Blog Post #5: Digital Media vs. Television

According to Ken Auletta's article 'Outside the Box', digital media has had a huge impact on the traditional television industry. Auletta states that "Today, the audience for the broadcast networks is a third what it was in the late seventies, lost to a proliferating array of viewing options." Auletta goes onto explain how the first factor in television's decline was the rise of cable-television networks, and then came Internet-streaming. The television industry, however, has been fighting back. NBC, Fox and ABC joined together in creating Hulu -- which is basically the same concept as Netflix, and viewers are able to watch current and past television shows aired on these channels. And, according to an article posted by Gerry Smith entitled 'Hollywood Adjusts Netflix Strategy as Cord-Cutting Fears Grow' (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-22/hollywood-adjusts-netflix-strategy-as-cord-cutting-fears-grow), Smith quotes James Murdoch -- who runs 21st Century Fox Inc.:
"“Certainly the business rules around how we sell to SVOD providers are changing, and our thinking is evolving,” Murdoch, who runs 21st Century Fox Inc., said at conference hosted by Goldman Sachs in New York.

Although the relationship with Netflix has “been good for both sides,” Fox has done more business recently with Hulu LLC because the streaming service -- which is jointly owned by Fox, Walt Disney Co. and Comcast Corp. -- pays per subscriber, Murdoch said. That means potentially more revenue for Fox if its popularity keeps growing. Hulu also allows Fox to control the advertising, the chief executive officer said. Netflix traditionally pays a flat fee to networks and doesn’t have advertising. Last December, Fox signed a deal that gave Hulu the exclusive streaming rights to shows on Fox’s cable channel, FX."

As for the future of television, I do feel that it will be even more of an interactive experience. According to Auletta, he spoke with venture capitalist Marc Andreessen who believed that "“TV in ten years is going to be one hundred per cent streamed. On demand. Internet Protocol. Based on computers and based on software.” He said that the television industry has managed the transition to the digital age better than book publishers and music executives, but “software is going to eat television in the exact same way, ultimately, that software ate music and as it ate books.”" However, I do not necessarily agree that television will become completely obsolete. According to Accenture (https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-outlook-eyes-have-it-who-controls-future-of-television-media.aspx), traditional television is still heavily viewed. "But the truth is that the living room screen remains a dominant communications medium, and will continue to be so. There is still no substitute for the collective viewing experience of watching the big game or the season finale of a popular drama. Plus, the new Accenture study reveals that young people are much more engaged with TV than might be supposed."

Overall, I believe that television will stick around -- at least for the near future, but will provide a more interactive viewing experience to its audience.

Blog Post #4: Wikipedia

Wikipedia definitely has both its benefits and its drawbacks. For its benefits, Wikipedia is completely free of charge to access, it enables you to quickly find information on a topic, anybody can contribute or edit a page, and all references are listed at the bottom of the page. As for its drawbacks, although it can be a positive thing, allowing anybody and everybody to edit and contribute can lead to a number of issues. You never know the credibility of the contributor, and the information that is provided could be completely false. Finding Dulcinea actually provides an article stating 'The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely on Wikipedia' (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html) -- and the #1 reason listed is because Wikipedia actually mentions in their about section, "We do not expect you to trust us." In my opinion, that right there speaks loudly about Wikipedia's credibility. There is also another article, from Best Colleges Online that lists the '25 Biggest Blunders in Wikipedia History (http://www.bestcollegesonline.com/blog/2009/02/10/25-biggest-blunders-in-wikipedia-history/) which includes false death reports, libel, and miscellaneous hoaxes and mistakes -- which shows exactly how inaccurate information found on Wikipedia can be. Although I am sure that crowd sourcing definitely helps reduce the amount of information by allowing others to edit mistakes, I do not feel that it could possibly prevent misinformation all together. I believe that while people can correct mistakes that they find on Wikipedia, people can also change correct information into wrong information, as well. As for possible alternatives for Wikipedia's information, I think that a good idea would be for them to still invite crowd sourcing -- but have the contributors submit their information in a form so that it could be reviewed by a professional in that topic's area (which would be completely new for Wikipedia since they do not pay professionals, and only rely on crowdsourcing.) I also believe that to increase participation, Wikipedia could perhaps offer awards and titles to people who contribute often.

Blog Post #3: ProPublica

Why does ProPublica use Creative Commons licenses? According to Richard Tofel and Scott Klein's article, ProPublica uses Creative Commons licenses because they want their journalism to make an impact and spur reform -- and to make this all possible, ProPublica's articles need to be recirculated and reach as large of an audience as possible. So, by using Creative Commons licenses, ProPublica's articles are able to be republished in a safe manner -- meaning the original writer/journalist is credited and has control over who shares the article and how the article is shared, and no copyright laws are broken. Therefore Creative Commons licenses have increased the rate of ProPublica's articles being republished, resulting in more page views.

Here is the direct quote from the article explaining why ProPublica uses Creative Commons licenses:
"ProPublica’s mission is for our journalism to have impact — that is, for it to spur reform. Greater reach — the widest possible audience — doesn’t equate to impact, but it can help, and certainly doesn’t hurt. So we encourage it. And, of course, we started in 2008 with almost no audience or reputation at all, and needed — and still need — to increase the circle of people who know us, and our work. CC helps us achieve that goal." (http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/12/propublica-why-we-use-creative-commons-licenses-on-our-stories/)

ProPublica is a very interesting and innovative source of news, in that it provides investigative journalism to the public at absolutely no charge. ProPublica benefits readers who have an interest in investigative journalism, but lack the financial means to read it otherwise. ProPublica also helps gain publicity for investigative journalists who share heir articles, since the Creative Commons licenses allows their articles to safely be redistributed.

Here is a direct quote from the 'About Us' section on the official ProPublica website:

"Investigative journalism is at risk. Many news organizations have increasingly come to see it as a luxury. Today’s investigative reporters lack resources: Time and budget constraints are curbing the ability of journalists not specifically designated “investigative” to do this kind of reporting in addition to their regular beats. New models are, therefore, necessary to carry forward some of the great work of journalism in the public interest that is such an integral part of self-government, and thus an important bulwark of our democracy." (https://www.propublica.org/about/)

ProPublica and its Creative Commons licenses differ from traditional media by for one, being absolutely free. If you wanted to read an investigative journalism article in a traditional newspaper, you would most likely have to pay to buy it. And also, in that it allows ProPublica's articles to constantly be recirculated, thus reaching a much larger audience than traditional media. For instance, say an investigative journalism piece is printed in a newspaper, sure, that newspaper will reach all of its subscribers and whoever chooses to pay for it (and maybe even friends and family of people who have bought it) -- but the circulation of the article ends there. With ProPublica, people can share their articles via social media and it could reach people all over the globe.

I personally do believe ProPublica is an example of the future of traditional journalism. I think that as technology advances, all other forms of media need to progressively advance, as well. Meaning, since online newspapers and social media is a prime news source for many people today, traditional media has to make some changes in order to keep up with this technology in order to maintain an audience. In this case, I feel that traditional journalism, such as newspapers -- may soon be a dying breed. ProPublica has done so well since establishing Common Creative licenses -- as of the 10 year birthday of the pro-sharing license ProPublica saw an extra 4 million pageviews -- that I believe traditional journalism sources will soon follow suit.

According to Tofel and Klein:

"Creative Commons solves a particular problem for us — how to encourage republication at scale without tying up staff in negotiating deals and policing unauthorized uses. We’ve found it an invaluable aid in building our publishing platform, in reaching additional readers, and in maximizing the chance that the journalism we publish will have important impact."

By establishing Creative Commons licenses and allowing its readers to republish without infringing on copyright laws, ProPublica has reached a larger audience than ever imaginable -- and I believe that this could possibly just be the start of many other pro-sharing news sources.