News Values Theory

Galtung and Ruge (1981) - defined a set of news values to explain how journalists and editors decided that certain stories and photographs were accepted as newsworthy, while others were not. The following list is adapted from their work:
Task :- How has new and digital media technology changed Galtung and Ruge’s news values? How would you update them for 2014?

Immediacy: has it happened recently?
Immediacy is more important than ever due to news breaking on Twitter or elsewhere online. However, this in turn changes the approach of other news sources such as newspapers as the news will probably already be broken so different angles might be required. Newspapers now contain more comment or opinion rather than the breaking story.

Familiarity: is it culturally close to us in Britain?
Familiarity is still very important, but has become less important, because global news is more popular than before, and more heard and known about due to social media, and user generated content being used to inform others of situations - the world has become 'smaller' - like a 'global village' - for example the news on Arab Spring & Syria/Palestine conflicts spreading. News may need to find ways to link global news to the ' Elite country's' - such as linking America/UK to the ISIS, or how Elite country's are 'aiding' country's that require assistance.

Amplitude: is it a big event or one which involves large numbers of people?
Amplitude is still an important factor, because if the news doesn't involve a lot of people then it won''t be seen as an issue so big, for example - recently the Riots, which was a big event in an Elite nation, was seen as a 'bigger' event, due to the number of people who were involved and how fast the rebelling was spreading.

Frequency: did the event happen fairly quickly?

Ambiguity: is it clear and definite?
Ambiguity is not as important, as News now do rely on user generated content to gain information, for example follow fans of celebrity's to gain information - see what they are tweeting about or images they are posting on instagram ect, so it's not always clear and definite. The agenda is influenced a lot on what the users have to say, and global situations such as Palestine and Syrian conflict, can't always be defined clearly by the news, it can also be seen biased if anything thats not certain is said.

Predictability: did we expect it to happen?
This is still something that is used in news, as editors and journalists ensure that they include subtly stereotypical comments and irrelevant information (such as the education level, ethnic background or religion of suspects), in order to make the audience feel like this is what is expected from such a group, and then see them as moral panics, for example youths during the riots & emphasis on any negative behaviour from Muslims

Surprise: is it a rare or unexpected event?


Continuity: has this story already been defined as news?


Elite nations and people: which country has the event happened in? Does the story concern well-known people?
This still applies to a large extent, because if something relatively unimportant happens amongst celebrities, politicians who are 'elite people', within 'elite nations' such as North/South America, Canada, UK ect. It will have much more coverage perhaps than it needs to have. As opposed to the fact that news from countries and people who aren't elite does feature MORE now (2014), however hardly makes the front cover of news, as opposed to news that's 'elite' such as the royal baby.

Negativity: is it bad news?



Balance: the story may be selected to balance other news, such as a human survival story to balance a number of stories concerning death.
This still happens

22/10/14 - NDM Weekly Story 9

Twitter teams up with SoundCloud and iTunes to play audio within tweets

Twitter product manager Richard Slatter explains that 'With a single tap, the Twitter Audio Card lets you discover and listen to audio directly in your timeline on both iOS and Android devices'. the new card is Twitter’s latest attempt to make it easier for users to listen to songs.

I believe this is a good idea, as it allows digital media to be used in positive and more beneficial ways. So rather than going on YouTube, they can just listen to music on the timeline as the people they follow post. Twitter is beneficial in this way to new coming artists, and even big artists, as it's a new  method on a popular media platform, and website to promote on.

- Twitter also works behind the scenes with a number of artists and labels, helping them make the most of its social network.

-Twitter launched their “Trending 140” chart with music industry magazine Billboard in May.

-In May this year, there was speculation that Twitter might even buy SoundCloud, although the rumours died down, with conflicting reports that the barrier was either SoundCloud’s lack of licensing deals with music labels and publisher

15/10/2014 - NDM Weekly story 8

British police’s use of Ripa powers to snoop on journalists to be reined in

UK government will reform the law to prevent the police using surveillance powers to discover journalistic sources. Simon Hughes - the justice minister has confirmed this is misuse of powers.

He said that the police’s use of powers had been “entirely inappropriate” and in future it would require the authorisation of a judge for police forces to be given approval to access journalists’ phone records, for any criminal investigation.

I believe that it's wrong for phone records of journalists to be accessed, since that's their private life - and it should be asked about if people want to do that. Laws should definitely be put in place in order to protect the privacy of the journalists, there are other ways of finding out information - rather than hacking into phone records. 

Build The Wall analysis

The article, Build The Wall, is available here on the Columbia Journalism Review

Summarise each section in one sentence:

Section 1 (To all of the bystanders reading this…)

Simon states that news content should be paid for (on-line too), as millions are spent creating it, value news going behind a pay-wall is apparent to destroy, since it'll bring lifesaving revenues for institutions currently losing money.

Section 2 (Truth is, a halting movement toward...) 

Certain newspapers, such as the Washington Post require their readership to pay, and their reach is much wider now (10 million web visits/month), also stresses readers who require a specific source of news, will stick to it - even if that means paying for it - especially because Americans started paying for cable in a similar way. The full potential of professional journalism isn't yet reached since people aren't paid ''to do such''.

Section 3 (Beyond Mr. Sulzberger and Ms. Weymouth…)

The value of free web news was to entice a younger audience, so they get hooked and then start paying for news. If online subscriptions were much less than news delivery rates, it'll still be a 'profitable revenue stream'. Readers would be lost, but even 10% of the current members (Baltimore Sun) would represent $2.5m a year, if they pay just $10 (half the price of delivery)


Section 4 (For the industry, it is later than it should be…) 

The Times & W,Post going behind the paywall will allow good revenue,and high profits for news (as they are popular) this means they'll make news better, everything - culture, music, finance in news ect can be made to quality and can be included online, with less of the price and it not being on paper - no printing and circulation costs. In addition, money will be made by online adverts too, higher readership will result in higher advert rate.


Summarise David Simon’s overall argument in 250 words:

Simon states that news content should be paid for (on-line too), as millions are spent creating it, value news going behind a pay-wall is apparent to destroy, since it'll bring lifesaving revenues for institutions currently losing money. Certain newspapers, such as the Washington Post require their readership to pay, and their reach is much wider now (10 million web visits/month), also stresses readers who require a specific source of news, will stick to it - even if that means paying for it - especially because Americans started paying for cable in a similar way. The full potential of professional journalism isn't yet reached since people aren't paid ''to do such''. The value of free web news was to entice a younger audience, so they get hooked and then start paying for news. If online subscriptions were much less than news delivery rates, it'll still be a 'profitable revenue stream'. Readers would be lost, but even 10% of the current members (Baltimore Sun) would represent $2.5m a year, if they pay just $10 (half the price of delivery). News will be better, and more inclusive including culture, music, finance in news ect. It can be made to quality and can be included online, with less of the price and it not being on paper - no printing and circulation costs. In addition, money will be made by online adverts too; higher readership will result in higher advert rate. David highly recommends going behind a paywall, for leading newspapers. 

Choose three comments from below the article, copy them in to your blogpost and explain whether they agree or disagree with David Simon’s argument:

1. I understand the frustration, and there is a lot in this piece, but subscription is not the way to go. What the Times and the Post report is not inherently valuable, value is relative and subjective. News is free and a portion of the times is simply news. Journalism - Business, Arts, Books, Movies, Travel, Sports, etc, - is not free, but its value is hard to pinpoint making a site wide subscription fallacious.
Lionel Barber, Editor, FT, indicated at a media even last night that the FT is seeing growing revenue from frequency model pricing, meaning readers get a certain number of articles free and then must begin to pay. This strategy is not as granular as what many people espousing micro payments are pushing for, but its got its head in the right place. 

Your argument that for example, The Baltimore Sun push readers online by charging more for the physical newspaper and its delivery, either ignores or misses that strength of the internet - profits from fragmentation. I can go to iTunes and buy a variety of genres of music in the smallest possible form - a song - and get a discount for buying in bulk - an album. Journalism can work in the same way. I can buy one technology article or I can buy the whole section for the day or the week at a discount.

Now is not the time for ultimatums and traditional thinking. There is a solution that makes people pay, we both agree that needs to happen. Let's do it in a way that will make people really love and appreciate journalism again instead of bullying them into subscriptions and turning off a new generation of Americans to the pleasure of reading the Times Sunday Arts section.
{#2 Posted by Aankit on Thu 16 Jul 2009 at 12:15 PM}

 - disagree with Simon's argument

2. I will never pay for “news” again. Most news is not truly news - it is sensationalism, hype and deception. Most news is not balanced - every editor is biased. And it is not just that - I truly can not afford to pay for news. Academics, especially with tenure, got it made in the shade and may be able to afford to follow the “news” as they are funded and it does not come out of their pockets. The question comes down to this - do we want an informed public or not. The answer, at least right now, is no. If the public were truly properly informed the American people would not allow Wall Street to gut Main Street, would not believe the lies of “the terrorists are going to destroy our way of life” and would understand that it really makes no difference - except in perception - of who holds the title of chief cheerleader - oops I mean Commander in Chief, President, which should be renamed CEO of America Incorporated.
{#9 Posted by Lawrence Turner on Fri 17 Jul 2009 at 11:55 AM}

- Disagree, since this person is used to  news being free, thus won't pay for it.

3. Newspapers don't make profit nor do they pay journalists with subscription revenue. Subscription revenues pay for printing and distribution. Online advertising generates less revenue than print advertising because the ad sales folks don't know how to sell it. Or price it.Revenue generated by cable television is itty-bitty peanuts for cable networks. The real revenue for cable networks is advertising.Local television news programs realize no meaningful revenue from cable subscribers. Local news programs generate revenue with advertising. Local news programs are delivered free to our televisions. This is stunning in its similarity to the current internet news model.

Folks using the internet pay for access, just like cable viewers.
Here's one item that troubles me: The proposal that newspaper subscription revenue pays for journalism. This is false. Advertising pays salaries. What is it about journalism, and journalists, that makes their words more valuable when printed on a piece of paper than displayed on a screen?

The ideas presented are interesting in their naivete. Go ahead, try the ideas. In time those pay-only news organizations will realize someone has been drinking their milkshake.
{#18 Posted by Just Thinking on Sat 18 2009 at 03:33 PM}

 - Disagree, because they are saying we are already (indirectly) paying for news, to some extent since the internet is paid for - and so is cable.

What is your own opinion? Do you agree that newspapers need to put on-line content behind a pay-wall in order for the journalism industry to survive? Would you be willing to pay for news online? 

I believe that some newspapers, that are most popular, e.g. New York Times - should go behind the pay-wall to some extent. This should be really cheap online subscription. This will mean that many viewers will be lost, but at least the news company will be able to survive, pay their staff good money, so they are motivated and can reach full potential of journalism, rather than waffling. I personally won't be willing to pay for online news, purely because Social Media such as Twitter have loads of Citizen Journalism, and the most important stories usually make the 'Trends'. This brings me on to another issue, since UGC and CJ, is only growing - meaning less people may rely on News channels/institutes to receive news, and go to 'secondary sources'. These secondary source, i.e.. the public, may actually have more information than journalists themselves, for example the London  Riots, were thousands of pictures were being posted on Twitter, to update their 'followers'. This is a prime reason why News may been seen as something that SHOULD be free, rather than it being free - and having to pay for it all of a sudden.

08/10/2014 - NDM Weekly story 7

News of the World’s Ian Edmondson pleads guilty

Ian Edmondson, above admitted to and was charged for phone hacking between 3 October 2000 and 9 August 2006. With the paper’s former editor Andy Coulson and with hacker Glen Mulcaire, the paper’s former royal editor Clive Goodman, its former news desk executives Greg Miskiw, Neville Thurlbeck and James Weatherup, the paper’s former feature writer Dan Evans, and other persons known and unknown.

My opinion on this news story is that it's ridiculous that someone would want to hack into someone's phones and messages, as this is private information. It is an issue that can be raised about internet/mobile safety. How much control really is given to us as users of the media, and how easily our privacy can be taken away by phone hackers such as Edmondson, and his helpers makes me feel like nothing personal can be shared over the internet, and maybe sticking to word of mouth is the best way to share information with one another! As opposed to texting/IM and calling - which is now getting more popular by the minute 

• Between July 2005 and August 2006 records showed there were 800 calls and texts, or 90 a month
• £2,019 a week for “special investigations”
• 16 months after pleading not guilty, Edmondson pleads guilty.