Changing from Newspapers to Virtual Newspapers

"Audiences in the Middle East and North Africa prefer online video content over written news, and value trust and quality over the speed of news delivery, according to a report commissioned by the Associated Press (AP), released today." (Albeanu)

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/ap-report-video-is-the-prefered-medium-for-news-in-middle-east-and-north-africa/s2/a562565/

In todays society we have seen a huge change from the media. They have went from just delivering local newspapers to airing on television for people to watch. This goes in sync with the fact that over the recent years technology has advanced tremendously. But how far has the media changed in recent years? Has it changed to the point that we have more trust in the media or have we lost some of that trust with recent changes in the media? Do you prefer getting the news instantaneously or do you prefer to wait and have all the facts or pieces of information investigated to prove whether something is true or not?

In a recent article that I found it talks about a study conducted in MENA that shows that people in the Middle East and North Africa prefer to obtain their news through online sources instead of hard copies of newspapers, yet they also want the news sources to not report the news faster but make sure the quality, of hat they are reporting, is above standards. I found this to be very interesting because it not only shows how fast the media has changed with the advancement in technology but it also shows how much technology, media, and politics are influencing people in different parts of the world. "The study, called 'Spring Tide: The new era for video news in the Middle East and North Africa', found that 69 per cent of those who consume news online thought watching video content was the best way to access fair and impartial news." (Albeanu)

From what we have learned in class, many people in todays society have been using the internet more and more in order to get the news. Many of them come across news outlets and breaking stories through a friends Facebook page or even a twitter post. Most people only get their news information from online sources which most of the time is more bias than other news articles. As W. Lance Bennett stated, in our book, "American journalism may have become trapped within an unworkable set of professional standards, with the result that the more objective or fair reporters try to be, the more officials bias they introduce into the news." (Bennett 159) Even though I do believe that the media sometimes ttys so hard not to be bias and therefore end up being bias anyways I also believe there are other factor involved that can cause bias as well. I believe that factors in the organization cause bias as well. As Graber and Dunaway mentioned, "Every news organization has its own internal power structure that develops from the interaction of owners, journalists, news sources, audiences, advertisers, and government authorities." (Graber and Dunaway 108) My question to all of you is, do you believe that online media sources are less bias and more impartial and fair then other news media?

Virtual Change

So far we have talked about how the media and politics interact with each other. We have also seen how menu people use social media today for a variety of things. We use social media to communicate with each other through Facebook and Twitter. We use social media to be able to keep up with what is happening in the world, to surf the web, gather information for research, watch videos, play music, and so much more. The question that I have is this, does social media have a huge impact in other countries outside of the United States? How do other countries use social media?

In a recent article written in the Economist, on September 13, 2014, there was talk about how social media has become a sort of, 'virtual revolution' in Saudi Arabia.

TUNE into one of Saudi Arabia’s television channels and you are likely to find a stuffy report praising the government or a sheikh spinning a dreary sermon. Little wonder that so many Saudis turn to YouTube and other online broadcasters for light relief. That has led to the emergence of new media companies, mainly in the more liberal coastal city of Jeddah, dedicated to amusing the kingdom’s growing population.

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21617064-why-social-media-have-greater-impact-kingdom-elsewhere-virtual?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/avirtualrevolution

This article is very interesting because it chows how social media has had a huge impact on a nation and their people. They use social media to watch videos, tweet and reply using Twitter, and Facebook to communicate and keep in touch with friends. As one Professor mentioned that he uses Twitter in order to inform his students that they have a new assignment to complete. This just shows how social media has advanced so much in recent times because now we have Professors communicating with students through the use of social media. It is very interesting how social media can be used this way, positively, to where people can use it to keep in touch with even their professors.

Just like our book mention, during President Obama's first campaign, he used social media tremendously in order to get himself out their in the world. He wanted people to see him as an actual person and not just another politician. This is another way social media is used a helping to change the world around us. It is used for campaigning and also for people to keep in touch with their favorite celebrities. For example, back in 2010, while on her world tour, P!nk was injured during her concert in Germany. Before the news reporters were able to find out what the status was on her injuries, P!nk posted on Twitter for all her fans to see that she was fine. This is yet another example of how social media is now used in the world today. In your opinion, how do you think social media has changed the world? What other countries has social media had a huge impact in as well?

Hard News vs. Soft News

So far, in our class, we have been learning a lot about how the media and politics interact with each other. In our recent class module we have been learning about soft news, hard news, and bias within the different media outlets. What I found very interesting is how often "soft" news is used more so in the coverage of a news station or newspaper. "Hard news refers to coverage of breaking events involving top leaders, major issues, or significant disruptions in the routines of daily life, such as an earthquake or airline disaster."(Patterson 3) While soft news is considered any "information about these events is presumably important to citizens’ ability to understand and respond to the world of public affairs.12 News that is not of this type is, by definition, “soft.”" (Patterson 3) From what I have noticed from all the newspapers and news networks is that the hard news or policy-related news has decreased over time. The only time it seems to really make an appearance is during any elections or during a major crises, such as ISIS in the Middle East.

There is an interesting article that I happened to stumble upon while looking through several online media sources that interested me and related back to the class lessons. The article is about a video that apparently the State Department released in response to the video's that ISIS has been posting on the web for everyone to see. The video is said to be a message to stop people from joining ISIS.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/09/state-department-enters-propaganda-war-with-isis/
The State Department is launching a tough and graphic propaganda counteroffensive against the Islamic State, using some of the group's own images of barbaric acts against fellow Muslims to undercut its message. 

The reason why this article was interesting is because of how much the Middle East has been talked about by the media and politics lately. Most of the information I would consider hard news because is falls in the category of major issues right now. I also saw how this article related to one of my previous post. This article basically is showing how the government uses sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube in order to communicate with the general public and to deliver, in the case of this article, messages to people as well. Anyways let me ask you guys a few questions. Do you guys prefer soft news or hard news? Do you think there is a good balance of both being aired? Do you think that one day soft news and hard news will still be around or do you think that it will change into something different?

Messages through Social Media?

I often find myself wondering where the world would be at right now without the Internet and Social Media? Would World Leaders still be waiting for information to be decrypted through decryption specialist or would they be waiting for that one important phone call? Social Media has become a tool for, not just citizens, but even groups and organizations to use in order to be able to communicate with the rest of the world. Even now social media is used to communicate with activist groups so they can know what is happening right now, in-ragards to the change they are fighting for. Social Media is also used to communicate with leaders. As it is mentioned in "Millennials & Activism," "According to some observers, the Internet may have considerable potential to reach and engage opinion leaders who influence the thinking and behavior of others." (Logothetis) 

In the recent news their has been another video posted by ISIS stating that they have killed Steven Sotloff. As New York Times authors, Mark Landler and Eric Schmitt wrote;

WASHINGTON — An Islamic militant group released a video on Tuesday showing the second beheading of an American hostage in two weeks and blamed President Obama for the killing. The video raised the pressure on the president to order military strikes on the group in its sanctuary in Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/world/middleeast/steven-sotloff-isis-execution.html?_r=1

The online article shows how even groups from all over the world can use social media to get their message out to other countries and their world leaders. ISIS used social media in order to deliver their messages to President Obama and the world on what they wanted. 

This relates to our studies on how social media such as videos posted on the web can be used to communicate with people all over the world. I believe that social media can be used to help the public sphere develop their own opinions based on what they are able to obtain through the media and conversations on social media. They can share their views and opinions on the political side and use online sources to get petitions signed. On the other hand, social media can be a very dangerous tool, as we see in the link above. Social media can be used to send messages and cause unrest within a society towards their government or other organizations. 

As we can see from the news article the video has done a lot of harm around the world, from all the articles written about the video, because it was broadcasted on social media for everyone to see even though the government is trying to block people from viewing the video. Here is a question that I have for the class. Do you feel like social media is more harmful to the government in today's society or more helpful in today's society? Why?