NDM News: News on the Tweet

• Why are respected news brands good news for Twitter?

Respected news brands are good for Twitter as they have become reliable and trustworthy as a source platform, becoming more known their platform widens as people become more aware and engage with the brands. As they engage with the brand through Twitter we see the site gain revenue and the brand, more attention and awareness. 

• Why in turn is Twitter good for respected news brands?

Twitter is good for brands due to audience being able to easily access these brands online creating a relationship between audience and brand as they become more connected to their audience and also more influential to them. 

• The report suggests that old and new media “are not, in fact, in direct competition, but often work extremely well together to enhance both the media eco-system and the consumer experience”. What evidence do they provide to support this idea? Do you agree with it?

The evidence used, in favour, of the theory was that old and new media  work well together due to Twitter serves as a platform for the traditional newspaper brands. This would be true as social media sites have allowed their audiences  to use an array of brands for news but also being able to benefit from new forms lf media and new tech. 

• On page 24/25 of the report, the focus turns to 'gossip' or 'banter'. What example tweets from journalists are used to illustrate this? 

The examples used fro 'gossip' or 'bantar'  were headlines whivh had puns and full of sarcasm showing how carefree and comical the articles were since they held comical references and less serious than what you would not typically be able to view. 

• Do you think the increasing amount of 'gossip' or 'banter' is harming the reputation of news and journalists?

IThe increasing amount of these articles with these continues themes may seem to make some news websites, which are acclaimed and high brow, using these 'gossip' type headlines would devalue their reputation and seem more low brow. Audiences which would read such high brow news websites/papers and seeing the articles of the newspapers may view them inappropriate and don't find them comical, which would also add to the lessening the journalists and newspapers rep. 

• What does the report say about trust in Twitter and journalists (look at pages 34-39)?

The report says thats half of Twitter users and 2/3 of news brands insist news on twitter is certified and verified by respected brands to build a proper platform of trust. Journalists tweeting honest views engage with audiences which builds interactions between the two as audience will also feel a personal relationship with the journalists . 

• Do you think new and digital media developments such as Twitter have had a positive or negative impact on traditional newspapers?

I think Twitter has had positive impacts on traditional newspapers as social networks have allowed platforms for audiences to be able to interact with eachother but also with the newspapers and be given these notifications for when there is news. The negative impacts of new and digital media is that now many audiences arent going to traditional means to read news but rather going online or phones leading to less more people reading newspapers, which is why the idea of 'print dying' is more inevitable as times changes and technology grows. 

• Finally, how can we link this report to the vital current debate regarding fake news and Facebook? Do traditional news brands need protecting to ensure there are sources we can trust?

The report can be linked to fake news due to how it shows that it is necessary for audiences to be able to trust sources and suggests that there should be a form of relationship between the audience and journalists in terms of interaction and Facebook is unable to give that. I think that traditional brands such as news should make their mark as something valuable and reliable to audiences and rather than giving instant access mak them engaging so they dont loose audiences all to

NDM 23

Russia-linked Twitter accounts 'tried to divide UK' after terrorist attacks- The Guardian

In this article, University researchers find at least fake 47 social media accounts, linked to Russia, that posted at least 475 messages, reposted more than 153,000 times. They were used to influence and interfere with public debate in the aftermath of four terrorist attacks in the UK this year. 

• Of the 47 accounts, eight were especially active, posting at least 475 tweets about the four attacks, which were reposted more than 153,000 times.

• There were multiple instances of them “@ing” Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League, and Nigel Farage, the former leader of Ukip.

• Team, led by Prof Martin Innes, who directs the CSRI, concluded the use of Russian-linked social media to engineer social division in the UK, including through Twitter

The account used were to ramp up the debates and discord admits times when terrorist attacks happened in the UK. These account were aimed at "thought communities" which aligned with their identities even going far enough to "@ing" Tommy Robninson and Nigel Farage. The report went on to say:

• “Terrorist violence is fundamentally designed to ‘terrorise, mobilise and polarise’ its audiences, so if social media platforms are being ‘weaponised’ by third parties to amplify these effects, then they need to be required to urgently do something to mitigate this.

This shows how social media and the growth in technology is already a hub for mis information between audiences and where social media is being 'weaponize' to spread their specific ideologies. How powerful enough people are to hide and leading to teams of people to try and stop them from continuing false accusations and false news on social media which if caught on can spark a thread of gullible people to believe in it.

NDM 22

Twitter under fire after suspending Egyptian journalist Wael Abbas- The Guardian 

The article talks about the account of a known journalist and blogger who aslo won awards for documenting human rights was shut down/suspended  by Twitter

Wael Abbes stated on his Twitter that Twitter sent him an email that:

•  "my account is suspended for an allotted time, which they did not specify, and for reasons they did not specify too”.

Abbes is the blogger-in-cheif in the website 'Misr Digit@l' and posted mainly on acts against the people of Egypt on his account which some has described as being a few of account with this content. 

Wanting Twitter to outrun the suspension was Sherif Azer who described his account as:

• "a live archive to the events of the revolution and till today one of few accounts still documenting human rights abuses in Egypt”

with other notable people wanting the overturn of his account such as Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion and chairman of the Human Rights Foundation.

This article goes to show the power held by these organisations who, though seem to have right-wing ideals, still are able to inhibit those who have dissimilar ideals towards them. Wael's YouTube account was also suspended after posting  videos depicting police brutality in Egypt. He went to win several honours, including the Knight international journalism award, for his documenting of human rights abuses.

A Pluralist perspective would see this as the elitist organisation using their power to determine what they deem right and appropriate on their guidelines. 

NDM 21

Google to hire thousands of moderators after outcry over YouTube abuse videos

The article is about YouTube facing problems in their search engines which were bringing up inappropriate child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content on YouTube.

• YouTube’s owner announced on Monday-total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.

• “Human reviewers remain essential to both removing content and training machine learning systems because human judgment is critical to making contextualised decisions on content,”- YouTube’s CEO, Susan Wojcicki

• YouTube has also repeatedly sparked outrage for its role in perpetuating misinformation and harassing videos in the wake of mass shootings and other national tragedies.

Youtube last month faced scrutiny from their users and gained reports for allowing violent and abuse videos past the Kids filter, hich is supposed to block any content that is not appropriate to young users. According to New York Times, Parents found that YouTube was allowing children the ability to view videos with known characters in violent or lewd scenarios, along with nursery rhymes mixed with disturbing imagery.
Now, YouTube is using machine learning technology to help human moderators find and shut down hundreds of accounts and hundreds of thousands of comments, according to Wojcicki aimed to stop this behaviour. 

This article shows that though large organisations such as YouTube are able to allow this to pass them, a concern but also shows that in terms (for) the moral good they have chosen to not allow this content to hive into something bigger by using tech to fight this. However, the problem still stands that Youtube allowed this past their coded algorithms and weren't able to decipher the problem till audiences themselves started noticing. 

Consumption and Production - homework essay

The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view.

Points- 

• Marxism, Pluralism + Hegemony 
• Citizen Journalism + USG
• News Values 
• Paywalls + decline of newspaper industry = Google and Facebook
• Hyper reality + Alain de Botton
• Ofcom + new consumption in the UK (social media etc.)

======================================================

: 

Technology has been creating new ways and abilities for information to travel around such as news and journalism. These abilities through production being created audience are able to consume it changing the audiences capabilities but changes in society which have  led to "Technological blossoming of the culture of freedom, individual innovation and entrepreneurialism" (Castells, 199). The audience have being given more power from when listening to radio was the only from of information, to now, where being able to view news has improved greatly due to the power of the internet, User Generated Content and the decline in the print medium. However, the  power in the audience through the changing platforms is there to an extent as we can argue that beliefs in pluralism, Marxism and hegemony can both reinforce these ideas but also disregard the statement made. 

Firstly, the establishment of the internet has given news institutions the means to broaden the platforms they are on which allow them to make their news accessible. Most of the apps created have news, of some sought, to offer their users example would be Facebook and Snapchat- the reason for he convergence in phones and apps is due to the news industry realising the importance and advantages of technology amongst  younger demographics and the opportunity to circulate news to everyone on established platforms in these apps than on their website which are less likely to be accessed. 
Six in ten (59%) UK adults aged 16-24 say they use the internet or apps for news, compared to just under a quarter (23%) of those aged 55+(Ofcom). Thus, the growth of online and news made specifically for audiences on apps like Facbook would suggest audiences have a more power in their consumption- they choose what news they want to read and when. Also, thsi will show the effect of digital media and how those 

The establishment of the internet had become the beginning of of allowing audiences potential to submit their opinions and ideologies online. There have been the advancements of social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook have given their users the ability to post and share their opinions on topics they deem interesting for people to view, like/dislike and share their opinion. User generated sites such as Youtube also allow it;s audiences, who use it, to produce their own content that maybe viewed by others but also partake in the actual producing of their content. Another form of USG would be a feature of Facebook called Facebook live where users are able to livestream themselves to all their followers who watch them live. The ability of livestream on Facebook has been used a lot for news coverage on situations such as Police brutality, the Telegraph ran a story about a livestream of a black woman filming her husband who had been shot by a police man brought upon "ethical and legal question".  This use of UGC for users and used by news shows how audience have the ability to produce, livestream, and consume, many liked and shared video bringing up the on going debate on police brutality, their own content being used and viable for prime time news; allowing people to focus on police brutality against African-Americans, who were often targeted.

Due to this development of new and digital media, has enabled us the platform to form interpersonal relationships(Katz and Blumler) amongst each other but also allowed opinions to be created which is a pluralist idea as audiences being able to form own opinions is a freedom that was because of the development of news and digital media being established. 

To continue, the power between audience and institutions, in a Pluralist perspective, would lie to the audience and the idea would be in fact they are greatly powerful in their consumption and production made. Unlike Marxism, pluralist belief wold state that society is dominated by an array of varying social classes and cultures. This  will reinforce the idea that audiences have more power in production and consumption. Highly evident in Krotoski's statement noted that the "information revolution" was a "paradigm shift-on par with the printing press.", which goes on to say the idea of the rapid change in the growth has moved consumption and production of power from institution to audience. Gurevitch has said also that the audience is able to “conform, accommodate or reject” and the information being consumed by audiences, which shows the power held by the audience and large institutions gate keeping and mediating has little effects on audiences. 

Moreover, from recent events such as the ability of social media from petitions about the Libyan slave auctions to be written by people does hold the pluralist ideal of power amongst audiences to challenge institutions (governments) on treatments about human trafficking also suggesting that dominant hegemonic ideologies are being challenged, which is an indication of the audience’s new found power within the development of digital media. However, a Marxist  perspective would state that though awareness on matters are being made there is never any real difference or friction put upon corrupt governments from petitions or sharing and liking a post reinforcing the idea that social media does have it's disadvantages on making audiences believe their power is real but represents the idea audience power is but an illusion to make audiences believe they do something but in fact no real effect is made against the institutions. 

To conclude, Marxist and Pluralist views argue the extent of freedom giving to audience is at an extent. However we are still able to see that development of new and digital media has been able to empower audiences due to platforms such as social media offering a greater influence to allow audiences to express their views and opinions with freedom. 

NDM 20

Police accused of trial by social media after tweeting about super car crash- THE TELEGRAPH


This article talks about the Greater Manchester Police  being accused of  "commiting trial by social media" , the police's traffic unit used their Twitter to post a  crashed Ferrari, after the driver crashed on Sunday, with comments suggesting the driver had been speeding and taking drugs.  With the post the caption red  "Driver said he was only doing 52 in a 50mph area. Thoughts?" and the follow up tweet read : "Well the driver has just tested positive for Cannabis, so that’s probably played a part."

• But the posts sparked a backlash from fellow motorists who accused the police of publicly condemning the driver without  evidence.
• "Isn’t it up to you to decide? Would you post this comment if it was a Ford Focus? Next time ask ‘this chap says he didn’t break in, looks like a burglar to us...what do you think?’" - Twitter post comment
• "The presumption of innocence is clearly not very high on the police's list of priorities.

• “The public have no right to know any of this information. They may be interested in it, but it is not in the public interest. This would appear to be trial by social media and it is disgraceful."-   Nick Freeman, solicitor who specialised in representing celebrity clients

For this, I think social media is a form of hyper reality (Bauldriard) , where people can construct their own images and ideas suited to their audiences showing an example of hyper reality in the digital age. From the problem wit the Manchester police is that  the footage may possibly not provide all perspectives thus making the audience unable to distinguish the truth over false images, which is where the people would find the problem. 

Also, the idea that this maybe a Pluralist idea showing an empowerment of audiences can be seen here, as the high institution, Police, tried to feed into a known idea when it comes to car crashes and sell it off to their audiences (38,000 followers) by asking for their opinion of it but because it came with backlash. 

Pluralists believe that audiences are perceived as capable of manipulating the media and having access to 'plural views of society' enabling them to 'conform, accommodate or reject' - they believe that audience are able to challenge the news, which tis audiences did when asked by the "elite" about the laws and empowered as they are able to find their own opinion in their liees. 

NDM 19

NET NEUTRALITY REPEAL ALLOWS INTERNET TO ONLY CONSIST OF GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED SITES - THE INDEPENDENT


The article is about the FCC (Federal Communications Commission)  chairman announcing that they would want to repel  net neutrality protections. This would allow internet companies to charge people for specific websites, or only allow some sites to be free.

Campaigner's have shown how the principle of net neutrality could easily be abused, by giving an example from a Portuguese internet provider: 

• "One Portuguese internet service provider forces people to buy their data in parts – paying extra for chat apps or video streaming, for instance – and Facebook's 'Free Basics' internet project has been attacked for only actually providing Facebook and other sites for free."

This would show how similar rules maybe used allowing media  supportive of the Trump administration or other future presidencies to be given out to users for free. Internet companies could also choose to only allow people to access certain sites that were helpful to them, too. 
Service providers have gone against this to say, that they would "want the protections lifted so they can invest more money in infrastructure, but are looking to actively exploit the repeal of net neutrality."

• "With Net Neutrality gone, the flow of information will be controlled on a level people just aren’t thinking about yet.                                                                                            Imagine the lowest priced net service including only Breitbart, RT, Infowars, TrumpTV, Fox News, basic email & Facebook.                                                                                It’ll happen."   - Twitter post b Catherynne Valente

People showing their dissatisfaction of the repel via social media shows opportunities for the audience to challenge their senators through social media platforms such as Twitter and come in contact with alternative views. However, the majority of traditional forms of media reinforce the views of the dominant higher class, as they are owned by large conglomerates that are run by the elite, which as they know having even more power available for them to feed to audience may reinforce the idea that the population are under hegemonic rule, and that the news/elite maintains status quo. 

NDM News: Marxism & Pluralism - Alain de Botton on the news

1) To what extent do you agree with Alain de Botton's views on the News?

I agree with Alain de Botton point about audience inability to actually take in news but aslo that their is a certain hierarchy deciding what is important for news. Audience are made to view news pandered towards them and what institutions think audiences would wants to read, rather than news which would wholly be better in terms of awareness and information on the world. This is because through gate keeping the elitist are able to keep information and decide what news should be published and revealed to people, reinforcing a hegemonic idea of the elite controlling what audiences see. Also, the populous is unable to differentiate what is soft news, which blurs the line of news and entertainment, and hard news, which is fast paced appears on front page news, as news are now using things such as 'clickbait' or news which is 'dumbed down'(soft news) for audiences which either don't have all facts but are useless in terms of world news. 

2) How can you link Marxism and Hegemony to de Botton's criticisms of the News?

Both Marxism and hegemonic can both be linked to de Bottons criticisms of the news as he criticises the news for lack of distinction from soft and hard news, which would be breaking down the news hierarchy. The use of soft news, as stated, is the so called elite  suing it to dumb us down a hegemonic theory of ruling class imposing this sought of news on audience for this sole purpose of being less aware and less powerful (dumb down). The marxist idea of the news being used by elitist to gain more revenue ,from continued stories being re-used and seem "fresh", and impose the status quo showing how politics is easily able to place and manipulate the news. 


3) How could you use Pluralism and new technology to challenge de Botton's views on the News?

New technology and pluralism can be used to challenge de Botton's view of news because of UGC to citizen journalism. Pluralists believe  audiences are able to manipulate the media enabling them access to 'plural views of society' thus 'conform, accommodate or reject'. As the belief is audience can challenge news, and UGC and citizen journalism  can go against de Button point about how audiences react tot he news reinforcing the idea that audiences are not passive as they were before but now take an active role and control over what they are fed from news and media. 
An example would be the news of the Libyan slave auctions happening in the east of Africa  where people through social media have been able to bring awareness onto the situation and try to create pressure upon the libiyan government to stop the auctions. This would also show how much power audiences , a pluralist idea, have as petitions and knowledge has spread world wide and notable new have taken the story on.

4) Choose two news stories from the last six months - one that supports de Botton's views and one that challenges his belief that the News is used for social control. 

News story that supports de Button's views-  Libyan government says investigating migrant 'slave market' reports

News story that challenges his belief that the news is used for social control - Donald Trump is pathetically insecure

This news story can be argued to challenge Bottons belief that the news is used for social control in particular by politics as this article is clearly criticizing a politician, which would be highly unlikely if the news was solely used for social control. 

NDM 18

Rupert Murdoch says his newspapers are struggling in digital age- The Guardian 

Rupert Murdoch ssays News Corps wont be expanding its newspaper empire to coincide to digital advertising has become "tremendously damaging to print" and even some of his newspapers are suffering. He states some other well known newspapers Times, Australian and Wall Street Journal as successes and says his company has ‘hands full’ keeping print viable

Murdoch questioned some of the big digital giants such as Google and Facebook for allowing their content to be accessed freely for the masses 

• “So far I think we have done pretty well in replacing lost advertising revenue in the major papers, but it continues to be a big problem,” 

Someone questioned him at the event asking will the company be purchasing anymore newspapers and the executive said : “Not really. No. Our hands are pretty full making our existing papers viable, this means it is hard to keep his newspapers successful due to many people going to free content news on the internet from companies such as Google or Facebook .

Murdoch notes that the newspapers which he says as doing well are fine because of the money they have put on them but others he says are struggling in this time. He has stressed many times of the problem all newspapers are having due to the continued changing of technology, due to people still having may free content available to them and few which account for money they woulds ultimately go to what is free and doesn't cost. For me, I think having many newspapers have a paywall and showing their news is new, reliable and trustworthy will be very successful among people if no known newspapers are showing free content (Google and Facebook) will be make it easier for paywalls to be pushed into the world of journalism, with the way technology is moving at a qucik pace and the slow insignificance of print will make it tricky.

NDM 17

Sky Views: Social media helps good journalism- SKY NEWS

The article, is more of a series of comment pieces by Sky News editors and correspondents. This particular one was by an editor who was questioning whether social media is a sought of good for journalism today rather than taking away from traditional journalism i.e Newspapers.The person states how at an event the found himself and others debating on the topic of journalism, referencing Twitter and Facebook as a hub of fake accounts and news with some being shocked of the ability for those to create accounts to promote certain views to make their audiences think a certain due to targeted information at them from countless amounts of data they hold. There is even the huge volume of fake traffic being put out by Russian sources to disrupt politics in the west. 

• In 2016 a few anti-Islamic posts on Facebook send out by Russians but purporting to be from "the heart of Texas" managed to stir up a confrontation on the streets of Houston.

Veteran New York Times journalist Stephen Erlanger, commented that there is  pressure to provide clickbait, which meant there were fewer resources to check stories and that even his paper, The Grey Lady, now put out trivial stories to attract readers.

• Fearful of fake news and its consequences, people are prepared to pay for reliable and well-presented information.

This comment by the editor is agreeable, to an extent, as I think the thought of fake news and false allegations is known to many and a worry it is still shown from the way false news can be spread that many can still be led on or believe in fake news. Even other countries are known to have paid people to keep bots and create 'opinion-keepers' to be able to put out their thoughts and political views, which most often is run in the time of elections. Paywalls have been made by some newspapers to show to people their reliability and want for genuine 'good news' such as The New York TImes newspaper which advertises it self as something of a luxury to the people who access gain a lot of revenue showing how by creating something to pay for or advertiisng it as a necessity will allow those to buy it.

NDM 16

Thirty countries use 'armies of opinion shapers' to manipulate democracy – report- The Guardian

The article talks about governments of over 30 countries around the globe  using armies of 'opinion shapers' to meddle in elections, advance anti-democratic agendas and repress their citizens, a new report from US NGO Freedom House. 

• Of the 65 countries surveyed, 30, including Venezuela, the Philippines and Turkey, were found to be using “armies of opinion shapers” to “spread government views, drive particular agendas, and counter government critics on social media” -  Freedom House’s new Freedom on the Net report

•  In 2016, just 23 countries were found to be using the same sort of pro-government “astroturfing” (a fake grassroots movement).

•  In the Philippines, it is manifested as a “keyboard army” paid $10 a day to operate fake social media accounts, which supported Rodrigo Duterte in the run-up to his election last year, and backed his crackdown on the drug trade this year.

• Turkey’s ruling party enlisted 6,000 people to manipulate discussions, drive agendas and counter opponents. 

• Sudan’s governments approach is more direct: a unit within the country’s intelligence service created fake accounts to fabricate support for government policies and denounce critical journalists.

From the article, I can see that from the survey done by the Freedom House found that many countries themselves create accounts which all hold views and thoughts which would be beneficial to the party/government which would want to introduce their views. However, the article highlights countries who did not hold an election such as Turkey or Venezuela, social media manipulation was still frequent. The Freedom House's Net Report  made the statement that “strong indications that individuals are paid to distort the digital information landscape in the government’s favour, without acknowledging sponsorship”. This statement really brings to light that governments having the ability to access certain accounts or sites will be able to skew their specific audiences own political views to fit theirs. This is evident in Trumps promoter stating that targeting specific people through Facebook data ,given to them, was how Trump won the election. 

• Governments are now using social media to suppress dissent and advance an anti-democratic agenda

Not only is this manipulation difficult to detect on the sites, it is more difficult for people such as the director of FH to combat than other types of censorship, such as website blocking, because it’s dispersed and because of the huge number of people and bots deployed to do it. In the Philippines, they made a “keyboard army” and paid $10 a day to people to operate fake social media accounts supporting a Philippine politician in his election. 

The difficulty is evident and can be hard to track and represents the extent of power institutions/ government have over audiences and even can be done on sites which people would see as free and private but are also being targeted themselves. 

NDM 15

British MP calls on Twitter to release Russian 'troll factory' tweets- The Guardian

The article talks about Damian Collins, the chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, wanting examples of  posts linked to British politics. In reference, to Twitter giving out a list of suspended Russia-linked accounts to US intelligence committee.

• 2,752 Twitter accounts coordinated by humans at the research agency- tweeted 131,000 times during the period 1 September to 15 November 2016.

• discovered almost 37,000 Russian “bot” accounts tweeting 1.4m times over the same period

• Twitter said the tweets impersonated US news entities, political parties, and groups focused on social and political issues.

• "Prime Minister would not have spoken out on Russia without briefing from our spooks when can Parliament be briefed @BBCr4today ?" - Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, also asked why the government was continuing to let Russia meddle in UK affairs.

An MP of superiority wants for Twitter to release examples of posts concerning the Uk in Russian "troll factory", which he states would be an “interference by foreign actors in the democratic process of the United Kingdom”.

Damian Collins, the chairman of the Commons culture...select committee wanted to see examples of posts about British politics after Twitter handed a list of 2,752 accounts to the US intelligence committee, which it had suspended for being linked to Russia. 

One problem was referenced concerning the a list circulated in Washington posted a widely shared tweet at the time of the March terror attack on Westminster Bridge in London. A Twitter account by the name of  @SouthLoneStar made a post of  a woman in a headscarf the scene of the attack and captioning it with “Muslim woman pays no mind to the terror attack, casually walks by a dying man while checking phone #PrayForLondon #Westminster #BanIslam.”

The woman from the picture commented in response to her picture being circulated: 

•  “Not only have I been devastated by witnessing the aftermath of a shocking and numbing terror attack, I’ve also had to deal with the shock of finding my picture plastered all over social media by those who could not look beyond my attire, who draw conclusions based on hate and xenophobia.”

The article made another reference to an account, which had been deleted by twitter,  after the EU referendum reportedly had posted that Brexit leavers should "clean their land from muslim invasion!”. 

The MP said he wanted the information about impact on UK politics by the end of November(from the knowledge of the stats above) . Last month in a letter to the Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, Collins also asked for “information regarding the use of Facebook advertising and pages by Russian-linked accounts in the lead-up to, and during, the 2016 referendum”.

This really brings to light how digital news has been used negatively. This is due to the ability for some to make multiple 'fake' accounts to write skewed information of 'fake news' about certain parties and people to promote a certain ideal. The power which is also held by Twitter is show also as they were able to collect information easily about these 'bots' but refuse to give them up, much like, the Tinder app having detailed information on their users via Facebook to promote and target specific images catered to a group they are in. New digital media is used to throw certain ideals to audiences that even political parties from foreign countries are able to change the ideas of audiences.

NDM 14

Science Explains Why The Printed Word Is Still More Powerful Than Digital- The HuffPost

The article brings on the idea that print have more impact on audiences than digital news using "science" as a back up for the statement. Making three points :

• Print speaks to your senses
• Print is more memorable
• Print is trusted

The article states how we are in the internet generation and how convinence is everything and technology triumphed over print. That those who carry Kindle or read news online on their phone still find more print to be better than print, even the 'internet- generation'.

• In the US, print books are still far more popular than digital versions, 
• In the UK, sales of printed books rose by 7% in 2016.

A linguistic Naomi Baron when collecting data(opinions) on on print and digital was able to find that people loved "the smell of the paper" and author Tara Guha states books can be "sensory delights" for people. Further saying:

• “When we handle a ‘real’ book we react to how it feels in our hand, its smell, the look of the cover, even the sound of the pages turning,”  Naomi Baron

• “We can feast our eyes on the books on our shelves, take them down, and as we open them we remember not just the story of the book, but what was going on in our life at that time. Flipping the pages gives us an emotional hit.” - Namoi Baron

• “When you read a paper book, you can often remember where you saw something - approximately how far in it was, where it was located on the page,”- Roger Dooley, author of Brainfluence: 100 Ways to Persuade and Convince Consumers with Neuromarketing,

giving the impression printed words is a sought of aesthetic appeal for people.

The article brings upon scientific evidence to back up the aesthetic and memorable appeal of printed media. Research by Anne Mangen of Norway’s Stavanger University has found that "we absorb less when reading on a Kindle than we do when reading print". They allowed Kindle and print readers to be given a short story to read and found digital readers did significantly worse when asked to place events from the story in the correct order afterwards. This may be due to the idea that there is more distraction for technology when using it, such as notifications, which may lead to those reading off devices to not find what they read memorable. 

Students are even advised to print off their work rather than what we do as humans havind the tendency to skim read words on devices:

•  “Digital is great, of course, but I often advise my students to print out work before they submit it because reading print is a different experience from reading on screen. You skim less and focus more and I think you’re more likely to spot mistakes on paper.” -Media Trainer, Hazel Davis

Rogger Dooley  suggests that print might be more powerful because it is more trusted. Historically, books were seen to be wisdom, and newspapers to speak truth to power. Neither was always true, but print still commands a respect that digital can’t match.

• “Of course, the bar is much lower for print today - anyone can self-publish a book that is indistinguishable from the product of a big publishing house,”

• “Nevertheless, it still takes effort and expense. So, I think that even today people assume that print content has had to cross some kind of curation threshold.”

• “Many thought the convenience and cost advantage of digital media would make print content as obsolete as horse-drawn carriages. It’s clear that people still enjoy paper-based content.”

I think this does give the idea that print is still more successful than digital using the science of our brains and memory to support. However, it doesn't take from the decrease in print, in general, for companies. Unless print is seen as a luxury and necessity, why many have the idea of paywalls for newspapers, such as the New York times many would still be put into a niche group for using printed news rather than digital which will continue being on the rise in my opinion. 

NDM 13

M&S Christmas ad uses Paddington Bear to target family audience- The Guardian

The article talks about John Lewis' success in their Christmas adverts which gained a lot of attention and costed a lot of money but also targeted many audiences. Also, how many retailers ,i.e Sainsburys and M&S,try to emulate the the stores 'brand of adverts'  but also the extent in money used to make them. The article focusing on the recent Christmans advert of Marks & Spencers which featured the famous Paddington Bear 

•  John Lewis spends about £6m on its annual campaign and has recently vied with Sainsbury’s to be the most-watched Christmas ad.
• John Lewis advert, featuring Buster the boxer bouncing on a trampoline, attracted more than 20m YouTube views and helped to raise money for The Wildlife Trusts.
•  The department store group sold £2.5m of goods linked to its Monty the Penguin ad, including 48,000 soft toys.
•  “We wanted something which was fun, festive, entertaining, but family-centric.”- Patrick Bousquet-Chavanne, director of marketing at M&S

The director of M&S marketing sttaed he wanted the ads to be "family-centric", which what drives the ideas behind targeted ads. Targeted ads are advertisements to be aimed at certain groups and the Christmas ads all market to families for Christams. 

Sainsburys and M&S are aimed at modern day audience and tries to make a personal bond with the audience and make the stores seem family-orientated, trying to create a warm, loving image for their brand and they are trying to appeal to the mass audience. The article comments on the M&S brand adverts using celebrites such as Janet McTeer or Stephen Fry to be the main in their ads. 

For me, the article is stating that the advertisements directed at specific audiences is where revenue is being gained from for these brand institutions. Targeting ad which many fear on the internet is being used positively for audiences. Also, as many targeted ads are mostly used for the companies, I think, for one's where it features characters and narrative which are recognisable to audiences to advertise their products could be shown as a balance in power between audiences and institutions. 

M&S' last years ads gained a first increase in Christmas clothing sales for six years with John Lewis' 'Buster the Dog' success allowing the store to donate to Wildlife Trusts.  This may be due to competitions but also because they may have targeted different types of audiences, showing that when it comes to advertisements it can be positive and be used, when at their right target group, middle-class, family-orientated groups, for both companies and institutions.