Newspapers: The effect of online technology

1. Do you agree with James Murdoch that the BBC should not be allowed to provide free news online? Why?

I do agree to a certain extent because the biggest news station in the UK (the BBC) offers there news for free which means those who charge for print and online news are at a significant disadvantage as they can't compete with an organisation who seem like they operate for free. However, making every other online news site go behind a paywall would only mean people would seek out to find free news because people value different things from news, the majority of people only want to see the headlines and see whats going on in the country or the world but other people also share the same values, maybe politically as the journalists which makes them read/watch it. The younger population aren't use to paying for use and expect it so i don't think this idea would work and unless the BBC scrap the TV licence and move into advertising then they won't be going behind a paywall anytime soon and even if they did start using advertising, there revenues from that could be significantly higher than any other media institution meaning they wouldn't have to start charging for news.

1. Was Rupert Murdoch right to put his news content (The Times, The Sunday Times) behind a paywall?

By looking at the figures it does show the number of online subs to the Times has increased over three years by a small amount and this would only increase if every news institution were to go behind a paywall, because then there would be fair competition and because of the sheer size on news corp they would probably be triumphant over other news institutions.

1. Choose two comments from below the Times paywall article - one that argues in favour of the paywall and one that argues against. Copy a quote from each and explain which YOU agree with and why.

• - no comments
• Personally though i do agree with the time choosing to go behind a paywall even though they knew it was going to be a slight lost, it showed that they values there staff members and wanted them to feel motivated and hopefully be better.

1. Why do you think the Evening Standard has bucked the trend and increased circulation and profit in the last two years?

The Evening standard was one of the only top newspapers to increase its distribution and since June 2013 it has done so by almost 27% and this is quite a large jump considering other companies like the Wales on Sunday decreased circulation by 27%. I think that the Evening standard has noticed the decline in the number of newspaper being sold daily and have tried to fill a gap. This may work because if they supply to shops in such abundance then people who don't really have a preference may decide to pick up the most "popular" one.

1. Is there any hope for the newspaper industry or will it eventually die out? Provide a detailed response to this question explaining and justifying your opinion.

I don't think the newspaper industry will die out in the next 50 years but it does also depend on what happens with technology because no one thought the newspaper would go into decline just because computer chips were created but in  a matter of years the internet became the new big thing. This may happen again when we become all to fond of the internet a new piece of technology, whatever it is will take over. By this point the newspaper will be all but dead and displayed in museums.I believe the time to panic has already passed and I don't think much can be done to save the Newspaper industry (not very optimistic). I don't think its going to die out quite so soon as there will always be a newspaper around, even if there is just one, as people won't allow it to go especially in the next 40-50 years.

week 4: Story 8

https://news.thestreet.com/independent/story/13702926/1/twitter-could-be-running-out-of-time.html

Twitter Could Be Running Out of Time

The article from the Independent talks about how Twitter is suffering finacnially and that it's stocks were down 57% from when it first started, nearly a decade ago which isn't that long ago. It talks about how it's only progressing in single figure growth by 2-4% which isn't enough for a company such as Twitter.

I find this surprising as Twitter can still be classed as "New" as it is a social media, people now associate old media platforms to be Newspapers and would expect them to be struggling financially but not something quite new like Twitter. Even though Twitter is a social media product like Facebook and Instagram it has struggles to keep up with them as fashions and trends change much more quickly now, especially amongst young people.

week 4: Story 7

Mazher Mahmood’s journalistic game has finally been brought to book

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/oct/06/mazher-mahmoods-journalistic-game-has-finally-been-brought-to-book

This story from the Guardian tells us about how a journalist from the News of the World bent the rules in order to uncover stories from celebrities, this includes  Tulisa, the former X Factor judge and countless other people some have even been to court over this and have been threatened with jail time.

I believe that investigative journalism  is a positive thing as it has uncovered some truly remarkable stories, for example Watergate and Crash gate which was an incident investigated by Motorsport journalist Joe Saward. It uncovered the scandal among the Renault F1 team about allegedly forcing one of their drivers to crash to improve race standings for the other. If all journalists investigated these incidents in the right way the public wouldn't be so sceptical about who to trust. 

The future of Newspapers

Article Summary 

The article talks a lot about how Advertisements are to blame for the decline in Newspapers and also it offers a prediction as to when the Newspapers will die out with some visual imagery. It talks about the processes Newspaper institutions are already undergoing in-order to stay operational, this includes sacking journalists and becoming a lot smaller. It also knows the industry was to late to change and now finds it hard to compete with online news and the freedom everyone has at being able to create their own news. 

1) Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?

I believe the time to panic has already passed and I don't think much can be done to save the Newspaper industry (not very optimistic). I don't think its going to die out quite so soon as there will always be a newspaper around, even if there is just one, as people won't allow it to go especially in the next 40-50 years.


2) The article is 10 years old - an eternity in digital media terms. Have the writer's predictions come to pass? Use statistics from your Ofcom research to support or challenge the writer's argument.

This article was written in 2006 and Ten years on from this I think there has been a bigger decline in the Newspaper industry. Looking at the OFCOM report on News it stated that between the years 2005-2015 the percentage of people who read newspapers fell from 72% to 48%. This is a significant decrease in comparison to what it must of been like in the mid 2000's as that is first when online news started taking over as the Internet was becoming more prominent in peoples homes, however smartphones were almost non-existent back then and therefore the reason we see a 24% reduction now is because of developments in technology and new and digital media.

3) The Economist suggests that high-quality journalism in the future will be backed by non-profit organisations rather than profit-seeking media corporations. Is there any evidence for this? How is the Guardian funded? What do major stories from the last year such as the Panama Papers suggest about how investigative journalism is conducted in the digital age?

A group called the Scott Trust, who have been funding the Guardian for a long time now are the major donator which help pay for the Guardian media groups journalists and helps keep printing the papers. The panama papers were leaked by a German newspaper and it was then shared to a group of investigative journalists who in-turn shared around the world to large media institutions. The digital age has made leaks like this a more regular occurrence as even last month former England manager Sam Allardyce was caught out by journalist using hidden cameras.

Build the Wall Analysis

Summaries of Build the Wall article  

Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)

I find it quite hard to agree with the author in this section as i feel his points are very bias and he sees only one way to rejuvenate the newspaper industry by making people pay.

Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...)
It says how the Newspaper industry doomed it self and it is the cause of it's own downfall as little to nothing was reinvested in innovation in comparison to the TV industry

Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)
How the Newspaper industry had to make major cutbacks in it's costs, many did this by laying off journalists or allowing to be taken over by a larger firm

Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…)
Different scenarios for the Post and Times and whether they can survive

Summary of David Simon's overall argument

David Simon wants the Newspaper industry to survive and he has a few theories as to how it would do so. His main argument in the article is for the biggest American newspapers- The NY Times and the Washington post to go behind a paywall and make its audiences pay for content. He's very adamant this will work and sees no other way as to how sufficient revenues will be gained. He suggests that the two Newspapers mentioned above are like market leaders and when they choose to go behind a paywall all other Newspaper companies will follow. Back in the late 90's they though that the Internet would benefit the newspaper industry and were excited about gaining a larger audience in young readers: "The Baltimore Sun were explaining the value of their free Web site in these terms: this is advertising for the newspaper. Young readers will see what we do by “surfing the Web” and finding our site, and they will read some, and then settle down and buy the newspaper." They couldn't have been more wrong about this and the article explains how Newspapers never innovated and just settled for the profits they were getting year after year and missed opportunities to grow their business whilst the Internet and TV took over. An analogy is used to describe the "demise" in the newspaper industry and talks about it being a cancer which started low and has spread throughout, this chilling story is true because Newspaper either have to move on and accept defeat with print news and hope to achieve similar revenue streams to what they were seeing in the 70's and 80's by going online and/or behind a paywall. 

Guardian comment by AC Grayling piece on the state of journalism
 Overall, do you feel the comment piece is positive or negative about the influence of new/digital media on the newspaper industry?

The author does say the Internet has done some good and some bad for blogging and the media. It says the Media has suffered a loss of trust and credibility as anyone can create a news story and share it but this is also a good thing as it has brought on a new age of news reporting as anyone with a suitable device and an Internet connection can report something. It talks about news reporting in the US and the UK and across Europe. The US focuses more on local reporting and are bound by geographical locations because of the enormity of the country whilst the UK tend to take there cue from a more national side of things. This means they have the power to influence politics and famously the Sun newspaper did this by "helping" the conservatives win.

Finally, what is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put online content behind a paywall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? 

The two articles sort of take a different approach at it, David Simon's article is very one sided and made me wonder why he didn't make people pay to read it, on the other hand Grayling's piece was much more balanced and raised an issue about journalists needing to control themselves when they come under scrutiny for what they write , as forums and blogs can now question and disagree with a journalists views with the introduction of new and  Digital media. I do disagree with what most of David Simon's article is saying about putting up a paywall, however it is a fact that the Newspaper industry does need to raise finances from somewhere, however putting a price on something which has become so widely available and in an era where internet piracy is rife, News companies may end up loosing customer and finding it hard to increase revenues.

Week 3 Story 6

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-tv-detection-vans-data-private-wi-fi-networks-iplayer-licence-a7177396.html

BBC responds to claims about how it's going to detect people using iPlayer without a licence

This article from the Independent and it talks about the conflict that the Telegraph has started with the BBC over false claims that it was going to snoop on users to detect whether they were watching BBC iplayer with out a TV license. They were going to do this by hacking into the users wifi network whilst in a mobile van. The claims were dismissed by the BBC and they called it inaccurate and that the real way wasn't far off.

Looking at the broader issue about whether people should even have to pay a TV license at all and i do believe that the BBC should look for other sources of funding it shouldn't come out of peoples pockets. It would be wise for them to move over to advertising and not only on their TV channel but even on their I player app and the BBC news website as it is the top source of online news in the UK, they could potentially be making a lot more with online advertising than they ever could with a TV license as the market of advertisements online is growing.

Week 3 Story 5

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/sep/29/daily-mail-cost-cuts-dmgt

Daily Mail owner to cut more than 400 jobs as it battles 'challenging market

This article from the Guardian says that the Daily Mail (A competitor) has to axe over 400 jobs from its human resources. This is because it has been ordered to pay fees going upwards of around £million. It says that most of it's editorial jobs will be secure as they don't want to face a slip in quality. Although this would be a large cost for DGM (Daily Mail's parent company) there ad revenues online has risen 18% since August giving them some support.

When researching this story further i noticed that the Daily Mail itself hasn't posted about it axing jobs but its competitors have, this may be because they're not proud of the fact they have to loose so many people in order to make a profit. Also the jobs being axed come from more people in marketing  and ad sales and not from there editors. In a time like this where jobs in the media are getting much more competitive because of the shrinking market it won't be unusual to see more dramatic job cuts like this.