Canada's Postmedia Network announces new round of staff cuts (14)

Canada's Postmedia Network announces new round of staff cuts (14)

Canadian newspaper publisher, Postmedia Network, has announced aims to cut staff in an effort to reduce salary costs by 20%. Aiming to do this through redundancies, these cuts aren't the first that the publisher has made as they've also done the same in January. Losses have become commonplace with them, particularly in comparison with the previous year and so the chief executive of the publisher has made the statement: 'We must accelerate the transformation of our business operations to align our cost structure with our revenue outlook.'

• Seeking to reduce salary costs by 20% through voluntary redundancies
• In January, Postmedia cut 90 jobs and merged newsrooms in four cities
• The fourth-quarter loss totalled $99.4m (£61.3m) compared with a loss of $54m (£33.3m) in the same period a year ago
• Revenue for the quarter, which ended on 21 August, was $198.7m (£122.5m), down from $230.2m (£142m)
• Postmedia’s digital revenue rose by 0.8%.
• Over the full 12 months, the company said it lost $352.5m (£217.4m). That compared with a loss of $263.4m (£162.4m) in the previous year

What this article is able to get across is the fact that the decline of newspapers is a global issue. While it can be mistakenly assumed that this decline is only occurring in the UK and the US, as shown here other countries like Canada are also witnessing the impact that new and digital media is having on the newspaper industry, with changes having to be made to accommodate for this.

Back to the future: were newspaper publishers wrong to go digital? (13)

Back to the future: were newspaper publishers wrong to go digital? (13)

This article discusses whether the decision of newspaper publishers to go digital and remain providing print products was the right move or not. While it's said time and time again that the move to the digital platform has aided newspaper publications in maintaining their relevancy, this a completely different outlook on things. In fact, statistics from two Texas university academics show that with at least leading regional papers in the USA, over four years more than half of them lost readers. Not only this but it was discovered that 'newspaper readers did not drop print in favour of the same newspaper’s online edition,' which is what would often be thought to be the case. Jack Schafer, a media commentator in the US, speculates in the article that perhaps the reason why newspaper websites aren't holding the amount of interest they should be is due to online editions of papers being 'less-than-satisfactory' in comparison to 'paid-for-print version(s).' One of the more notable takeaways from the article is an analogy from one of the academics (Hsiang Iris Chyi):

'Newspaper had been running the equivalent of a very nice high-end steakhouse. Then McDonald’s moved to town and started selling untold numbers of cheap hamburgers.

Newspaper thought, “Let’s compete with that,” and dropped the steak for hamburger, even though it had no real expertise in producing hamburgers. What they should have done is improve the steak product.'

• More than half of them (51 leading US regional newspapers) had lost online readers in the course of the four years (from 2011 to 2015)
• US newspaper industry digital advertising revenue increased from $3bn to only $3.5bn from 2010 to 2014
• Print revenues plunged from $22.8bn to $16.4 bn over the same period - represented 82% of total newspaper revenue
• Days of 25-35% profit margins will never return and be happy with the 5% margins common in other companies

This article is of quite heavy importance, as it represents a different standpoint on the impact that new digital media has had on the newspaper industry. Rather than it being presented that print is simply a dying media, it's suggested here that the decision of publications to jump into digital offerings as oppose to improving print ones is the real reason we're seeing this 'terminal decline' in print. It'll be particularly interesting seeing whether or not this is the case with the UK and perhaps a study in the future will show whether it is or not.

The decline in newspapers: MM case studies

The decline in newspapers: MM case studies

The New Day

1)

What New Day set out to achieve was obtaining an audience not from other newspapers, but rather just those who didn't read them. With this said, they'd also set out to provide a 'modern approach to news' that didn't offer a 'political line' on stories in the same that other papers typically do.

2)

• Over a million people have stopped buying a newspaper in the past two years
• About six million people buy a newspaper in Britain every day

3)

The audience that New Day were going for were females and males aged 35-55. Along with these demographics, the publication were going for those who wanted a 'modern approach to news' as well as an unbiased one from a political standpoint.

4)

I believe that New Day failed in the way it did because Trinity Mirror failed to recognise that they were creating a product for a dying market. It's widely known that print is a dying media, so for them to set out in creating a product for that market, it was foreseeable from the beginning that the concept would fail. Not only this, but the concept of making a newspaper for individuals who don't read newspapers seems particularly far-fetched, and a proper USP would need to be established for it those people to be encouraged to buy it. 

The Guardian

1)

• Paper’s website is the third most read in the world with over 120 million monthly unique browsers
• June 2016 daily average of almost 9 million unique browsers - 1/3 of whom are from the UK
• 9 million ‘average daily browsers’
• Print circulation of the Guardian was only 161,000
• In the course of 2015, the Guardian reportedly lost ‘around £70 million with slower-than-expected digital ad sales failing to offset a continued slump in revenue from print
• This led to cutbacks of 20%

2)

The strategy The Guardian have taken is developing their '24-hour coverage of major world news events.' With this, different branches of The Guardian take over stories at different times e.g. Australia taking over at midnight, the U.S.A taking over in the evening.

3)

At the 2015 Press Awards, The Guardian won for the reporting on the Paris attacks.

4)

In my opinion, this strategy still isn't enough to totally save The Guardian as other things such as social media may still evolve in a way that it makes changes like this appear incremental, with the way audiences will flock to it as they have time and time again.

NDM News: The future of journalism

NDM News: The future of journalism

1)

Referring to it as the 'iron core of journalism,' Shirky values accountability journalism so much as it's time and time again it's been effective in being able to scrutinise people when no one else has. Whether it's to do with 'relative corruption' or just general misconduct, he establishes it as being a 'public good.' The example he uses to display this is the 2002 Catholic Church crisis in which the Boston Globe was able to expose the Church for allowing the abuse of children by Father John Geoghan. Without the Boston Globe uncovering this, who's to say that the issue would have ever raised to the public eye.

2)

Shirky essentially says that the relationship between advertisers and newspapers isn't at the best terms as advertisers tended to be both 'overcharged' and 'underserved' by the publications. Advertisers couldn't even make the switch to another platform with this as there aren't that many others that can help promote their brands the way a newspaper can. In terms of replacing major revenue-generators, he cites Craiglist, Monster and Match as these of course would grant you the most profit possible.

3)

Shirky suggests that nowadays, audiences consume news stories on social media as oppose to the publication that it actually came from. Subsequently this has resulted in decreases in readership of papers such as the New York Times and Shirky describes this as 'the audience (is) now being assembled not by the paper, but by other members of the audience.'

4)

It's suggested that if the internet had been widespread in 1992, then the 'public reuse of documents' would have perhaps made individuals in the church cease from their wrongdoings as criticism of it would work to hold them accountable or put them under fire for their actions.

5)

Shirky argues against paywalls as it's making what should be 'an infinite [public] good, [...] a finite good.' Accountability journalism is needed within society, so restricting others from being able to access it only has a damaging effect.

6)

A social good is a good or service that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way. Journalism can be regarded as being one since as said with the previous examples it works to hold those, whether they're an individual or an institution, accountable to society and get rid of it when wrong is being done. The example regarding the 2002 Catholic Crisis is a standout for this.

7)

Shirky suggests that although newspapers can't be replaced there should in fact be 'a class of institutions or models, whether they’re endowments or crowdsourced [...] that produces five percent of accountability journalism.' However while these models are put in place, he cites that the danger is there'll be a 'long trough of decline in accountability journalism,' and this will only lead to things like corruption being able to take place more easily.

8)

It's imperative that these brands stay in business since as well as just provide general news, since as made clear above, without them we wouldn't be getting the level of transparency with certain things that we currently do now. Things like the Panama papers and Amber Rudd allegations are examples of these as without publications like The Guardian, we would be completely unaware of any wrongdoing that took place.

17/10/16 - Channel 4 News defends Facebook live stream of battle for Mosul (12)

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

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.

17/10/16 - I'm with you on the digital revolution, it's the lack of journalism I can't face (11)

I'm with you on the digital revolution, it's the lack of journalism I can't face (9)

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.

Newspapers: the effect of online technology

Newspapers: the effect of online technology

1)

Personally I don't agree with James Murdoch in saying that the BBC shouldn't be allowed to provide free news online. This is mainly due to the fact that as chief of News Corp, at the time, it would be of benefit to him if all major newsproviders had a paywall behind them. This is due to the fact that if there are other companies offering the same news as the paid ones for free, consumers are more likely than not going to turn to them. I also believe that the BBC shouldn't install a paywall as it would only work to widen the digital divide that already exists. With BBC News being free, one's economic situation shouldn't bar them from being able to access the news which if having to be paid for, would mostly only be accessed by people within the AB demographic group. Making people have to pay to access it would be detrimental to those not so well of economically. As well as this, it could be argued that those paying for the TV licence are already paying for the news, so from that standpoint introducing another fee for getting news on the internet from the BBC would be particularly controversial.

2)

It can be said in some sense that Rupert Murdoch was right to put his news content behind a paywall. In making this decision, the digital subscribers to the content increased quite notably which as said in the article itself, was likely done as a way of preserving 'sustainable profitability' instead of focusing on greater reach. At the same time though this move doesn't ensure all-out profit for Murdoch either as having to remove a '£28 million loss' also stipulates that you maintain the subscribers as well as just attracting them.

3)

For - 'The Times, more than any other paper, is more ready for a printless future, should it arise, as they just need to migrate users, in relatively low numbers. to the digital subscription. And it is having an almighty practice run to get it right. It doesn't need to create the vast volumes of (crap) content that the Mail does and it has a very strong brand argument to ad buyers.' (Frank)

Against - '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.' (blackswede)

I agree with blackswede's comment in saying that it's surprising how major news publications think their best bet at maintaining profitability is imposing fees on news. As established within the 'Build the Wall analysis,' all this will result in is people turning to free newsproviders since they know they can get the exact same information there just without a price tag being attached to it.

4)

As a free newspaper, it's likely that the Evening Standard managed to buck the trend by there being wider distribution of the paper in typical places such as transport interchanges but additionally in major supermarkets as these are locations people are known to frequent the most.

5)

There is for now still hope the newspaper industry, as its more older audience still clings onto it as their main source of news in addition to TV. However as the years go by, I can definitely see its chances of survival dipping as online news starts to become the norm amongst the people, and newspaper institutions seeing that their levels are becoming unsustainable as people make that switch to e-media. The approach that has been taken by The Independent in having a digital-only newspaper is something I can expect to be more widely seen by other more major newsproviders. Something that will also be particularly interesting to view is the impact that social media will have on people's use of newspapers if they take the approach of The Independent as said before. Will it just so happen that in the future people's way of accessing news will be through social networks like Facebook and Twitter solely, since it doesn't seem so hard to believe now? 

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

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.

• Panama Papers exposure was carried out by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a network of more than 190 investigative journalists based in more than 65 countries
• If the amount of data released by Wikileaks was equivalent to the population of San Francisco, the amount of data released in the Panama Papers is the equivalent to that of India

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. 

10/10/16 - Publishers become retailers in the market for survival (9)

10/10/16 - Publishers become retailers in the market for survival (9)

The struggle for the newspaper industry only appears to be getting worse with publishers even turning to retailing alongside their publication efforts. The institution involved in this case is Condé Nast, owner of GQ, Vogue and Vanity Fair among others. Their launch of Style.com, a luxury shopping site (e-commerce/e-tail), has seen them make an investment of £75m into it alone. A sense of synergy is also to be established with the other properties Condé Nast own, so that for example when readers see a product offer on GQ or Vogue, they are then linked to where they can actually purchase that same item on Style.com. One of the more questionable aspects of this decision to launch the website though, is whether it'll actually turn out to be a success for Condé Nast and the reaction that their already established audience may have to it. So for example as said in the article, if a product that's been 'raved about' in a magazine owned by Condé Nast turns out to also be promoted on the Style.com website, then people are going to become sceptical as to the practices of the company.

• Condé Nast has reportedly pumped £75m into the e-tail business 
• 'The audience of our magazines and websites around the globe comes to more than 300 million, a huge base of support with whom we already have an active relationship' - Jonathan Newhouse, chairman and chief executive of Condé Nast International
• Online shopping in the UK rose 11 per cent last year, according to IMRG and Capgemini, accounting for £114bn of sales

In my opinion, this article is representative of the measures that publishers are now willing to take in order to maintain survival within the industry. Not only is Condé Nast taking an e-media approach, but it's also selling products through it - retail. While they're doing this they're still keeping their print platform intact, but for how long this will be the case for is questionable. Regardless though, I think this article shows how not only the transition from print to e-media is continuing, but also how publishers may begin to take a lot more drastic measures to assure their survival as time goes on. Although it has been done by a publisher before, the fact that more notable ones are following suit is definitely something that should be noted.

Build The Wall analysis

Build The Wall analysis

1)

Section 1 - establishes that news content needs to be paid for for the industry to remain as a whole.

Section 2 - it's discussed how publications need to move in tandem with adding paywalls behind their content to avoid harming themselves and also if demand for high-quality journalism still exists.

Section 3 -

Section 4 - discusses the different scenarios in which newspapers as of now can survive in seeing that they establish the 'wall.'

2)

As suggested by the title of the article, what David Simon puts across is that paywalls are 100% necessary for online publications in addition to newspaper ones. For the industry to even exist and for high-quality journalism to continue being part of our very culture and society, a subscription system needs to be established. Along with this, when publications choose to ‘build this wall’ all other companies will too need to do this unless they want to cause even greater harm to the industry as a whole. This is due to the fact that when a free publication offers the same thing as a paid one, people are inevitably going to choose to read the latter over the former. Simon also discusses how he doesn’t believe that unique features offered by particular newspapers can be enough to convince audiences to pay for it in a way alike to TV, and instead only a more niche audience could be garnered from this. 

3)

References to new and digital media that can be seen in this piece include talk about blogging, comment threads and just overall citizen journalism. Not only this but the 'information age', censorship and 'the volume of rubbish' that comes about with the internet (Andrew Keen) are also made mention of. Even though the article does make mention of the more negative aspects of the influence of new and digital media on the internet, it's shown that the positives are still valued more than them. In essence, we 'just have to put up with this.'

4)

In my opinion, newspapers deciding to put a paywall on online content will only further harm the industry. Particularly with the increased amount of young people using the online form of newspapers as a way to get news, them having a paywall on accessing this will more likely than not turn them away from using the form at all. Instead papers should attempt to rethink the news stories that they offer to readers, perhaps attempting to reach this younger demographic more directly with issues known to interest them. I know these things since I myself, wouldn't be willing to pay for news with a contributor to that being that I've never had to. 

NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry

NDM: The decline of the newspaper industry

This article discusses what exactly could be the culprits to what is 'the death of the newspaper.' Of course relating to new digital media, what is speculated as really quickening the process of its decline is the internet. This tends to be the case in particular due to the advertising revenue which, is a lot more easily obtainable on e-media services such as Google and Facebook as oppose to traditional mass media. Even with the article being written in 2006, the impact that the emergence of the internet has had on the newspaper industry is still quite visible. Employment within the industry between 1990 and 2004 falling by 18% is representative of this and appears to have the first signs of this decline in the newspaper industry that would continue till this point.

1)

In a sense I do agree with the view in the sense that institutions will find a way of slowly migrating to the online platform over time. This will mean that their content at least, won't completely disappear as is often made out to be the case. At the same time though a sense of worry does creep up as institutions will seek out more 'desk-bound journalists' as opposed to more skilled, experienced ones. From an economical standpoint this'll be what is ideal for institutions since it means their costs are reduced, however our likelihood of receiving high quality news while this happens is drastically reduced.

2)

In my opinion, the predictions are likely to come to pass as the decline of the industry is still continuing now. This can be seen with the use of newspapers for access to news dropping from 40% in 2014 to 31% in 2015 according to the Ofcom report into news consumption (2015). What will be particularly interesting though is when the main demographic using the platform for news access, over 50s, will drop it in exchange for the more increasingly used e-media platform as this will be what I think is the critical blow to the industry.

3)

It could be the case that non-profit organisations will back high-quality journalism in future since the costs associated it as it is are too high for profit to be a concern. Employing journalists who actually undergo fieldwork spending months conducting research on certain investigations is too expensive, and perhaps having a combination of independent and citizen journalists is a lot more viable. One of the publications which use this non-profit approach is The Guardian, who along with newspaper and sales revenue, use funding from other third parties such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Stories such as the Panama Papers suggest that investigative journalism within the digital age now rely on information that releases on the internet, as oppose to findings from more inside jobs by the organisations. This can be seen by the fact that the Panama Papers revelations were in fact as a result of 11.5 million files leaking from a database onto the internet, representing how newspaper publications have to also be on the lookout on the internet as well as their more conventional way of finding things out.

05/10/16 - Daily Mirror owner makes £20m cuts as print ads slide (8)

05/10/16 - Daily Mirror owner makes £20m cuts as print ads slide (8)

As trading conditions have been tough over the past few years, Trinity Mirror has made cuts of £20m. To do this they are 'boosting digital revenues' which relates to again, the dominance of e-media, and cost savings. This is due to both publishing and advertising revenue for their print revenue both dropping, and in fact overall print revenue dropping as as a whole. All of this follows a move announced by the Daily Mail and General Trust last Thursday, claiming they'd be making 400 jobs cuts within this year, as well as print revenue dropping in September of this year.

• The company has hit £20m in structural cost savings for the year
• Print advertising revenues fell by 21% 
• Newspaper sales revenues dropped by 6%
• Total revenues fell by 9% in the third quarter
• Publishing revenue is down 10%
• Digital display advertising and transactional revenues grew by 24%
• DMGT said that print advertising fell by 19% in September

This article is representative of this slow but ongoing death that print media has been having over recent years. While things like advertising and publishing revenue are falling, things to do with print, the online counterparts are doing better. It's appearing that no company is immune to this and we'll only see it continue. However while this is the case, we also see the plight of publishers/journalists continue since they are continuing to be made redundant as this is happening.

Ad-blockers: are publishers tempted to feed the hand that bites them? (7)

03/10/16 - Ad-blockers: are publishers tempted to feed the hand that bites them? (7)

This article discusses the impact that eyeOS's move to launch a platform selling 'acceptable ads,' will have on publishers within the industry. Already being known for its adblocking software, Adblock Plus, which has already been particularly controversial having cost online publishers $22 billion in 2015 alone, the company now plans to launch a platform which gives companies a number of whitelisted ads to choose from. These are with the aim of having ads on the internet which don't ruin the flow of reading and aren't just pure disturbances to the audience. But as this is done, large institutions in particular will have a price to pay, not only through a licensing fee but also through having to give eyeOS 6% of their advertising revenue. One of the ongoing discussions now is how Eyeo are simply doing this because they are in fact a business. They have commercial aims that they're going to want to achieve, and expanding their platform will only help them to do this. It's quite controversial among publishers though, since a business with 'little to no accountability' or representation from established advertising and publishing industry bodies, is being given the opportunity to set a standard as to the content of ads. 

• Adblockers cost publishers almost $22 billion in 2015 alone
• Publishers will get to keep 80% of the advertising revenue from ads sold through the marketplace, and the rest will be divided between Adblock Plus and other partners
• Adblock Plus says it has over 1,000 publishers on board

To me, this article represents the growing power that adblockers are having on the internet publishing industry. So while institutions were once able to almost 'do as they pleased' with advertisements, they are now having to be limited to preset ads that have been 'whitelisted.' While Eyeo claims that this is with the intention of readers having a better experience in reading, it's clear that the main reason behind it is the commercial aspect to it. As a business, they are going to want to maximise profit, and to do this they need to continue to launch more platforms that they know are going to be widely used. In terms of the publishers themselves though, I can expect more backlash in future over this move, because it may almost be the case that they have to eventually move to the platform simply to ensure that they're gaining the advertising revenue that they rely on.

NDM baseline assessment learner response

NDM Baseline assessment learner response

'Developments in new digital media mean that audiences can now have access to a greater variety of views and values. To what extent are audiences empowered by these developments?'

= 40/48 (A-)

WWW: Well written, balanced answer, with well chosen examples

EBI: More on institutions/Pareto's Law - backing it up with data/statistics about their business with audience

It can also be said that the developments to new digital media haven't really empowered audiences since as said before, it's a minority of media producers that always serve a majority of consumers. As stated by Lin & Webster in 2002 in Pareto's Law, the Internet works in a similar fashion to more traditional media in the sense that you have just a few producers (institutions) serving a incomparably large(r) amount of consumers/readers. Lin & Webster also went on to say that 'the top 5% of all websites accounted for almost 75% of user volume.' This is representative of the fact that even though audiences have the opportunity to create their own publications whether it be a blog or website, people will still tend to mainly consume the work of the more major corporations. We even see this evident within the Ofcom report on the consumption of news in 2015, where out of the 41% of UK adults that said they used the internet for news, around half (51%) use the website or apps of TV and radio companies to get it. This gives an insight into how although audiences have a greater sense of freedom with how easy it is for them to create their own news sources, it's not necessarily going to be consumed as widely as the ones from broadcasters, not really working to empower audiences as much as may have been thought. 

NDM case study: How has news changed?

NDM case study: How has news changed?

1)

• 2/3rds of adults use the TV for news, compared to 3/4rs in 2014
• 41% of UK adults use the internet or apps for news, remaining the same from 2014
• Newspapers are used by 31%, a decrease from 40% in 2014 and 2013
• People using radio for access to the news reduced from 36% in 2014 to 32% in 2015
• 51% of people aged 16-24 use TV for news as oppose to 86% of those over 55
• In terms of newspaper, 21% aged 16-24 and 44%
• With internet/apps, 59% people aged 16-24 and 23% for over 55s
• Men more likely than women to use any of the four main platforms for news (TV - 69% of men, 65% of women)
• People in the AB socio-economic group are more likely than those in DE to consume news on any of the main platforms

2)

The most popular platforms to access news on are television, internet/apps, newspapers and radio. In recent years while there has been an increase in the use of the internet/apps to access news on, all the other platforms have been seeing decreases representing the impact the digital revolution is still having.

3)

The main platform on which over 55s access news on is television (86%) while with young people as we'd come to expect it's internet/apps (59%). Platforms like newspaper and radio tend to be particularly unpopular with the younger age group (21% and 23% respectively).

4)

From a socio-economic standpoint, being in the DE group tended to mean being more likely than those in AB to get access to news from social media (52% vs (40%), whereas ABs would be more inclined to use websites/apps of newspaper publications to get their access. The attitude we get an idea here is that those belonging in the AB group are a lot more traditional and want to hear their stories from what they'd deem a much more trustworthy and reliable source as oppose to one susceptible to things like hoaxes.

5)

The average number of different news sources that are used by in people in England is 3.4 (out of the 4 main platforms) which is a reduced number to 3.8 in 2014.

6)

News consumption on television has managed to change firstly, in the sense that the total hours of national and international views have decreased. In 2014 each adult on average watched 108 hours while in 2013 it was 115 and 2011 when it was 121. These hours have reduced for young people in particular who since 2010 have had a 8% decrease in their total viewing hours.

7)

National newspaper reach has been on the decrease particularly, with it since 2005 decreasing by 27% among adults (72.4% to 45.4%).

8)

As of 2015, 29.3% of newspaper readers are 15-24 and 67.9% are over-65s.

9)

The most popular newspapers in the UK are The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Metro and The Times. The viewpoints of these papers vary from left to right wing, with a few of them also taking a more centrist approach.

10)

News consumption that occurs online varies quite considerably in terms of age, gender and socio-economic group. For example, 59% 16-24 year olds in the UK say they use the internet or apps for news while only 23% of those aged 55+ use them. Simultaneously, 53% of those in the ABC1 socio-economic group use online sources for news, while just 32% of those in the C2DE socio-economic group use them.

11)

43% of respondents say they use social media sites as a way of accessing the news. From an age standpoint, 61% of 16-24s who use the internet/ apps for news say they use social media sites compared to just 26% of those aged 55+. Socio-economically, people in the (52%) group are more likely than those in AB (40%) to use social media sites for news.

12)

Just 10% of online news users use only social media sites to access news.

13)

The Daily Mail and The Sun are the most popular sites for news.

14)

61% of 16-24s tend to use social media sites to access the news

15)

Audiences discover news stories in a multitude of ways. While it can be through the more conventional method of finding news from the app/website of a newsprovider, they can also hear stories through things like social networks.

New/digital media: audience and institution

16)

Benefits for audiences with the changes that new and digital media have had on the news industry, mainly come in the sense that in terms of access, people have a lot more variety as to what exactly they can get their news on. It could come in the form of a newspaper, TV, Internet or radio, and these options only mean that audiences aren't restricted to singular platforms.

17)

Benefits for institutions are mainly evident in that they have an even wider audience that they have the opportunity to reach, distributed across all of these different platforms. Not only this but with the technological emergence that has occurred, affecting the news industry, their focus can tend to be more on the online platform and that's quite beneficial for them because things like advertising revenue are more easily obtainable on it than they are on platforms like newspapers. 

18)

A downsides to the changes new digital media have had on the news industry for audiences is that due to the lack of gatekeepers on things like social networks, blogs and websites, audiences can get access to information that is not only fake, but also unreliable such as death hoaxes.

19)

Downsides to institutions mainly have to do with those involved in the newspaper industry. This is due to the billions in advertising revenue that has went to online services like Facebook as oppose to the physical newspapers and resulting in large amounts of journalists losing their jobs.

20)

I personally feel that audiences have benefited more from the changes to new digital media within the news industry. What strikes out as a particular benefit for them is having a wide range of platforms to be able to access news on. As a reiteration before rather than be restricted to using one platform such as print, they have the option of online and TV too. And while it can be said that news institutions still retain the amount of power they've had within the industry, 51% of respondents in the Ofcom report saying they used the website/apps of TV and radio companies to get news, the options to choice for audiences with things like social media can still be said to improve the situation that they were once in before, where they had to rely on institutions for their news coverage.