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.