Will Twitter replace San Francisco Chronicle in 2030?

(Make-up blog for 11/12)

The fact that social media has been beneficial to the media are obvious. When I visited the San Francisco Chronicle’s website I noticed how they had placed different social networking sites-buttons at the top of their websites. They’re probably trying to show their readers how important these sites are becoming. And also to reach out to a wider public due to the fact that everyone prefer different ways to read the news. The question is if social media will substitute our old traditional newssites in the future?

The publishers of San Francisco Chronicle are probably trying to tell you the importance of these social networking sites by placing the buttons at the top of the page. That makes it available for everyone. Their probably trying to target to as many as possible. Maybe the older generation don’t know what this is and that’s why they get a hint when it’s placed visible for everyone. It feels as San Francisco Chronicle’s audience is an older public and maybe that’s why they’re choosing to publish these social networking sites in order to gain more readers. We all know that the younger public prefers to read shorter newsarticles and that’s why they definitely will gain more readers from the younger generation by doing this.

The following question is if social media will substitute our old newsreporting in the future. We’re constantly seeking new convenient ways to find information. The fact that you could collect information from China, Sweden, South Africa and the United States in your own cellphone tells you how effective social media is. But still we have the older audience that prefer to read the news in the old way by TV or daily newspapers. There will always exist different audiences that find different ways convenient. We will never find a way to satisfy everyoneno matter how much we’re trying. That’s why there always will exist different tools for different audiences.

It’s all about satisfaction

At this moment the Nobel Prize Party is taking place in Stockholm. I think it’s quite interesting to see how different types of media are covering this event. What are they focusing on? And why?

At the Swedish news-site “Aftonbladet” the editors have chosen to publish articles about what the guests are wearing, what they’re eating and what they’re drinking. It feels as they’re trying to present this event in an entertainment way. The major readers at Aftonbladet are people between 18 – 25 years. These people usually have an interest in celebrities, clothes and people’s appearance. They also want to read the news quickly and that’s why Aftonbladet is writing the articles as short as possible without detailed information so the readers easily can read it. Probably the readers don’t have any interest in the actual happening, they’re more star-strucked by it. When you go to another Swedish news-site called “Svenska Dagbladet” the Nobel Prize party isn’t exposed the same as it’s in “Aftonbladet”, instead they have chosen to publish a link to a page where you can follow the event minute by minute. That page is presenting different times when different happenings occur. Their major audience are well-educated people from 35 years and older. It’s obvious that their audience know what the Nobel Prize is because the newspaper don’t have to emphasize the celebritie as they do in “Aftonbladet” by writing about how expensive their dresses are. It’s more limited exposure. Probably some people of “Svenska Dagbladet”’s audience have attended this event and that’s why they don’t consider it as big as it’s to the 18-25 y generation that’s reading about it.

It’s interesting to see how media in other countries are covering this event. I can’t find any article about this event at LA Times. Probably their audience don’t have the same interest in this event as people have in Scandinavia and that’s why their coverage are limited. It’s all about satisfying the audience’s expectations. That’s why I don’t think LA Times publishers don’t find it important; it’s just that it’s hard to cover news worldwide. And it’s all about being selective to satisfy your readers.

Do you feel misplaced at NY Times?

You can read  a variety of advertisments at different newspapers’ websites that hopefully is of your interest. If it is of your interest then the website has succeeded. Otherwise they may loose you. Or are they trying to get rid of you?

It seems as the editors for newspapers are trying to choose to advertise products that could be of their readers’ interest. Sometimes they succeed sometimes they don’t. They’re automatically excluding some people by doing this as well as they’re including some people. Some people may feel displaced when an advertisment from Tiffanys pops up at NY Times in front of them when they’re trying to read the news. It feels as the newspaper tries to tell the reader if you’re in the right place or no. If you have the money enough to buy jewleries from Tiffany’s then you’re probably at the right place. But what if you don’t have the money enough? Then probably they’re trying to tell you that this news may not be targeted towards you. It may not be of your interest. Of course these all websites are providing the same news but they may present it differently depending on what they focus on.

Some etichal presses as LA Opinion may focus more on the black-americans view. I remembered reading an article at their website about Black Friday and the headline was saying something like “Black Friday for Black People”. If LA Times would write something like that then they would be accused for racism. Because their target group is normally white-males, and if a white person writes this that automatically is seen as racism. If a black-american writes that then it’s more OK. That’s because readers at LA Times are expecting a certain kind of news about Black Friday and if the newspaper provide the opposite with example a focus on black-americans where they prefer to find certain products then maybe the readers will assume that there’s something wrong, because their targetgroup is white-males and that’s why they have certain expectations.

It’s the same here with headlines as it is with advertising, the newspapers are trying to get rid of you in order to reach their target group. In some cases they choose to reach everyone, as they’re aiming to do in the article “In Somalia, Peacekeepers Arrested Civilian Deaths” from NY Times.  I think it’s all about whether the news are of everyone’s interest, or if just a specific group finds it interesting.

Where to find the “right people”?

In the article “A High-Tech Edge on Black Friday” from Wall Street Journal Geoffrey A. Fowler discusses how social media have been useful during Black Friday. Different stores offer discount for Black Friday by establishing apps that helps customer to navigate and find the best offer. It has gone so far that Apple have created an app called “TGI Black Friday”. This app helps people to plan out their whole shopping trip. Are these new apps good or no?

These new apps are targeted to the “right people”. What I mean by the “”right people” are the ones that are interested in shopping and therefore are concerned about finding the best prices. They are the people that make use of social media to find what they are looking for. As many know social media is used mostly by the new generation called “the digital generation” -the ones that have made us of internet since their childhood. The ones that are behind these apps are aware of this and that’s why they create apps that benefits the “right people’s” interest, which benefits stores. For example did I read an advertisment on Facebook about Levi’s Jeans. This shows us that Levi’s (or the company behind Levi’s advertisment) know their audience and where they can find them. In that view these apps are good because they benefit everyone -you, the retailer and the ones behind the app.

These apps could in some way be negative because some people are excluded due to their lack of knowledge in social media. But maybe the people behind the apps are aware of this and that’s why they don’t offer discounts that could be in these excluded people’s interest. Instead these people find their “apps” in paperform in their daily newspaper. Different people use different tools to gather information. The digital generation use social media while our parents or grandparents read the daily newspaper. That’s why advertiser know where they can find their “right people” to sell even more.

Who’s the hero and who’s the bad guy

I read an article at the Swedish News-site Aftonbladet about how the United States are spying without permission on Swedish citizens near their embassay and at different locations in Stockholm. Usually other countries need permission from the Swedish police department or the government in order to set up cameras, but United States did not. This could occur as an effect of miscommunication and that is why maybe the United States didn’t have any intention by doing this. Maybe they just missed the information, or maybe they missed it with purpose. So according to this information, who’s pictured as the hero in this story and who’s pictured as the bad guy?

The fact that this news was published in Swedish media could affect the way they pictured the whole story. I remembered how they used more negative word rather than objective retell the story. The journalists know that the audience is only Swedish people because this site is only in Swedish. Maybe they wanted to convince the Swedish citizens that the United States had done something totally unacceptable by using more negative words? I think so.  That’s why the Americans are pictured as the bad guys in this story.

If this story would have appeared in any American newspaper they probably would have presented it more objective. But can we present anything objective? Behind the news are a person who gathers and selects information. Is that considered objective? I think it depends on the situation. In this situation the Americans would probably been pictured as the heroes because maybe they considered spying a way of helping the citizens in both Sweden and the United States.

In all different types of media people are pictured differently depending on the audience. The journalists know their target and want to reach them by using the right tools. In this case Aftonbladet used the right tools in order to convince the Swedish citizens that the United States were the criminals in this case.

Pepsi vs Coca Cola

We watched a Pepsi advertisment in class last Thursday where Pepsi presented its popularity by showing how bad their competitor Coca Cola is. They show this by letting a kid buy Pepsi from a machine who uses two Coca Cola cans so that he can reach to the Pepsi can. This is not ethical right in every culture. Is it right to show your product by telling how bad another one’s product is?

This advertisement method is legal in the United States and is a effective tool to reach out to the audience. The audience is probably the same audience that buys Coca Cola cans as well. That’s why Pepsi could earn more buyers by showing their audience that they are better than Coca Cola and maybe convince more buyers to buy their product. Then this way of advertisement fulfills its main purpose, which is to sell more. So yes, that’s why it’s nothing wrong by using this method if it fulfills the main purpose and doesn’t harm anyone except the other company. The difference between the two products is limited, and it’s basically the label you pay for.

This commercial wouldn’t be legal in Sweden where companies aren’t allowed to show their prestige by comparing their products to the competitors and just because of the fact that I’m born in Sweden all this seems natural to me. It’s wrong to show your prestige by showing how bad another product is. Of course it depends on what you are comparing –if it’s a person or a bubblegum could make a lot of sense. In general it’s not OK in Sweden to walk over someone else in order to show your skills. So if it’s OK or not to use this method depends on the society’s view on this method. Their view on this method depends on if it’s established already or not within the society.

Ghostwriters – spooky or not?

All kind of media have different target groups they are trying to reach out to. This target group decides which information that should be emphasized and which who should be limited. The audience usually shares the same kind of interest and this interest decides what the article, blog or facebook post should contain. Many celebrities today don’t have the time to fulfill the audience expectations and that is why they are using ghostwriters. Spooky or not?

A ghostwriter is basically another person that is writing in your name and presents his or her work as yours. The website Arborbooks is an example of where you can become an author without even writing a book. This is quite scary. Why should you get credit for something that you haven’t done? To me this classifies as plagiarism because the given ideas isn’t written in your words and therefore it’s not your work. If you would pay someone in school to write your work, then you would be accused of plagiarism. But this person who chooses to publish a book by the “help” of a ghostwriter gets a lot of credit. That doesn’t seem logic to me.

Many celebrities use ghostwriters to meet their audience expectations. I know this of own experience because I was asked to take care of a famous Swedish celebrity’s blog in order to make it more focused on fashion. She explained that she knew that her audience shared an interest in fashion and that was why she wanted to fulfill their expectations and reach out to them even more. She basically wanted to fake that she shared this interest with them in order to make them enjoy her blog even more. It doesn’t make sense to me why you would want to fake an interest that you doesn’t have. But maybe some things in media is spooky. And it’s not always ethically right.