National newsprint domination of the debate, if not entirely extinct, is on the endangered list.
then also
Although television still holds the central ground, viewing figures suggest it is gradually losing its audience appeal, especially among young voters. They prefer Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, YouTube and Instagram.
This seems to be true but we do not know the scale or the timescale. My guess is things could be changing faster than some realise. BBC News and Sky News both very interlinked with print content. they repeat stories and rely on guests for comment. Newspaper / telly credibility depend on each other.
Tweet from yesterday, following social media concern when BBC replaced video of Johnson from this year with a previous year some thought better for his image.
( By the way my own "hysteria" came about when the BBC apology story included this-
"On Sunday, some online newspapers pointed out that Johnson placed the wreath down the wrong way round at the Cenotaph, while Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn also came under criticism from some who felt he did not bow deeply enough."
There is no reason to report criticism of Jeremy Corbyn. This started as a story about Johnson and a BBC apology. )
Anyway back on main track, my guess is that there are more online than the 695 who replied to this tweet. Cyril, by the way, is an imagined son who appears with planted attack lines on BBC Question Time. I think this is obviously a joke. Why Rob Burley refutes it point by point i cannot imagine. there are many fact based tweets he has not replied to.
I have tried on Twitter to identify a breakpoint age, when people give up on newspapers / telly and turn to social media. I suggested it was 42 when the election started, now 47. Two people replied both over 70. They have stopped reading newspapers. I guess they sometimes find BBC. But however much the proper journalists report the dangers of fake news online, people will make up their own mind. Later @ofcom will publish stats. As before, my guess this election will show a shift.
This from today, Sun finds a way into social media, to be fair once you click through they do say the source of the numbers is the Conservative Party.
Roy Greenslade also writes about mainstream journalists.
Their response has been less than overwhelming. They appear to have learned nothing from detractors who complain about arrogance and partisan spin. Thousands of social media postings point to the supposed faults of the mainstream media, while people seem to revel in writing hostile below-the-line comments on newspaper websites. Do editors and reporters simply ignore them?
Seems to me that journalists often ignore online comments. The Guardian closed down Unlimited Talk for example and never joined in the conversations. He is not specific about political editors but my impression is that @peston and @BBClaurak both think they are sort of embedded with #No10Sources . They report as if all the audience share the mission to achieve a Conservative majority. Labour often not mentioned. So the reporting on the hung parliament was often misleading in my opinion, did not reflect the real situation.
Roy Greenslade on tabloids ( regards Telegraph as a broadsheet with tabloid agenda )
Day after day, coverage in tabloids has been predictable and repetitive – self-serving, shrill and sometimes silly.
Trouble is the Guardian is heading the same way. Around the time of "Bollocks to Brexit" the LibDem agenda became very clear, the attack on Jeremy Corbyn too obvious. The Labour case for national unity, the need for a debate around Europe, to spend time on negotiation to repair the Conservative chaos, all this will need some form of journalism in support. Probably online, not in the Guardian. Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment