The article discusses how newspapers are becoming a less favourable source of getting the news and how the internet has taken over. This is a major problem for journalist as they lose their jobs and the nations all over the World won't get good quality stories like the article that brought down President Nixon to defeat corruption on some level. Also, young people aren't really paying much attention to newspapers with people from 15 to 24 are spending 30% less time reading the newspaper once they started using the web.
1. I do believe it is a 'cause for concern' because institutions aren't able to make profits through publishing news online leading to journalists getting less pay. This is because of the fact that news online is free and barely any of the news websites have a paywall. Therefore, the quality of news would reduce because journalist wouldn't be pleased with low pay or low skilled journalists being recruited to lower costs. However, we shouldn't panic as we may be able to receive news stories that are true and fully explained. For example, technology has given people the power to record any criminal behaviour so this can be sent to news institutions who have publish it online for everyone to see in any country.
2. Most of the predictions are true and it may not have been too difficult to come up with those assumptions. From the Ofcom research it is evident that young people are becoming reliant on the internet to get news and rarely/don't use newspaper (59% internet vs 21% newspaper). This just shows the significance the internet has on most audiences as it was a tradition to read newspapers with breakfast in the morning and now the internet has stopped that.
3. Journalism is at risk for sure. The fact that the internet is now where news is being read, profits aren't being made. This is because its free so the employees working on these stories won't get that much pay because the business is receiving low inflows. The Scott Trust Limited funds The Guardian.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/build_the_wall_1.php?page=all
Section 1:
Audiences need to expect to pay a fee for online news eventually so news institutions are able to benefit (make profits)
Section 2:
The implementation of subscriptions to gain access to news stories online will be difficult due to the way institutions abused its use by giving people information for free
Section 3:
Emergence of the internet; deterioration of newspapers
Section 4:
Three possible ways of news institutions could build a paywall to help revive the industry
Overall
David Simon's argument is about the impact new and digital media has influenced audience's perspective of traditional methods of obtaining news. The main method would be the newspaper which is decline and has been for years now because people are using more convenient ways of getting news which can be from television, radio or the internet. It is obvious that the internet is a dominant force overall in society and it the news industry specifically because its free and can be accessed whenever, wherever. This is why people have become so reliant on it. Therefore, David Simon proposes news institutions should begin to charge people for using the news with a paywall. So this could be a subscription fee which lasts every month or year which would allow the business to receive profits but most importantly would make audiences revisit the website/app because they probably would only sign up with a maximum of two or three news institutions. He says The Baltimore Sun believed young readers would use the free site to find news they are interested in and buy a newspaper and settle down. However, this seriously backfired as these young people were content with reading news online and not revisiting a newspaper for a full story. This is just an example of where the downfall began for the newspaper industry as more and more people were finding the substitute for them.
AC Grayling's article discusses how the evolution of new and digital media is becoming a threat to people in power. One of those would be journalists who are able to publish news stories online for free on the institution's website which other ordinary people are able to share their reviews and become critics. This has had an impact positively and negatively on the news industry as a whole depending on where you stand because it means that journalists would have to be more truthful which means preferred readers may not be pleased with what they read. Also, bloggers work in the same way so would be able to criticise the journalists and possibly challenge ideologies and beliefs of others. The media doesn't have as much of an impact politically in the US compared to Britain and the other European countries. Despite the size, local newspapers are distributed regionally.
In my opinion the only way for newspapers to have any recognition would be for institutions to charge audiences a fee for using online content. This means that journalists would only publish news stories online instead of on paper which is ideal at this time as everything evolves around the internet. Therefore, it would still be convenient for audiences to access news as its on their device and institutions would now be able to make profits from the implementation of the pay wall. On paper it seems like a win - win situation but in reality I believe this could be the beginning of the demise of the news for some people. This is because most people are too familiar with news online being free which means they may shy away from idea of paying for online news. Furthermore, we may become more reliant on bloggers and citizen journalism to get news which means we wouldn't know the difference between what is true or false.
AC Grayling's article discusses how the evolution of new and digital media is becoming a threat to people in power. One of those would be journalists who are able to publish news stories online for free on the institution's website which other ordinary people are able to share their reviews and become critics. This has had an impact positively and negatively on the news industry as a whole depending on where you stand because it means that journalists would have to be more truthful which means preferred readers may not be pleased with what they read. Also, bloggers work in the same way so would be able to criticise the journalists and possibly challenge ideologies and beliefs of others. The media doesn't have as much of an impact politically in the US compared to Britain and the other European countries. Despite the size, local newspapers are distributed regionally.
In my opinion the only way for newspapers to have any recognition would be for institutions to charge audiences a fee for using online content. This means that journalists would only publish news stories online instead of on paper which is ideal at this time as everything evolves around the internet. Therefore, it would still be convenient for audiences to access news as its on their device and institutions would now be able to make profits from the implementation of the pay wall. On paper it seems like a win - win situation but in reality I believe this could be the beginning of the demise of the news for some people. This is because most people are too familiar with news online being free which means they may shy away from idea of paying for online news. Furthermore, we may become more reliant on bloggers and citizen journalism to get news which means we wouldn't know the difference between what is true or false.
No comments:
Post a Comment