We Media and Democracy - Niamh Barrett

What have you learned about your own media use and how you access news content?

I first apologise if you’re reading this.

Over the holidays, I have realised how carefully selective we are of our news and the resources we use to access it. By selecting the news stories that I’m interested in, I’ve neglected some of the more important ones. As shown in media 2.0 we have become a society that filters our information because we now have a larger selection of it. I downloaded the BBC news app, where it asked me about my interests. This feature was great because it condensed the amount of information I’d have to sieve through and therefore made it quicker and easier for me to access stories. However, by doing this it limited my knowledge of things that I was unaware of. Facebook is also built/structured like this and only displays similar things to what you have previously liked.

Other apps I use to receive information are Snapchat and surprisingly Instagram. Snapchat allows me to subscribe to the stories I want to see, therefore giving me news I can access on the go. Snapchat usually tells you a fair amount about the event. On the other hand it may be more one sided and leave details out because it’s done from someone’s perspective. Snapchat is more informative than Instagram, Instagram just makes people aware of the event so that they can research further. Instagram is where I first heard about the Paris attacks. By scrolling through my feed I saw loads of posts that said #PrayforParis; this made me investigate more into the matter due to my curiosity.

This shows that social media are only commenting on the media and not actually producing it. The only social media that has been able to produce it is YouTube - but is usually used for vlogs and not news. I have watched news stories on YouTube before but they’ve usually been old ones (that happened around a year ago). Social media can be very bias and may force views on others – sort of like the EU referendum.

People can twist stories and give false/misleading info that will be accepted to gullible people or ones who do not research into the topic further. This has happened to me before when I was scrolling through Facebook. There was a link that I was interested in with a shocking headline, and I could have believed it if I had continued to scroll, but when I clicked on the link it took me to a questionnaire where I could win 10 iPads! Sadly I didn’t even get 1. I’ve realised that nowadays it’s sometimes hard to decipher whether something is real or made up. Due to this I find it difficult to trust everything that is in front of me (even though I can be pretty gullible). Sources that I trust are: BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian – this is down to their good reputation and BBC’s non bias approach. I’d rather be allowed to choose my view than have it forced upon me. But why do we still read our news on social media when we know it’s not reliable?

A positive side to social media is that you can debate in the comments and see other’s views. This allows me to see where people lie on the matter and how dominant the different ideas are. On the other hand, it can cause massive arguments between people; which isn’t always bad but when foul language is used it becomes a bit messy. Personally, I don’t comment on posts, I usually just read them like the observer I am.  I feel like I should probably put my views across and share more (but I’m only saying that and I most likely won’t).

This would be a very different way to how my parents and grandparents gain their information. News has evolved with the use of technology, however people have not. For example, my Granddad still reads the newspaper and listens to the radio rather than going online or watching TV. Whereas my parents watch TV and occasionally go online (when they figure out how to use their phones properly). This reflects the time in which they grew up in and their need to hold onto tradition. But with the older generation disappearing, it means that newspapers will soon become none existent or will be force to go online only (like the guardian). This will be a shame, not only for my mobile data but, because it’s losing a part of our history.

Another thing technology has allowed us to do is bypass ‘the gatekeeper’. Gatekeeper’s are the people that keep information away from the public eye and decide what we see vs what we don’t e.g. Rupert Murdoch. However, on social media anyone can download and share anything, making the world less naïve about hidden subjects. But is the termination of gatekeepers a good thing? Loads of people don’t want to come across news that may be upsetting; though I believe we need to see it so that we can help/learn from ours and others mistakes. But I do understand that if we were to worry about every meteor heading towards Earth I think we’d all go crazy. I see why there are gatekeepers, but why do they hide important matters that need to be addressed?

To conclude, I’ve learnt that my media use is higher than I originally thought. In class the other day, I said I only checked the news twice a week – which is a complete lie. (Sorry!) I check news more often than I’ve realised and is more like twice a day than twice a week. I didn’t notice how much I looked on Snapchat, or refreshed it. Or the amount of links I’ve read on Facebook. Information is so openly available that sometimes I don’t even realise that I’m reading! Checking apps has become a daily thing for me, and some may call it an addiction. It gives me things to talk about and makes me more knowledgeable. I feel as a nation we need to filter less and read more REAL problems, not what Britney is going to wear to the Grammy's!