Newspapers: The future of journalism

 Play the clip AND read along with the transcript below to ensure you are following the argument. You need to watch from the beginning to 29.35 (the end of Shirky's presentation). Once you've watched and read the presentation and made notes (you may want to copy and paste key quotes from the transcript, which is absolutely fine), answer the questions below:

1) Why does Clay Shirky argue that 'accountability journalism' is so important, and what example does he give of this?

He gave an example of a church that allowed its priests and staff to essentially abuse underage boys, sexually assaulting around 100 boys since the 1960s in which no accountability or responsibility for those actions to be punished. Since accountability journalism is growing significantly smaller over the years Shirky argues that as in the given church example, allowing journalists to expose and bring light to such incidents is what he deems a social good. It being diminished means that society isn't benefitting from such a useful tool.

2) What does Shirky say about the relationship between newspapers and advertisers? Which websites does he mention as having replaced major revenue-generators for newspapers (e.g. jobs, personal ads etc.)?

He says that advertisers were forced to overpay for the services they received because there weren't many alternatives for reaching people with display ads or especially things like coupons. And because they overpaid, the newspapers essentially had the kind of speculative investment capital to do long range, high risk work. So it isn't enough to be commercial you have to be commercial at a level above what some theoretical market would bear.

3) Shirky talks about the 'unbundling of content'. This means people are reading newspapers in a different way. How does he suggest audiences are consuming news stories in the digital age?

Audiences basically don't go to the Times or the Guardian; you go to the story because you got it from Twitter or Facebook. So, the audience is now assembled not by the paper but by the audience itself.

4) Shirky also talks about the power of shareable media. How does he suggest the child abuse scandal with the Catholic Church may have been different if the internet had been widespread in 1992?

It would've differed massively from 1992. Like Shirky says, once you post it on the internet, it reaches one area of a community that community can click one button and forward it to another part of a community. By then it would reach millions That process wasn't that simple back then it was much harder for journalists to bring attention to their discoveries

5) Why does Shirky argue against paywalls? 

Shirky argues against paywalls cause a restriction to possible good quality content thus limiting the audience and reducing the chances of the story going viral. Basically fewer people would see it. Shirky also believes that newspapers are a social good. Putting a paywall means less people can stay informed. Which kind of defeats the purpose of journalism

6) What is a 'social good'? In what way might journalism be a 'social good'?

A social good is something that benefits the largest number of people in the largest possible way.

.Journalism is a social good since it allows there to be investigative journalism. Investigative journalism can bring light to months of political corruption or abuse that can then be accounted for by the perpetrator. 

7) Shirky says newspapers are in terminal decline. How does he suggest we can replace the important role in society newspapers play? What is the short-term danger to this solution that he describes? 

Shirky says that newspapers are irreplaceable for society. Newspapers are able to produce accountability and investigative journalism that he sees as a social good. Just focus on producing that 5% of accountability journalism and get that right if they don't that's bad

8) Look at the first question and answer regarding institutional power. Give us your own opinion: how important is it that major media brands such as the New York Times or the Guardian continue to stay in business and provide news?

Very important. The ability to put billionaires and humble them enough so they don't commit racist or illegal acts is what society wishes is possible without The Guardian or New York Times that is not possible.

Part 2: MM55 - Media, Publics, Protest and Power

Media Magazine 55 has an excellent feature on power and the media. Go to our Media Magazine archive, click on MM55 and scroll to page 38 to read the article Media, Publics, Protest and Power', a summary of Media academic Natalie Fenton’s talk to a previous Media Magazine conference. Answer the following questions:

1) What are the three overlapping fields that have an influence on the relationship between media and democracy?

The political, economical and journalistic fields have an influence on the relationship between media and democracy.

2) What is ‘churnalism’ and what issues are there currently in journalism?

 Churnalism is a form of journalism in which press releases, wire stories and other forms of pre-packaged material are used to create articles in newspapers and other news media in order to meet increasing pressures of time and cost without undertaking further research or fact-checking. It significantly reduces the quality of journalism. Just churning out crap stories.

3) What statistics are provided by Fenton to demonstrate the corporate dominance of a small number of conglomerates? 

 Just three companies control 71% of UK national newspaper circulation while only five groups control more than 80% of combined online and offline news.

4) What is the 'climate of fear' that Fenton writes about in terms of politics and the media? 

Politicians are fearful of career-wrecking and life- ruining negative publicity, along with damage to their parties’ chances of re-election. Four successive Prime Ministers admitted to The Leveson Enquiry that they were ‘too close’ to the big media players because the political stakes were so very high.

5) Fenton finishes her article by discussing pluralism, the internet and power. What is your opinion on this crucial debate - has the internet empowered audiences and encouraged democracy or is power even more concentrated in the hands of a few corporate giants?

It it is difficult to conclude this argument as there are many factors that can support each side equally. Overall however I would agree that the power has been concentrated on the hands of a few corporate giants turning into a oligarchy.