This article discusses the Telegraph Media Group (TMG) move to introduce a paywall for “premium content”. This move suggests to audiences that news industries are now implying that they should pay for its journalism and, more importantly, that its journalism is worth paying for. In the past, the Telegraphs metered model, which allowed eight free items to be read each week, was relatively easy to circumvent (by clearing cookies). But the new hard paywall will prevent any circumvention and it shows a determination by TMG to persuade its audience that they must pay a subscription. The Telegraph website also saw the restoration of the below-the-line comments, which can be seen as a way of helping to build a community. The columnist of this article believes that innovation is essential and that the key to journalism’s future lies in finding a funding model that works.
- 82% of the Telegraphs digital readers access content through mobile devices, a huge increase on the situation a year ago when it is thought the total was not much more than 50%.
I believe this is a new interesting scheme that may work for the Telegraph as the entire website isn't under a paywall, only the premium section is. It could possible work as the readers of the Telegraph mostly consist of the higher socio-economic groups, therefore paying for a paywall won't be such an issue for them.
This article discusses Wright’s statement in which he has defended the judges in the Brexit case. This statement comes after the negative media coverage by the Daily Mail and other newspapers, which labelled the three judges in the high court article 50 case “enemies of the people”. The implications of media coverage is highlighted, as some believe that political leaders have a duty to stand up to the sectors of the media that are stirring up hatred. The health minister, Jeremy Hunt, who appeared on BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show, defended the right of newspapers to criticise the judges involved in the high court ruling. “There are plenty of times when I haven’t liked the tone of the Daily Mail, there are plenty of times I don’t like the tone of the BBC but that is democracy,” he said. “I would defend to the hilt the right of newspapers within the law to write what they like and to criticise politicians.”
I personally do believe that newspapers have a right to criticise politicians and in this case certain rulings as it is a form of freedom of spech. However, this has to be done in a considerable manner as there is a difference between fuelling and influencing hatred from the the general public and criticising.
This article discusses Wright’s statement in which he has defended the judges in the Brexit case. This statement comes after the negative media coverage by the Daily Mail and other newspapers, which labelled the three judges in the high court article 50 case “enemies of the people”. The implications of media coverage is highlighted, as some believe that political leaders have a duty to stand up to the sectors of the media that are stirring up hatred. The health minister, Jeremy Hunt, who appeared on BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show, defended the right of newspapers to criticise the judges involved in the high court ruling. “There are plenty of times when I haven’t liked the tone of the Daily Mail, there are plenty of times I don’t like the tone of the BBC but that is democracy,” he said. “I would defend to the hilt the right of newspapers within the law to write what they like and to criticise politicians.”
I personally do believe that newspapers have a right to criticise politicians and in this case certain rulings as it is a form of freedom of spech. However, this has to be done in a considerable manner as there is a difference between fuelling and influencing hatred from the the general public and criticising.
No comments:
Post a Comment