Daily Mail accused of paying €50,000 for CCTV video of Paris attack

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/24/daily-mail-cctv-video-paris-attack

In this article the Daily Mail has been accused of paying €50,000 (£35,000) to obtain video of one of the terrorist attacks in Paris that had been encrypted by French police to prevent it being made public. he video, shared 16,000 times since being published on 18th of November. The freelance journalist said he heard the cafe’s owner telling the Daily Mail team at least four or five times that the police had said the video was covered by confidentiality rules covering a police investigation and was not to leave the premises. This is denied by the Mail. Given the sum the Mail representatives insisted on exclusivity and insisted that the hard disk containing the video be destroyed “in front of them, smashed on the ground” This would show that the daily mail wanted to hide that they got this from the footage and leave no evidence of this.

1. Aoudia told the Guardian: “While I was there, the police showed up and asked to see the CCTV. 

2. A version of the Daily Mail’s footage was temporarily embedded on the Guardian website but has now been removed.

3. Guardian that the Mail representative had been told about the need for a “hacker” when obtaining the footage. Part of his film, shot secretly, shows a French speaker talking in English about a computer expert who is “going to come ... in an hour .... like a hacker”.

My opinion Daily mail should just come out for pay and they wanted to show there readers the footage and if was illegal to take the footage from the police then they should face the punishment as to the police wanting to fix the problem and know what to do. This CCTV footage should of been authorised at least and it wasnt because police wanted it and the daily mail should respected that i understand that French and international media outlets and provided a vital perspective on a massive global news story.

Digital Spy hires ex-Heat editor in battle with BuzzFeed and Mashable

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/25/digital-spy-ex-heat-editor-buzzfeed-mashable-julian-linley

A former editor of heat magazine, Julian Linley is now the created role of editor-in-chief as the entertainment site of Digital spy and now is in entertainment competition with rivals like Buzz feed and Mashable. Linley launched Heartworld.com before moving on to his editing title in 2008. Linley’s appointment comes as Digital Spy looks to improve the way it uses and engages with readers on social media. In 2013, digital spy claimed 24 million monthly unique users with the double digit percentage growth curve, now it says levels are 15 million. 

1.Linley moved off away from editing Heat after just one year to become Bauer’s creative director working on special projects looking at creating TV spin-offs from the publisher’s magazine titles.

2. Digital Spy, which creates about 150 stories a day, covers TV, film, music, tech and gaming.

3. At the time Hearst said that Digital Spy’s audience was “equal to Mashable’s”; now Pete Cashmore’s site claims 45 million global unique users.

In my opinion I believe that this is the market world on-line as to competition going to happen and grabbing users are the plan of this. This would also mean that Digital spy are trying to increase on the entertainment  which creates about 150 stories a day, covers TV, film, music, tech and gaming. From what Linley says “Digital Spy is already credible, trusted and knowledgeable, which provides a perfect foundation on which to build,” he said. “It is my vision to build Digital Spy into a global 24-hour breaking entertainment news operation.” I believe that he will change the competition.

NDM case study: Globalisation

1) Is our news influenced by American cultural imperialism? What examples can you think of?

No because American cultural are for the Americans as to Hollywood movies and also the reason of funny videos that they would do. American news is found as a joke as to the statistics and also CNN videoing what was happening in Iraq but they didn't give the full facts straight which the soldiers wanted to know . British news is about politics and big stories which are about the country and the effects and changes that they're going through.

2) Has the increased globalisation of news improved the audience experience? How? Why?

We get to share out experiences globally as to with a click of a button on social media it would be out to all their friends. The audience have power to communicate and give opinion to the whole world just by using social media or using the internet. The positive side of this is the power audience have to send messages and look at coverage of news. However the negative side of this would be that these media giants are in power as to what they pick to choose for a story. Would be that audiences can be controlled on social media or be blocked by just a button from the people who own the site and it would show that audience are not in power and don't have a freedom of what to post.

3) Has globalisation benefited or damaged major news institutions? How? Why?

The benefit of this to the institution is that they don't have to have journalist everywhere when there is a crisis this would be because citizen journalism is really good for the institution how ever it would cut jobs and the information would not be true. Another benefit would be that the news institutions uses digital media and it is adapting with technology as the Mail on-line is the most read on-line newspaper with around 8 million readers. The damages however is social media and people putting news on there so for example this would be twitter, Facebook and also YouTube which would make people go visit. It kills off local news institutions as  to not having to adapt to technology like big the media giants who can still survive. Globalisation is shown that overall news institutions are in a balance argument that they are reporting news and taking in citizen journalism but the readership however for other news institutions are not doing great as to no paywall or good journalists happening any more.

Marxism & Pluralism: 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.

The evolution of new and digital media means that audiences are more powerful as to the control they have on the news. It it is also a method of how they can be involved with it, On one hand audiences are far more powerful with digital media as to communicating, connecting and sharing. It has given audience the power to consume news from any digital device from keeping updated with news and giving footage on events and then putting onto social media. Example of this would be the Eric Garner incident where he was killed by an police officer tackling him down on the floor stopping Eric Garner from breathing. This later on went on social media coming out as the main quote he said when he died: "I can't breathe" This first showed the movement of the police officers going to trial. Another incident would be that Digital means that audiences dont have power in the terms of consumption and production this would be the power that people on social media could have the freedom of what they post but it can be removed and they can get their account can be blocked. Digital media is shown to be the progressiveness of news and technology on how we can access information and keep updated around the world 24/7. 

There is a Marxist view on this as to the elite have control of media and they pick what they can show on media which gives a hegemonic view. Marxist would believe that the audience have no power in terms of news as to consumption and production as they pick. They believe that its "12 monkeys writing a bunch of nonsense" This is a quote Andrew Keen who believed that the news is a bunch of people just putting the stories they want and also making a moral panic which inst sometimes important.  A Marxist would believe that a elite person like Rupert Murdoch has control over most of the media industries like Sky news, the Sun, The Times, Sunday times and Press association. This would give the Marxist view on what he would want to show and what authority to take away and put on.  An example of this would be the phone hacking incident when Rupert Murdoch was confronted on to using people phone and using information and it was found out and not a big punishment that happen to the end of it. This is a example the elite have control as to getting away with going through people phones and having ownership of companies still. 

Marxist would argue the fact audience have no power over the consumption and production as to voice they have and the examples of this would be Rupert Murdoch phone hack-gate and yet he has the power over SKY and newspaper industries like the times which have a pay wall generating more cash for every reader.  and the quote of Andrew Keen by when he was explaining websites and blogs as to anyone can just find the information and believe it from online you can put anything like for a celebrities death on twitter being chained then the celebrity having to tell everybody they didn't really past away. Digital media to a Marxist just shows that control is from the elite and the facts are there as to  three companies control 71% of news and the majority just shows that they can pick what they want to put up or show. We have big brand institutions which we trust as to the BBC that everybody would use for information as to the stories they pick and it shows that other stories that are big we would find out somewhere else.  This would go with the theory of uses and gratification as to people need to be updated and that its part of surveillance as to going to the source of information which they trust which most likely be the BBC and you would have main streamers because of this as to the people who would keep going and the advantage of this would be because times and sun have a pay wall so this would make BBC the most trust worthy news website to go to. This gives the argument that audience dont have the power but they are deceived to believe that we do and that in the mind drifting to go find news in different places and we go to the big brands.

However you would have e pluralists point of view which is audiences have the power of digital media and that it is about the market and its competition between the industries. The example of this would be the quote by Castells "Technological blossoming of the culture of freedom" this would be the meaning that audience have the freedom to what they want to search and they would believe that they have freedom of speech and that the elite are not in control. This quote would be directing that with technology that e audience have more power and can make the news too. For example the Eric Garner case was only biog when somebody put the video footage on twitter where everyone saw and chained it making it a big story and getting the police officer sacked. "The internet is an empowering tool...an exciting and revolutionary prospect." Al Gore. This quote goes with the argument as to technology evolving and changing giving social media and digital news more reasons to be made and more people to give there own views and make a chain thread about it. This would go with many theories as to the uses and gratification to surveillance and wanting information this would give audience all different searches and choices giving a wide spread.

In addition this would mean that audiences have the power as to different cases as to freedom of posting as to what they pick to post and get everyone to share with a click of a button. The power is shown that audience do have the say and that the people who do control the site will make the change. This is also shown by the fact that audiences are in "in power" this would be the fact that Rupert Murdoch said giving the reason of saying technology and digital news has given the power of this even though a man who has the power is hiding with the power he has the fair point. This would be true as to power has risen where nobody had nothing to show what people want and would have to do petition or just read the stories that only newspapers gave not what other stories that were happening, Ruper Murdoch quote is true as he is trying bring the audience to believe that they have control.

In my opinion i believe that audiences dont have the power and that media is just  powerful as always and that they pick what they want to stay or what they would want to go. This would be the way Rupert Murdoch is such as being on the people side yet would be the one who is actually controlling most of the media. In my opinion i believe that digital news are controlled and that its not about audiences having power of what they want but that if it doesn't mess up a system then they will let it be. I will agree that there has been a change where more freedom to what people can say but any story out there can be used as a moral panic and exaggerated which makes it an effect but overall i believe that audience can consume news more but cant control all of it as to the digital news are the ones who are manipulative on this as to giving all this access knowing there is no harm on them as to technology changing and them trying to adapt.

Yes the BBC has to make cuts, but why always sport?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2015/nov/18/bbc-cuts-sport-licence-fee

In this article director of BBC Tony Hall is planning to save £30mil a year by saving the sports budget to account the license fee does not come as a surprise. The article also explains the reason of Snooker and Darts not being entertaining enough for viewers but will still save it. Formula One will almost certainly go. It will be much missed by petrolheads. But it is getting increasingly difficult to make the argument for spending so much money on rights that only tell half the story of the season and often miss key races. It is understood that recent moves to give up half of the Six Nations and get coverage have already gone a long way to saving the £30m required because of Sky and there competitors have taken all other coverage for Rugby.

1. Hall professes to be a sports fan and made all the right noises when the BBC recaptured the rights to the FA Cup, shared with BT Sport, a couple of years ago.

2. Ever since Wimbledon was first shown in 1937, sport has been a central part of the BBC’s story

3. (Comment) A better question would actually be "why always every other sport except football" - frankly football can, and would, be picked up by the commercial broadcasters. So the BBC could easily let that go and leave it to ITV / Ch4 / Ch5. And football rights are easily the most expensive going - so losing those would free up ALOT of money.

In my opinion I believe that the BBC saving the sports industry for them wouldnt be needed because the coverage is still entertaining its only that viewers care about sports like football and rugby. The reason why i say they are popular is because the viewer-ship for snooker and Darts are not big as they used to be as in the past they would be the older generation but now they are rooting for football and rugby. The BBC have lost in deals of coverage as well which has put them in position but right now they should focus on entertainment and wait to get a deal in and work with others on this.

BBC to cut entertainment and comedy but plans new Saturday night shows

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/nov/18/bbc-entertainment-comedy-tv-the-voice

The article explains that BBC need to make cuts in there industry and this would lead to the entertainment and comedy factor being cut to a £12m spending cut. The corporation would say that they they are using money to save as to making BBC better. The cuts are part of £150m in savings announced by Tony Hall earlier this year as the BBC tries to close the “iPlayer loophole” this would mean by the number of people who dont need a license fee if they are only catching up on programmes on-line.  The corporation is expected to outline a further £550m in cuts next spring. as to the cuts as to making it better however the impact would be to minimise this problem to the viewers. This could also mean that the button interactive service will go as to web connected TVs and another would be BBC on-line losing 5% if uts £210m budget.

1.T he BBC said the next wave of cuts – resulting from the government’s decision to make it pay the cost of over-75s licence fees – were “likely to include broad service and major structural changes to how the BBC works”.

2.The Guardian reported on Tuesday that a ”significant chunk” of the savings - £35m - would come from a cut to spending on the rights to show minor sports such as athletics and darts.

3. News is relatively well protected, with the £5m amounting to less than 1% of spending on news across the corporation’s divisions.

In my opinion these cuts are going to make a problem for viewers as to minimising there entertainment on other days except for Saturday this would mean many ideas of the other days wouldnt not reall have any entertainment as they are cutting this. Another issue would be the red button and this would mean not getting the further information as to the reason the web browser you got on TV but this would be a problem as no everybody has this.  

The Sun jumps the gun with claims of London Spy sex 'row'

 http://www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2015/nov/11/sun-london-spy-bbc-ofcom

 'Paper claims Ofcom is ‘investigating’ complaints about explicit sex scenes in the BBC drama – but the media watchdog says it hasn’t yet launched a probe'

From this short article explains that a BBC tv show has been showing very explicit sex scenes and been alot of complaints because of this. There were only 13 complaints because of this and yet there were 2.5million viewers, the article states that the reason of the complaints is because of the two men are having sex and it was because of the complaints that it had to into investigation because of this.

The Sun does quote the Evangelical Alliance, an organisation that issued a report in 2012 saying “We believe both habitual homoerotic sexual activity without repentance and public promotion of such activity are inconsistent with faithful church membership.”

From this article my opinion is that the people who did this were homophobes because if you look at the evidence there was nothing wrong with the show when they checked it. Out of small complaints i dont understand why they checked it if only 13 people complained when there was 2.5 million viewers and it would of been a problem if it was a million people but it wasn't just a act of sexuality not being accepted on media.