Story 1
Mike Darcey the chief executive of News UK has named the Daily Mail and The Guardian "minnows", even though both of the papers get roughly 300 million readers for their online content. Darcey also criticised his rivals in a speech defending News UK strategic, that they should have a paywall model. He says relying on the advertising revenue could be very dangerous, as you will be competing with the global giants such as Google and Facebook. He explains Google and Facebook as the global giants. He says once print is pulled off all you will be relying on will be online advertising and low advert prices. The chief executive of Guaradian argues that FAcebook and Google are not our enimies they are our friends. He says why should we be scared of them one they are our friends.
He goes by having our content open we are engaging our readers. He says having content open will increase the number of readers you get. He says the web works open which is why they are working with the web. Miller also states that there were times where the Guardian also chaged for their content but he argues that that time is gone and now we have to adapt with the current time.
Key facts:
* The chief excutive of News Uk namesd The Guardian and Daily Mail as Minnows.
* Both papers are very successful at the moment as they have roughly 300 readers.
* Mike Darcey believes that both companies will not be successful as they are not chargine for their content. They are just relying on their adversting revenue.
* He states that both papers will not be able to compete with the rivals Google and Facebook
My opinion:
I personally think that the reason why The Guardian have so many readers is because their content is free and the more readers they get, the more adversting revenue they will ghet because advertising companies will know that this paper is successful as it is read by so many people. i think the chief excutive of the Guardian gave a very strong opinion of his to fight for their point. He said that the web tiday works open which is why our content is open, if they start charging for their content no one will read their paper which will mean that they will loose readers and advertising revenue. So it is better for them to stay free as they will engage many readers and they will be able to generate advertsing revenue. One really strong thing which he said was that Facebnook and Google are not our enimies they are our friends. This makes Darcey go silent because the chief said such a strong thing to fight against him.
Story 2
Jasmine Gardner: News travels fast in cyberspace but can we trust it?
This article is all about how rumours are spread very easily through the use of internet and social media. Jasmine Gardner states in this article that Morgan Freeman has died three times on social media. Shes states that once Freeman died on Twitter and twice on Facebook. She also says that when the London Riots took place there was this news on social media saying the Rioters broke into london Zoo and let Tigers run on London Streets. She says its all social media rumours. The third of adults under 30 in the Uk said that they recieve all their information from social media. Most of them said they recieve most of it from Twitter. Market research last year showed that in Britain 55% of the people got their news from Twitter. This means the majority of them get all their sources and information from unrealiable sources. This article raises the question that is social media a good source to trust for their news, and Gardner states that it is not because most of the information is misinformation and is unrealiable.
Key statics:
* "London Rioters broke into London Zoo"
* The third of adults under 30 in the US use social media to get their information
* 55% of people in the Britain use Twitter as their news source
My view:
I personally agree with Jasmine Gardner that is social media news realiable. Well i think in some cases it is and in some cases its all misinformation. The reason why i am 50/50 is because the Arab Spring was known through social media, so we can't underestimate social media because there have been some real news spread across social media. This is why i think i am 50/50 i think sometimes social media could be realiable and sometimes it can't be. The arab spring was spread across social media and people believed everything which took place because it was actually happen. But again London Rioters broke into London Zoo and let Tigers run across London Streets will not be believable. This is because people will not really imagine that happening and what will the Rioters get out of that by letting Tigers out? I think the coaial media is 50% trustable and 50% isn't!
This article is all about how rumours are spread very easily through the use of internet and social media. Jasmine Gardner states in this article that Morgan Freeman has died three times on social media. Shes states that once Freeman died on Twitter and twice on Facebook. She also says that when the London Riots took place there was this news on social media saying the Rioters broke into london Zoo and let Tigers run on London Streets. She says its all social media rumours. The third of adults under 30 in the Uk said that they recieve all their information from social media. Most of them said they recieve most of it from Twitter. Market research last year showed that in Britain 55% of the people got their news from Twitter. This means the majority of them get all their sources and information from unrealiable sources. This article raises the question that is social media a good source to trust for their news, and Gardner states that it is not because most of the information is misinformation and is unrealiable.
Key statics:
* "London Rioters broke into London Zoo"
* The third of adults under 30 in the US use social media to get their information
* 55% of people in the Britain use Twitter as their news source
My view:
I personally agree with Jasmine Gardner that is social media news realiable. Well i think in some cases it is and in some cases its all misinformation. The reason why i am 50/50 is because the Arab Spring was known through social media, so we can't underestimate social media because there have been some real news spread across social media. This is why i think i am 50/50 i think sometimes social media could be realiable and sometimes it can't be. The arab spring was spread across social media and people believed everything which took place because it was actually happen. But again London Rioters broke into London Zoo and let Tigers run across London Streets will not be believable. This is because people will not really imagine that happening and what will the Rioters get out of that by letting Tigers out? I think the coaial media is 50% trustable and 50% isn't!
No comments:
Post a Comment