NDM case study: News on the Tweet

1. Why are respected news brands good news for Twitter?
2. Why in turn is Twitter good for respected news brands?
3. The report suggests that old and new media “are not, in fact, in direct competition, but often work extremely well together to enhance both the media eco-system and the consumer experience”. What evidence do they provide to support this idea? Do you agree with it?
4. On page 24/25 of the report, the focus turns to 'gossip' or 'banter'. What example tweets from journalists are used to illustrate this? 
5. Do you think the increasing amount of 'gossip' or 'banter' is harming the reputation of news and journalists?
6. What does the report say about trust in Twitter and journalists (look at pages 34-39)?
7. Do you think new and digital media developments such as Twitter have had a positive or negative impact on traditional newspapers?
8. Finally, how can we link this report to the vital current debate regarding fake news and Facebook? Do traditional news brands need protecting to ensure there are sources we can trust?

1) News brands are good for Twitter because they drive Twitter activity, 40% of Twitter users check Twitter frequently to see what's going on with their favourite newspaper brands. More than this, news brands and Twitter carry a symbiotic relationship, without respected news brands posting on Twitter what reason do the currently active users have to return to the service.

2) Visa Versa,  Twitter is good for news brands again because of the symbiotic relationship that they carry. Twitter is helping to make news brands more accessible, more influential and more connected than they have ever been; and without Twitter how are respected news brands supposed to connect with their audiences.  60% of those within the full sample of Twitter users say that Twitter gives them the opportunity to engage with newspaper brands they would not normally read in print format. Also, 55% of the Twitter users sample say Twitter also gives them the opportunity to engage with newspaper brands they would not normally read online.  If the news brand began using Facebook, for instance I do not think that the audiences would follow them there because it is not a trusted platform at the moment, particularly with the stories of how they are accused of being involved in the spread of fake news stories during the US Presidential election. 

3)  Personally, I agree with the report stating that old and new media are not in direct competition and in fact work extremely well together. Both old and new media function individually but also rely upon one another in some way to properly function. For example, a form of old media that is not really existent anymore is printed newspapers which required journalists to physically go out capture the stories and then come back and write them up for a newspaper article. Then, a form of new media is getting the news through social media which relies on journalists still reporting the news to us but through a social media platform rather than face to face via a TV broadcast. Despite, old and new media working well together new media is still the favored form between most people particularly of the younger generations such as mine labeled as millennials. Evidence from the report to support the idea that old and new media work well together is with the way in which Twitter and news brands work together enhancing both the media eco system and consumer experience in four ways:

• Knowledge
• Opinion
• Community
• Gossip and Banter

4) Twitter is not all about serious news. Gossip and banter about celebrities, sports and political dramas are all part of the entertainment and are often turned to when news brand followers want to relax. News brand followers are looking for articles that are both humorous and provide 'backstage access' into the lives of the people and things they are interested in. Example tweets are:

 

Gossip about Kim Kardashian West - Gives news brand followers a backstage pass into the life of Mrs West 

Provides a backstage pass into all the latest going's on at Arsenal. 

Provides news brand followers with the humorous aspect when they want to relax 

5) I do not think that the increasing amount of 'gossip' and 'banter' is harming news and journalists because for mainstream news companies to publish a good few laughable and light - hearted articles is freshening. We need to have some stories that make us laugh every now and again in the news otherwise the publication of news would become too serious. For instance, nowadays in the news we hear a lot of stories about plane crashes, stabbings, murders etc but in between all of that some light hearted funny stories are broadcast. Imagine if we switched on the TV and all we heard day in day out was stabbings, murders, plane crashes etc; the news will then have become too serious and then people are less likely to actually want to listen to it and take an interest.  I think that it is the 'gossip' and 'banter' stories that encourage many people to become long term news brand followers.  

6) There is a lot of trust in Twitter as a source of news through verified brands and people such as the BBC and linked reporters such as Laura Kuenssberg. Almost half of all Twitter users, and almost 2/3 of news brand followers say that it is important the news on Twitter is verified and comes from a respected source. Known and trusted sources such as the BBC and Sky are the first source that people check if a news story was to break online. For the actual journalists, verified ones are just as well trusted as Twitter itself as proven by the following stats but journalists themselves are often turned to a lot more in comparison to the organizations for the news as quoted in the report " I follow more journalists than newspapers...". 

7) NDM developments such as Twitter, have had both a negative and positive impact on traditional newspapers, in my opinion. I think that NDM developments have had a positive impact because they make the news brands publications easier to access and help to attract a wider audience. I mean lets face it, how many people in the generation classed as 'digital natives' have actually ever picked up a physical printed copy of a newspaper. So, being online means that news brands can target the older generations accustom to printed media and the younger generations accustom to online media. On the other hand, I think NDM developments have had a negative impact on traditional newspapers because a few titles such as The Independent have stopped production of printed newspapers altogether and gone digital while others are producing printed newspapers but giving them away for free. From the printed media there is no longer a way for traditional newspapers to make the large profits that they used to which also means that thousands of journalists have lost their jobs because the news companies cannot afford to pay them. The small amounts that they do make go towards keeping the newspaper name above water rather than paying lots of staff.  

8) Report links to the recent debates surrounding fake news with its references to trust in the world of social media platforms being our go to place for news e.g. Facebook, which was the first place many American people looked for information about the recently passed presidential election that saw Donald Trump get elected. In regards, to the question of whether news brands need protecting to ensure that they remain a verified source?, I would agree. This is because verified news brands such as the BBC rely a lot on User Generated Content nowadays to catch the latest stories before their rivals but this news does not get checked before broadcasting which means they could easily fall deep into the spiral of fake news and then people will no longer trust that company as a verified source.