WWW: This is a phenomenal essay... a joy to read and showing outstanding critical autonomy. Superb use of quotes, theories and examples and genuine engagement with an excellent debate. The idea of questioning whether we even want the internet to be a democratic space is fascinating.
EBI: This is hard to fault but I wonder if you could have discussed democracy more - and the NDM influence on recent elections. This could also bring in the concept of 'post-truth' which is missing from this essay but certainly relevant.
Read through the mark scheme (go to the last two pages of the document - Section B New/digital media). Of the six different statements for each level (e.g. A sophisticated and comprehensive essay, showing very good critical autonomy.) write which level you think YOU are currently working at for each one. Explain WHY and, for any that are not Level 4, what you are going to do to improve in that area. I think I am at Level 4 as my essay is comprehensive. The use of examples and media issues and debates to back up my points make it well structured.
Look at the Examiners' Report for this particular paper. Read page 10 - Section B New/digital media. How many of the good points or higher level answer examples did you include in your essay? What were they? What could you have added to improve your mark?I debated the obstacles to equal participation and democracy and the power and control of media organisations. Sophisticated answers debated whether this was increasing or decreasing with developments in new and digital media. I discussed the change in roles of the producer and the audience.
Write ONE new paragraph for your January assessment essay. Ideally, this should be a section you did not cover in your original essay. This paragraph needs to be comprehensive and meet the criteria for Level 4 of the mark scheme.Citizen journalism allows audiences and individuals to be part of the online news agenda as they are able to essentially provide raw evidence and participate equally. Citizen journalism, as a whole, reinforces surveillance in terms of Blumler and Katz's 'Uses and Gratifications' theory and therefore provides audiences with an equal voice to journalists. In matter of fact, citizen journalism arguably offers a more raw and gritty news agenda and acts as evidence for certain events. The power of social networks means that audiences are able to capture events on their camera phones and upload it instantly to the site. A recent example of this was when a police officer brutally attacked a car when the driver refused to get out; the leaked footage on Twitter was shared and viewed over 40,000 times emphasising the importance of digital advancements and how the participation of mere commoners is valuable in the development of particular news cases. Due to this involvement, it enables audiences to have an equal participation within the news agenda which therefore makes it a much more valuable experience for audiences as well as institutions. By featuring a raw clip, by a firsthand bystander, on a news channel like BBC News, audiences feel as though there is more truth behind this due to the authenticity of the footage, which therefore heightens the benefit for the producer and the institution. On the contrary, it can be argued that citizen journalism is a negative thing as it would mean less professional journalists are required and the quality of news would therefore decrease due to this. If all users are free to participate equally, then professional journalists are unable to fulfil their required job. In today's generation we take news for granted, it is not seen as a social good but more as a common requirement that we know we are going to get, therefore the quality of the news is something that isn't necessarily considered by all audiences, which provides issues for journalists to produce a high quality news agenda that is valued.
No comments:
Post a Comment