The article discusses the ever growing evidence that the print platform is dying quite rapidly. Like many other people, it pushes forward the idea that new and digital media is the cause for this, due to the fact that one of the main reasons why print platform isn't as appealing is that advertisers are less likely to use them for advertising. Also the fact that many people in today's age use the internet and technology to get their news, this is especially evident as young people aged between 15 and 24 spend almost 30% less time reading newspapers once they start using the internet.
Do you agree with its view that it is ‘a cause for concern, but not for panic’?
I definitely agree that although it is definitely a cause for concern, it is not something that should be panicked about. After all, news itself will never die, but the way it is presented to it's audience and consumed by them will definitely change. Institutions are already adapting and evolving by embracing these new technologies to reach out to a bigger target demographic.
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.
Although the article is a decade old, it creates very valid predictions. I definitely agree that the predictions will come to pass as the statics show that print platform is dying. This is especially evident as the use of newspapers for access to news has dropped from 40% in 2014 to 31% in 2015 according to the Ofcom report into news consumption (2015). However, many people forget that these billion dollar companies aren't just going to admit defeat, and roll over to die. They have the means and the wealth to evolve and adapt the way their business work to stay within the industry for a really long time.
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?
This is a prediction that is very interesting because in the past few years we do see evidence for it to some extent in the form of First Look Media a "charity organisation" that acquired and focused heavily on backing journalism. This company is owned and founded by the founder of eBay. Another example is the CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, acquiring the Washington Post for $250 million. The Guardian is a non-profit news outlet that acquires the majority of it's funding from other parties such as the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
Investigative journalism has also evolved rapidly with the introduction and expansion of technology in the form of smart phones. This new digital media alongside of social media has allowed citizen journalism to become a lot more prominent but also the fact that as the internet is a platform for free speech with anonymity, anyone can leak private files and expose those in power in the case of the Panama Papers. Other organisations such as WikiLeaks are major players in this form of investigative journalism and use the internet as a way to publicly hold corruption to account.
No comments:
Post a Comment