The Mutualisation of News

"Gone are the days of 'us and them' journalism. The web has led to a news community where ideas and news are shared rather than delivered." The public are just as important as journalists in making the news.

"We controlled the delivery of news and comment to our readers and the only involvement they had was through the carefully controlled letters page." News was controlled before. The public weren't getting the full news story, but only what it was decided that we should be told.

"The development of the internet, and with it the creation of 'citizen journalists', has revolutionised the delivery of information." Citizen journalists, members of the public who create their own news, have changed the way in which we now receive our news.

"We can use the community of our readers in ways we would not have been able to in the past." Readers are more important now than they have ever been before.

"It cannot be true that there are only a handful of people worth listening to in the world. Comment is Free is infinitely richer and more diverse and more plural." Everyone is given a voice, rather than just journalists, as everyone's news is just as important.

"Where members feel involved and where there is a shared interest." Involving readers more. Rather than just reading the news, we are active participants in making it.

"New applications such as Twitter make it increasingly possible for individual journalists to publish outside the constraints of our newspaper and website and develop direct relationships with communities of readers." No restrictions with citizen journalism. Citizen journalists can publish anything they want.

"A blurring of the line between journalism and readers." Readers can now be journalists too.

"Our newspapers have a tight control on information as no story is published until it has gone through several quality checks. But in the world of Twitter, for example, journalists are now publishing information without any monitoring." News is not controlled like it used to be.

"If at some point the technology becomes too large in scale, that is the time to build guidelines. For example, we now have guidelines for Twitter." Danger of new and digital media giving people too much power.

The Impact of New and Digital Media on TV Broadcasting

Has new and digital media had an impact upon ownership and control of the media institutions owned in your case study area? Explain in detail any impact and what exactly has changed.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster that is paid for through licence fees. Because of the plurality that new and digital media offers through a wider range of channels to watch, less people are watching the BBC, which has raised debates about the licence fee as people are paying both the licence fee and their digital TV fee. The BBC now has to compete with digital TV so that viewers feel like they are getting what they paid for. The BBC has done this by releasing its own digital channels, such as BBC 3. This has changed the ownership of media institutions as the BBC has had to branch into digital TV in order to compete with other institutions.
Sky is a part of News Corp, which is one of the biggest media conglomerates. Recently, Sky has released Sky HD and Sky 3D, showing that Sky is developing faster than other TV broadcasting institutions. Digital TV should offer plurality because of the wide choice of channels available. As most people who own digital TV own Sky, a marxist view would be that digital TV is not as pluralistic as it would seem because the channels that are broadcasted are chosen by the institutions.

What impact has there been on the way in which the audience now consume the media products involved in your case study? How does it differ from what went before?
Audiences have a greater choice of what to watch because there are so many more channels available. After the digital switchover, all audiences will have many channels rather than just five.
Online viewing makes watching TV more convenient for audiences as they can watch things in their own time. Also, institutions such as Sky allow viewers to record TV, meaning that audiences have time for other things. Online viewing and recorded TV has led to TV scheduling becoming less important. Also, 3D TV and HD TV make watching TV more of a cinematic experience, so it is more enjoyable.

What impact has there been on how the media institution now has to produce the texts and the way in which the texts are distributed and exhibited?
Online viewing, catch-up services (such as +1) and recorded TV means that less people watch TV at the scheduled time. Because audiences now choose their own scheduled time, TV ratings could decrease. Do the institutions count viewers who do not watch at the scheduled time?
The internet cannot be censored and regulated. Post-watershed shows are not restricted online so new and digital media has meant that texts can now be viewed by anyone.

Is the size of the audience any different now than before the impact of new and digital media (or has the pattern of usage changed)?
Less audiences watch terrestrial TV because of the range of available channels.
People do not watch TV at the scheduled time as they can either record or watch online.
Less audiences watch terrestrial TV because the range of available channels offers plurality.

Who are the primary target audience now and how has this changed?
?

How have the audience responded to the changes? Is there more consumer choice? Is there evidence of a more pluralistic model? What evidence do you have to support this?
Digital TV offers pluralism as there are so many more channels to choose from and audience can pause, rewind and record TV, leaving scheduling up to them. Online viewing is also pluralistic as audiences decide when and how to watch TV.
However, the digital switchover is forcing audiences to buy digital TV. This could affect society as more channels means more time is spent on TV, so people have less time for other things.

What concerns/considerations are there for the media institutions involved in your case study as a result of the impact of new and digital media?
Is there any need for people to do scheduling?
BBC has to compete with digital channels to keep viewers as the pluralism of digital TV means the BBC have less audiences.

What are the political and social implications of the new technologies and the methods of their consumption?
Pluralism is being compromised by the amount of control that certain institutions have over us. News Corp already have a large amount of power, and the increasing amount of people with Sky is giving them even more power and control. The BBC has decreasing power as more and more channels means less people watch the BBC.
With the large amount of time spent watching TV, less people do other things. Is TV breaking down communication in society, and dumbing us down?

Consider the effects so far, and possible effects in the future, on media institutions involved in TV broadcasting.
News Corp will rule us all.
The TV licence may disappear as the BBC can't compete with the amount of other channels available.
Most of our TV viewing will be done through eMedia.

What issues may there be regarding media effects and/or regulation and censorship as a result of changes due to new and digital media?
eMedia can't be regulated. A lot of TV viewing is now done on the eMedia platform, but as this can't be regulated, there are issues about the content that we are being exposed to. There is no watershed, meaning that anyone can watch content that is not suitable for younger audiences. All we have to do is press a button that says that we are old enough.

Are there any cross-cultural factors and/or effects of globalisation involved in the impact of new technology on your case study?
The internet has made the TV of one country available around the world. Any audiences may now be able to watch our TV, however, some texts, such as BBC iPlayer, only allow viewing in certain countries. Content from BBC iPlayer can't be watched in Egypt.