12/12/16 - Only 20% of US adults have information overload, but those who do feel burden (28)

12/12/16 - Only 20% of US adults have information overload, but those who do feel burden (28)

The Pew Research Center released a report looking into the extent of information overload facing adults in the U.S. While the majority don't feel particularly overwhelming, it's quite interesting to see that there are quite a lot of people who do feel the overload. These people tend to have access to less technology, be poorer, less well-educated and older too according to the author of the report, Jonathan Spira. The problem gets worse when there are 'high information demands on people' by institutions like banks and schools since they'll suffer as they're not digitally adept enough to perhaps provide that information. Another interesting point is how Spira says:'There is so much information out there that people are no longer able to distinguish between legitimate information and fake news.' A quote like this could be easily be compared to what happen in the U.S Presidential Election where people totally unaware were actually reading fake news about the candidates. The main takeaway from here is that the overload some feel is so significant that it further deepens this digital divide that exists between people in the modern world.

• Some 20% of American adults feel the burden of information overload
• Americans feel overloaded now than they did in 2006, when the figure was 27%
• 77% of US adults say they like having so much information at their fingertips
• 47% of those whose household income is less than $30,000 sometimes feel stressed by the information they have to keep track of compared with 39% of those earning more than $75,000

I feel that this report is quite insightful in letting us understand the extent of information overload that people have to deal with in the modern world. With fake news being addressed here, a definite cause is of course the lack of gatekeepers that there are on the internet platform and due to this it appears to me that this overload will only continue in growth. With this it'll be interesting to see how in the next couple of years how many more or possibly less people will feel the overload.

12/12/16 - Local news reporting is vital – so journalists like me are fighting for its future (27)

12/12/16 - Local news reporting is vital – so journalists like me are fighting for its future (27)

This article by Sam Blackledge, chief reporter on the Plymouth Herald, essentially details the plight that local news reporters have had to deal with in recent years. Starting with the initial signs of the credit crunch in the summer of 2008, Blackledge details how he never would have thought the financial crash would impact the journalism profession in the way that it did. Going from readers actually not buying newspapers, to advertisers withdrawing from the pages and offices eventually closing, these were the beginnings of the dismantlement of the newspaper industry. Citing how things like social media are replacing traditions in news gathering, he describes how young reporters despite their talent are now becoming disillusioned with the industry. With the profession being referred to as something of a social good, Blackledge recognises that less people adopting it could cause less accountability within our society for authority - democratic deficit (Press Gazette, Mike Gilson). One of the more notable examples of the issues local newspapers have been able to raise is the cover-up at Pennine Acute NHS Trust by the Manchester Evening News where it was revealed that hospital attempted to hide the state of the maternity services there. This all said, Blackledge puts across effectively why exactly local news reporting is vital within our society.

Personally I feel that this article acts a reiteration of what we already know about not just the general death of newspapers, but local news reporting too. From the perspective of a journalist himself you understand the sheer impact that this decline is having, even deterring young potential journalists to pursue it themselves. It appears that one of the more worrying things is the lack of accountability of authority that will follow if local news reporting stops since it's often this that conduct extremely vital investigative journalism.

NDM News: Globalisation and fake news

NDM News: Globalisation and fake news

The Guardian & the global problem of fake news

1)

A similarity between both France and Germany presented in the article and their problem with fake news is that it's used to influence and manipulate the political beliefs of people particularly during election periods. While the dissemination of the news unlike in the USA isn't done with the incentive of ad revenue in mind, it is in terms of affecting the ideology of people. While it can be done to tarnish the image of a political figure, with Angela Merkel being an example of this, it's something that is mainly employed by people on the far ends of the political spectrum, resulting in the fruition of things like conspiracy theories.

2)

The lack of gatekeepers that exist on the internet is what's causing this influx of fake news and is without a doubt, an inevitable consequence of 'the culture of freedom and innovation.' It could potentially be stopped if say digital giants decided to change the algorithms they're employing which means that all stories whether branded or not appear as standards. If they were branded with the logo and name of the publication perhaps less people would actually access the fake news.Whether it'd be stopped as a whole though is a completely other question.

New York Times and the creation of fake news

1)

Stories that were particularly successful for student Beqa Latsabidze, were ones which talked about Donald Trump in a way of praise based on both real and completely fake news. These drove traffic to his site particularly, adding to the anti-Hilary Clinton fervour.  Articles to do with Trump's proposal to create a wall around Mexico for example combined with some lies, were ones which were especially successful.

2)

Google and Facebook can be blamed for the global rise in fake news since almost inevitably, they help to actually disseminate it. The 'like, share and comment' buttons on Facebook for example all help to make news stories circulate further as the algorithm values engagement as justification for showing it to more people. With fake news especially catching a lot of attention and reactions from viewers, it's undoubtedly going to be the case that tons of people end up reading and possibly believing what they're accessing. This is representative of how it the digital giants can be held responsible for the rise of it.

NDM News: Globalisation

NDM News: Globalisation

1)

It could without a doubt be said that national news is affected by American cultural imperialism. Examples of this were visible in the run-up to and actual week of the US Presidential Election where most of the news, particularly on TV, was commentary on the victory of Donald Trump. Not only this, but when natural disasters occur in the country such as Hurricane Matthew this year, its impact tends to be covered quite heavily by the UK media.

2)

Increased globalisation can be said to improve the audience experience of news in that has done things like open up the amount of choice people have in the type of media that they consume. So for example in the late night, they can decide to tune into either ITV News, BBC News, Channel 4 News or even a newspaper website such as The Independent. At the same though it can be said that with this news tending to be quite US-centric that we're unable to form our own cultural perceptions of media products that we view - 'McDonaldisation.' At the same though, reception theory suggests that audiences are active in constructing their own values and the actual producers of media only create material which reflects the ideologies of audiences, showing their autonomy.

3)

Globalisation can be said to have more benefit for major news institutions than disadvantages.  This can mainly be seen by how the process has allowed them to monopolise global information over other countries. With this, particularly with national broadcasters, they have the capability of mediating information to suit domestic needs best while also dominating those other nations which don't have that much power within the media. With this the damage on them is only minimal.

Globalisation: taking it further

Globalisation: taking it further

1)

Google Glass was deemed controversial mainly for the infringements to privacy that it could potentially bring along. With the glasses having a built-in camera, filming the general public without their permission isn't that far-fetched of a concept. Not only this but the facial recognition software that the glasses feature, allowing them to identify specific individuals amongst crowds of people only amplify the concept of a techno-panic being associated with the device. From a technological determinism standpoint as well, the product can be considered controversial since it's likely that with its release people will become less engaged in conversations with one other with them being distracted by their glasses, just generally decreasing interactions between people.

2)

• It makes the world more accessible to those who many not have originally had to opportunity to understand it that well - 'information age'
• It offers increased opportunities and choice for people to receive empowerment from e.g. citizen journalism, jobs etc.
• It enhances the democratic process in that it allows people to express their own independent views

3)

• The benefits derived from it are provided sometimes by a single institution/corporation - not that welcoming for smaller companies who want to compete and be part of the global market
• The choice that we get from it comes at a cost in that it's provided by a limited number of companies who dominate the global market - 'top 5%'

4)

Techno-panic - moral panic that centres around fears regarding a specific contemporary technology

It links to moral panic as it in itself is a type of moral panic, just regarding modern technology with an example being the Google Glass where people are concerned about what the product could do to people's privacy.

5)

Personally, I feel that the privacy debate and concerns of major corporations being able to access large quantities of our personal data are things that are almost redundant now. Datamining is procedure that is now undoubtedly implemented by major corporations such as Google as a way of tracking things like our buying habits (targeted advertising algorithms) and even voting patterns. Privacy has essentially been thrown out at the window and everyone has digital footprint that they leave behind when they access all ranges of content on the internet. For this I feel like there isn't really a debate that can be had for the topic, and really it's something that we should all just is going on. 

Media Factsheet: Globalisation and capitalism

1) Marshall McLuhan coined the 'global village' phrase and companies that can display this are Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Nike.

2) Slavoj Zizek suggests that the media acts essentially as a mask for 'the way in which western institutions 'do business.'' This relates mainly to the exploitation that these business are generally responsible for with the way in which the producers of their products are mistreated. They usually tend to be in LDCs working in subpar working conditions with unreasonably low pay attached to it. Things like charity donations can work to conceal these truths.

3) 'Capitalism with a conscience' is the global media raising awareness about social issues while still sustaining Western capitalist dominance within marketing campaigns.

4) The (PRODUCT) RED campaign, founded in 2006, is one that engaged the private sector in raising awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS in Africa.

5) Personally I have more of a cynical outlook on the RED campaign. I believe that it's simply a scheme to make multinational companies look more caring and ethical towards global issues than they actually are. This can be seen especially through the fact that the firm has actually spent more on advertising than it has on donations to AID charities showing that it's something that mainly helps brand image as oppose to development/progress on a large-scale. The involvement of multinationals who have had bad reputations for their operations in other countries such as Apple, also works to suggest that perhaps RED is just something to make the brand image of firms better in the face of certain allegations.

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

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

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

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

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

05/12/16 - Here's the truth: 'fake news' is not social media's fault (25)

05/12/16 - Here's the truth: 'fake news' is not social media's fault (25)

Initially before the internet had started to get the widespread usage it's getting now, it was believed that 'mainstream media's lies and distortions were going to be corrected by people using social media,' with the public of course bring things like injustices to light. Alternatively though, what we've ended up getting is 'mainstream media trying to cope with fake news distributed through social media.' Technology companies such as Google and Facebook have expressed their intentions to contribute to the stop of the circulation of this fake news by doing things such as removing advertising tools that let websites earn money from publications spreading false news. However another issue come forth in that not only can the news be published by people for profit reasons but also to get propaganda across. Events currently being used to display the impact that these propagandistic messages have had is both the Brexit and US Election 2016 vote. Both of these had false news going around on either side of the votes, highlighting the strength post-truth politics now has in our modern world. The phrase 'everything is true and nothing is true' relates to this particularly. What seems to be quite a major issue, new and digital media in mind here, is that the speed at which these fake stories are spread and how difficult it is to give evidence correcting the misleading information in them. Another phrase being 'a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its trousers on,' represents the way in which these stories can posted on the internet and be disseminated without an opportunity for rebuttal, only working to further polarise the general public.

Personally I agree with the article in saying that it's not necessarily the fault of social media that fake news is becoming more prominent. It can't be doubted that the bulk of fake news is being distributed through these social networks with Facebook being particularly notable for it, but at the same time a phenomenon is occurring where the act of lying is almost being cemented as a norm and alright within society. Rather than people making false stories solely for profit, they're now also doing it to spread certain ideologies and views. With this said, I'm hard-pressed to find ways that companies can defend against this post-truth culture.