many people wouldn't pay to criticize so this is a good thing for Murdoch. On the other hand, this was a bad idea as they had lost a lot of customers as they didn't want to pay to view news.
3) 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. - Jerry Harris
'The company now has lifetime value and renewable revenue attached to its
digital customers where previously it had none' – could this BTW is an analogy for the Labour Party, re shifting from the block vote to individual membership?
The first comment is where one of the audience is arguing against the paywall and the second one is where another audience in favor for the paywall. Personally, I believe in the first comment where the audience disagrees with the paywall. In the comment, the writer was talking about how people wouldn't want to pay for news from a highly recognized institution where they know that they can get news from free online news which is as highly accurate as any other. Therefore, he believes that there is no point in paying when it is out there for free. I also believe this because if I was in a situation where I had to choose between buying to view online content or receiving it for free and is also very reliable, I would go for the free one. However, he also talks about how 'the fee models will never work' but I do believe that with the 'major' companies such as The Sun, it does work. Since the Sun has got a lot of money, as it is owned by News Corp, then a lot of money can be invested into the advertising which will make the audiences more aware etc.
4) The Evening Standard has increased circulation and profit due to the fact that these newspapers are provided for free. From June 2013 to 2014, the number of copies had increased from 700,000 to roughly 900,000. Due to this increase in the amount of newspaper, more workers for the Evening Standard have been distributed around the country and therefore, more people have been aware of this institution and so they have been able to increase in their profit.
5) In my opinion, I don't believe that there is any hope left for the newspaper industry for the long-term. Currently, I do believe that there is hope for the newspaper industries as there are many journalists out there getting information for the news institutions but they will soon become 'extinct' as the institution will not be able to afford their salaries as they wouldn't have much income coming in due to the lack of sales in the newspapers. The reason for the lack of sales in newspapers would be due to the online news sources that people use. According to statistics from the ABC and many other articles, the number of people that read newspapers is starting to decrease every year with most of the hugh branded institution. The many reasons for this is because they are starting to put more work into their news online as the number of audience is increasing each year. Therefore, this will become a reoccuring thing where the newspaper viewers will start to decrease and the online news viewers will start to increase. Therefore, the newspaper industry will become extinct due to the fact that there is a larger number of the audience reading their news online.
Tuesday 11 October 2016
11/10/16 - I'm with you on the digital revolution, it's the lack of journalism I can't face (10)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/11/im-with-you-on-the-digital-revolution-its-the-lack-of-journalism-i-cant-face
This article is about how different social media sites like Twitter, do not find out the news but it reacts to it, with many newspaper industry spokesman's talking about the different reasons for this. For example, a union leader called Charlie Arlinghaus said that "no one gets their news on Twitter... even the people that think they do". The writer of this article then talks about the definition of this and believes that what he is saying that with social media sites like Twitter, people are allowed to share links by online news sites, e.g. BBC News Online and therefore, read the news from this. In addition, Arlinghaus talks about how the radio massively relied on the newspaper industry to find out about the news about he also believes that without the newspaper's reporters, no local stories would have been covered or printed and therefore believes that these reporters need to have a bit more of a present by the audience.
- Eleven days ago a newspaper serving a small community in the US state of New Hampshire ceased publication after 90 years.
- “No one gets their news from Twitter”, wrote Arlinghaus, “even the people who think they do.”
- About 20 years ago, I was a guest on a local radio talk programme in a New Hampshire city. Waiting for the programme to start, I realised I was sitting where the news broadcaster had sat earlier.
- ...“none of the local stories would have been covered, printed or rebroadcast. No one would have tweeted the story.”
In my opinion, I believe that what has been said in this article (about Twitter not being the main source of news) is very accurate to a lot of cases. It is accurate in the sense that many people do share links of other and official news sources like the BBC News Online and therefore, the spokesman points in this article is correct; many people do share and therefore, Twitter isn't where the news comes from first. However, there are also cases when I disagree with the spokesman as I believe that Twitter is also a platform where news can be found out first. For example, if there was a terrorist attack, most likely there will be footage recorded by the people that are near the attack and therefore, they may post the footage on the Twitter or other social media sites. This then means that the place that this specific news may be found, first, is on Twitter or another social media site.
11/10/16 - Ad-blockers: are publishers tempted to feed the hand that bites them? (9)
https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2016/oct/04/adblock-plus-publishers-tempted-feed-hand-bites
This article is talking about how the company Eyeo and publisher have linked together in order to make a whitelisted adverts on for their own online sites which will allow them to increase their revenue through advertising. Whitelisted ads are suppose to be adverts that are trust worthy to a user and doesn't give a virus to the users PC is they click on it. A spokesman from Eyeo was talking to the guardian and explaining how they are not trying to just only get the 'URL' alone from publisher but make the whitelisted ads so that they're adapted to how they (Eyeo) want it to work. The spokesman talks about how only 10% of the companies that pay for the whitelisted ads and the other try to avoid making payments. Since this company is doing this whitelisted ads, it is going to be affecting other companies that use this as it can decrease their revenue slightly. But since they use it, their revenue will increase by 6% anyways which is an advantage for any big company.
- “I should point out that 90% of the companies on the whitelist don’t pay a dime.”
- ...publishers who gain more than 10m additional ad impressions per month from the Acceptable Ads initiative – who pay a licensing fee, which amounts to 30% of the revenue.
- Acceptable Ads [programme] has no representation from recognised advertising and publishing industry bodies such as the IPA, IAB or ISBA
- Adblock Plus says it has over 1,000 publishers on board, with Williams commenting that “publishers got it and signed up in droves”
Despite all the critism that Eyeo is getting from other major companies, I believe that this is a good idea with the whitelisted ads. This is because this is a way which advertising will work as mainly everyone uses the computer since print is becoming a dying media platform. This way, Eyeo and all the other companies that are using this method, can make their companies more aware to the audience and since it pops up on the audiences screen, they have that option whether or not they want to view it. It is beneficial mainly because of the fact that the companies revenue will then increase.
Sunday 9 October 2016
Build The Wall analysis
1) Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this...) - In this section, David Simon talks about how people should acknowledge the work that 'news journalists' put in as it can be extremely tough.
Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...) - The internet has been mislead by the audience and is thought to many of the users as a mere advertising opportunity.
Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth) - This section talks about the different news industries having putting a subscription setting for people to view their content but also comparing the larger companies to the less.
Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be) - The final section is talking about the different ways that the two news industries 'The Times' and 'The Post' can survive.
2) The article itself is about a man, by the name of David Simon, who talks in about how the option of using pay wall can potentially destroy companies. As everyone knows, the internet is taking over the print media platform which has seen a great decrease in the revenue for the news industry (less newspapers are being sold). Therefore, since the newspapers are becoming less popular, news industries have started to make their names on the internet. However, since they're on the internet and this means that they will hardly be making an revenue which leads to their journalists not getting paid enough. At the beginning of this article, Simon talks about how the journalists aren't getting acknowledged and appreciated enough and therefore, this needs to change. So, news industries are thinking of putting their website behind a pay wall.This means that the audience will therefore have to pay in order to view the content. At the moment, the only well known news company that are doing this pay wall setting is the Sun. However, Simon talks about the risks in which this can have on the companies and what long term effects this can have on them. If the companies do put this pay wall on their websites, this can potentially decrease their revenue even more than what it already has gone down by because of the fact that the public do not want to pay for something that they believe that they're entitled to for free. In the last section of this article, David Simon talks about the different scenarios that 'The Times' and 'The Post' could potentially come to if they were deciding to build the 'pay wall'.
3) The following is what has been referenced to New and Digital media by the article:
4) In my opinion, I believe that in order for the journalism industry to survive, online content will need to be published by paywall for them to survive. However, despite be thinking this, I still believe that online content should be free for the public to use. This is because of the fact that the public already are using it for free and this shouldn't change now;if the public that use the news online, daily, should remain that way. If the companies believe that the paywall is necessary, then it should've been added as soon as the online format of news was created. In addition, if paywall was added, it was, of course, be beneficial for the journalism industry as they will be earning money and continue working as a journalist. On the other hand, this will be a disadvantage to everyone else as they will need to pay more to view the content. Since the public already pay bills, e.g. for household equipment, mobile phones etc, I think that this would be unfair to charge them for viewing what is happening around the world. Even though the journalist industry may debate that the public already pay for other subscriptions such as Now TV etc, this wouldn't be different to anything else, I still would believe that paying for news is wrong. To conclude, if we did have to pay to view news online, I would never pay for it because I believe that it is wrong to pay for information that we should know for free as it could be effecting our lives.
Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...) - The internet has been mislead by the audience and is thought to many of the users as a mere advertising opportunity.
Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth) - This section talks about the different news industries having putting a subscription setting for people to view their content but also comparing the larger companies to the less.
Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be) - The final section is talking about the different ways that the two news industries 'The Times' and 'The Post' can survive.
2) The article itself is about a man, by the name of David Simon, who talks in about how the option of using pay wall can potentially destroy companies. As everyone knows, the internet is taking over the print media platform which has seen a great decrease in the revenue for the news industry (less newspapers are being sold). Therefore, since the newspapers are becoming less popular, news industries have started to make their names on the internet. However, since they're on the internet and this means that they will hardly be making an revenue which leads to their journalists not getting paid enough. At the beginning of this article, Simon talks about how the journalists aren't getting acknowledged and appreciated enough and therefore, this needs to change. So, news industries are thinking of putting their website behind a pay wall.This means that the audience will therefore have to pay in order to view the content. At the moment, the only well known news company that are doing this pay wall setting is the Sun. However, Simon talks about the risks in which this can have on the companies and what long term effects this can have on them. If the companies do put this pay wall on their websites, this can potentially decrease their revenue even more than what it already has gone down by because of the fact that the public do not want to pay for something that they believe that they're entitled to for free. In the last section of this article, David Simon talks about the different scenarios that 'The Times' and 'The Post' could potentially come to if they were deciding to build the 'pay wall'.
3) The following is what has been referenced to New and Digital media by the article:
- One is the internet and in particular the twin phenomena of blogging and interactivity it has created, by the latter meaning the comment threads that accompany most op-ed pieces posted on media websites. The other, in no small measure following from this, is the loss of trust and credibility that the media have suffered in recent years.
- Yet one can see the promise, and in fact already the presence, of a mutually positive relationship between the media and the blogosphere, chiefly in the latter's hawkeyed challenge to the former.
- There is much that is good, and something bad, about the effect the internet has had in these respects. The good concerns the massive democratisation of opinion and debate the internet has enabled, and the way it has made the world porous to information.
- The downside is the volume of rubbish, the anonymous viciousness and sneering, the ad hominem attacks, the paragraph-long pretensions to authoritativeness, the degrading of debate it freely permits, making it what I've before now called the biggest toilet wall in history.
I believe that this comment on new and digital media is linked to both positive and negatives sides. Grayling talks about how the internet is 'trash' but also talks about how the internet is good for the political debates and how many different opinions that can be found on new and digital media. The different opinions by Grayling have been shown in the bulletpoints above; Green showing positive and red showing the negative.
4) In my opinion, I believe that in order for the journalism industry to survive, online content will need to be published by paywall for them to survive. However, despite be thinking this, I still believe that online content should be free for the public to use. This is because of the fact that the public already are using it for free and this shouldn't change now;if the public that use the news online, daily, should remain that way. If the companies believe that the paywall is necessary, then it should've been added as soon as the online format of news was created. In addition, if paywall was added, it was, of course, be beneficial for the journalism industry as they will be earning money and continue working as a journalist. On the other hand, this will be a disadvantage to everyone else as they will need to pay more to view the content. Since the public already pay bills, e.g. for household equipment, mobile phones etc, I think that this would be unfair to charge them for viewing what is happening around the world. Even though the journalist industry may debate that the public already pay for other subscriptions such as Now TV etc, this wouldn't be different to anything else, I still would believe that paying for news is wrong. To conclude, if we did have to pay to view news online, I would never pay for it because I believe that it is wrong to pay for information that we should know for free as it could be effecting our lives.
NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry
The Future of Newspapers
The article is about the decline in the newspaper industry. Throughout the article, it talks about how the internet has effected the newspapers and how the revenue of the newspapers is falling massively. It also gave many outstanding statistics, for example the number of people that worked for the Newspaper Association of America had fell by 18% between 1990 and 2004. In addition, the article also goes into talking about 'citizen journalists' and bloggers themselves, talking about how they are all opinionated and is done 'unprofessionally'. For example, bloggers are just normal people that sit behind a screen on an armchair. Despite there being a great fall of newspapers in America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the sales are, yet, still rising in all the other countries but that is due to the lack of not having a great amount of NDM in those specific locations. Also, it goes on to say that the popular newspaper companies like the New York Times, should increase the price of their journalists as there has already been a major loss in revenue to the internet.
1) In my opinion, I do believe that this is a 'cause for concern but not for panic'. This is because of the fact that not enough information will be distributed to the public since there will eventually be a huge decline in the newspapers industry and in journalism. If there is a decline in newspapers, the information that is distributed online could potentially be misleading since there will be a lack of gate keepers etc. This is the same for journalism as there would be no one to be reporting the news to the different companies and will also just be done unprofessionally.
2) To some extent, I do believe that the writer's predictions are true but also has been quite inaccurate so far. In the article, it says that in specific countries, the newspapers sales are still rising. However, if you take a country like, Spain for example, print is starting to die there and they are becoming a country where using a mobile phone is more popular to look at the news. In addition, in France, they had recently launched a Snapchat feature where on the discovery page, the new feature is that the French viewers can look at newspaper articles which are very popular in France.
3) Many organisations such as Carnegie and the Guardian have respected that high quality journalists will be backed up by non profitable organisations. A key example of this could be a high quality journalist which adds all of their research and whatever they have found onto Twitter. Journalists wouldn't be making money with what they post as nor would Twitter as it would be an ordinary person with no organisations they're working for; it cannot be profited from then. However, Twitter can still make their own profits from different sorts of advertising. In addition, the Guardian is owned by a British company that is called the Scott Trust Limited.
3) Many organisations such as Carnegie and the Guardian have respected that high quality journalists will be backed up by non profitable organisations. A key example of this could be a high quality journalist which adds all of their research and whatever they have found onto Twitter. Journalists wouldn't be making money with what they post as nor would Twitter as it would be an ordinary person with no organisations they're working for; it cannot be profited from then. However, Twitter can still make their own profits from different sorts of advertising. In addition, the Guardian is owned by a British company that is called the Scott Trust Limited.
Tuesday 4 October 2016
04/10/16 - New research shows there's one big change when cops wear cameras (8)
qz.com/795755/complaints-against-police-fell-by-98-after-they-were-given-body-cameras-according-to-a-new-study/
This article is about how police officers in 32 states in the United States of America will have cameras built into their uniforms. These cameras are created to have an effect on both the public people and the police officers. It also talks about how 'Cambridge University' done their own research about how this will effect the behaviour of police officers and the public. After there research, it was shown that since the cameras have been installed into the uniforms, there has been a major decrease in the number of complaints by each of the public and police officers. Since everyone is being monitored in an incident, the behaviour of everyone is much more better as they know that they are going to be recorded by the cameras. The main purpose of these cameras are to stop the police officers from being abused and attacked by the 'criminals'.
- Before the cameras, there would be roughly between 1400 and 1600 number of complaints against police officers.
- Compared to the previous year when cameras were not worn, complaints across the seven regions fell by 93% over the 12 months of the experiment. The study encompassed nearly 1.5 million officer hours across more than 4,000 shifts.
- After the cameras' the number had dropped to under 200 complaints, which has had a major impact in the characters of police officers.
In my opinion, I believe that the idea of having these cameras on the uniforms is a great idea. This is because of the fact that everyone and everything will be acted and taken into account in a fair manner. For example, if there is an incident, the police officers cannot be harsh on those particular people if they haven't done anything wrong. Sometimes, police officers take things too far as they believe that they have more power than the public. Therefore, these cameras will affect their behaviour in a good way and is an advantage to the public because they will be treated in a positive way too. Also, researchers have proved that this idea has worked because the complaints against the officers have massively dropped.
04/10/16 - Twitter pays £1.24m in UK tax as revenues increase by 30.5% (7)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/03/twitter-uk-tax-revenues-staff-shares-2015-results
The article above is about how people believe that Twitter do not pay enough tax and try to avoid paying tax as much as they can. A way in which they do this is by locating their Headquarters in London but moving their money to Ireland. However, a Twitter spokesman went on to say that they haven't avoided pay tax and went on to talk about how they had employed 163 people last year, in 2015, which is an increase for the previous year (126 were employed). With those statistics, the spokesman also backed these statistics by talking about how each employer is worth about £108,000 and altogether costed Twitter roughly £18 million. Finally, the spokesman also went on to say that they do not avoid tax and they do pay all taxes required in the UK, which is what Twitter is highly criticised for.
- Twitter UK made a £3.36m pre-tax profit last year, up from £3.29m in 2014.
- On average, each staff member cost almost £108,000.
- Twitter’s British operation paid £1.24m in tax last year as staff enjoyed a £12.5m shares windfall.
- The company set aside £12.5m to cover the cost of shares for employees, down from £14m in 2014.
In my opinion, i believe that Twitter are just trying to keep themselves clear from any speculations and criticism. Since they move their money around from land to land, it is highly believable that they are trying to avoid paying tax. Therefore, I believe that what they are doing is wrong. Since they are a wealthy and upcoming company, I do believe that this is a wrong thing but them trying to avoid taxes; Mainly because of the fact that less wealthier people, who which work for a much less amount still have to do their duty and pay taxes to the government. So, I believe that if you are a wealthy company like Twitter, then you should pay taxes and not try to escape it because this is an unfair thing to do.
Sunday 2 October 2016
NDM baseline assessment learner response
Feedback
WWW- Good information of focus of the research/ studies we covered
EBI- A theme you missed of the section you'd planned on video games. Also, more information needed (e.g. Paretos law)
-You need to speed up a bit!
LR Paragraph
Views and values, in the audience, has changed through the impact in violent video games. Many of the younger audience play a lot of violent games on their consoles. A popular violent video game is 'Grand Theft Auto' (GTA). Many of the audience, especially the parents of the younger users of this specific game, are against this game and a lot of other violent games. This is because of the fact that audiences between the ages of 9-16, would play a game which is rated 18+ and therefore would have an impact on the younger audiences lives. Due to the younger users playing these specific games can create a moral panic within the society of parents and they would be unsure of what to do; since they are children playing an adult game, creates tension and the older audiences may believe that they would be getting up to no good. On some occasions, violent video games can have a great impact on the younger audiences, e.g. GTA is about crime and fighting and this may persuade the younger audience to live the life as in the video game, which can also potentially lead to dangerous things. In addition, when the game GTA had been released, there would be some scenes where young children would have killed someone and this was due to the fact that they had learnt to kill on the video game. For example, in the US a 14 year old boy had killed his father and brother because he was acting as a video game character in real life. Therefore, video games has got a huge impact on the lives of the younger audiences as it inspires them to act in that specific way; this can lead to corrupted minds as they are young and are still learning between right and wrong.
WWW- Good information of focus of the research/ studies we covered
EBI- A theme you missed of the section you'd planned on video games. Also, more information needed (e.g. Paretos law)
-You need to speed up a bit!
LR Paragraph
Views and values, in the audience, has changed through the impact in violent video games. Many of the younger audience play a lot of violent games on their consoles. A popular violent video game is 'Grand Theft Auto' (GTA). Many of the audience, especially the parents of the younger users of this specific game, are against this game and a lot of other violent games. This is because of the fact that audiences between the ages of 9-16, would play a game which is rated 18+ and therefore would have an impact on the younger audiences lives. Due to the younger users playing these specific games can create a moral panic within the society of parents and they would be unsure of what to do; since they are children playing an adult game, creates tension and the older audiences may believe that they would be getting up to no good. On some occasions, violent video games can have a great impact on the younger audiences, e.g. GTA is about crime and fighting and this may persuade the younger audience to live the life as in the video game, which can also potentially lead to dangerous things. In addition, when the game GTA had been released, there would be some scenes where young children would have killed someone and this was due to the fact that they had learnt to kill on the video game. For example, in the US a 14 year old boy had killed his father and brother because he was acting as a video game character in real life. Therefore, video games has got a huge impact on the lives of the younger audiences as it inspires them to act in that specific way; this can lead to corrupted minds as they are young and are still learning between right and wrong.
NDM case study: How has news changed?
Ofcom report into news consumption 2015
1) Notes
2) The most popular platform for the audience to access news is from television. 67% of the UK adults use TV as their main source of news. However, since 2013 there has been an 11% decrease which meant that in 2013, 78% of the adults would consume their news on TV.
3) People that are aged 55+ would consume their news on either TV, radio or on the newspaper; They would hardly ever use the internet for looking up the news. 86% of those who are aged 55+ would look up the news on TV. 44% of them would look up the newspaper, 37% would use the radio and 23% would view the news on the internet.
In comparison, the majority of the users that are aged between 16-24 would look at the news via the internet. 51% of the audience in this age category would look at the news on TV, 21% would look at the news on the newspaper, 23% on the radio and 59% on the internet or other technology devices. As you can see, there is a great comparison between the younger and older audience; the majority of young users would use the internet to get their news and the older audience would either use the newspaper or TV to check the news.
4) As shown in the document, people in the AB socio-economic group are more likely to consume the news in those four categories than those in the DE socio-economic group: TV (71% vs 67%), the internet (50% vs 29%), newspapers (38% vs 26%) and the radio (46% vs 23%).
5) In comparison to 2014, there isn't a huge change in the amount of users that use different sources of media: 44% of the users use TV (42% in 2014), 43% of internet users (45% in 2014), 34% of newspaper users (35% in 2014) and 60% for radio (62% in 2014). As you can see, there is a difference between 2016 and 2014 in every platform whether it is going up or down.
In addition, the two top main sources of TV in the UK are BBC and ITV. BBC One is the most used sources for news (48%) which is then followed by ITV at 27%. As you can see, BBC One is leading the race by a long-shot. This is mainly due to the fact that the BBC is seemed to be more reliable and trustworthy as it is also controlled by the government who give a balanced point and a good amount of stories to look at.
6) From 2013, we have seen the total hours of national and international news viewing decrease. In 2014, each adult had watched an estimate of 108 hours of national and international news. However, these statistics were a decease from the previous year (2013). In 2013, we saw that the average number of hours was 115 and this was another 13 hour decrease from 2011.
7) Since 2005, the consumption in newspapers has dropped massively. The decrease in the past 10 years had lead to a 27% decrease. 72.4% of adults would consume news from newspapers but this has now dropped to 45.4% (2015).
8) Since 2014, the average number of users that read the newspapers hasn't really changed over the years (48.1% in 2014). However, there is a big difference within the age of the audience; 29.3% of the audience that are aged between 15-24 read newspapers compared to the 67.9% of users that are aged 65+.
9) In the newspapers and online print platforms, the most successful industry is the Daily Mail. Alongside the Daily Mail, their rivals are the Sun. Online, the Sun would charge the audience to view their content where as the Daily Mail allow their audience to read their articles for free.
10) In terms of age, 41% of UK adults use the internet for news compared to the 59% of adults aged between 16-24 that use the internet for news. Also, 23% of 55+ year old also use the internet. Furthermore, in the socio-economic group of ABC1, 53% use online sources for news compared to the 32% of those in the C2DE socio-economic group. Also, more men consume the news through the internet than what women do (45% vs 37%).
11) Around 43% respondents said that they use social media sites to consume the news. The audience that lies in the DE socio economic group will most likely use these particular social media sites that the audience in the AB category (52% vs 40%). In addition, around 61% of those that are aged between 16-24 would also use these sites too.
12) 10% of users are researched to find their news on social media sites ONLY.
13) The most popular sites online which people would use to look at the news is the Daily Mail and the Sun as said before. The Daily Mail would let the users view the content for free but the Sun charge.
14) 61% of users aged between 16-24 use the internet for news and view their news on social media sites too. Roughly, 16% of those 61% only use the social media sites for the news.
15) More than a third of online news users say the go to the homepage of a news provider by using an app (36%). In addition, 28% say they often go to news story's via links that have been shared on social media websites.
New/Digital Media: Audience and Institution
16) One of the main benefits from the changes in new and digital media on news industries for the audience is the online sources. Nowadays, the big news companies such as the Daily Mail have started to use the internet to share the news. This is beneficial to the younger audience as they are the ones who use the internet more than the older audience; When they are travelling on the way to work or school, they could go onto these internet apps and use it whenever they want. Another benefit is that it's usually free and no need to find the actual newspaper because it will be on your phone or tablet etc.
17) The larger news industries will have a great benefit from the result of news and digital media. For example, the Daily Mail is a the largest news industry in the UK. Since the Daily Mail has got it's new online source, this will attract a larger audience and therefore more people would start to read the daily mail because of the fact it is making more people aware. The audience can become aware from different social media sites, where people they may know might share links from the Daily Mail and onto that specific social media site.
18) One of the downsides for an online source for news is that it may not be protected; anyone can write up their article and will not be checked which can lead to it not be censored etc. Another downside is that if the audiences are more interested in the Sun, they would have to pay to view the Sun online as it has it's own paywall and therefore, people would have to keep reading the newspapers as it is cheaper and free.
19) The downsides for the industries is that they will be losing out on a lot of sales due to the fact that NDM has taken over. Since there is a decline in print, less people would like to read the newspapers and more of the audience like to read the news online. Therefore, this would be leading to a waste of money for the industry as they still print of newspapers which hardly make any sales.
20) In my opinion, I believe that the audience have benefited the most from the changes in news and digital media. One of the main reasons I believe that the audience has benefited the most is because of the fact that it's more accessible rather than having to get the actual news via print. Since there has been a massive change over the past 20 years, more and more users have started to use social media sites to find the news. This is very beneficial because these users are already on these social media sites, talking to their friends and this is just another way in which the news can be shown. Another benefit is that it is more cheaper than having to buy the print version and sometimes, it can be free so therefore, for the younger audience, I believe that this is much better.
1) Notes
- Nine in ten adults in the UK (89%) say that they follow news
- Television is by far the most-used platform for news, with 67% of UK adults saying they use TV as a source of news. However, there has been an eight percentage point decrease since 2014 (75%), following a three percentage point decrease between 2013 (78%) and 2014 .
- Looking within each platform at the different sources of news people might use, the number of people who use just one source remained at a similar level to 2014; 44% of TV users said they used just one source (42% in 2014) compared with 43% of internet users (45% in 2014), 34% for newspapers (35% in 2014) and 60% for radio (62% in 2014)
- The top two news sources, in terms of reach among UK adults, are both TV channels. BBC One is by far the most-used (at 48%), followed by ITV/ ITV Wales/ UTV/ STV News, wiith just over a quarter (27%) of people saying they use it as a source of news. BBC One has had a five percentage point decrease in reach since 2014 (53%).
- People aged 16-24 each watched just 25 hours of news on television in 2014, compared to 189 hours for those aged 55 and over.
- More than seven in ten (72%) adults who use television for news use BBC One, a figure largely unchanged since 2014 (71%) and 2013
- According to NRS figures, the reach of national newspapers has declined considerably in the past ten years, with reach among adults falling by 27 percentage points since 2005 (from 72.4% of all adults in 2005 to 45.4% in 2015)
- When print and online readership is combined, the Daily Mail is the most widely-read news title in the UK, with around 5.5 million users.
- Four in ten (41%) UK adults say they use the internet for news. Six in ten (59%) UK adults aged 16-24 say they use the internet or apps for news, compared to just under a quarter (23%) of those aged 55+. Over half (53%) of those in the ABC1 socio-economic group use online sources for news, compared to a third (32%) of those in the C2DE socio-economic group. Men are more likely than women to say they use internet for news (45% vs. 37%).
2) The most popular platform for the audience to access news is from television. 67% of the UK adults use TV as their main source of news. However, since 2013 there has been an 11% decrease which meant that in 2013, 78% of the adults would consume their news on TV.
3) People that are aged 55+ would consume their news on either TV, radio or on the newspaper; They would hardly ever use the internet for looking up the news. 86% of those who are aged 55+ would look up the news on TV. 44% of them would look up the newspaper, 37% would use the radio and 23% would view the news on the internet.
In comparison, the majority of the users that are aged between 16-24 would look at the news via the internet. 51% of the audience in this age category would look at the news on TV, 21% would look at the news on the newspaper, 23% on the radio and 59% on the internet or other technology devices. As you can see, there is a great comparison between the younger and older audience; the majority of young users would use the internet to get their news and the older audience would either use the newspaper or TV to check the news.
4) As shown in the document, people in the AB socio-economic group are more likely to consume the news in those four categories than those in the DE socio-economic group: TV (71% vs 67%), the internet (50% vs 29%), newspapers (38% vs 26%) and the radio (46% vs 23%).
5) In comparison to 2014, there isn't a huge change in the amount of users that use different sources of media: 44% of the users use TV (42% in 2014), 43% of internet users (45% in 2014), 34% of newspaper users (35% in 2014) and 60% for radio (62% in 2014). As you can see, there is a difference between 2016 and 2014 in every platform whether it is going up or down.
In addition, the two top main sources of TV in the UK are BBC and ITV. BBC One is the most used sources for news (48%) which is then followed by ITV at 27%. As you can see, BBC One is leading the race by a long-shot. This is mainly due to the fact that the BBC is seemed to be more reliable and trustworthy as it is also controlled by the government who give a balanced point and a good amount of stories to look at.
6) From 2013, we have seen the total hours of national and international news viewing decrease. In 2014, each adult had watched an estimate of 108 hours of national and international news. However, these statistics were a decease from the previous year (2013). In 2013, we saw that the average number of hours was 115 and this was another 13 hour decrease from 2011.
7) Since 2005, the consumption in newspapers has dropped massively. The decrease in the past 10 years had lead to a 27% decrease. 72.4% of adults would consume news from newspapers but this has now dropped to 45.4% (2015).
8) Since 2014, the average number of users that read the newspapers hasn't really changed over the years (48.1% in 2014). However, there is a big difference within the age of the audience; 29.3% of the audience that are aged between 15-24 read newspapers compared to the 67.9% of users that are aged 65+.
9) In the newspapers and online print platforms, the most successful industry is the Daily Mail. Alongside the Daily Mail, their rivals are the Sun. Online, the Sun would charge the audience to view their content where as the Daily Mail allow their audience to read their articles for free.
10) In terms of age, 41% of UK adults use the internet for news compared to the 59% of adults aged between 16-24 that use the internet for news. Also, 23% of 55+ year old also use the internet. Furthermore, in the socio-economic group of ABC1, 53% use online sources for news compared to the 32% of those in the C2DE socio-economic group. Also, more men consume the news through the internet than what women do (45% vs 37%).
11) Around 43% respondents said that they use social media sites to consume the news. The audience that lies in the DE socio economic group will most likely use these particular social media sites that the audience in the AB category (52% vs 40%). In addition, around 61% of those that are aged between 16-24 would also use these sites too.
12) 10% of users are researched to find their news on social media sites ONLY.
13) The most popular sites online which people would use to look at the news is the Daily Mail and the Sun as said before. The Daily Mail would let the users view the content for free but the Sun charge.
14) 61% of users aged between 16-24 use the internet for news and view their news on social media sites too. Roughly, 16% of those 61% only use the social media sites for the news.
15) More than a third of online news users say the go to the homepage of a news provider by using an app (36%). In addition, 28% say they often go to news story's via links that have been shared on social media websites.
New/Digital Media: Audience and Institution
16) One of the main benefits from the changes in new and digital media on news industries for the audience is the online sources. Nowadays, the big news companies such as the Daily Mail have started to use the internet to share the news. This is beneficial to the younger audience as they are the ones who use the internet more than the older audience; When they are travelling on the way to work or school, they could go onto these internet apps and use it whenever they want. Another benefit is that it's usually free and no need to find the actual newspaper because it will be on your phone or tablet etc.
17) The larger news industries will have a great benefit from the result of news and digital media. For example, the Daily Mail is a the largest news industry in the UK. Since the Daily Mail has got it's new online source, this will attract a larger audience and therefore more people would start to read the daily mail because of the fact it is making more people aware. The audience can become aware from different social media sites, where people they may know might share links from the Daily Mail and onto that specific social media site.
18) One of the downsides for an online source for news is that it may not be protected; anyone can write up their article and will not be checked which can lead to it not be censored etc. Another downside is that if the audiences are more interested in the Sun, they would have to pay to view the Sun online as it has it's own paywall and therefore, people would have to keep reading the newspapers as it is cheaper and free.
19) The downsides for the industries is that they will be losing out on a lot of sales due to the fact that NDM has taken over. Since there is a decline in print, less people would like to read the newspapers and more of the audience like to read the news online. Therefore, this would be leading to a waste of money for the industry as they still print of newspapers which hardly make any sales.
20) In my opinion, I believe that the audience have benefited the most from the changes in news and digital media. One of the main reasons I believe that the audience has benefited the most is because of the fact that it's more accessible rather than having to get the actual news via print. Since there has been a massive change over the past 20 years, more and more users have started to use social media sites to find the news. This is very beneficial because these users are already on these social media sites, talking to their friends and this is just another way in which the news can be shown. Another benefit is that it is more cheaper than having to buy the print version and sometimes, it can be free so therefore, for the younger audience, I believe that this is much better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)