Are our phone calls being listened to?

Article Link:Are the NSA listening to our phone calls? 
Article Headline:

'Mobile phones hacked: can the NSA and GCHQ listen to all our phone calls?'

Tagline Reads: 'Snowden leak reveals that the US and UK security services hacked into servers and stole the access keys to billions of sim cards around the world'

So what's apparently happened?
It has been argued that the largest manufacturer of sim cards in the world has been hacked into with the encryption keys stolen by the US NSA and the UK GCHQ. This raises the questions of - how was this done? What does it mean for us, the general public? And should we be worried?

What the article tells us:

• What has been claimed? 'The US and UK security services can potentially listen in on any conversation across any network that uses the compromised Sim cards.'
• What does this enable hackers to do? Allows them to 'decrypt voice communications sent between a mobile phone and a mobile mast, which carries the call to the recipient. To pick up the call they can use an aerial placed in the vicinity of the caller. They will have to be relatively close to the mobile phone user' however.
• Is this legal? No. 'If the keys are used to listen into conversations, it is likely to be a violation of data protection laws in most countries.'
• So, are we affected? Yes. 'Gemalto (targeted company) supplies 2bn Sim cards annually to 450 mobile phone providers across 85 countries.' In the UK used by 'Vodafone, EE, O2 and Three, in the US by AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon.
  Most mobile phone providers will have used Gemalto sim cards at some point, meaning anyone with a Sim in their mobile phone could be affected'.
• What can be done? Not much. Little 'can be done to stop the US and UK security services using the encryption keys...That means someone could be listening in on any conversation had via the mobile phone network.' Using other services such as Chatsecure, Whatsapp or iMessage, are still safe from NSA and GCHQ hacking.
• On a large scale what does this mean? 'The encryption keys give the US and UK security agencies powers to circumvent resistance by other countries'. This allows these agencies to spy on important people without security forces knowing.
• What is being done about it? Investigating into the 'security implications', but 'there is little that can be done without replacing the affected sim cards, as the encryption keys are hardwired into the sim cards and cannot be changed. EE, O2, Three and Vodafone said that they were speaking to suppliers of Sim cards about the implications of the revelations.'

What do I think:

I think the issues of privacy and hacking by Government and security forces is fast becoming a potential technological panic. Breaches of privacy is a hot topic in the news recently, with a number of hacking stories becoming aware to the general public. 

It's fair to say I'm not surprised that officials are listening and accessing our phone calls and this is because of other privacy stories in the press recently, such as Samsung's voice recordings from our homes being corresponded to third parties and the FBI pressuring Google for private information on its users. Even though I'm not surprised this doesn't mean I'm not angered by this. Another case of privacy invasion makes part of me less trustful and more suspicious of where I put my information, while the other part of me wonders if there is any point being cautious of what I do with my technology. Is there any point trying to protect my information? Is my information already in the hands of third parties? And even if it is, arguably there's little I can do, so should I just forget about it?

In reality, I do believe that even if officials are listening to my phone calls, personally it doesn't really matter. Phone calls to my friends about organising a girls night or talking to my sister on how my week of school has gone, is hardly desired information surely? Especially when you compare this to phone calls relating to organised crime etc. And even if everyone is aware their calls are being listened to, because this is on such a huge scale, people still feel a lack of proximity to the issue. What are the real chances this is affecting me after all?

However, the fact my calls will be listened to or not is not the point, and even this being a legal matter isn't the concern, instead I think the matter is an ethical one. The issue of power and its distribution is important; I accept my power is limited, but I still want my share of it, even if it is unequal. Protection of personal information should be determined and controlled by ourselves. Fundamentally, I believe that privacy is a human right everyone should be entitled to irrespective of their position in society. It's true that issues of privacy are becoming more and more abundant, leading to further feelings on uncertainty and frustration, which is only going to continue to going to rise. And what will happen when these feelings reach an optimum point? I'm not sure, but I fear one day we'll find out.

Is the internet damaging our creativity?

Article Link: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/06/internet-industry-overwhelms-us-need-for-change-online-time-offline

Article Headline: 

We need an internet that leaves space in our heads to enjoy creative peace

The internet killed...creativity 

Tagline: 'The internet is not made for the benefits of us. We owe it to ourselves to realize what we lose in all the noise'.

Jemima Kiss the author of this article writes of the dangers the internet has on our creativity and how it may be far more damaging than beneficial.

She explains her experience of no internet for the week in a excluded spot in Spain - 'It was very, very quiet. No TV, no music, no radio, no children. Not even a book'. While most of us would feel frightful at the thought of not being able to access our phone or switch on the TV for a day let alone a week, Jemima surprises but outlining how being without the internet isn't such a bad thing.

The article - Jemima's view:

• 'At the end of my tether a month ago, I felt the internet had stolen my creativity. I came here out of necessity, for exactly this moment, to reset my restless, relentless, internet-saturated mind'. And what did an internet-less week enable?
• 'I opened my sketchbook. I started to draw. I wrote a letter to someone who’ll never receive it. I had an idea for a novel. I had an idea for an essay on artists and their muses. I made plans, reprioritised. I started to think again'. This suggests that being without the internet allows our imaginations to open up and think creatively, without the internet harbouring our thoughts and decisions. 
• 'All those sites we use, that pull us in – none of them has our creative health or our well-being at heart. The mechanics of the internet – the bright lights and dopamine rewards – are deadly in combination with social expectations and instincts, and make it so hard to resist. It feels the norm'. She blames the internet for making us dependent on it, taking us away from the simplistic measures of life, that time should't be spent more so on a screen than with a real life person. What's worse she argues, is that internet-saturation has become the norm. 
• 'We face unprecedented social, cultural and ethical challenges from technology, which the industry itself isn’t objectively equipped to address: the redefinition of privacy; the balance of state surveillance and security; the life-changing opportunities of new healthcare, of transport, of education.' However, she argues that, 'we can’t scrutinise, and interrogate, and push for the better internet we deserve, if we are too overwhelmed by the superficial internet of the now.' Her opinion imposes that we need to re-evaluate the purposes of the internet, that it can be an amazing thing, but it's important to not be reliant on it. 

What I think:

I think this article makes a powerful point that perhaps the internet is damaging our creativity. By all means the content of the internet is diverse; we are exposed to vast amounts of information and a whole host of opinions. But these opinions may fracture our own independent thoughts and prevent our imagination from reaching its potential. The amount of time we spend watching videos on YouTube, interacting on Facebook, reading through Twitter trends, and all the while being targeted by media advertisers through pop ups on screen. This all has an affect on altering our own opinions. And as the cultivation theory suggests, the more we are exposed to this content, the more we take on its beliefs.

I believe that the internet, although diverse and beneficial, may be to blame for influencing us to all have the mainstream beliefs. Gatekeepers, although their influence arguably weakened, they still have a say on the content we see. And what we say habitually abides by mainstream ideologies. 

Bringing this back to the issues raised in the article - the internet may be damaging our creativity. Arguably, in a postmodern society, it's difficult for new and original ideas to come about, and the internet is preventing us from shutting off and letting our imagination run free. It certainly worked for the author of the article who found time without the internet enabled her to draw and write. Taking time out to enjoy the real world instead of the superficial one should be embraced; I don't want to think about how I ended up spending more of my life scrolling on a screen then interacting with the people around me. 

However, I think saying the internet is a killer of creativity is a step too far. The internet is an inspirational phenomenon that has allowed us all to feel connected. We can be informed by the internet, learn new information from it, be entertained, interact with people outside of our geographical capability. Seeing Tumblr posts, photos on Instagram, and clips on YouTube all can spark creativity within us, helping our imaginations build new ideas that we can then share back onto the internet to inspire more and more people. So maybe, the internet isn't to blame for killing creativity within us, maybe it's about balancing time in the real world and the superficial one, combining both elements, and becoming the best creator we can be. 

Google and US Government's Hacking Debate: Privacy and the user

Article Link: Google and US Government's Hacking Debate
Article Headline:

Google warns of US government 'hacking any facility' in the world

Tagline: 'Google says increasing the FBI’s powers set out in search warrants would raise ‘monumental’ legal concerns that should be decided by Congress'  

This article outlines how Google are opposing an attempt by the US Justice Department to have power to search and seize digital data.

FBI agents would have the power to carry our covert raids on servers no matter where they were situated, giving the US Government ultimate control to access private information on a global scale. As it stands, Federal agents have to be in the same district as a property in order to search it, but this may be abolished, if the Government breach privacy issues and enable computers to be hacked into, anytime and anywhere.  

Even though Google oppose this, 'The FBI argues that this new power would be essential in investigations where suspects have concealed the location of their computer networks.' It would allow more criminals to be caught which is a good thing, however, at the moment breaking privacy restrictions, ultimately means agents would be breaking the law themselves.  

What the article uncovers:

• 'The FBI has been developing its computer surveillance techniques over almost 15 years, (allowing)...agents to control the machine – they can turn on or off cameras and recording equipment, download the entire database of information and gain access to other linked computers.' Google draw attention that these 'tactics run the risk of the private information of innocent third parties being hoovered up in a massive data sweep'.
• Google argues that by changing privacy laws the 'US government risks undermining diplomatic arrangements it has built up with other countries over many years that allow cross-border investigations to take place with the approval of all parties.'
• However, to backlash this, FBI director James Comey suggests that, “encryption threatens to lead us all to a very, very dark place”.
• Instead he asks this question: “Have we become so mistrustful of government and law enforcement in particular that we are willing to let bad guys walk away, willing to leave victims in search of justice?”

What I think:

I think the content of this article raises the new and upcoming technological panic of privacy and misused information that all technology users are at risk of.

Anyone on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, face the privacy settings option, in which the user decides who can view their profile. However, does the user really have the control? Arguably, once something is uploaded onto a social networking site even if you delete it, the information has never fully gone away. For example, even if you delete a photo off Facebook, the institution themselves still have access to it on their system. Obviously, one could argue this isn't such as big deal. Facebook has millions upon millions of users, so one photo we deleted that we didn't like, isn't such a big deal right? But of course the wider debate is more of an issue. Information we put on these sites has the ability to end up in the wrong person's hands years later. Childhood conversations could end up haunting people in the public eye years on from happening. Maybe the content of this information again isn't what's important - but the panic around control and privacy is significant. 

Nothing seems an issue until it directly affects us, and thinking someone could be viewing intended private information on your profile is quite startling. If someone came up to you on the street and asked for a photo of you, we'd all say no, but we allow this to happen online everyday. It's come to our attention that we're not in the control of information once we've posted it. Once it's online it's online for good.

Linking this to the article I think it's true that privacy restrictions is an ongoing debate. From one perspective, allowing access to any computer, can like the FBI argue, catch more criminals and hopefully reduce hacking crimes, but it opens up a huge issue of rights to personal information. It's not just the criminals who are being watched but it's everyone. People go online to interact, learn and be entertained, not be watched by unwanted eyes and monitors. 

However, again it could be argued that this element of control is already under way. Institutions already monitor our interacting habits and alter accordingly. For example, Facebook advertise products that match our profiles and our recent searches. And it's not just Facebook. For example, YouTube too tailor their advertising to what we have been recently searching, providing us with similar searches and what they 'recommend' from our views. So, the issue of control and privacy has already left our hands; I just wonder whose hands they are entering. 

 

Sky adapting to the pressures of new and digital media

‘Why and with what success are traditional media institutions adapting to the challenge posed by new/digital media?’

'Sky' is the UK and Ireland's leading entertainment and communications company, serving 40% of homes. This suggests that this institution has successfully adapted to the challenges faced by new and digital media. Although, arguably, Sky only launched in 1990, so doesn't have an excessive history to evaluate a move from traditional platforms, to newer ones, it is still an important institution to analyse when looking at new and digital media advances.

Sky's Portfolio

Owns and operates Britain and Ireland’s largest portfolio of payed TV channels across entertainment, sports, movies and 24-hour news.

Sky media offers 125 channels and is used weekly by 90% of the population on TV, online and on the go.

Revenue: £7.6 billion

Employs over 25,000

Revenue increase by £1 million since 2012

‘The single biggest reason that customers choose to take Sky is for a better choice of TV. In this, our biggest year of content yet, Sky’s on-screen offering is larger, more diverse and of a higher quality than ever before.’ 

Platforms and Innovation

• Whole host of TV Sky channels offering a range of diverse content
• There is an online website
• No features on print: all new and digital media
• Features: Sky Broadband, Sky Entertainment, Sky Movies, Sky News, Sky Business and Sky Bet

Recent Innovation

• New EPG gives Box Sets, Catch Up and Sky Store 'greater visibility', encouraging customers to engage with the full range of content now available to them.
• Sky wants to be at the heart of the ‘connected household’, meeting customers’ growing desire to consume content on their own terms.
• ‘In the last 12 months, we have connected 3 million Sky+HD boxes to broadband, equivalent to 57,000 new households every week. This explosive growth means that more than half of our 10.7 million Sky TV customers now have access to the full range of On Demand services. This is more than double the number in the prior year and makes Sky Britain and Ireland’s most popular connected TV platform.
• NOW TV is also available on a broad range of 'internet-connected devices' that includes tablets, PCs and consoles, with PS4 being added to the list this summer.

Sky has adapted to new and digital media because: 

• It's focusing on platforms that are most used by the audience today including TV and e-media.
• It's producing for the masses. The range of Sky dedicated channels available meet the demands of the audience.
• It's ownership of channels, means people often buy Sky not just for Sky channels but for the array of other channels promoted.
• It's TV homepage has combined elements of broadcast and e-media platforms. For example, people can stream programmes from Catch-Up online, and then watch the show on their TV screen. 
• Sky is still attractive despite people having to pay for content. I think this is due to the range of texts available, it's easier accessibility, and the fact that everything is one place. For example, audiences view Sky as a package deal e.g. it provides TV content, broadband services, catch up TV, and opportunity to buy texts. 

I think people feel obliged to pay for Sky because they value it's reputation and see it as a trusting brand. Because it offers so much content in good quality and instantly - compared to illegal content, people feel willing to pay for what they are seeing. 

Plus, in a time pressured society, people want converging brands that can supply for all their needs. Sky does this. It can offer the TV content, catch up content, and even unlimited broadband. 

I think what else gives Sky credibility is their 24 hour news offered on TV and via their news website. Sky has especially adapted to new and digital media in this area; publishing news stories instantly in a clean, uncluttered layout, as well, as message boards and the opportunity to 'watch live'.

An advantage of e-media other traditional forms of news platforms such as newspapers, is that websites are more immediate. Whilst newspapers can only publish a day behind, websites can publish instantly. Also, while newspapers are limited by space, websites can publish more and more content, whilst attracting social interaction.  

Audiences are becoming exposed to Sky becoming a global name. For example, 'switch to the US edition', which is on the top right hand corner of the news website, show how Sky are broadening their audience to the masses, extending their credibility.

Laura Elphick

Sky Online Annual Report  

Charlie Brooker's 2014 Wipe - Ebola'

Charlie Brooker's 2014 Wipe: Ebola 

The central story for 'July' in Brooker's wipeout is 'Ebola'. 3 minutes screen time is dedicated to Brooker outlining what ebola is and the coverage it got within the Press. 

Before the coverage of Ebola is introduced, there is a midshot of Brooker sat a desk and saying, 'You might have noticed there have been many depressing stories this year, so to counteract that here's some funny music'. After a few seconds of upbeat non-diegetic music, Brooker, downgrades the tone - 'Now for Ebola'. This captivates how Brooker plays off the seriousness of the Ebola virus, preparing the audience for the negativity attached to the disease. 

To introduce the topic, the scientific animation is narrated by Brooker who refers to ebola as an 'unpleasant shoe lace'. This sets the tone that Brooker, although outlining the horror the disease caused, (which is evidenced with tracking shots of health care experts in suits, and doctors carrying victims in stretchers), he tries to lighten the topic. For example, Brooker conveys how the audience has a tendency of 'publicly worrying about ebola', and finds articles that express it in an 'entertaining way'.  

For example, Brooker chooses 3 reports of articles, showing a humorous reaction to the disease. This included the Mississippi school where parents removed their children, because the headteacher had been to, 'the other side of Africa'. This creates humour, because of the ridiculousness behaviour shown by the parents, however, it does represent the moral panic that was consequent of the disease. 

Another report Brooker chooses to show, was that of a health expert emphasizing how they are the only ones at risk. This including a fellow expert, 'flinging the contents of an Italian buffet and chocolate pudding.' Again, Brooker has chosen a report which is light-hearted and fun, to enforce how the press didn't solely report negative article to do with the disease.

The final report Brooker outlines was that of a 'NY 1' news, whereby an expert outlined how difficult it would be for someone to get ebola, and that they'd have to be intimately involved to get it. The expert says, 'If you came across some strange mucus or feces...don't eat it'. To backlash this point, the camera cuts to Brooker sat on the sofa and 'eating' feces, effectively mocking the expert; 'but only until this all blows over, then knock yourself out'.

Brooker ends his report on ebola by covering the Band Aid re-make song, which raised money to help the disease. This features a montage of shots of the singers involved in the song, which is narrated with mocking and sarcastic remarks of Brooker insulting the celebrities, saying many of them he doesn't even 'recognise'.  

Brooker's Overall response: Brooker's coverage of ebola is cynical and sarcastic, purposefully using reports that generate humour for their ridiculous interpretations of reporting the disease. He unearths how people are 'publicly worrying' over ebola which is unlikely to even reach the UK, implying that the majority of news coverage creates an irrational response and moral panic over the disease. As a result, Brooker downplays the terror of ebola, by mocking a select few absurd reports. Interestingly, none of the reports chosen were from the UK. This suggests that perhaps the UK reporting of ebola was centered around fear and terror, which explains why Brooker used light-hearted reports, to show that even a deadly disease can provoke humour to the UK audience, drowning in terror provoking reporting.

Ebola in the Press 

 UK newspapers outlined the seriousness of ebola, featuring words such as, 'alert', 'terror', and 'crisis' in their headlines. This a trend amongst both tabloid newspapers and broadsheet newspapers such as 'The Daily Telegraph', who published an article entitled - 'Outbreak of deadly Ebola virus could reach UK'. Both right wing papers and left wing newspapers shared the same tone of terror constructed to the audience.

For example, on The Sun + online, stories on ebola included the ones shown on the left. The Sun not only reinforced the moral panic of ebola, but they also linked it to another moral panic in the press centered on terrorism, creating an amplification of fear upon the audience. This suggests that the competing headlines of 'ebola' wasn't enough, without stretching it further to an added risk of 'terrorism'. This encapsulates how the news reporting of ebola unearthed public fear, which promoted an irrational response, showing how these headlines may have been published solely to keep the reading buying newspapers to follow up on the moral panic, emphasizing an economic motive.  Not only that, newspapers also incorporated the news value proximity, in which, fear for ebola increased when 'Britain' and the readers themselves potentially became at risk. 'Proximity', ensures that readers care more about an issue once they and their loves ones are at risk. Therefore, newspapers may exaggerate the risk of ebola hitting the UK, to add to the moral panic of ebola, keeping the readers buying more newspapers as the events of the disease unfold.

Laura Elphick

Links to articles:

• Killer Virus Fear
• Ebola Shambles at London Hospital
• 'Terror threat of lethal Ebola dirty Bomb' 

The new campaign wanting to tackle a widespread issue. #ThisGirlCan. Will it be a success?

Article Link: #ThisGirlCan Ad Campaign - Featuring no models
Article Headline:

#thisgirlcan ad campaign: no models – just gumshields, sweat and endorphins

Encouraging women to take up sport & not be ashamed of doing so. Billboard Ad

Tagline: 'Sport England’s drive to get more women involved in exercise and sport sweeps aside stigmas and is ideal for social sharing' 

This article exposed the new ad campaign hitting our TV, tablet, desktop, mobile and any other screen that comes to mind. #ThisGirlCan is constructed to encourage girls to take up more sport and not be afraid they were will be judged by others for doing so. Key points of this campaign emphasize how not only is sport important, but it also succeeds in challenging 'stigma' associated with girls and sport, while abiding to the new and exciting opportunities of 'social sharing'.  

What the Article tells us: 

• How the TV campaign by 'FCB Inferno' was 'created with social media - and social sharing - very much in mind'. 
• The article also featured a twitter status with a link to the campaign on YouTube, which already had '425 retweets' and '364 favourites', evidence that the campaign had already taken root on social media. 
• Moreover, the article encapsulated various taglines within the campaign such as, 'I jiggle therefore I am', 'sweating like a pig', 'feeling like a fox', 'damn right I look hot', and 'I kick balls...deal with it'. 
• Not only that but the article explained how the campaign was first aired during prime time TV on 'ITV' during a 'Coronation Street' ad break. Plus, the article referred to the other platforms the campaign is exploring such as 'billboards', to further extend their audience reach, which features a mid shot of a women on a rowing machine with the tagline 'hot and bothered', with the hashtag - #ThisGirlCan. This shows how the campaign is using word play of 'hot', and instead of conforming to conventional beautiful women, they are using an ordinary women who's hot from exercising. 

What I think:

I think The Guardian is drawing attention to how campaigns today have the ability to become viral if they make a powerful and significant point and encourage sharing through social media.

It's true today campaigns that tamper with our emotions by underlining an important societal issue have the potential to become global. Take the 'LikeAGirl' campaign Always created, and the sheer global reach of 'Dove's Beauty Sketches', pulling at the heart strings of countless women. Can this campaign #ThisGirlCan do the same?

I think the point the campaign makes is an important one. Girls and women shouldn't feel ashamed of doing exercise or taking part in competitive sport. It's significant to unearth how sport isn't a gender limited activity; women should feel welcomed and confident to take part, and not be considered any less feminine for doing so. I personally enjoy the word play the campaign anchors. Girls should feel confident to say 'deal with it', to anyone who criticises them for doing sport. The word play of 'hot and bothered' because of exercising and being proud for doing so, encourages women to focus on a different kind of hotness. A powerful message indeed.

The use of no models gives the campaign credibility. It's easy to put a conventionally beautiful Cheryl Fernandas Versini telling us we're 'worth it' on a Loreal advert, to celebrate natural beauty, but it seems shallow. Instead using real women and making a real point seems more worthy. This new and upcoming trend for using ordinary women and tackling deep rooted societal issues is enough to spark a sharing spree for this campaign and any others like it. And this can be achieved through new and digital media. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and many other social media sites enable interaction, sharing and commenting on the campaign, effectively launching a potential unlimited audience. 

So all the ingredients to kickstart the success of this campaign are detected. A powerful point, real life women, tackling a widespread issue, and a sharing experience new and digital media allows. Now it's just up to people seeing it, believing it and wanting to share it. 

Internet luring away youth audiences from X Factor

Article Link: Internet the cause of plummeting X Factor ratings
Article Headline:

The X Factor's slow death at the hands of the internet

Dermot O'Leary congratulating X Factor 2014 winner Ben Haenow,
alongside runner up Fleur and mentor Simon Cowell.

This article refers to how the '10 year low' in X Factor ratings may be due to the internet luring away the youth audience. 

This years X Factor final had a rating of 9.1 million viewers, early half of the viewer-ship for 2010's final, which has 17.2 million tuning in. 

The reality programme was competing with BBC Sports Personality of the Year and Strictly Come Dancing, which lured 9.6 million viewers. Even still, there must be something causing 8 million viewers to switch over. Or, in fact, switch off altogether? 

What the article tells us:

• X Factor is 'suffering from a general trend for young audiences to be lured away from conventional media by the web', especially amongst under 25's. 
• 'Laptops, tablets, smartphones and social networks are having “a drain on the main linear audiences”, but acknowledged that “the main linear audiences are still huge for these shows'. So, other technology items are drawing attention of young people away from the TV, although dedicated viewers still tune in. Even though figures are dropping, interest is still huge, especially for The X Factor. 
• 'Simon Cowell has pledged to change the show’s format next year, after his return to the judging panel failed to turn around the decline in ratings.' This suggests even Mr S.C himself has noted that things need to change to keep tight reign over viewers.
• Ofcom, also reported that, 'Less than half now think that the TV is their most important source for relaxing or entertainment.' This indicates changing leisure habits in terms of technology, TV's are out and smartphones and tablets are in. 

What I think:

I agree that the internet is luring away viewers of the X Factor and others shows like it. The internet is not only a huge distraction, but an unlimited form of communication and entertainment. People tend to spend more time talking about the shows instead of watching them. Announcing our opinions on Twitter, Facebook etc, has become all about the 'viewing experience'. People want to express their views, find those who share the same ones as them, and debate with those who don't. So, maybe people are watching these shows still, but they feel the need to be active whilst doing so.

Alternatively, maybe some are quitting with these shows altogether, especially with shows like the X Factor. People are fed up with ironic miming celebrity guests, speculations of a 'fixed' winner, sob-stories, unnecessary awful singers, a show that ignores talent and focuses on the judges and other controversies. It's time for a change. The internet welcomes young audiences as a result. It can offer a communicative, sharing, interactive, learning, relaxing and watching experience all-in-one. The TV seems outdated to many young people. Even if they do still want to follow reality shows there's always IPlayer, or YouTube where they can watch all the performance instead of unnecessary build up and judges reactions. This is especially true of all time conscious society. 

Overall, I think people have just outgrown shows like X Factor. It's run its course and those who have grown up watching it in their living room with the family want something different. After all, there are an unlimited number of other reality shows to choose from with vote offs, on screen bitchiness, off screen bitchiness and much more. So even if it is the end of the X Factor thanks to the internet, maybe that's not such a bad thing.