NDM Baseline assessment: Learner response

35/48 Grade B

WWW: Good application of theory; genuine sense of critical autonomy

EBI: More needed on institutions/Pareto's law - the power of conglomerates like Google. Develop use of media terminology e.g "The Digital Divide"

However, despite society being in a technological revolution, there is still some obstacles that stand in the way of new/digital media such as the poverty gap also known as the "Digital Divide". Although the internet is essentially found everywhere, the usage and access of digital devices to access new and digital media is lost to people in poverty. This also fits in with Pareto's law which states that for many events roughly 80% effects come from the 20% of the cause. In the case of new and digital media, almost 20% of the well developed part of society in the economy will be the 80% of the users for new and digital media. This shows that this newer technology is available to only a certain demographic of people in society and makes the information a lot more valuable, but in turn results in the idea that not everyone in society is as empowered as it seems if only the rich can get access to the information. 

28/09/16 - UK 'has never been more addicted to smartphones'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37468560

The BBC article talks about how essentially speaking, society as a whole is very addicted to the use of smartphones. The article suggest that one of the main reasons for this is that the smartphone allows for a greater interconnectedness amongst people, it allows everyone to stay updated and this need to stay updated is what makes us want to reach for it the second we see it. However it's considered that this overuse is only due to the fact that the technology is very new at only 9 years old and this overuse is temporary which will die down soon enough in society. 

The article also focuses on the sales figures of smartphones. The research shows that although 4 out of 5 UK adults have a smart phone, the growth of new users has slowed down to 7% in 2016 from 9% in 2015. However, the researchers are adamant that this the "smartphone peak" and that phone maufacturers will have no problem persuading their users to buy newer models unlike other smart gadgets.

• One in three UK adults has argued with their partner about using their mobile phone too much
• Arguments were most common among 25-34 year olds
• One in three UK adults - and half of 18-24 year olds - said they checked their phones in the middle of the night
• One in 10 smartphone owners admitted reaching for their phone as soon as they woke up

I personally think that lovers of technology will say that this overuse is completely harmless and will die out while technophobes will agree with the statement in the title and say that it is completely and utterly harmless to society. However, I feel like the truth is somewhere in the middle of both these arguments because although social media allows for communication between people it is also isolating people that might think they don't need as much physical face-to-face contact any more. This essentially could lead to a huge loss of human empathy. 

28/09/16 - Snapchat unveils $130 connected sunglasses and rebrands as Snap, Inc.

www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/.../snapchat-spectacles-price-release-date-snap-inc

The article is about how Snapchat has announced it's first ever hardware that will be wearable. Announced as the "Spectacles" it will be used to create 10 second videos at the click of a single button with a lens that is almost near perfect to a person's field of vision. The accessory are pitched as a toy and are designed to also be normally functioning sunglasses and is a lot more cheaper than other wearable smart accessories such as the Google Glass. The company also stated it's move from being just a focus on it's app but moving towards become more of a camera company called Snap Inc.

• The camera has a 115 degree lens
• The app has almost 150 million daily user
• Said to have the capacity of greater experience of memories

I personally think it will be interesting to see how this product by company works out. The glasses themselves are actually sunglasses and not actual glasses so they can be used for that sole purpose, but can also be used for the purpose of recording some videos which with a 115 degree lens can prove very useful. Essentially, videos would come out a lot more stabilised and the circular video concept is innovative as it can be viewed in any orientation. However, I believe the price for them would be very unappealing to their target audience which are teenagers. Snapchat is used by teenagers for the purpose that it is quick, easy and free. I doubt every teenager will be going out of their way to buy these.

History of news

How has news changed in the last 20 years?

Technology is something that has expanded rapidly within the last two decades, and as such it has had a major impact on the way that news has developed and evolved since the days of Gutenberg and the printing press. The technological advances has shown a rapid decline in print media but a huge spike in the use of e-media and the way audiences interacts and socialises with the news through the use of social media and technologies.

Audiences

In the modern age, the internet is something that is found around every corner. The majority of countries now a days are interconnected through the usage of online services and as such are always in touch with the latest updates. Unlike the usage of print media and even television broadcasts, the internet guarantees instantaneous news and updates to any person with a phone or device connected to the internet. This rapid change in access of news has meant that people are a lot more connected and a lot less ignorant in the sense that they have a lot more knowledge which as a result could show an increase in intelligence and education. However, it can be argued that the rise in the internet has shown an increase in unreliable sources and as such the truth can now be a lot more harder to find. 

Furthermore it can be argued that due to the increase in social media platforms, many people don't even need news outlets or journalists anymore, as every person is now armed with a camera and the platform to report and talk about their opinions freely. This ultimately means that everyone can easily be a journalist and report an incident or a news story by themselves and gain a following. However, it can be argued that this has resulted in a dramatic decrease in investigative journalism where the journalists had a duty to seek out the truth for the people and stand up to oppression, i.e. totalitarian governments or the WaterGate scandal in 1972. If there is a decrease in this, then who will stand up for the people and hold the powerful to account when they are corrupted?

Institutions

It's clear to anyone that from the perspective of institutions, there is a huge decline in the print media and also other media platforms such as some small TV channels which have been affected greatly by social media platforms. This is hugely due to the fact that the advertisement revenues have moved online and ultimately the disinterest in platforms such as print has led to many journalists losing their jobs. 

However, it can be easily argued that a lot of these institutions have seen this decline and used it as their own strategy for increasing profits. For example, the Independent switched from print media to an online website dedicated to news. This is something that a lot of other news outlets have adopted by taking on social media such as Twitter or even Snapchat to present their news stories online and even go as far as to ask people on Twitter for eye witness to an incident. Many people had argued that with the decline in print media, tabloid journalism would be dead but on the contrary it is still alive and better than ever in the form of Buzzfeed articles or clickbait articles regarding gossip about celebrities on social media.

19/09/16 - Google to invest $1m in YouTube Creators for Change

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/22/google-youtube-creators-for-change-youtubers

The article talks about how Google has decided to invest in an Ambassadors scheme where famous YouTubers will be used as a way to promote positivity and tackle social issues such as extremism, hate or xenophobia. This is after a lot of the community had hugely criticised the site for not caring for it's community and not doing enough to tackle the extremism that might show up on the websites. There were also some cases where people accused the video platform of censorship and so the company decided to go ahead with this scheme by showing the world that their focus as a company is the positivity of the community. 

• $1m is approximately going to be £766,000
• Starting with UK-based comedian Humza Arshad who created Diary of a Badman
• Tackle social issues like "hate, extremism and xenophobia by promoting awareness, tolerance and empathy."

I personally think that the idea's heart is in the right place but the execution is not something that would be right. It almost feels forced as they are essentially giving money and telling creators "go make everyone happy for us". This is not what true positivity is about and quite frankly makes a lot of the ambassadors who make great positive content without the grants, come across as sell outs in a way. I feel like the company is investing way too much money into something that is quite literally a public relation stunt to gain the trust of it's community back.

19/09/16 - Second video of 'windscreen-smashing police officer' appears

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/21/second-video-of-windscreen-smashing-policeman-appears

The article is about the incident between a police officer and Adair-Whyte, a part time student and more importantly a black male. This was an incident that was sensationalised over the social media as it showed amateur footage of the police officer acting aggressively and unprofessionally towards Adair, and many claim this was due to discrimination. This was an incident that surfaced amidst the other police brutality cases and came to fame especially since it was in the UK where police brutality cases are minimum to almost none. The videos were all released and shared on social media to raise awareness against the police officer who didn't act accordingly and professionally.

• The incident has been referred to the police watchdog the Independent Police Complaints Commission
• 4Front media released the second video the media department of a project working for and with young Londoners
• The videos were all released on social media and these were then trended on all platforms

Personally, I believe that this case is exactly what social media is made for, to promote free speech and raise awareness about small cases that often are not heard about amongst the repetitive news stories in the mass media which only benefit the media companies because the narrative can be interpreted in many ways. That is definitely not the case for these types of cases where the victim can record it all and put it on social media without any media outlets changing the narrative to suit them. I also believe that this is a strong case for people protesting police brutality and a strong case for those that believe police officers should wear cameras, because if Adair had not had the initiative to record it, then no one would know about it.

News providers in the UK

Who are the major players in terms of news providers in the UK and what exactly do they own?

The National Readership Survey uses its national survey to estimate average monthly print readers for the whole of 2014 and uses data from Comscore to estimate PC and mobile readership for November 2014. It only provides combined print, PC and mobile readership for daily national newspapers and their websites

The Daily Mail newspaper is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust who managed into 2014 to obtain revenue worth £1.86BN in 2014 alone. Rupert Murdoch who owns The Times, The Sun, The Sunday Times and News Corp UK, is the owner of at least a third of hte UK's market share for newspapers.

Impact of Google

Why has Google led to the decline of the newspaper industry?
Google has led to the decline of the newspaper industry by removing billions of dollars in classified advertising from the newspaper business, which is one of the key revenue sources for newspapers.

Find a statistic from the article that illustrates the decline of traditional news media.

About $40 billion dollars of advertising money has disappeared from the traditional news media platform which is about 60% of the ad revenue that the print media industry generated in 2000.

Looking at the graph featured in the article, what period has seen the steepest decline in newspaper advertising revenue? 

The period that has seen the steepest decline in newspaper advertising revenue is from 2000 to 2010, going from $60 billion dollars of advertising revenue to almost $20 billion dollars.

Do you personally think Google is to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs? Why?

I personally think that Google is not to blame for newspapers closing and journalists losing their jobs. This is because they were sole responsible for the process of making information more widely available and accessible to anyone and everyone. Technology has advanced so much in the last decade that physical print media was doomed to fail as it was a platform of the past that could not keep up with the rapid expansion of technology.

Read the comments below the article. Pick one comment you agree with and one you disagree with and justify your opinions in detail.

You can’t single out Google just because it’s the largest digital company. Patch, for example, invested hundreds of millions into journalism in the US and continues to search for the model that will work going forward. There are many who are investing in the future of journalism. - Jane, January 5th 2014

I agree with this comment because it is absolutely unfair to single out Google purely because it is one of the largest company on the digital platform. As the person who submitted the comment states, there are most definitely companies which are going out of their way to invest in journalism and help to evolve it alongside the expansion of technology. Journalism doesn't mean it has to be in physical print media, it could be done online quite easily and this negative, pessimistic and narrow minded perspective will not help the industry expand.

Obviously, Google is not to blame. I don’t think it’s about blame. I think the Internet is incredibly poorly designed. Rather than being free, everything on it should cost something in order to compensate creators. We have a proven system for doing this through organizations like ASCAP and BMI. The principal of royalties for profiting from the content of others is well established. Google came along, and, at least in the case of Youtube, knowingly robbed content creators for years in order to build up the business. The ideal system would be one in which every click resulted in a nano-charge on your phone bill, maybe 1/1000 of a cent for a news story, for example. Sites like Google that link to other sites could also pay in very tiny increments. - Phil Hood, January 7th 2014

I completely disagree with this comment because it implies that the internet should be a resource that has to be paid for by every user. I think this goes against the whole idea of the internet in the first place as it was made by Sir Tim Berners-Lee to be free and allow for resource to be shared freely amongst everyone and anyone. By involving corporations that can choose to charge people for their services will be absurd and put society at a setback.

12/09/16 - What does a feminist internet look like?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/feminist-internet-empowering-online-harassment

The article talks about how with internet trolling and abusive behaviour online, the majority of targets are that of the female gender. Majority of hateful and abusive behaviour is a rising trend in online activities where people use the internet as a platform to harass, intimidate, humiliate and abuse women. The article also talks about how feminists are actually fighting against this kind of negative behaviour and trend. Feminists are focusing a lot more on how the internet as an industry is dominated mostly by men and leadership roles needs to be challenged and taken on a lot more by females. By doing this and fighting against the negative behaviour, the internet will be a place where gender and sexuality wouldn't be an issue.

• 2015-16 saw a 10% increase in the number of prosecutions for violence against women and girls in England and Wales
• In May 2016, 6,500 individuals had been subjected to 10,000 aggressive and misogynistic tweets over a three-week period in the UK
• 80,000 people had been targeted by 200,000 such tweets internationally

In my own personal opinion, I believe that it is a great problem with the internet that people use it as a platform to abuse and violate others. However, anonymity and the idea of a "mob mentality" is something that has been deeply rooted into the internet as a problem and has been there since the beginning of the internet. It's something that I feel like doesn't just go out of it's way to target only females but it targets everyone, and is something that's just part of society. Although I don't agree with it, I think it's something that would be very difficult to tackle. I also believe that people for the best leadership and management roles should be picked in the industries for technology and media, having a female for the sake of having a female would defeat the purpose of the entire leadership role, and quite frankly that kind of attitude is disrespectful to the ideology of feminism.

12/09/16 - Facebook and Israel to work to monitor posts that incite violence

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/12/facebook-israel-monitor-posts-incite-violence-social-media

The article talks about the how the interior and justice minister of Israel held a meeting with officials from Facebook as they would believe that the social media websites should be a lot more responsible for the things people post on the social media. Their reasoning for this is that a lot of the violence that is caused against the government and the unrest between Israelis and Palestinians is due to incitement of violence on social media. Due to this they want to create legislation which holds social media companies accountable and possibly give them fines for not dealing with inciteful behaviour in the first place. 

• Israel submitted 158 requests to Facebook to remove inciting content
• 13 requests to YouTube
• Facebook granted some 95% of the requests
• YouTube granted 80%

Personally, I think this is something that is a little absurd. I believe that social media companies already have enough rules in place which handle the inciteful behaviour adequately, and if they're aren't then I believe that the companies adequately come up with regulations and checks for their users and handle cases accordingly. However, by forcing legislation it starts to limit free speech and borderlines on the idea of censorship which I believe goes against the very concept of democracy.