Brazil - A Country Analysis

Today let us talk about South America’s largest nation- Brazil. We are going to discuss some questions, such as – How is social media influencing Brazil? What is the status of Brazilian journalists? What problems is Brazil facing at the moment? And perhaps, what’s going to be Brazil’s future?

Looking back in the history, Freedom of Speech in Brazil was most restricted during the military regime in 1967, when Article 151 was added to the constitution, limiting citizen’s liberty. It was until when Brazil became democratic and all this came to an end. It is a democratic country and has been democratic ever since 1985. There are three types of governments – Presidential, Federal Judiciary and Congress. Since the end of military rule in 1985, unionization, collective bargaining, and frequent strikes have become commonplace among federal employees in all the three branches of government.The current president of Brazil is Dilma Rousseff.

Investigating journalism in Brazil, we can see how it is facing crisis at the moment. This is because of two main reasons – one being the growing competition with new technologies and internet, which means how Brazilians have started believing online comments and broadcasted news. The second reason being, economic pressures to cut costs and do more with less of journalists and other costly reporting.

According to the World Press Freedom Index, Brazil is a country which exposes journalists to physical danger. In 2013, there were five journalists murdered and this made Brazil one of the deadliest countries for media personnel in western hemisphere. Now, due to all these cases journalists find it risky to cover subjects like – corruption, drugs and illegal trafficking.

A major problem faced by Brazil this year was when Brazilians in São Paulo protested against the massive amount of money spent on 2014 Football World Cup and 2016 Olympics. They said that all that money could have been used in hospitals and education. Another thing which was quite astonishing was when state military police was still using the methods it used during the time of dictatorship. Around 100 journalists were victims of violence and two-third of the blame went on the police.

Looking at these scores stated by the Freedom House this year, we can say that Brazil is neither the best nor the worst in context with press freedom.

Moving on to media, Brazil has South America's largest media market – thousands of broadcasting radios, TV channels and a strong press. Social media has influenced Brazilians in many ways like in purchase decisions, brands interacting directly with social networks and job recruitment.

Now let’s go to the vital part – Future of Brazil. Due to the growth of social media, people have started doubting what is being told to them by politicians and journalists. 

Instead , they have started drifting towards other sources like – online broadcasted news, posted comments by people on face book, articles and even blogs. They find it trustworthy, and unbiased. Old newspapers have now taken a backseat.

Journalism in Brazil won’t improve if media reforms are not taken seriously and discussed in a mature manner.This cannot be achieved by journalists’ good intentions and individual commitment alone.It is important to recognize that more structural and long lasting improvements in the media will necessarily depend upon- deepening of the Democratization Project and  Economic force. 

After reading all this the questions that come to our mind are-How will the media industry protect their institution? How will they retain positive public perception of their journalistic integrity and regain the trust of their readers?

(Can also refer to Power point presentation on this topic)

  

Should Scotland Be An Independent Country

There was just one question – should Scotland be an independent country? The answer was as simple as a yes or a no, but it decided the future of the UK.  September the 18^th of this year was an important date, on this day the final decision according to the votes came out to be a no.

Let us first have a look at the reason behind Scotland wanting independence. The proponents of the Yes Campaign believed that Scotland would be richer if it separates from England. They wanted Scotland to make its own decisions about how resources are controlled and money is invested. They opposed investing billions of pounds in nuclear weapons and wanted to focus on social issues such as; childcare and programs to retain talent and encourage young Scots to stay.

Investigating the opposition and throwing some light on the Better Together Campaign we get to know about the arguments it placed against the yes campaign. They said that by being a part of the UK, Scotland can easily trade across other parts of the UK and therefore have access to more jobs. It also mentioned that Scotland has the protection of the UK armed forces and influence on the UN Security Council.

Shortly afterwards, Mr Salmond said he accepted the defeat and called for National Unity. He told supporters: “The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland. Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course – as a reminder; we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by March 27th next year.” Mr Salmond urged the Yes voters to reflect on how far they had come."I don't think any of us, whenever we entered politics, would have thought such a thing to be either credible or possible", he said. He also claimed the campaign had put "a scare and a fear of enormous proportions" at the heart of the Westminster establishment."Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this Nation forward."

BBC’s Nick Robinson said: “This referendum may have ended one debate in Scotland – for now. It has however, lit the touch paper on the explosive question of where power lies in the UK.” David Cameron also committed himself to be offering Scotland new powers, but it made clear that this would depend on the next general election and a settlement that would exclude Scottish MPs from voting on many issues confined to England. Robinson suggests that this would create two classes of MP with the possibility of a government having a majority to pass certain laws but not others.

Hence for now, Scotland and the UK will carry on as they have for the past 300 years; but there will be some changes and they will not be the same as it was before.

Vice: An Organisation Shaped By The Worlds History

In Montreal, 1994, three young journalists started a magazine to appeal to people like themselves. Their idea of people like themselves was a youth generation who wanted an alternate style of news highlighting issues that may be important to a more detached portion of society. Twenty years later Vice magazine has a circulation of 90,000. Aside from the monthly magazine publication, Vice have over 5 million subscribers on YouTube, a record label, a yearly series on HBO and a recently launched global news channel.  But what happened over twenty years for Vice to get to this point and how has the events of this period shaped how the company evolved?

Vice Magazine - Issue 1

The magazine initially was launched as the Voice of Montreal. They received government funding to cover trends and cultures which were at the time not being covered in print. The magazine changed their name to Vice in 1996 and shortly after moved base to Brooklyn, New York. 

The magazine's edgy content made noises in the Journalism world, and many from the alternative scene lent their hands to Vice to write articles they may not have ever been able to, or to portray art in styles previously ever imagined. Terry Richardson, a notable fashion photographer was one of the first huge names to produce content for Vice, with it being received fantastically by the readership.

Over the next ten years Vice expanded into every continent making sure there was a voice for the alternative view all over the world. Spike Jonze, a friend of Vice and an academy award winning director gave Vice the idea of producing digital content for online and home entertainment purposes. Vice set up vbs.tv producing short documentaries about similar issues raised in the magazine but on a more global scale. This was all during the heart of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. Vice produced alternate content compared to news organisations around the U.S. for online use at the viewers pleasure. This ultimately led to Vice's rise to the top in terms of Alternate media.

Vice's ground coverage of the Iraq war

Vice's popularity kept growing over the years after, allowing the company to grow into a multinational and multiplatform company. Vice now tries to cater to all forms of opinion and tastes which creates a fantastic environment for good informative news. Vice operate their own country websites and YouTube channels, but have also got sister productions such at Motherboard and Noisy. Noisy concentrates on alternative music, whilst Motherboard explores the worlds ever changing nature and the environment that it will create for us to live in. Vice's willingness to evolve and eagerness to embrace what lies ahead is what has made the company such a success. The company is set to surpass a revenue of $1 billion in 2016 according to CEO Shane Smith. 

Vice is at the peak of it's powers right now and the future looks nothing but big things for the company. Vice continue to produce quality news whether it be breaking or otherwise on a daily basis to the world, whether it be in the form of an hour long look into the real North Korea or exploring the harsh realities of Texas' drought. Vice is being shaped by the world we live in, something which a lot of media companies have struggled with in the internet age. Twenty years ago in Montreal, no one would have imagined this.

Journalism - is it dying, dead or very much alive?

In the last four hundred years, few industries have undergone the massive amount of change that journalism has. From the distribution of flyers during the political campaigns of the early seventeenth century, to modern day by-the-minute live updates, it has evolved to become a completely different beast. What does this mean for the future of journalism? Is it dead, dying or alive? Does it have a place in today's society?

For us to assess the mortality of journalism, we must first define what it is. According its page on Wikipedia [1], journalism is the "gathering, processing and dissemination of news and information." From this, we can infer that a journalist is somebody whose job it is to do such things.

With the newspaper industry - perhaps journalism's most iconic avatar - in seemingly terminal decline, many people have declared that journalism is either dying or dead. Jon Stewart, speaking on his program 'The Daily Show' [2], remarked that "the internet has killed journalism". Indeed, the rise of the internet has coincided with an alarming reduction in newspaper sales.

In September, The Daily Record recorded a drop in circulation of 15.15% on the previous year, with the Financial Times and the Independent following at -13.12% and -12.74% respectively. Only one national newspaper reported an increase, with The Times seeing gains of +0.39% [3]. These losses can be attributed to the ease with which users can access news on the internet. Why go outside and spend money on a paper when it is freely available in the palm of your hand?

Journalism, however, is not only limited to the newspaper industry. Even with said industry falling into oblivion, new and innovative demonstrations of journalism are emerging. Previously, you had to work for a news agency in order to reach the masses - this is no longer the case. Now, anybody can set up a blog and project their views and opinions to millions of people instantly, all from the comfort of their own home.

Despite the simplicity of these virtual newspapers, their power is not to be underestimated. In the recent Scottish referendum, nationalist blogs such as Wings Over Scotland and Bella Caledonia attracted daily readership figures of 2-300,000. With the majority of Scottish newspapers favoring a 'No' vote, they provided the much needed counter-argument that pushed Scotland to the brink. The ordinary people who founded these blogs had stood toe-to-toe with the partisan press magnates and, although ultimately unsuccessful, the potency of neo-journalism was cleared demonstrated.

Other forms of journalism are thriving in this new environment, too. You now no longer need to own a radio to listen to one, with most of the popular stations providing free downloadable apps for smartphones and computers. Recently, BBC Radio 6 Music reported average listener figures of 1,990,000 over the last few months [4] - setting a new record. Historically one of the biggest forms of journalism outside of the written press, the radio is now more accessible than ever.

With the increased visibility, more people are being educated, informed and entertained by journalism on a daily basis. Dying? Far from it - journalism is thriving.

______________________________________________________________________________

[1] Wikipedia, Journalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism

[2] Salon, 'John Stewart declares that traditional journalism is dead'
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/31/must_see_morning_clip_jon_stewart_declares_that_traditional_journalism_is_dead/

[3] The Guardian, newspaper circulation figures for September 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2014/oct/10/abcs-national-newspapers

[4] The Guardian Media, BBC Radio 6 Music latest figures
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/23/bbc-radio-6-music-lauren-laverne-nick-grimshaw?CMP=share_btn_tw

Do We Need A Free Press? Is the answer just yes/no or is there something more to it?

A free press is vital, for the maintenance of a liberal democracy. It provides citizens, with the information and variety of opinion necessary for them to debate political issues openly and make their government accountable. Whereas, restrictions on media often indicate us about the government assaulting other democratic institutions.

 

According to Freedom house’s freedom of the press index, only 14% of the world’s citizens live in countries that enjoy a free press. In the rest of the world, governments as well as non-state actors control the viewpoints that reach citizens and brutally repress independent voices, who aim to promote accountability, good governance and economic development.

For instance, if we look at India, the freedom of the press is in danger because of the ownership of the newspaper industry and the predominance of some newspaper groups and chains. It is also suggested that the editors and journalists cannot have adequate freedom of collecting, disseminating and offering comments as they are under the pressure of the capitalist owners. This process of collecting and disseminating facts is not possible in the case of the newspapers, which depend to a large extent on revenge from advertisements (as the advertising interests cannot but influence the presentation of news and comments). Unless, this whole structure of ownership and control in the newspaper industry of press is changed, it is therefore suggested that the press cannot be really free.

I think , free press is necessary but till it remains in it's ethical boundaries!

Ian Hughes, truly said "The media are accused and blamed or praised and hailed, sometimes in almost the same breath, for their influence on the outcome of the democratic process. However, experience shows that when media becomes a mouthpiece for one particular political party or any personality related stories, they tend to be poorly researched or not factual. Opinion can be twisted to suit political-party paymasters: then their force for good distorts rather than reports, hides rather than reveals. Editors can and should have personal and professional opinions but factual reporting and political opinions must be clearly distinct."

Well, not only politically but media does misuse their freedom in general. In the past their have some cases like the phone hacking scandal and bribery of the police, in which its shown how a journalist has exploited his power by hacking 4,000 people’s phones. These are people from the parliament, royal families and teenage victims from the 9/11 case. Not only this, but the police was also bribed for 100,000 pounds for hacking and spying scandal.

In these circumstances journalists individually and collectively should shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the reputation of their profession. Journalists should often ask these questions to themselves- Are we fair? Are we thoughtful?

Can Young Voters Trust Who They Vote For?

Now more than ever the young vote counts, as was proved in the 2010 election where the Liberal Democrats received a major increase in their usual amount of seats.

My question is can young voters make an informed accurate decision on who they’re voting for this upcoming summer? I think not, unless you want to spend time to really dig deep into the parties. For the casual voter who has little interest in politics in day to day life, they will have a couple of ways to base their decision. One will be in the live debates shown across different TV platforms. Another will be from all the speculation in newspapers about promises and policies in the upcoming months.

There is one problem with the latter option, all these papers have political allegiance. Due to papers allegiances with parties it makes it hard for a casual voter to make the decision. With the Sun tearing apart Labours new policy while the Guardian pokes at Cameron’s latest gaffe’s, who is he meant to trust? And why are they to trust these media moguls? With phone hacking and libel claims being settled weekly they print media is hardly giving a good account for itself and is creating an unstable environment for democratic politics to be in. It creates an idea of us and them rather than informing the voter of the straight up facts of each party allowing them to make an informed decision. 

The television debates don’t offer much more than the papers. They’re set up in a way that by the end you only know which politician is the best orator. When you should be finding out which is the best leader for you, this is not helpful. Nick Clegg proved in last election debates that he was a brilliant talker, especially about policies.

But what Nick Clegg proved a year later was that he was only a good talker, and not much more. The whole of Nick Clegg’s election campaign was based around the fact the Lib Dems would not let University fees increase. Which made like a vote for Lib Dem seem like a wasted vote for the younger votes come one year later when University fees had been upped to £9,000.

Ultimately, the fact our views on TV and money for the papers is more important to the media than how we vote. Unfortunately this leaves young voters in a poor position. They are ill informed and left with no real idea on who will help them. 

On that day in May when we all decide who shall keep the country ticking for the next five years, there will be a shock. A shock that the turnout is low, especially amongst younger voters. Young people are disillusioned with politics, we don’t want to hear from Labour why the Tories can’t handle the debt. we don’t want to hear from the Tories why Labour put us in this much debt.  We don't want to know what we can do for you, rather what you can do for us.

A fourth to be reckoned with? The role of the media in today's society

Back in 1787, philosopher Edmund Burke coined the term ‘The Fourth Estate’, which he used to describe the role the media ought to play in society. According to him, the press should perform a regulatory role by keeping the other three powers (parliament, the state and the judiciary) in line, and prevent them from becoming too dominant. It was also deemed that fluency was needed between them and the public, to aid understanding and co-operation. Almost a quarter of a millennium later, with the media and society having undergone radical changes, do the foundations of this estate still stand strong?

One of the primary roles of the media is to keep the public in touch with those above them - namely the politicians who govern their everyday lives. It is evident that, in order to combat the "growing sense of political disillusionment, apathy and disconnection"[1] that is manifesting itself among today's youth, more transparency is needed at the very top. In 2010, a series of debates were televised in the run-up to the general election. The three leaders - Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg - appeared in front of the general public to tell them how their party intended to deal with various issues, such as the economic crisis and immigration. These debates were a huge success, with the the views peaking at 9.9 million, or 37% of the total TV viewership at the time [2]

This table[3], which charts amount of television watched by various age groups at the time, shows that those in the 12-17 bracket watched more television than any other group bar those who were 50+. As a result, these figures suggest that a large part of the debates' audience was young. This perhaps points to a growing interest in politics, with the media to thank for the publicity these showdowns received in the build-up to their broadcast.

In addition to keeping the people informed on the powers, the media's ability to entertain, educate and inform is unparalleled. Now, more than ever, we are reliant on the media in order to learn and thrive - with the development of the internet, it has become an integral part of our daily lives. The media is a force to be reckoned with and, as such, it must be handled with care and responsibility. IPSO, a regulatory organisation established in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, aims to do this - with the Guardian and Independent refusing to sign up, though, it remains to be seen how effective it will be.

The journalist Anand Shukla remarked that "a democracy without media is like a vehicle without wheels"[4]. Indeed, a strong and independent media is pivotal to the functioning of day-to-day life. Without it, we would be left in the dark, with the powers that be free to run amok and renege on any and all promises as they see fit. The role of the media in today's society must not be underestimated, for it will surely shape the society of tomorrow.

______________________________________________________________________________


[1] Ashgate - A Disconnected Generation?https://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Young_Citizens_Intro.pdf
[2] Guardian, 2010 TV debate viewing figures
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/16/leaders-debate-tv-ratings
[3]Marketing Charts, TV viewership data 
http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/more-viewers-watch-timeshifted-tv-15093/
[4]International Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, Anand Narain Shukla
http://www.academia.edu/4243668/MEDIA_AND_SOCIAL_AWARENESS