‘We Media’ and Democracy Analysis - Calum McDermott.

Throughout the six weeks of the School summer holiday I collected information on how I viewed news stories from different sources. These included television programmes, social media, online newspapers and actual newspapers.



Social media was a predominant news source since within seconds of refreshing my Facebook or Twitter newsfeeds series of news stories would appear instantaneously. One of these involved being unfortunately informed of Cilla Black’s death on Twitter. Different tweets delivered different information, some were detailed, whilst others lacked detail. If someone just viewed these, it could be misconstrued that this news story was false if they gave a limited insight into the story. However, if they were more detailed and since they all focused on Cilla dying, it seemed a more reliable source. This is especially the case if they were tweeted by a news company’s account and contained a link to an article on their website. This news also spread quickly and began circulating on other websites such as Facebook, online newspapers like the Daily Mail and in newspapers the next day such as The Sun. This confirmed that anyone who was suspicious the story was false, was obviously wrong and in my opinion emphasised how powerful news is spread on the internet and social media platforms.

More evidence which I think proves social media is an incredibly powerful and increasingly easy way to spread and access information is another example involving Twitter and celebrities. This news story involved singers Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift engaging in a misunderstanding over their VMA nominations, or lack of. It started by Nicki tweeting, "If your video celebrates women with very slim bodies, you will be nominated for vid of the year." Taylor, who thought she was being "called out," replied, "I've done nothing but love & support you. It's unlike you to pit women against each other. Maybe one of the men took your slot..." Within seconds, these tweets gained the attention of the world. This is a result of Nicki sharing her tweet to her 20 million followers and Taylor sharing hers to her 60 million followers who continually made comments, judgements and shared what they had said.

These tweets were retweeted (shared) thousands of times on thousands of profiles which lead to more and more people seeing what they said. This resulted in news companies writing articles and also tweeting about it, continually branding the misunderstanding as an "argument," which gained more attention. As a result, this label tricked people into believing they were fighting. Instead of people viewing their other tweets until later on to see that Taylor then realised she misinterpreted what Nicki had said, which was actually a statement on the discrimination of women, the argumentative label stuck with them and overshadowed the truth due to the initial labelling and power of social media which shared negative opinions and news articles. The whole concept of celebrities creating their own news by sharing their lives and thoughts on profiles such as Twitter is also hugely significant. This is since, as evident, they are viewed and shared by fans which shows how modern ways of sharing news and accessing it has evolved drastically. Instead of accessing news simplistically in day to day newspapers, news is made, shared and viewed instantaneously on the web and then printed in real life format newspapers the day after, such as with this example.

Another example of an internet new source, is the online newspaper the Daily Mail. As a regular viewer of the paper, I know it can be updated within minutes of a new story breaking, which results in an article being made. One of these stories was the horrific shooting of the two news reporters. This occurred in Virginia, America, as a result of a previous news reporter who was fired shooting his ex-co-workers in a jealous and revenge filled attack. Apparently, the man who shot them was also inspired by Charleston church killings, had written a suicide note and claimed he had been the victim of racist abuse. Although, the Daily Mail is privately owned and could reflect the views of it’s owners, I believed it was a trustworthy news article since it provided footage of the incident. This video clip showed how the event was aired live on TV and how the news reporters were suddenly taken air when they were shot. A shocked news reporter in the studio then slowly mentioned to the viewers that they were going to find out what happened. This was shockingly rare example which showed how the news could in fact create more news about itself, this is because the news story gained automatic attention and was shared by other news companies, as the Daily Mail shows.

I’ve also noticed that Daily Mail articles provide viewers to sign up, become users and share their opinions and views in the comments sections. This is an example of how people are free to express their views without restriction which can be negative, positive or collectively share a similar response as with the murder of the news reporters. However, an example of the owners of the news company having an impact on it’s viewers which reflects their views, is when they deny people the opportunity to leave comments on their articles because users may not necessarily say what they want them too. I also saw that the headlines have an impact on viewer’s responses, for example, if a negative headline is used, the majority of people may comment negative things which I believe is an effect of social desirability. However, due to freedom of speech and the usual democratic comment system the newspaper has to offer, people may also challenge the viewers represented by the newspaper.

The BBC one news channel also informed me of a very well-known news story which was about the Syrian refugees. Since the BBC are a public-service broadcaster I believe that news stories such as this don’t reflect the views of a certain person or group of people and instead is useful to educate everyone. For example, every day they mentioned a new insight into the catastrophic events the Syrian refugees were facing, like if they could travel, where they were travelling to, what decisions would be made by and which country to help them and let them stay in their countries.

I believe this is an example of how debates can be formed by viewers and how they can fit into different subcultures of beliefs. For example, some viewers may fit into a category that a country should help the Syrian refugees, whereas others may not. This again, is a reference to democracy and may result in people freely sharing their beliefs online. Again, social media therefore has the biggest impact I belief, since I also noticed Facebook also helped to spread news in connection with this story too. The image of the boy who had drowned was shared over and over again on my Facebook newsfeed. This was obviously a very emotive image and because there are so many Facebook users it was spread easily from person to person by them sharing it which informed people of the latest tragic event of the Syrian refugee crisis.

In conclusion, I believe the theorist Dan Gillmor who is the author of “We Media” and shared beliefs on democracy is correct. This is because he believed that “the spreading of news will occur” more frequently. As proven with my different examples, this is very much the case, since a news story can be spread all over the world, shared on different social media sites and online newspapers and then broadcast by thousands of TV news companies and printed in newspapers. Therefore people can easily access news stories more quickly and easily than ever before within seconds.

He also mentioned that there would be an increase in democracy. As a result of my analysis, I also believe this is the case overall. This is since it allows people to share news stories and share their opinions with ease and a fast speed too. These opinions could also influence others greatly, such as how I mentioned with the headlines newspapers create, but as a result of democracy and freedom of speech, I believe people can challenge other people’s views as well. I have therefore recognised technology has tremendously advanced and how it can significantly impact “We media” and democracy.