Weekly New and Digital Homework

I'm with you on the digital revolution, it's the lack of journalism I can't face 

This article written by Roy Greenslade, though based on a piece by Charlie Arlinghaus, takes a usually unexplored perspective in the topic of the decline of the newspaper industry as the digital revolution takes place, in that it raises the issue that there are misconceptions regarding the way people obtain their news. While it's said more and more that an increased number of people are getting news from social media such as Facebook and Twitter, Arlinghaus brings reality to light in that by following someone who posts links to news stories, you're still getting your news from someone who produced and gathered it at a newspaper institution. Not only this but the reliance that workers within other media platforms have on (local) newspapers is unreported, particularly with radio where front pages of local newspapers are often used as scripts by news broadcasters. Rounding off the article though, the whole concept of citizen journalism is discussed and the need of it emphasised. Without it with the decreasing number of reporters, government in particular aren't as accountable as they once were and as an iron core of journalism, democracy is also harmed in the process.

• Guardian Media Group to cut 250 jobs in bid to break even within three years
• Trinity Mirror confirms 12 job losses on Cambridge and Herts & Essex titles
• Telegraph to axe senior jobs in fresh round of cuts

What I like in particular that this article is able to put across is this idea that there are now some thoroughly developed misconceptions to do with how people currently access news online. While they may be using social media to hear about the news, if they're clicking on to a link by a news publication to get the full details of it then that means that industry is still very much needed by the general public today. Along with this, the importance of not just newspapers in general are stressed, but more specifically local ones, and I believe that this is quite a significant thing to look at as these papers are often used as a basis for people working within other media platforms such as radio, so the death of them could also cause a decline with other platforms.

Weekly New and Digital Homework

17/10/16 - Channel 4 News defends Facebook live stream of battle for Mosul 

Facebook Live, the broadcasting live video streams aspect to the social network, was recently used in order to stream conflict taking place in Iraq by news broadcasters such as Channel 4 News as well as Al-Jazeera. Doing this has sparked reactions that fall along different places in the spectrum, with a digital editor of Channel 4 saying: 'we wanted to bring one of the most significant stories of our time to our viewers as it happened. Given the nature of conflict – we are cautious and vigilant that the material is appropriate at all times and have measures in place to stop the stream when necessary.' On the other side though, members of the public such as Aodhán Ó Súilleabháin remarked on how the emojis flashing across the screen of a warzone, was only effective in acting as entertainment for viewers.

• Watched more than 500,000 times by lunchtime on Tuesday
• Mosul feed on Al-Jazeera attracted more than 892,000 views
• Rudaw’s (Kurdish media group) audience on Facebook has increased more than 200% this week

This article to me is representative of some of the changes we are without a doubt going to see within the news industry in the next couple of years. Live streaming where people can watch things that take place across the globe as they happen, will become a lot more of a prominent thing, however with a situation like war I'm unsure on whether this was the right thing to do. Although it does act as more enlightening for the general public, is it really appropriate for emojis to be displayed in the foreground when there are casualties involved in it? While I'm sure this is something that Facebook will eventually address, it's clear that live streaming is the 'new kid on the block' when it comes to news reporting as seen in the summer with events like the Dallas and Minnesota shootings but regardless, it's here to stay.

Weekly New and Digital Homework

20/02/17 - Germany leads fightback against fake news (48)

There was a story in Germany reported by Breitbart that a mob attacked the oldest church in the country, St Reinold's Church in Dortmund. In a subsequent article, the publisher admitted that St Reinold's actually isn't the oldest church in Germany. Fake news. Anas Modamani, a 19-year-old Syrian took a selfie with Angela Merkel and as it went viral, so too did the false claim that he was a terrorist. Fake news. Stories like this are now being used in a way that they help fulfil an agenda, in this case an anti-Islamist one, that is both divisive and just a complete misrepresentation of true events. Measures to prevent stories from disseminating though, have already been established. In Germany, Facebook employ independent, young fact-checkers part of a newsroom called Correctiv. They monitor suspicious stories by looking at the amount of likes and shares they're receiving. Stories coming from particularly untrustworthy websites will usually result in the team contacting the original source(s) for the story to get verification for its credibility. They then send a message to all German users of Facebook as to whether it's authentic or not. As a nonprofit organisation, they don't accept money from Facebook to maintain its total editorial independence. One of the reasons why Germany have been able to prepare so well for this issue is firstly due to the refugee policy instated by Angela Merkel. 

I think from this story, it's clear that both the United States and Britain could take some pointers from Germany on how to combat fake news. Social media is the main territory where this news spreads, so by establishing fact-checkers within some of them like Facebook, it's a lot harder for these kind of articles to travel. However it'll have to be seen whether or not the country will be able to keep this up come election time as this is likely when stories of this nature will be at their peak.

Weekly New and Digital Homework

28/11/16 - Facebook doesn't need to ban fake news to fight it (23)

After the alarm the publishing of fake news by Facebook has caused, ranging from death hoaxes about Tiger Woods to lies regarding the US presidential candidates, it's now being put into question whether they should actually be the ones drawing the line as to the news that is being published. This has been brought about with it now being asked whether we'd 'be revolted if one company owned all the newsstands and decided what was proper and improper reading fare.' Problems with these stories on Facebook crop up firstly through the fact that if a friend shares a fake article, it's presented as a standard post with the picture of the person who sent it. This presentation as a 'standard post' entail it having the top image, headline, and sometimes an introductory paragraph. This unified presentation essentially 'average(s) out' the credibility of all stories on the site, which only particularly attentive readers being able to identify giveaways as to them being fake. The 'like, share and comment' buttons all help to make the story circulate even further as the Facebook algorithm values engagement as justification for showing it to more people. All of this has been done in a way that readers are sure to return to the social network and engage with the content on it which inadvertently will lead to them clicking on adverts which helps Facebook as an institution - ad revenue.

• Over the course of the 10 months leading up to the election, the top 20 fake news articles being shared on Facebook skyrocketed from 3 million “shares, reactions, and comments” to nearly 9 million, while mainstream media articles declined from 12 million shares, reactions, and comments in February to just 7.3 million by Election Day

It''s suggested by the writer of this article, that the most effective way for Facebook to deal with this whole situation is 'de-emphasise who shared a story into your timeline, instead branding it with the logo and name of the publication itself, and encourage readers to, well, read, before or instead of liking, sharing and commenting.' This appears to be a particularly useful way of lessening the circulation of fake news that occurs since it means that Facebook don't get the power of as well as presenting users with stories, also determining which ones are 'proper and improper reading.' Regardless of whether Facebook adopt this specific scheme or not, they are going to have to do something to stop the slander it's now being to receive as a social network.

Weekly New and Digital Homework

28/11/16 - What the latest sales figures tell us about the state of newsprint (24)

The Audit Bureau of Circulations October print sales figures work only work to confirm the fact that less people are purchasing newspapers. Not only that though, but the statistics work to show how well national daily and Sunday titles are doing in competing against one another. Broadsheet newspapers such as The Times for example, are beginning to see losses in buyers month by month while the Daily Telegraph is actually winning them. With this it can be expected that eventually, The Times will surpass The Telegraph. The losses of The Guardian which have amounted to approximately 5% year-on-year have got questions cropping up about the future of the publication and more specifically, whether this will have it be digital-only, akin to The Independent. When tabloids are concerned, The Daily Mail has been managing to close the gap that there is between it and The Sun, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Headline sales; (bulks); = total without bulks; year-on-year percentage differences

• Daily Telegraph 456,999 (20,901) =436,098 -3.79%
• The Times 437,352 (74,060) =363,292 +10.94%
• i 278,843 (68,501) =210,342 +1.53%
• Financial Times 194,152 (21,562) =172,590 -7.16%
• Guardian 157,778 -5.5%
• Daily Mail 1,510,824 (73,882) =1,436,942 -5.2%
• Daily Express 397,236 -3.4%
• The Sun 1,672,217 (95,272) =1,576,945 -7.38%
• Daily Mirror 756,142 (45,000) =711,142 -10.17%
• Daily Star 462,306 +7%

Personally, I feel that this article just reinstates that the state of newspapers is in the unfortunate position that we've learned it's in. While certain papers may be gaining buyers, a notable amount of publications are losing them. Not only this, but the fact that papers such as The Guardian now could be considering a digital-only future is representative of the fact that the print platform is becoming increasingly unstable.

Weekly New and Digital Homework

05/12/16 - The paywalls come down and readers flood in. But revenue doesn’t (26)

In competing with newspapers like the Daily Mail, Guardian and Mirror who've all had increasing readership figures year-on-year, The Sun has been the real leader with them going up from 13 million in 2015 to 24 million in November 2016 in monthly reach. The real major contributor to this taking place was the removal of the paywall on the paper by Rupert Murdoch in November 2015. With this, while readership figures of the paper saw a surge advertising of course didn't follow suit as without a subscription service then the paper fundamentally lose out on it. Linking to advertising, it's said by Enders Analysis that digital advertising in 2017 will grow by 12.7%, but what's quite interesting to note here is that 90% of this growth will end up in the hands of giants, Google and Facebook.

• The Sun: up from 13m in 2015 to 24m last month on the back of a tenfold increase in mobile readers
• Digital advertising in 2017 set to grow by 12.7%, another mobile surge (almost hitting £10bn a year)
• Some 90% of growth lands straight in the pockets of Facebook and Google

This article to me is representative of a problem that newspapers are currently having. While by them not imposing a firewall they are getting high levels of circulation for their papers, at the same time they're not going to be earning the advertising revenue that they potentially could be and need to 'stay alive' as a publication. This is where companies like Google and Facebook in particular capitalise on quite well with them 'siphoning off' this advertising revenue. The fact that 90% of the growth of digital advertising will go in the hands of Google and Facebook clearly shows this being the case, perhaps suggesting that they're now monopolising the news industry.

Weekly New and Digital Homework

10/10/16 - Who are the new kids on the block in investigative journalism? 

10/10/16 - Who are the new kids on the block in investigative journalism? (10)

It's often said nowadays by journalists themselves that investigative journalism is now dead. However with things like the FA bribery and Panama Papers revelations, it's clear that this is far from true, with both of these two cases happening within the past year. Cited as one of the newspaper industry's 'greatest reasons for existence,' a range of different groups and organisations are valuing investigative journalism quite highly. This is apparent with things such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) being given a grant from Google for more local reporting and also NGOs like Greenpeace having investigative journalism units who hire reporters to look into things such as climate change. Something also quite interesting to note is that global collaboration between journalists has become particularly notable, the Panama Papers exposure highlighting this especially with journalists from around the world coming together to make the discoveries.

To me the thought that investigative journalism could be seen as dead surprises me. With things such as leaks regarding Amber Rudd's involvement in offshore firms and the FA scandal happening within the past few months alone, how it could be dead is beyond me. It's even said that the concept is one of the greatest reasons for the existence of the newspaper industry and it's clear that this is true with the effect that stories that have come out due to investigative journalism have had. For example, the 1.7m US diplomatic records that were published on Wikileaks had caused a notable amount of uproar that is still often audible today.