Audiences have been empowered with the developments of new digital media, however there are some theories and arguments that states that this is not true and argue against this point. In this essay I will be on both sides discussing a Marxist and pluralistic point of view and discussing both sides. 

A Marxist perspective would argue that the so-called “information revolution” has done little to benefit audiences or to subvert the established power structures in society. Far from being a “great leveller” (Krotoski, 2012) as many have claimed, it has merely helped to reinforce the status quo by promoting dominant ideologies. The most popular news website in the UK by a considerable margin is the ‘Mail Online’, which receives more than 8 million hits every month and is continuing to expand rapidly – with forecasts that it will make £100 million or more in digital revenues in the next three years. Similar to its tabloid print edition, the website takes a Conservative, right-wing perspective on key issues around gender, sexuality and race and audiences appear to passively accept what the Marxist theorist, Gramsci, called a hegemonic view. When one of their chief columnists, Jan Moir, wrote a homophobic article about the death of Stephen Gately in 2009 there were Twitter and Facebook protests but, ultimately, they did not change the editorial direction of the gatekeepers controlling the newspaper.

The developments of new digital media have empowered the audience and this is from a pluralistic prospective. pluralistic perspective states that audiences have become much more powerful that they are able to “conform, accommodate or reject” (Gurevitch) Audiences can believe read whatever they want as it entirely their choice and they don't get forced into choosing what they read or believe. However Audiences have been more empowered with the developments of new digital media as the Scottish referendum shows that audience have a more of choice then before as the whole poll was down to the people of the country not the opinion leaders and this shows audience have been empowered with developments of new digital media as this couldn't not have happened without Twitter. 

Google's dominance enforces the Marxist prospective. Google account to the most users on the web and have the most advertising revenue and they can promote their dominate ideologies and promote what they want the audience to see. They can section the news and the top results result to their dominate ideologies therefore consumers believe and read the top results provided by Google. (Lin and Webster) Top 5 per cent of all websites accounted for almost 75 per cent of audience which shows that good are the giant and as they have the most audience people believe their dominate ideologies consumers may not see this. 

User generated content has empowered audiences as the audience have more of say and can contribute to the news more often than before this is because of the developments in new digital media because they can post their work through social media and industries such as BBC can use these.  This has lead consumers to have their own society online as they can share or watch whatever they want online and this couldn't have been done before and whatever goes online isn't controlled by gatekeepers so there isn't a limit or cap on what you can read or see online. "the internet has given audience more power the world is changing and newspapers have to adapt" (Rupert Murdoch) this shows the power maybe shifting infavour to the audience as they may know have a bigger say then before. 

Web pages and Blogs are like million monkeys typing monkeys (Andrew keen) This goes in favour of a Marxist prospective. However the meaning of this quote may be in a pluralistic favour millions means more than one, but the quote connotes whatever they say is nonsense and people still rely on big institutions for their main views and news. Pareto states that the majority is controlled by the minority and audience believe their dominate ideologies not somebody randoms on social networks which shows the power these institutions still hold. 

However I believe that the audience have been slightly empowered by the developments of new digital media but the big institutions do have the final and big say. Lin and Webster state the small minority have the majority of mass audience therefore this shows that audience have the final say and consumers believe their dominate ideologies.  

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/01/vodafone-blinkbox-tesco-video-tv



This article is about how Vodafone may buy the tv service blink box there are currently in talks to buy the company and the deal is said to be close to a conclusion, as they are at the closing stages. The company is currently owned by Tesco however they may sell it off and this will be perfect for Vodafone as they can offer it in their contracts to new consumers. 

• Blinkbox offers more than 10,000 films and TV shows on devices including PCs, Macs and tablets, and has content licensing deals with partners including BBC Worldwide, Channel 4 and film studios such as Fox and Universal.
• Vodafone is understood to have held talks about taking over Blinkbox, which made a loss of almost £20m in its last financial year, and one source cautioned that there is no guarantee a deal will be reached

I believe this wouldn't be good piece of the business for Tesco as this is a competitor and it will give vodafone the edge over Tesco  and in my opinion this isn't good 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/04/north-korea-denies-hacking-sony-pictures-cyber-attack-movies



This article is about how North Korea have denied,hacking sony pictures. The reason why this may be in the media is because of the movie, about north Korea, sony production have produced. With this attack several unreleased films caused disruption. 

•  “Linking [North Korea] to the Sony hacking is another fabrication targeting the country,” the official, who asked to remain anonymous, told broadcaster Voice of America.
• “My country publicly declared that it would follow international norms banning hacking and piracy.”
• Earlier this week a spokesman for its mission to the UN refused to rule out Pyongyang’s involvement, telling reporters to “just wait and see” who was behind the attack.

This is very interesting as the whole movie is about North Korea and I think North Korea are fully behind this attack and they're denying and then state you'll find out who done it  

NDM Story

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/04/apple-deleted-music-ipods-rivals-steve-jobs



This article is about how apple forced users to delete music brought from rival competitors. Rivals such as Amazon and it is claimed that apple forced users to delete music purchased from their. Music from the year 2007 to 2009 was deleted of the iPod as consumers were forced. 

• Apple intentionally deleted music not bought from iTunes from users’ iPods between 2007 and 2009, a court was told in a antitrust suit against Apple.
• Users who tried to sync and update an iPod with music from the likes of Amazon or 7Digital were told there was an error with their iPod that could only be solved with a factory restore through iTunes, which completely wiped the iPod.
• Apple security director Augustin Farrugia told the court that the music was deleted for security reasons and that hackers including Jon Lech Johansen also known as “DVD Jon” and software such as the digital rights management removal tool Requiem had made Apple “very paranoid.”
• “Someone is breaking into our house,” Apple’s founder and chief executive Steve Jobs wrote at the time, according to an email exhibited by Apple software head Eddy Cue.

I believe what apple did could be a mistake or it could've been done by purpose, however they do state that they were hacked and somebody cause this problem, however I think it was all apple as they wanted consumers to buy of iTunes so they'll make more money.