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?