'We Media' and Democracy - Carmel Davenport

Much of my news comes from news apps and news programmes. Other parts of my news come from social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The apps and programmes are a more trusted source than the social media news. The apps and television programmes are all made by reputable sources. While they are bias, as they are run by ‘big media’ companies and often have side with major political parties, their facts are reliable and are the same as other sources.

I often rely on the BBC for my news as it is one of the most reliable news sources.  It is funded by the taxpayer and is not owned by a ‘media baron’ meaning it is accountable to the public. It also has a lack of bias due to this making is a fairly reliable news source. The news I get from Facebook and Twitter is considerably less reliable. Some news is talked about by friends and the original source is unknown. Other sources are from blogs which are predominantly opinions and so are not are not as credible as ‘Big media’ sources.

News apps and social media are perfect examples of Berners-Lee’s semantic web theory. The theory is that the internet will start to behave and act like a human being.  Social media can now find news articles you may like based on viewing history. News apps do the same and bring up ‘Suggested for you’ posts based on those you look at. This is making indeed making the internet act in a way more typical to humans.

I took an interest in many different stories from a variety of sources over the summer. Most came from online newspapers, news apps and news programmes but I also read some on social media sites. One story I took particular interest in was the killing of Cecil the lion. I saw this on Twitter and looked into it further. I read into it as well as watch a news report on it. I discovered that the lion was killed by an American dentist in Zimbabwe. The lion was a famous lion and was lured out of a nature reserve to be hunted. However, the death of the lion was only publicised so widely because of him being so famous. Hunting is legal in 21 African countries and many wild animals are hunted regularly without mention. I took an interest in this as I am strongly against hunting any animal purely for sport. The source of the news itself was reliable. It came from the BBC so had a lack of bias and political opinion. However, since the death was only reported because the animal was famous, it perhaps suggests there is bias on what news stories are shown.

Another article I took looked at was the fishing boat that carried 600 migrants and it capsizing. I did not look at this article in as much depth as I had already seen many similar ones. They either depict desperate migrants pleading for help or highlight that they are illegally leaving and are coming to try and steal the jobs in Britain. The first representation is closer to the truth but programmes and reports still omit things or change the story to gain more sympathy. The particular article I looked at was highly focused on the danger and the desperation faced by the migrants as they try to escape their country. The article appeared to be left wing as it was promoting the welfare of the migrants and helping them.

The explosion at the Chinese port was huge in the news. It emphasised the danger following the blast and then reported on the casualties and the cause of it. It also discussed the earthquake that was caused by the explosion.  The main focus was on success stories as more people were found alive in the wreckage. I accessed this story on a news app that was reliable. The facts and figures expressed matched those on other sources. I also saw people sharing the story on social media. Following this a related article was released about the damage that the blast did to the Chinese economy. I also took interest in this story as it could have affected the trading to Britain as well as the British economy itself, but I only read headlines and summary stories and not the whole article.

The final piece of news that I paid particular attention to over the summer was the bombing of the Bangkok tourist area. The news article I read was heavily focused on the fact that it was a terrorist attack. It also highlighted the nonexistent threat (in my opinion – the article firmly reiterated the point that it was a threat) it posed to the UK. It was less focused on the victims and more interested in inflicting fear upon the British population. While the article was from a credible source, I believe that the article was not entirely reliable. It was completely biased. It focused too heavily on the terrorism, rather than the importance of supporting the country and the victims.  

Overall, I discovered that much of my news comes from reputable sources in the form of programmes, news apps and articles. Many seem unbiased on first glance but when looked into, many are actually biased. Some are influenced by political views or getting more views from the public. The news from social media is rarely credible as it has no source, has been recycled from somewhere or is havily opinionated.