The decline in newspapers: MM case studies

The New Day

'The New Day' was served as a catalyst to circulate the newspaper industry again by increasing sales as a result, having been described 'the first new standalone daily UK national newspaper for 30 years'.

The article states that '...six million people buy a newspaper in Britain everyday', however obviously as a result of the industry's evolution, there has been a decline. A decline that resulted in a literal one million people turning away from newspapers and instead turning heads to the online world in the last two years, where news is more convenient and free.

The New Day also targeted both males and females from around the age range of 35-55. Their justification for this categorization was because they wanted a more 'modern' audience to perhaps collect these kind of people that have more of an interest and understanding, rather than per say, an 80 year old person.

The New Day however, had failed to reach their target of a 200,000 sales, where they had initially scored a top of 150,000 however that then also too fell to 90,000, and even more to the point that they had to shutdown. The obvious reason for this is the fact other platforms have simply taken over and made things more convenient, cheaper and sometimes free. People would chose to consume news free rather than paying as less as 25p, but as the article states their increase to 50p was 'too much', and this resulted in people not buying their newspapers.

The Guardian

• 120 million monthly unique browsers - third most read in the world
• June 2016 daily average of almost 9 million unique browsers - only a third are from the UK - MailOnline with 14 million - Telegraph with 4 million
• Print circulation of The Guardian is only 161,000 - Daily Telegraph with 472,000 - recently closed The Independent with only 54,000
• The Guardian lost around £70 million in 2015 

As a result of The Guardian's decline, they intended to combat this by introducing cutbacks up to 20% and planning community events, relying on the investments of The Scott Trust to keep it running as a result too.

The Global website strategy as a result, introducing The Guardian online, may help to some extents, however if they're looking to make revenue from ads, and ads alone, it might not suffice, acknowledging that the majority of users would have ad block enabled. Introducing paywalls on the other hand, might have a more significant impact. The fact that The Guardian have already gathered a loyal user base, means that to an extent they might be willing to subscribe, given that they know getting news from an established institution is much more definitive, reliable, and professional as opposed to any random news page in the Internet.

Kashmir newspaper ban criticised

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37559679

The article discusses how peaceful protesters in northern India, Kashmir, have been criticizing the authorities in Indian-administered Kashmir for shutting down a newspaper accused of "inciting violence". The government said the Kashmir Reader (well known newspaper in the region)"contains such material and content which tends to incite acts of violence and disturb public peace and tranquillity". This essentially summarizes how even in some countries the media is limited to things such as even not being allowed to present peaceful protests that do not provoke destruction and propaganda. 

Facts:

• More than 80 people have been killed in clashes between protesters and security forces and thousands more have been injured in Kashmir

This article is a perfect demonstration of some of the content in media being covered or completely removed as a result of confidential information being released or due to natural censorship. It sort of takes away the moral panic of perhaps needing to know the causes of the protests around them, why its happening, where the source is to all of this, etc. This is especially more significant in 3rd world countries, not specifically India, but to those who are foreign to the digital world and instead consume information from newspapers. But if newspapers are being controlled too, then the information is obsolete in the print industry therefore some consumers may never know of a particular event. 

Back to the future: were newspaper publishers wrong to go digital?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/19/back-to-the-future-were-newspaper-publishers-wrong-to-go-digital

The article discusses in how in theory turning to digital news instead of staying with newspapers might have been a bad idea. The article presents objective statements using facts such as "US newspaper industry digital advertising revenue increased from $3bn to only $3.5bn from 2010 to 2014." as opposed to "... print revenues plunged from $22.8bn to $16.4 bn over the same period, they still represented 82% of total newspaper revenue." Comments were made, describing newspaper websites to be "less than satisfactory" and that it would essentially fail to "sustain our culture". 

Facts:

• US newspaper digital advertising revenue went from $3bn to only $3.5bn in a 4 year gap between 2010 - 2014
• US newspaper print revenues decreased frm $22.8bn to $16.4bn over the same period
• Facts were based on 51 leading US regional newspaper institutions 
•  25-35% profit margins will never return and be happy with the 5% margins common in other companies

It is without a doubt that an 'only' half a billion in digital advertising revenue between a 4 year period seems to not translate to their linear growth that we would expect as with their presence the digital age that they've taken by storm, but this is most influenced and declined by ad blocks as we know, which news websites can't do anything about as the option to turn it off or on it up to the user. However again, this doesn't conclude with this one reason to mean that going digital wasn't necessarily a good idea, but that it was at least a good move to change with the times and dynamics, and evolve the industry.

1. ) Clay Shirky stresses how much 'accountability journalism' is, because the fact that news presented needs to have credibility, accurateness, and editorial judgement with no bias in order to have an ethical share of knowledge and without a definitive answer in a sense.
2. ) He states that advertisers were not 'overcharged' but instead 'underserved'. As a result for newspapers, Shirky still stands by his opinion that they're irreplaceable, however if advertisers' revenue sparks up then it is an issue for newspapers as the dynamics change, therefore they have to change as a result too.
3. ) Shirky states that newspapers sometimes don't make sense in what the user wants to consume, meaning for example the jump from one topic to another, as with his analogy; "they just done a crossword puzzle and they seem to really like it, what’s the next thing you’re gonna show them? Is it news from Tegucigalpa? No. It’s another crossword puzzle, because that’s the only thing you can..." Ultimately, people's consumption tend to be more specific as they'd want to for example consume news on the latest attacks in country x, but instead news institutions present different stories, and this just influences the barrier from credible news from established sources to news in the digital age, where they have access in the realm of the Internet to anything else.
4. ) Shirky explains how news presented before the digital age didn't have much of an impact, that they were forgotten after a few weeks. He uses examples such as a priest molesters crime in 1992, where the offender made victim to almost a hundred boys. Essentially, his point is that if the Internet circulated as much as it does now in comparison, the story would be immensely more widespread.
5. ) Shirky most disproves paywalls as he sees it to barrier news consumption on a human level, that people should have the right to acknowledge regardless if they've paid for it or not. He states that it "damages" general news and benefits financial news.
6. ) Social good is a presentation of information being widespread, and this information constitutes people's rights of knowledge as humans, example they should have the right to know that there is a local threat in their area, whether they've paid to consume news or not, or any political event taking place that influences them or others.
7. ) As far as Shirky says, he states that newspapers are 'irreplaceable', however if they are to change the media landscape of things, they will need to 'experiment' things in their next step. Perhaps to pioneer another platform for the newspaper industry, rather than to completely get rid of them.
8. ) I think it's very important that brands such as New York Times and The Guardian as a whole to stay in the industry, especially because they're such credible institutions that have a history, and this history reflects their professionalism are reliability that consumers have, and to take this away would be to strip people of their knowledge on a human level.   

Trump, Clinton Supporters Differ on How Media Should Cover Controversial Statements

http://www.journalism.org/2016/10/17/trump-clinton-supporters-differ-on-how-media-should-cover-controversial-statements/

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters are asked whether controversial statements made from both candidates should be blurred out or emphasized more, whether it's offensive and derogatory or not. However instead, both parties have said that news media should draw attention more to the inaccurate statements made, as we know the media to have twisted stories in the past. Voters also feel that news media have given Trump and Clinton too much coverage, and as a result may feel the need to present the truth and only the truth.

• 6 in 10 voters favor the media emphasizing offensive statements (49% Trump),
• 45% of Clinton supporters DO NOT want emphasis on offensive statements
• 77% overall of both Clinton and Trump supporters want inaccurate statements to be emphasized 

It seems that the audience want there to be a clear and fair confrontation, especially regarding politics that shape the future of America as both candidates fight for president. Journalists that have conducted the research also perhaps want to present liable information regarding a serious and 'hard news' topic with no bias. And I think this is perfect in the sense that peoples' true colors in both parties are being shown with these facts and figures that have credentiality, do not lie, and is purely made into results from an objective standpoint. Example, commonly believed that Trump supporters are ruthless, racist, ignorant white people, mostly from the Southern, and fit into the 'offensive' category, while the Clinton supports are thought to be exactly the opposite of this, but shockingly as shown with statistics they are parallel, where nearly three-in-four support the fact that offensive statements need to be emphasized, and all these highlight the negativity. 

Ethiopia bans social media

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/18/ethiopia_bans_social_media/

Ethiopia's government prohibits social media as its people are suspected to have been 'giving information to terrorists or anti-peace groups.' Protests have obviously been taken as a result of this ban, however protests have been banned too, where the government aims to keep their decisions at stand. BBC commented that Ethiopia's government even told its citizens to not watch any non-Ethiopian Esat or OMN, as they're allegedly controlled by terrorists. Other extents and measures have even been taken, where Ethiopian citizens are warned to stay within 40km of Addis Ababa (Ethiopia's capital).

• 500 people in Ethiopia have died as a result terrorism
• Diplomats cannot travel more than 40km (25m) outside of Ethiopia's capital
• Poverty in Ethiopia - where on average an income of $100 is made in a year

Concerning a 3rd world country like Ethiopia, banning social media is the worst thing they can do as they're already so foreign and isolated from the rest of the world, that taking away their digital privilege is essentially 'stealing' their rights to know information around the world. However, with the increasing number of terrorism threats in Ethiopia's capital social media must be banned, but temporarily which is a respective choice.

Newspapers: the effect of online technology

Newspapers: the effect of online technology

• 1.) I completely disagree with James' opinion that news should not be free from the BBC. People from a developed country such as the UK should have every right to be informed about their country's interventions, associations, political affairs, etc, as they're respectively citizens of it. As a result in my opinion James Murdoch is essentially 'stealing' peoples' rights, turning and taking advantage of the news industry into more of a business than a moral landscape where people SHOULD have the option to consume news at a human valued level regardless of whether they've paid or not.
• 3.) For the sake of journalism and the financial and economic side of the industry, paywalls will obviously help to sustain the industry as a whole, however as stated before it could possibly separate a lot of people as some would be put off by the fact that there's a price to pay in order to consume news, and don't see the point when there's several other news companies that aren't restricted with a paywall. However yet again, paywalls are sometimes necessary to an extent to keep an ongoing circulation, as stated, and needs to keep this mutuality.
• 4.) "It is so ridiculous if these mainstream newspapers believe that they can "force readership of fee-based news. One can get the same "news" for free almost anywhere on the internet. I'd take a hint from the alternative free weeklies that survive just off their local advertising. I don't think anyone would read them otherwise. These papers are full of paid advertising. The fee model will never work" - Jerry Harris, and as stated earlier, the Internet is subject to having free news, therefore there is virtually no point in paying unless the consumer would want it to be presented with a definitive source and a professionalism taste.
• 6.) Perhaps the reason for the Evening Standard's increased revenue as the article suggests, is that due to the fact that because there's a decline in the print news audience, the digital audience is now left and free as a result to be targeted by the news company, and they've taken this opportunity to charge news.
• 7.) I do think there is some extent of hope in print media, as I'd like to think they're more appreciated by those foreign to the digital age, whether it's due to age, where they live, financial reasons, living in a area not within the range of internet access, a 3rd world country, etc. Essentially, the news industry is not a dying media in the sense that people just don't prefer it, its instead just that the digital age is evolving at a very fast rate, making things more convenient and free - and who would like to pay for something when you can access it free on the Internet. This is the main attack, that news institutions such as BBC for example are giving out free news and may as a result be an argument and a plausible reason for making a paywall, that loyal consumers may still pay as their news source is definitive, reliable, and from a professional standard.

"Nigeria's youth turn to social media to report FGM: activists":

Armed with mobile phones, young people across Nigeria are turning to social media to discuss and report cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) in a country where a quarter of girls and women have been cut. While press freedom in Nigeria is limited, social media is rising in popularity and has been used to draw the attention of local and national authorities to violence against women and girls, according to an anti-FGM charity.

As discussed before with Jalali's report case against the Pakistani government, this is a similar situation where the digital divide is now being broken, where 3rd world countries such as Africa now even have access to smartphones therefore social media as a result to have a surveillance and reassurance, and security. It perhaps gives them more flexibility and ease to report an issue, as stated "Young people might not have access to traditional or print media, but they feel engaged on social media," by a 22-year-old Nwachukwu, a law student who also works for The Girl Generation, a U.K.-funded program to end FGM in 10 African countries. As a result, this digital divide being broken now gives people across the globe a more humane right and opportunity.

"World media needs to take note of freedom of press being curbed in Pakistan: Rahul Jalali"

Rahul Jalali, a journalist, said the placing of a journalist of the Dawn newspaper on the Exit Control List on the instructions of the Prime Minister’s Office is a direct attack on freedom of press in Pakistan and needs to be condemned by the global media. The newspaper asserted that it stands by the report and accused the government of “scape-goating the newspaper in a malicious campaign.” As a result, it is said that the President of Pakistan and the Army was upset about whatever Jalali wrote, despite stressing that "the report had not suggested anything untoward". 

The issue of blocking the freedom of speech in certain countries, such as Pakistan for secular reasons or not, is a perfect demonstration of something similar to the digital divide that some countries still are subject to. That they might have access to computers and Internet to comment whatever and whenever, but they're so restricted by their own government that it might get removed and victims of an illiberal and injustice system as a result. Perhaps some people do have access to the Internet, but they cannot experience the full extent of it.

Build The Wall analysis

Section 1: 

Speaking directly to the reader, informing that high-quality journalism needs to be saved by spreading awareness of the fact that news institutions cannot sustain themselves without funding, therefore subscription fees, advertisement monetization, etc all need to be taken in account and encouraged.

Section 2:

Explains and questions whether there will be enough compensation and time for these news institutions to sustain themselves before shutting down.

Section 3:

Explains the paywall situation, handing out statistics such as "10 percent of the existing 210,000 Baltimore Sun readers who pay a subscription rate less than half the price of home delivery, or roughly $10, would represent about $2.5 million a year." Subscriptions need to be significant enough.

Section 4:

Again, presenting statistic to show the damaging decline and institutions not being able to sustain themselves in the news industry, waiting to find and catalyze another platform to sell.

The NDM has had such an impact on the news industry that they've sort of had their identity stolen by their own consumers. David Simon explains in his article that the audiences of Daily Mail, The Sun, etc are not supporting institutions in which they consume from enough to sustain themselves as a business in the industry financially. He addresses issues of the fact that people want news, yet are hesitant to donate a little sum of fee in return. He also explores the reason for this deeper, listing things such as the obvious fact that in the modern day news is free, but also the fact that even if people are willing to pay, the amount wouldn't suffice, either way leaving news institutions to close. He stresses how much the Internet has stripped news institutions to the point that they're obsolete, and as a result of their service, they're not getting anything in return to keep a 'circulation' going.  

AC Grayling explores citizen journalism, and in this case, against the French media.
He states how the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy has had a bad shade of influence on him from a recent (during time of article) press conference that presented him tyrannical; an "abuse in power". Perhaps the people of France have a surveillance and therefore are more aware now of the political scheme that they're in, controlled by a personality like Sarkozy. People had access to information like this through the Internet, and are more free of knowing. As a result, the comment piece both a negative and positive infuence on the newspaper industry. Positive, because people have the right to know rudimentary affairs of the country that they live in, however, negative because information could also be presented 'too much', especially on political affairs.

Paywalls should still yet still be valid, however only to certain extents. For instance if I wanted report on political affairs such as the election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, then I would want to consume information from a trusted, credible, and liable source such as from established institutions, to pay or not to pay, rather than from any random website or Facebook post, Tweet, etc. Perhaps news corporations will also have to build a mutual fanbase to start with, producing free news with quality and interesting stories to keep attention, then offer a paywall after a certain limit.

NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry

NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry

The future of newspapers

1. ) Traditional news has always been sought out to present liable and reliable information, however in modern day their decline was a result of the NDM, where news is now free and more convenient through the use of electronics and the Internet, however not presenting the same level of professionalism and trusted sources. The panic here as a result for news corporations is that they need to combat this decline and find a different platform to pioneer and act as a catalyst to the news industry again.
2. ) According to figures, the reach of national newspapers have declined considerably in the past ten years, with reach among adults falling by 27% percentage points since 2005 (from 72.4% to all adults in 2005 to 45.4% in in 2015). However was sort of stable since 2014, where the figure was 48.1%, showing only a very slight change, however now with social networks getting more popular and taking over the news scene, apps such as Instagram and Twitter are responsible for this, causing a decline as the article rightfully states. Other statistics that support this claim is also the fact that The Sun used to be the most popular (with just under 5.2 million users vs 3.5 million for the Daily Mail). Conversely, looking at readership for websites only, the Daily Mail had 1.8 million users, while the Sun had 0.06 million. A staggering difference in the downfall and damage NDM has had on newspaper corporations. 
3. ) Objectively speaking, news as a whole, high-quality journalism or not, is being consumed regardless by people, and as a result the question of whether news will be driven by non-profit or profit-seeking corporations becomes less transparent. As discussed before, social networks are sort of stealing the identity of the news industry, tweeting, Facebook posting, Instagram picture captions are used to present news, and there is sort of a mutuality between consumers spreading information to other consumers. Obviously the danger here is that information may be subject to false information as they're not from a definitive source and not presented by an established news institution, and are sometimes being happily mislead and not knowing. As a result, from an ethical and professional standpoint of course news will then have to be profit-seeking as there needs to be compensation for the amount of resources institutions use to getting these raw and certified news sources, however as we know paywalls are being denied, such as from users having an adblocker. This adblock situation is why The Guardian now has a '£5 a month' or '£49 a year' subscription if users want to support.  

"How social media is turning peoples' private breakups into 'celebrity' spats"

There are increasing numbers of ordinary couples are opting to go through “public” divorces as a result of the rise of social media, according to lawyers. Cara Nuttall, a lawyer quotes "They suggest that if it's good enough for this actress or pop star, then it's good enough for them". There is no doubt that a growing proportion of individuals of a certain age regard preserving their reputations among social and professional peers as one of the main concerns when they come to talk about getting divorced.

• Solicitors have handled more than 300 divorces over the course of the year 
• More than one in 10 cases of divorces now include a spouse attacking the other on social media before they agree the terms upon which they separate

Social media, particularly networks such as Twitter is notorious for throwing shady tweets about their peers or any individual for that matter. It is now possibly a place where users share their emotions with no regard of a face-to-face conversation of perhaps how they feel with their partner, family member, friends, etc, and instead vent publicly on social networks. This in the future can be an unhealthy development, where people are so clung towards e-media that they are isolated from human interaction and intervention, which develops to social problems. Sometimes in anger too, split partners may release content publicly that may be explicit, doing more damage than intended, which is never a good thing as "Taking something off the Internet is like taking pee out of a pool", as once said by a media theorist. 

Kim Kardashian gets finessed

"Kim Kardashian made herself a target for robbery on social media, police say"

Infamous Kim Kardashian was held gunpoint during her stay in Paris, where she was finessed for millions of pounds worth of of jewellery from robbers after making herself a target by flaunting her lavish lifestyle on social media, police have said. 

• 48 million followers on Twitter
• Anyone can easily be tracked using social media, as some users like to project their everyday life on social networks such as Twitter, Snapchat, Periscope, Etc

The incident was a result of a picture posted by her, showing her huge pure diamond ring. Acknowledging Kim's fame on Twitter, or any social platform for that matter, information about her were being exposed, where she was, such as her location - hotel name, street, how many weeks she was staying, etc. Her tweets almost broadcasted her life too much, giving these robbers enough information to 'perfectly' plan the upcoming situation. Issues such as these are the pinnacle of violating peoples' privacy on the Internet, example all it takes is a person's full name to be stalked, or known in computer terms to be 'Doxed'. 
Also as a result, she was victim to Internet, met by online abuse and cruel jokes, simply from the anonymity of the users, depending on whether their profile was private or not, or even signed in as guests.

NDM case study: How has has news changed over the 20 years?

NDM case study: How has news changed?

Blog task: Ofcom report into news consumption 2015

• 2921 people were surveyed
• Nine in ten adults in the UK (89%) say that they follow news1 (on any platform)
•  67% of UK adults saying they use TV as a source of news
• ^ But there has been a 8% decrease since 2014 (75%) following a three percentage point decrease between 2013 (78%)
• The number of people who use the internet or apps for news has remained the same since 2014, with just over four in ten (41%) doing so, compared to just under a third in 2013 (32%).
•  Newspapers are used by three in ten (31%), which represents a decrease of nine percentage points since 2014 and 2013 (when 40% of UK adults said they used newspapers for news). 
• ^ There has also been a decrease in those that say they use radio as a source of news (from 36% in 2014 to 32% in 2015).
• One in ten (10%) of adults say they don’t follow news, compared to 5% in 2014 and 7% in 2013

1. ) Two-thirds of adults say they use TV for news, compared to three-quarters in 2014, perhaps the change for this was due to other convenient devices used to consume TV, such as smartphones.
2. ) People living in England are less likely than those in Wales and Northern Ireland to say they use television to access news (66% vs. 72% in Wales and 75% in Northern Ireland). Perhaps the population in each area has an influence in the overall net percentage, meaning a lower margin would make a more significant difference as opposed to a larger margin of people.
3. ) People in the AB socio-economic group are more likely than those in the DE socio-economic group to consume news on any of the four main platforms: TV (71% vs 67%), the internet (50% vs. 29%), newspapers (38% vs. 26%) and radio (46% vs. 23%). Perhaps the change of attitudes is influenced by the type of news they choose to consume.
4. ) Those aged 55+ are more likely than those aged 16-24 to use TV, newspapers and radio for news consumption, while the opposite is true for the internet/ apps
5. ) 4 major platforms- 3.5 sources used.
6. ) BARB figures show that each adult watched 108 hours of national and international news on television6 in 2014 (figure 3.1). This represents a decrease of seven hours since 2013 (when the average number of hours was 115) and 13 hours since 2011 (when the average was 121 hours). So total hours of national and international news view have decreased since 2013. 
7. ) According to NRS10 figures, the reach of national newspapers has declined considerably in the past ten years, with reach among adults falling by 27 percentage points since 2005 (from 72.4% of all adults in 2005 to 45.4% in 2015) (figure 5.1). Nevertheless, reach has been relatively stable year on year (48.1% in 2014).
8. ) Reach of national newspapers varies by age group: 29.3% of 15-24s are print newspaper readers, compared to 67.9% of over-65s.21% of those aged 16-24 said they used newspapers as their main source of news whilst 44% of those aged 55 and over said they used newspapers. These figures are to be expected as a higher percentage of younger people use the internet for their news.
9. ) The most popular news source used to access news specifically about Scotland is BBC One; a third (33%) of news users in Scotland say they use it for this purpose (figure 10.7). This is followed by ITV (20%), the BBC website or app (12%), Facebook (9%), the Sky News channel (6%), and the BBC News channel and other local commercial radio stations (both 4%). 
10. ) About six in ten (61%) 16-24s who use the internet/ apps for news say they use social media sites, compared to just over a quarter of those aged 55+. Perhaps the new digital media divide and their associations and consumption has influenced this. 
11. ) About six in ten (61%) 16-24s who use the internet/ apps for news say they use social media sites, however, only a quater if over 55's would say that they use social media as an access to news.
12. ) Of those who use the internet or apps for news, around half (51%) say they use the website or apps of TV and radio companies to get news (figure 6.1). More than two in five (43%) respondents say they use social media sites.
13. ) The Sun was the most popular (with just under 5.2 million users vs. 3.5 million for the Daily Mail). Conversely, looking at readership for websites only, the Daily Mail had 1.8 million users, while The Sun had 0.06 million.
14. ) 61% of 16-24 gap use social media for news.
15. ) 30% of those who used social media for news said they ‘mostly’ accessed their news stories through social media posts, compared to 38% who said they ‘mostly’ accessed them directly from the websites/apps of news organisations.
16. ) Audiences now in the NDM age are now able to access news using a variety of methods, different from the traditional media sought out before. As a result peoples' knowledge from the news they consume is greater than before.
17. ) NDM has benefited institutions as a result too, they now have a wider access to audiences as developments in technology expand by the day, making convenience from the use of news apps, websites, etc. 
18. ) Not everything on the Internet is true, so there are lots of false information being spread around, examples include the infamous Wikipedia, where vandalism is subject as ANY user can change information presented. As a result, these kind of information being passed around could be the sources to any news institution, providing them with the wrong facts that could damage their brand image and reliability.  
19. ) Audiences might be fed unreliable news, and as a result are led to believing false information which is never a good thing because audiences are simply passive to what they're being fed, and false news is definitely not good.  
20. ) NDM has benefited both audiences and institution. Audiences now have a more convenient access to news, whether it's from accessing it from their smartphone news app, video, whenever, they're simply not limited to consuming knowledge, plus from the fact that news is free, unlike newspapers which had to be bought. Established the fact that NDM has caused the decline of newspapers, institutions now have to shift their service onto another platform, along with other competitors (other information sites, e.g. Wikipedia). 

NDM Learner response

NDM baseline assessment learner response:

WWW: Some well argued , original points. Good critical anatomy. 

EBI: Needs more content/ More on institution/Pareto's law and include a conclusion.

...Conclusively, yes, developments in new/digital media do empower audiences but maybe only to a certain extent. There are both downsides and advantages of information being held in the Internet for example, and sometimes the mutuality between free speech and having a voice in the realm of the Internet is unbalanced. Yes, peoples' opinions can be shared in the Internet, such as in social networking platforms like Twitter, however to have access to such a big fan base with genuine users that are interested with your profile is an obstacle to start with. Therefore as a result opinion leaders (and stated by Pareto's law) rightfully deserve their name, as they hold and 'control' social platforms. Fortunately, Twitter has features such as the 're-tweet' and 'like' button, where there is a synergy of posts that pop up on peoples' feeds, and there is kind of a snowball effect, where one re-tweet may result in a thousand re-tweets, simply from the mutual support users in Twitter have. But all in all, in this day and age where e-media is constantly evolving, it is safe to say and lean towards the fact that audiences do have power, however certain factors always influence the dynamics of such a complex place like the Internet.

...Institutions could also hinder peoples' voices. Example in news, particularly when there's a live interview, if something is leaked or something said that puts a bad name, they will not air it and try to conceal and cover up what was said as much as possible. This is a perfect example of corruption and a tyrannical media. An example follows in August, 2008, where a 12-year old American girl visiting relatives during the conflict in South Ossetia had thanked Russian soldiers for saving her from the Georgian attack. However, America's Fox News attempted to cut her and her aunt off air, trying to reason it with a "commercial break".