Marxism And Pluralism Essay

The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view.

A Marxist perspective would argue that the mass media are a tool used by the corporate elite (or ruling bodies) to maintain hegemonic control over the masses and a class divide system. It is believed audiences are put under the illusion that they have choice. Consumption and production are two of the main points in which they indeed have no choice, but only think they do. An argument, in terms of consumption, is the dumbing down of media. An example to support my argument is Radio 1's Newsbeat. Radio 1 took a sophisticated and intellectual news segment, and transformed it into a fragment of what it was. Designed to appeal to a much younger audience (mostly teens), this now slice of news has shown that the institutions are trying to control what the masses are seeing, reading and hearing. In terms of production, an argument can be made that audiences have more power through the use of e-media, however, the hegemonic values that have been instilled into society have had a great impact. This is when the status-quo stays the same as power is kept within the elite corporations. Furthermore, any alternative opinions to the popular are quickly disregarded as the same values and opinions are forced upon the audience everywhere. Audiences don't challenge these values as they have been formed for them. A theorist that supports this argument is 'Pareto's Law'; Pareto argues that 20% of the corporations control and distribute 80% of the news.  Lastly, a domination of class has been fostered considering that the elite want each class to stay as it is. Any disruption in class would change the status quo that been put in place.

On the other hand, a Pluralist perspective would argue that new media has allowed audiences a great deal of opportunity, equality. and freedom of speech. This could be through the use of social media or even user-generated content (UGC). In terms of consumption, it can be argued that media corporations provide what the audience want to see and hear. The media provides the different types or genres of news from which we, as the audience, can pick and choose from. An example of pluralist values showing in the news are the riots in Ferguson. Social media was the basis for which these riots started and were being covered. Sites such as Twitter and Reddit showed exactly what was happening as the riots occurred. In terms of production, audiences are able to produce whatever content they like to be distributed amongst sites such as YouTube and Facebook. This democratisation of self-expression lets audiences make and look at what they want. These new opportunities let us argue there is no social divide any more, however, this is not the case. If content is deemed to be unsuitable, then it is removed. To be put simply, we are still being regulated.

Marxism and Pluralism - To what extent...

Developments in new/digital media mean that audiences can now have access to a greater variety of views and values.  To what extent are audiences empowered by these developments?

Developments in new/digital media mean that audiences are both empowered and dis-empowered. I believe due to the nature of new media, audiences can become empowered by being able to voice their opinion online, be it with their name attached or anonymously. A great example is social media; such sites as Facebook and Twitter allow the general public to say what they like and don’t like about certain news stories. This can be linked to the two-step flow as most people are forming their opinions about a specific story under opinion leaders, who are, in turn, being influenced by the mass media. However, opinion leaders’ views can be slightly biased as their own opinions can come into the views they are imparting onto the rest of the public. An example of social media empowering audiences could be the story with Sky News presenter Martin Brunt. After he had exposed a woman who he had believed to be ‘trolling’ the McCann’s, he himself received online abuse after the woman in question committed suicide. A Facebook group calling for Brunt to be sacked had 1,800 likes. He also received many vicious messages on Twitter. This can be seen as society becoming pluralist as the power can be seen as being shared.

Furthermore, audiences can become empowered through Citizen Journalism (UGC). UGC allows the audience to become a part of the making of the news. This can definitely give the audience a sense of empowerment as they feel they are helping to educate the public on matters by giving a first-hand view of the event. This also helps the audience as they are seeing what has actually happened and not what is inferred by a journalist. An example of this is the LA riots in 1991 as a result of police brutality being caught on film by George Holliday. This is an example of power being shared among the people as the masses rose up (although violence is not something I’m trying to justify) to protest an issue that would normally go unseen.

On the other hand, it can be argued that audiences are not empowered as Marxists would insist. A Marxist would argue that all the power that is seen to be given to the audience is an illusion by the corporate elite. An example of this is the Ian Tomlinson case where a bystander had recorded evidence of a police officer enforcing brutality whereby the victim would later on die. The officer involved was not charged for manslaughter and just sacked from his job. As the police can be considered to be part of these elite, nothing has been done against them in this case as they have more power.

To continue, audiences are being dis-empowered through the dumbing down of media. This could be to control what the audiences are seeing and hearing, so their decisions can be influenced to benefit the media elite. An example of this is Radio 1’s Newsbeat. They changed their serious and informative news section into a much shorter and more teen/kid-friendly, with the addition of games, segment. This shows that they changed their news values to suit a younger audience to bring in a larger audience. It can be argued that through the dumbing down of media, this hegemony allows the elite to keep the power through a non-physical means.

Article #7

How social networking is changing journalism

A conference in Oxford explores the interaction between the internet and the news industry. Richard Sambrook, the director of the BBC Global News Division, said that the "impact of social media was overestimated in the short term and underestimated in long term". He said mainstream media are adopting social media especially with blogging and twitter, but nobody discusses the effects on the long term. Sambrook thinks that organisations don't own the news any more. "There is a transformation for the journalist from being the gatekeeper of information to sharing it in a public space", he added that citizen journalism, therefore, is something that has to be taken in account.

I agree with Sambrook with the short/long term. I think that platforms such as Twitter and blogging are being used more than ever and it's providing more and more opportunities for citizen journalism. It can be argued that this will be the cause for less journalism, but Sambrook was optimistic in the fact that "Journalism will stay". He thinks that journalism adds to what is essentially just information: "Journalism needs discipline, analysis, explanation and context, he pointed out, and therefore for him it is still a profession. The value that gets added with journalism is judgement, analysis and explanation - and that makes the difference."

News Values and How They've Changed

How have each of these news values changed with the rise in New and Digital Media?

Immediacy: has it happened recently?
Social Media has allowed us to see news stories much quicker than before. This may have also made specific news stories more featured than would be beforehand. Also, it can be argued that news has become more of an industry akin to fashion, in the sense that stories can become quickly buried as social media is always looking for the next big breaking story.

Familiarity: is it culturally close to us in Britain?
New and Digital Media has allowed globalisation. Technology has allowed the audience to access stories that don't necessarily have to be happening in Britain for them to be interested.

Amplitude: is it a big event or one which involves large numbers of people?
Smaller events which would not normally be in the spotlight can become bigger events due to digital media. Also, with the rise in UGC, an event can be become national (or even worldwide) just because of a bystander. A good example of this is the LA Riots in 1991 with Police Brutality.

Frequency: did the event happen fairly quickly?
With New Media, events can become archived and forgotten about fairly quickly. But, due to this nature of the internet, it allows us to access stories that could have happened 5 weeks ago or 5 years ago.

Unambiguity: is it clear and definite?
Social Media can distort the original message of the story as people's own opinion can influence what they write. However, the internet can now provide multiple sources (blogs, comment boards, multiple online news websites) for stories if the original isn't clear enough.

Predictability: did we expect it to happen?
Stories expected to happen can still be researched by professional journalists. However, breaking stories that aren't expected are helped by online media. A great example is the recent shooting in Ottawa. People who were locked down in the building where it happened were on websites such as Reddit explaining what has happened so far and trying to get messages out there.

Surprise: is it a rare or unexpected event?
The internet allows surprising stories to be shown the the general population. This can, in turn, come to broadcast as this could bring more online users to other platforms.

Continuity: has this story already been defined as news?
News institutions have to come from different approaches is a news broke out online first. An example can be when a well-known celebrity dies. Twitter would be ablaze well before something can be printed or broadcast. Therefore, the newspaper may write a story looking back at the life of the celebrity.

Elite nations and people: which country has the event happened in? Does the story concern well-known people?
Social Media can allow stories in less elite nations to be put in the spotlight, but we still like to focus on bigger nations like the U.S. or Britain.

Negativity: is it bad news?
Reporting on controversial news can be bad at times. Especially when the topic in question is very complicated and cannot be easily explained. An example can be the war between Israel and Palestine. It's a topic which institutions can't biased to one side, therefore it isn't covered unless something very major happens.

Balance: the story may be selected to balance other news, such as a human survival story to balance a number of stories concerning death.

I feel institutions might have less control over the balance of stories as they can't control what's being shown on twitter or even most other social media sites. Therefore, corporations have to think more about what's being discussed and what to cover.

Article #6

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax'

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax':content aggregators such as Google News, in an effort to protect its print media industry."

The "Google Tax" means that whenever an online service posts a link to a news article. That service is required to pay a fee to the organisation representing Spanish newspapers. Failure to pay could mean a fee of up to €600,000.

As said in the article, I think this is just another form of censorship. Because who would risk €600,000 to post a link?

Article #6

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax'

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax':content aggregators such as Google News, in an effort to protect its print media industry."

The "Google Tax" means that whenever an online service posts a link to a news article. That service is required to pay a fee to the organisation representing Spanish newspapers. Failure to pay could mean a fee of up to €600,000.

As said in the article, I think this is just another form of censorship. Because who would risk €600,000 to post a link?

Citizen Journalism: The Rise And Rise Of UGC

The Rise And Rise Of UGC

Examples:
- LA riots (1991, Rodney King, Police brutality, George Holliday)
- Asian Tsunami (Dec 26th 2004)
- London Bombings (July 5th 2005)
- Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech., Killing Rampage)
- Mumbai bombings (Late November 2008)
- Hudson River Plane Crash (January 15th 2009)

Benefits to Institutions:
More institutions will receive UGC as people want to show the real side of the news. This gives an advantage to institutions as they will have more content to show to the audience. Also, UGC doesn't cost the institution anything, therefore saving money for them.

Benefits to Audience:
Audiences are more able to get their opinions out to the masses. Also, people feel that showing the real side of the news is benefiting the audience as there is no 'editing' involved from the big broadcast institutions.

Wider Issues and Debates:
What will happen to the professional journalists if their hard work isn't needed anymore?
Is there a need for the 'news' from big institutions when we have online means?

SHEP:

Social: Social media has allowed news to break to the masses much faster than previously. This may allow certain stories-that wouldn't have been previously seen-to be show to a much larger audience.

Historical: Digital tech. is now seen as the new broadcast. It is regarded as highly-in terms of a platform to deliver news-as broadcast was from the 70's(?) onwards.

Economical: Institutions can't make as much of a profit online as there is always an alternative that is cheaper or free. This has been one of the main reasons firms can't make enough money to keep their paper open.

Political: Politicians and governments can change policies specifically as they can now see what the audience wants directly (blogs, twitter etc)

1) What is meant by the term ‘citizen journalist’? The collection, dissemination, and analysis of news and information by the general public, especially by means of the Internet. To summarise: The ordinary public collecting news through new and digital means to be distributed by big news corporations.

2) What was one of the first examples of news being generated by ‘ordinary people’? When police brutality was caught on camera by an onlooker in LA

3) List some of the formats for participation that are now offered by news organisations. Social Media, online discussions and forums, message boards, allowing comments on articles etc.

4) What is one of the main differences between professionally shot footage and that taken first-hand (UGC)? First-hand footage will be the raw uncut version of events. This would have been shot by an onlooker. Professionally shot footage will have been researched and edited to show the most information possible in the clip. It will also be a more polished version of events.

5) What is a gatekeeper? An organisation that will help finalise the news agenda.

6) How has the role of a gatekeeper changed? Due to social media, The audience now has a minor role in the say of what is shown. This is due to the opportunity audiences have to show their opinion.

7) What is one of the primary concerns held by journalists over the rise of UGC? Journalists jobs could be cut short as may not be a need for them anymore. This is because as corporations lose money, they won't have enough to pay salaries, turning to UGC. Also, with the developments in technology, UGC is getting better and better; not just in quality, but in professionalism. This could also be the downfall of professional journalists.

What impact is new/digital media having on the following:

• News stories - New Media is causing big institutions to show more UGC. This could be because the footage from the UGC is better than their own or it could be to make the audience feel they have now have a role in the news making them feel more included. This could, in turn, bring more audiences to this institution.
• The news agenda (the choice of stories that make up the news) - News stories that wouldn't have been shown as much before are now being shown more due to the increased interest by audiences. And this interest wouldn't be shown without the means of the internet.
• The role of professionals in news - Audiences could argue that professionals can now be seen as having less of a major role in the making of the news as so much UGC is used today. I think in the future, we could be seeing just one person on the news. A deliverer for the audience.

Build The Wall Analysis

Section 1:
In this section Simon talks about how The New York Times and The Washington Post should join forces to provide a paywall that's fair to the subscribers and not something that is just aimed to bring in as much money as possible ("pennies-on-the-dollar").

Section 2:
Simon talks about if a paywall would actually work: Using the comparison of cars manufactured in Detroit losing out to a better,new product. But newspapers, to vague suggestion of one.

Section 3:
Simon then talks about how a lot of newspapers failed because of not having dreams that could still apply today. He also talks about how, even though a lot of reporters jobs were cut over the years, the major newspapers are still successful because noone can compete with them.

Section 4:
3 scenarios are explored in which The Times and The Post go online and still survive amidst all the problems.

Summary:
The main argument of the article is that newspapers need to change their ways if they want to still be successful in today's newspaper climate. By embracing the paywall, but still providing a polished and professional piece of news for a lower price, audiences can still be informed but are now supporting this dying medium. Simon then talks about how if The Times and The Post did this, then other smaller newspapers would follow. This could be seen something of a saviour for newspapers. Furthermore, Simon talks about if a paywall would actually work, granted it would drive away readers. Lastly, he explored the outcome of 3 scenarios in which going online would bring. One: smaller, regional newspapers following in the footsteps of the giants to bring the industry back from the dead, so to speak. Two: regional papers collapsing would provide an opportunity for new, online subscription-based news organisations which would bring about a much larger revenue stream. Three: This is what Simon described as "the worst of all worlds". The Times and The Post would survive and become national papers. The regional and smaller papers would wither and die. With online subscriptions not bringing in enough revenue, a growing monopoly would occur.

Comments and Opinions:

Comment 1:
"I understand the frustration, and there is a lot in this piece, but subscription is not the way to go. What the Times and the Post report is not inherently valuable, value is relative and subjective. News is free and a portion of the times is simply news. Journalism - Business, Arts, Books, Movies, Travel, Sports, etc, - is not free, but its value is hard to pinpoint making a site wide subscription fallacious.

Lionel Barber, Editor, FT, indicated at a media even last night that the FT is seeing growing revenue from frequency model pricing, meaning readers get a certain number of articles free and then must begin to pay. This strategy is not as granular as what many people espousing micropayments are pushing for, but its got its head in the right place.

Your argument that for example, The Baltimore Sun push readers online by charging more for the physical newspaper and its delivery, either ignores or misses that strength of the internet - profits from fragmentation. I can go to iTunes and buy a variety of genres of music in the smallest possible form - a song - and get a discount for buying in bulk - an album. Journalism can work in the same way. I can buy one technology article or I can buy the whole section for the day or the week at a discount.

Now is not the time for ultimatums and traditional thinking. There is a solution that makes people pay, we both agree that needs to happen. Let's do it in a way that will make people really love and appreciate journalism again instead of bullying them into subscriptions and turning off a new generation of Americans to the pleasure of reading the Times Sunday Arts section."

Opinion:

I agree to a point. I think that putting a paywall could help bring newspaper back form the brink, however, I disagree also. This is because I think that the proof is there. The Times and The Post are still popular regardless of what they do. This isn't necessarily the same for the smaller, more regional newspapers.

Comment 2:

"I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated."

Opinion:

I agree with comment to a point. I sometimes also think that news can't not be biased. But this Marxist view of America being controlled by the elite may not tough ground with a lot of readers. I sometimes do think that aspects of life are being controlled by the powerful and elite, but not to the point where we are mind-controlled zombies doing the work of shady and almost invisible characters.

Comment 3:

"Careful, there is a virtual generation gap separating the days of reader ownership and the current era of reader choice. People use aggregators because they want varied points of view from which to form their own opinion.

One of the few similarities the eras share might also work against a paywall model: readers/users will certainly only pay for a small number of subscriptions, if any.

Not since the 1970's have one or two newspapers been able to completely dominate a market, and ad-revenues have been on the decline as a result. The age of information distribution over the Internet then exponentially increased reader choices and likewise affected ad-revenue in absence of monopoly.

What newspapers need to accomplish for survival is to drive readers to their product. Offer better, more diverse and truly investigative journalism to serve a broader audience, be it local or world-wide. Draw readers with value, not fees.

Forget the days of reader ownership. That era died thirty years ago, and will never come back."

Opinion:

I disagree that readers will only pay for a few subscriptions, if any. If people see value in something, they will be willing to pay for it. However, I do think that more papers need to drive customers to them, not through lowered prices and more advertising, but through what has been said in the comment: "Offer better, more diverse and truly investigative journalism to serve a broader audience".

My general opinion:

I disagree that newspaper should blindly put their content behind a paywall, whilst continuing to provide mediocre content (not the case with all). I think changing the value of the content through better journalism and providing a more polished and professional paper (be it online or a hard copy) is what could save the industry. Too many gossip-columnist style paper exist in the world of today and its not just down to the journalists. It's down to the everyday readers as well. Albeit a paywall will help in terms of revenue and keeping these jobs alive to provide this "new" news, its not, and doesn't have to be the only way. Now if the content provided was above that provided from other sources, then I would-without a doubt-be willing to pay for it. But, if its something I know I reach from that other, lesser-read paper, then why would I even consider the former in the first place?

Article #5

James Murdoch attacks Google over piracy links

Former News Corp. chairman says search engines such as Google could do more to remove links to piracy sites.

James Murdoch has joined the attack on whether search engines such as Google are doing enough to remove links to piracy websites. Google retaliated by saying that they are doing more than almost any other company to help tackle online piracy. News Corp think this is just not true as the proof is there. Murdoch also supports, "Thomson’s calls for more support from regulators for the creative and media industries over tackling piracy." Also, at a television industry conference in Cannes, Murdoch was approached about a series of topics. The main being the phone hacking scandal he was involved in.

I think that there shouldn't be any regulation on piracy as I think that all information should be free for the masses. There shouldn't be any limit to what we as a society can or cannot do. However, it can be argued that the authors of said content deserve what is coming to them because of all their hard work in these industries. Even though piracy is something very hard to contain, I can see some sort of containment law coming in to place as all the power that lies with News Corp will  will be used to some effect.

Article #4

Facebook group urges Sky reporter’s sacking after death of alleged troll

Sky news reporter, Martin Brunt, has been urged by a Facebook group to be fired by Sky. This was following a reported he fronted saying a woman (Brenda Leyland) was one of those responsible for abusing/"trolling" the McCann family on Twitter. Leyland was found dead in a hotel room days after she appeared on Sky News in an investigation into internet "trolling". This is what sparked the Facebook group for Brunt's sacking and online abuse towards Brunt.

I think that if the proper procedures were met with the report (which is what Sky said had been done) then there shouldn't have been a problem. However, I also think that this is just Sky trying to cover themselves as the audience can see that ends did not justify the means. This article also shows that the audience can be empowered through social media and how this may play out, as Brunt has not commented yet on if he will resign or be on leave.

Article #3

FireChat – the messaging app that’s powering the Hong Kong protests

The offline messaging app FireChat has helped protesters stay in touch in Hong Kong. The articles states that the app has been used in protests in Taiwan, Iran and Iraq, but, never on the scale seen in this past week. When the network is down, FireChat allows you to message nearby people on Bluetooth. One issue discussed is that when many people are in one location, there is less connectivity available, but with FireChat, it's the opposite. The more people connected, the larger the range and strength. The article states that this could be a game-changing technological accompaniment.

I'm glad that there can be positiveness coming from technological advancements. Especially with the protests going on in Hong Kong. I also feel that this may help very much to bring some kind of small resolution to these protests. But we shall wait and see.

Article #2

Amazon launches Kindle Unlimited - a Netflix-for-books - in the UK

Following the US debut in July, Amazon have release a netflix for books with the Kindle Unlimited. Basically, you pay £7.99 a month and you get unlimited books for your Kindle. And it starts with a 30 day free trial. The article also makes you question what's going to happen to the authors.

I think this could be disastrous for the authors as "Amazon is undermining the ability of authors to support their families, pay their mortgages, and provide for their kids’ college educations,” It could also affect bookshops, which are already in decline due to the giants such as Waterstone and WHSmith.

- 650,000 e-books

- More than 2,000 e-books

- Authors will be paid each time someone reads more than 10% of their books

The significance of news question

"The last 20 years have been more significant in terms of media and its role in society than the whole of the previous 200 years"

I agree with this statement to a point as I feel that developments is technology and subsequently media in the last 20 years has made the world smaller in terms of distributing worldwide news. This 'globalisation' has allowed audiences to get breaking news the second it breaks. A major example of this was in 2001 with the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks. Within minutes of the first plane crashing, news outlets in New York had a live feed of what was happening, for the whole world to see and experience together. This created a high-watermark for the coverage of global news for many years to come. However, you could argue, that if the first developments in news didn't happen, then we wouldn't have such a high standard of news today. Inventions such as the printing press in the 17th century and the creation of radio in the 1920's are what caused a chain reaction in developments to create what we know as news today. This is why the previous 200 years can be seen just as significant as the last 20 years in terms of media and its role in society.

NDM Essay Question 1 Feedback

18/48: D grade

WWW:

- You make some great points, bringing in some media theory and key media language

EBI:

- Not nearly enough depth or detail. You also lack any examples from wider media

- You don't explore the other side of the argument. Audiences are not empowered.

Learner Response: Write an in-depth paragraph putting the other side of the argument:

However, an argument can be made that audiences being empowered is an illusion and that all the power still remains within the institutions. An important example of this is Google. To be put simply; Google owns a lot of companies which audiences use day-to-day. This can be seen as still having the power and being able to manipulate audiences through small changes in their products and services. This can be linked to the theory of hegemony as the power is ultimately still with the institutions. Also, the theory of Marxism can be linked in to this as I feel that audiences sometimes may not have a choice in what they are doing online. The thought that everything is chosen for you and that the audience is essentially a mindless puppet.

Article #1

The Independent Article

Are Television Superhero Dramas Just Marketing Tools?

The main point of this article is that the television superhero dramas of recent aren't simply television shows. They're marketing and merchandising opportunities. A total of seven Marvel shows are going to be on T.V. and online by next year. All of which will be set in the same universe as the films. D.C.s television series (three in total), however, won't be set in the D.C. film universe. Although 'Arrow' and 'The Flash' have planned cross-overs. "...an existing world tied into a lucrative movie franchise with almost limitless spin-off opportunities. The TV series can reference the movies and the movies can speak to the TV series." The article also talked about how many films have been released in the Marvel Cinematic Universe already: Ten so far with the first release, Iron Man, in 2008 and the latest, Guardians Of The Galaxy, in the summer of 2014. Marvel have five more films planned for the next couple of years alone, starting with Avenger: Age Of Ultron in May 2015. However, Hughes points out that "...all the synergy in the world can't disguise lazy programming." She feels that just because the audience is lining up at the cinema, they shouldn't put on TV too, only minus the charisma and half the budget. She starts to wrap up the article by telling us that not every superhero drama is doomed to fail, using 'Arrow' as an example. She ends by saying "The trouble with too many television superhero dramas is that they put the cape before the story. It's no good that your heroes can fly if you don't make us care about their conversations." 

I agree with the article, but to a point. This is because I watch (and will watch) most of these programs and enjoy them immensely. However, programs like 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.' support the main argument of the article; its marketing and merchandising over clever writing and direction executed in a way that not only pleases the fan-boys, but the general audience. To me, having the programs in the same cinematic universe is just an added bonus. It allows for the narrative to be sculpted into something more complex. A little research shows that 27 feature films are to be released between 2015 and 2020 (a few of which are only rumored); and that's just for D.C. and Marvel.

The Internet.

The Internet: