1) Summaries each point in one sentence:
- Section 1-
Nowadays Journalism isn't appreciated in society anymore and that we should have a pay wall. It states that news has to come from somewhere, and that it is the job of the journalist to unlock the stories with evidence and give it to society. However, the online platform puts all these stories out for free, and although it is good that people are getting news much conveniently, it is the journalists that have to pay the price.
- Section 2-
The internet isn't being used properly and is being misused and because of this they need to find a way to set up a pay wall. Due to the fact that news companies are gaining less and less revenue as the years go on, this method seems like a definite resort.
- Section 3-
Newspapers are struggling to compete with the internet because there is a decline in the use of newspapers. As the internet arrived profit had been challenged. Even the monopolies of newspaper industry had found it difficult to compete with this new introduction into their industry.
- Section 4-
In my opinion If there is a pay wall then it will be more beneficial in the long run. The time to gain revenue this was, has passed and the only news papers that took their initiative was the Times and The Post. There are two scenarios to help gain revenue and ensure the industries survival. First scenario states: an influx of new of cheap yet profitable online subscriptions. And the second scenario states: the collapse of regional news papers will create an opportunity for new, online subscription news.
2) Summary of David Simon's overall argument:
In addition, what Simon's is trying to state is, that the newspaper industry is far too important to be gone.Those who are getting their news from the internet can pick what they want to read and how they receive their news as it can be done through internet pages, social media blogs and other ways.The government are also going to take action and they're going to see what people are searching by patrolling the internet. People have become use to the advances in new and digital media which makes it easier to gain access to things and one of these things being the news is made easier through online websites so good quality journalism isn't paid for.
Journalists play a key role to society as any one, and they should be entitled to their own right to be paid for the work they do for society. People online don't see the importance of editors or journalists, and Simon's shows how damaging the decline in journalism will have an impact on our daily lives.
3) Summary of essay:
The internet has both pros and cons and has done good and bad for us. With the internet being easily accessible in society, it is now easier for news to be spread out on a wider content in a shorter amount of time. However it is bad for journalists as it is harder for them to maintain their job as people can report news with advances in technology. I think that the internet is a good thing for society to report news but it is misused and should be paid for so the news is of high quality when it is reported and we’re reported what is actually happening rather than being misled. However, citizen journalism makes it easier to get the peoples view point and is easily accessible for us to get news that journalists cannot get access to. Although, that the article does share a split impact of the internet, I do believe that it's main agenda is praising the internet as a good thing. This is because the internet provides the alternative side to traditional media. Instead of being spoon-fed information, the internet can allow people to challenge the journalists.
4) Critical Autonomy:
I think that there should be a pay wall because people reporting news themselves may not always be accurate and the information isn't regulated. In society we need to be reported news which is accurate but at times news isn't always reported this way which is why citizen journalism is a good thing to have. However, the power of this is misused by people at times and could make stories up or whatever is happening which could cause people to have a negative view on a topic causing their ideology to change which will have a negative on them. News should have a certain level of quality and accuracy when released towards the public which is what journalists provide us with which is why i think we need a pay wall. If there are not any journalists, then there is no power to challenge politicians and government leaders which subsequently, can tarnish society. likewise, I believe that journalists need to be paid for the hard work they do, as they are saving people's lives by un-veiling the corruptions in parts of the countries.
1) Summaries each point in one sentence:
- Section 1-
Nowadays Journalism isn't appreciated in society anymore and that we should have a pay wall. It states that news has to come from somewhere, and that it is the job of the journalist to unlock the stories with evidence and give it to society. However, the online platform puts all these stories out for free, and although it is good that people are getting news much conveniently, it is the journalists that have to pay the price.
- Section 2-
The internet isn't being used properly and is being misused and because of this they need to find a way to set up a pay wall. Due to the fact that news companies are gaining less and less revenue as the years go on, this method seems like a definite resort.
- Section 3-
Newspapers are struggling to compete with the internet because there is a decline in the use of newspapers. As the internet arrived profit had been challenged. Even the monopolies of newspaper industry had found it difficult to compete with this new introduction into their industry.
- Section 4-
In my opinion If there is a pay wall then it will be more beneficial in the long run. The time to gain revenue this was, has passed and the only news papers that took their initiative was the Times and The Post. There are two scenarios to help gain revenue and ensure the industries survival. First scenario states: an influx of new of cheap yet profitable online subscriptions. And the second scenario states: the collapse of regional news papers will create an opportunity for new, online subscription news.
2) Summary of David Simon's overall argument:
In addition, what Simon's is trying to state is, that the newspaper industry is far too important to be gone.Those who are getting their news from the internet can pick what they want to read and how they receive their news as it can be done through internet pages, social media blogs and other ways.The government are also going to take action and they're going to see what people are searching by patrolling the internet. People have become use to the advances in new and digital media which makes it easier to gain access to things and one of these things being the news is made easier through online websites so good quality journalism isn't paid for.
Journalists play a key role to society as any one, and they should be entitled to their own right to be paid for the work they do for society. People online don't see the importance of editors or journalists, and Simon's shows how damaging the decline in journalism will have an impact on our daily lives.
3) Summary of essay:
The internet has both pros and cons and has done good and bad for us. With the internet being easily accessible in society, it is now easier for news to be spread out on a wider content in a shorter amount of time. However it is bad for journalists as it is harder for them to maintain their job as people can report news with advances in technology. I think that the internet is a good thing for society to report news but it is misused and should be paid for so the news is of high quality when it is reported and we’re reported what is actually happening rather than being misled. However, citizen journalism makes it easier to get the peoples view point and is easily accessible for us to get news that journalists cannot get access to. Although, that the article does share a split impact of the internet, I do believe that it's main agenda is praising the internet as a good thing. This is because the internet provides the alternative side to traditional media. Instead of being spoon-fed information, the internet can allow people to challenge the journalists.
4) Critical Autonomy:
I think that there should be a pay wall because people reporting news themselves may not always be accurate and the information isn't regulated. In society we need to be reported news which is accurate but at times news isn't always reported this way which is why citizen journalism is a good thing to have. However, the power of this is misused by people at times and could make stories up or whatever is happening which could cause people to have a negative view on a topic causing their ideology to change which will have a negative on them. News should have a certain level of quality and accuracy when released towards the public which is what journalists provide us with which is why i think we need a pay wall. If there are not any journalists, then there is no power to challenge politicians and government leaders which subsequently, can tarnish society. likewise, I believe that journalists need to be paid for the hard work they do, as they are saving people's lives by un-veiling the corruptions in parts of the countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment