72– the number of hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute
400 million– the number of devices with youtube access
1 trillion– the number of YouTube views in 2011
35 million – the number of Justin Bieber followers on twitter
750– the number of tweets per second
Gone are the days when an overweight man with a bell and a feather hat was one’s only source of news. These days the news bombards us at a staggering pace. It fills our bins with paper, our newsfeeds with celebrity scoops and minds with unnecessarily depressing facts on the inevitability of cancer.
No longer is it enough however to seek such information in one place, or possible in that matter to fill one’s entire scope of interests from a single source. I don’t consider myself much of a news fanatic, (as guilty as this makes me feel as a media student) however I alone read the morning paper, follow multiple newspapers on Facebook and Twitter, receive twice daily emails from ABC news and occasionally indulge in my guilty pleasure, The Project. Each of these sources serves a clear purpose and satisfies a different appetite. For days when I’m looking for that little bit of crazy in my life I’ll often hop onto Facebook and read the ‘did that really happen?’ news stories for a session of what I like to call –my life is utterly boring, but wow I feel so much better about myself! At other times when the University guilt creeps in I will go through my ABC news emails (which often build up as I tend to avoid them in fear of falling into a dark pit of depression.)
But one thing is clear, ‘the news’ is no longer run by those who work in ‘the news’. Fully aware of the imminent new climate, journalists have launched a moral crusade against the guerrillas otherwise known as bloggers, or anyone with a video camera and access to YouTube or twitter really. Not only has ‘News 2.0’ ignited a fire within traditional newspaper journalists, it has caused considerable financial damage to the industry as a whole. So what did they conclude? If you can’t beat them, join them (but force them to pay)
The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger believes that forcing people to pay for news content online would disengage news organisations with their readers through removing them from the digital revolution. (Busfield 2010) This puts them at a critical disadvantage when so much news content is so easily accessed for free on news aggregation websites and so on. We are in a time where the news industry no longer monopolises our thoughts, with so much choice, we have become the gatekeepers, we hold the power. Every effort should therefore be made to satisfy the changing needs and habits of those whose say truly matters. Judging by the speed of which people have discovered paywall workarounds for the New York Times via twitter -just 12 hours, (Madrigal 2011) it just doesn’t seem as if people (besides the loyalist of readers) are going to go along for the ride.
Doesn’t seem too difficult. A person gets past a paywall in 36 seconds!
Word of the week: Alphabet
[online] Busfield, Steve (2010) ‘Guardian editor hits back at paywalls’, The Guardian, January 25, accessed 15 March 2013, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/25/guardian-editor-paywalls >
[online] Dunn, Jeff 2012, Edudemic, accessed 15 March 2013, <http://edudemic.com/2012/12/14-twitter-statistics-you-may-not-know/ >
[online] Madrigal, Alexis (2011) ‘New York Paywall Workaround Springs Up Already’, The Atlantic, March 17, Accessed 15 March 2013, <http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/new-york-times-paywall-workaround-springs-up-already/72631/ >
[online] Youtube, accessed 15 March 2013, <http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html>