In product one,the video is overall edited very quickly. By condensing the video, it would definitely show that it is catered for this generation. Commonly, if a video is too long, audiences lose focus and skip to watch another video. This therefore shows, by keeping the video short, it can maintain the already short attention span of today's generation. Furthering this, the shortness of the video makes it much more shareable. Moreover, in the introduction of the clip, the voice over effects used make it sound robotic. Coupled with the monotonous tone, the voice over futuristic element, the prominence of new and digital media in this day and age. The bold typography creates a a very playful and light-hearted feel to the video, and would also attract a much more youth based demographic. The iconic pictures coupled with the text makes the video very informative, but also adds a visual representation of what is communicated through the voice over. By this visual aid, it presents the modern generation to be 'dumbing down'. The pictures also make it very easy for the audience to relate it to campaigners and a political movement through the choice of image portraying the applicability of Medhurts' 'Shorthand'.
On the other hand, product two is much more inclined to traditional media, as it constructed in a typical broadcast form. From the outset of the bulletin, the audience is exposed to the binary opposition between the protesters and police. However, we are positioned to associate the police as villains and the protesters, the 'princess' that need saving' (Propp). This is because we are given the first hand thoughts through the interview of fellow protesters. In on instance, a protester said that they are "fighting for basic freedoms", and another said "this is all we have". This primary information expresses the disequilibrium, thus making it more news worthy through the news value, 'negativity (Galtung and Ruge). Furthering this, when we saw the two sides fighting, Sky utelised a birds eye view shot. This can be interpreted it is from God's perspective, hence connoting a sense of unbiased, which links to the ofcom standard Sky have to adhere to.
Q2
Youtube and other social media platforms could well be perceived a medium in which audience's ideologies and cultural understanding could be shaped and even altered. This is as, opinion leaders carry dominance on sites such as Twitter and Instagram, and set the agenda on what is and what isn't trendy. This view of point would support the two step flow model, but then also portray how the online community is structured wherein the minority serve the majority (Pareto's Law). Also, in contrast, it is also credible to argue that the fact that audiences are in control of setting their own agenda in how they represent themselves online. It is arguable that the audience can "accept, reject or challenge" what is presented to them online. Similarly to this, audience can choose what theey want and don't want to publish onlince, and in some instances, people have been misleading people into believing that they're someone they are not. An example of this would be MTV's programme, 'Catfish'. This is where Nev and Karruche Tran uncover the mysteries of who the 'contestant/guest' is talking to and ulitmately identify who the online live interest really is. This programme highlights the lack of credibility of the accuracy of the truth of how people represent themselves online.
Social media has also broken the boundaries of coutries and boarders in sense that the world is connected on this platform. (Global villiage, Mcluhen) This therefore makes room for cultural imperialism. This is where cultures interchange and other cultures take crtain aspects of their culture. A prime example of this is seen with the now growing popularity of well established American urban brands in the UK. Brands such as Bape and Supreme would embody the 'Americanisation' of this generation.
