'We Media' and Democracy - Sophie Smart

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

Over the summer I have learnt from my media use that I believe the most trusted source is the BBC. This is because the BBC is funded by the taxpayer, therefore the BBC needs to be an unbiased source of news to represent all of the population of Britain. They do this by showing both sides of the story and not suggesting the organisations own personal views.

However, it is also become apparent that people might not believe the mass media organisations, like the BBC (despite its unbiased title), and other organisations like Channel 4, ITV and Sky. This is because when relating to these other mass media organisations, it is harder to trust them due to the fact that they are not being funded by the taxpayer, thus having the opportunity to be more bias and show the parts of the story that they want.

This idea of organisations being bias can be because of the media ownership. News Corp is one of the largest private media corporations, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. In the UK, Murdoch also is a majority owner of ‘Sky’, ‘The Sun’, ‘The Times’ and the ‘Press Association’, to which Murdoch is known for making no attempt to hide his political views and when watching these news organisations you can see many of his views present. The ‘Press Association’ is one of the main global news agencies who collects the news in order to report it back to other news organisations like ITV and the BBC. Therefore, with the ‘Press Association’ being an agency where the majority of the news comes from, this results in the thought – can you trust any news organisations from the mass media?

This can also include the BBC because they will often report on news coming from agencies like the ‘Press Association’, so this could possibly lead to a bias point of view and the viewer believing this because of the BBC unbiased title. However, news organisations, including newspapers, websites and TV stations that get their news reports from main global news agencies, will re-report this news to their audience. They do this by putting their own interpretation on the story, for example, by interviewing people’s reactions to the news story, which organisations like the BBC do.

As a result of these other mass media organisations maybe consisting of this bias approach, people can be more likely to believe something that comes from their friends and family rather than the mass media. Therefore, the news being received is not tainted by bias or power – but is it?

The reason for this speculation links to the theorists David Gauntlett and ‘Media 2.0’, as rapid changes in technology is changing media production, consumption and the way in which content is distributed. We are now living in a sophisticated but confusing age known as ‘Internet 3.0’, for instance, due to the increase in the social media networks, this allows anyone to share, like or comment on anything. Social media networks, like Facebook, allows a user’s friend or families likes, shares and comments to constantly be uploaded into their newsfeed. Therefore, when it comes to the idea of ‘We Media’ and Democracy can result in social media being more bias than what people perceive it to be. For example, if one friend or family member supported the Labour party and shared, liked and commented on a lot of articles, quotes or images regarding the party positively, this could then lead to influencing the user upon their own personal views and decisions upon aspects like politics.

As a result, social media is changing the idea of democracy, as debate and different viewpoints are vital, with social media forming a 'bubble' where people agree and disagree on the same topics. Also, because the information is coming from their family and friends, this can make the user trust these posts and opinions on their newsfeed more than from mass media organisations. However, this can also be apparent in the BBC news app, as you can choose the news that you want to see - forming your own 'bubble'. Even though, this makes it quick, easy and more convenient, it can also lead to possibly missing big news stories that are very important and serious.  

Mainly, I get my news from the BBC because I trust the organisation to provide me with unbiased news so I can understand the full story from all viewpoints – allowing me to gain a further understanding. The most prominent news that I kept up-to-date-with before and over the summer was ‘Brexit’. Before the decision to leave or stay I looked into the topic in depth, I did this by mainly using big media corporations, like the BBC, in order to understand both sides of the argument providing me with a better base of knowledge to produce my final decision. Also, I watched TV programs like BBC’s ‘Question Time’ in order to gain a clearer insight on all of the political parties and what they thought, as the politicians where being asked questions from the audience rather than from journalists. Therefore, providing me with a more personal viewpoint and outlook on the situation, rather than the politicians being asked questions from journalists and what the big media organisations want to know. Using the BBC for most of my information on ‘Brexit’ I believe allowed me to gather information that was unbiased and trustworthy, thus being accurate.

However, I also used YouTube to watch small clips of TV programs like Channel 4’s ‘The Last Leg’, in order to gain a broader perceptions about ‘Brexit’ out of the network of the BBC. Channel 4 is not seen to be biased, however the show ‘The Last Leg’ which they broadcast and are the original network to, did show some form of being biased against the idea of leaving the EU. Also, due to the fact that known to be unbiased big media organisation like Channel 4 trusting these presenters, it resulted in myself trusting their opinion, making me question some of my viewpoints – but isn’t that what democracy is, debating different viewpoints, or should TV programmes like ‘The Last Leg’ keep their opinions to themselves?

Surrounding the topic of ‘Brexit’ social media was thriving with everyone’s viewpoints on the topic being constantly posted in my Facebook newsfeed. I tried to avoid social media when it came to this particular topic because it were possible that people could be telling lies in order for their beliefs to become more prominent in order to persuade people to their side of the argument. Also, when linking back to the idea of the ‘social media bubble’, this makes it very hard to gain different viewpoints. This news event has been very evident throughout the summer months and I mostly trusted the BBC news to deliver this information accurately to me and to give both the positives and negatives to the ‘Leave’ and ‘Stay’ parties.

However, what has become noticeable in some cases is that big media organisations are now adapting and using social media, apps, news aggregators and occasionally provocative headlines in order to get the reader intrigued. In my opinion, this is a greater way to incorporate the younger generation into news stories so that they are more constantly updated on the world. When comparing this against my own media use, I discovered that if the headline doesn’t intrigue me then I wouldn’t look further into the story. This is where online news organisations like the Daily Star and the Daily Mirror provide these headlines that can invite an audience more due to its gossip nature. Therefore, I found myself reading more into these stories than news articles on the BBC. However, I wouldn’t use these news organisations to read upon important news like ‘Brexit’ due to their gossip and opinionated nature.

I also find it interesting that the big media corporations, like the Daily Mail and the BBC, publish their stories on Facebook. The reason for this is because it allows them to access a wider and broader audience, and also can keep the younger generation interested in the news, as it is another platform for them to show the news on, resulting in the unnecessary need to go on the BBC news website for example. However, this left Facebook realising that their users where getting fed-up of the constant news up-dates, therefore they changed their algorithms so that users only received news that their friends and family liked.

Dan Gillmor claims that there is a former audience creating the news – being ‘citizen journalists’. This can be seen throughout news organisations like the BBC, as phone footage of some events are filmed by the public that where there when it happened. Therefore, providing the viewer with a realistic outlook on the event and the truth getting across. If it wasn’t for this footage the story output might be completely different, depending on the mass media organisations re-report. From this footage taken the person has the opportunities to then go online and set up a blog, petition or just a discussion on Facebook debating the event, and due to technological advances making being a ‘citizen journalist’ easier and affordable to do.

So should ‘citizen journalism’ become our main and most trustworthy source of news, or should we be able to trust the mass media and social media sources?