~

1. Comparison of Different
Media News
Distributors Covering
The Same Story

2. Youtube allows users to comment on videos
(providing that the creator of the video allows
users to comment)

3. Users are allowed to share the online news article to
various websites and social medias.

4. YouTube also allows users to share the video in a variety of
ways, including social media and email.

5. All articles allow readers to share the story to a type of social media in some
shape or form because they're all uploaded digitally, which allows readers to come
across and share the stories easier as there are faster communications via the
internet and modern technology.
The news report (YouTube video) allows viewers to upload immediate comments
on the video which can be seen by the public and video uploader. YouTube also
allows viewers to share the video to multiple other Social Medias, such as
Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, and allows the viewers to email the link as well.
The online news article pretty much allows the same abilities, but not necessarily
the same amount of options, as the online news article only allows readers to
share the article directly to six different social medias (including email) compared
to the eleven choices YouTube Provide.
​The various scanned versions of the newspaper articles only allow readers to
either email or 'upload to your blog' however, you have to have an online account
for PressReader (the website that uploads the scanned copies of the
newspapers) in order to do so. However, if the newspaper article was a physical
copy, you couldn't really share or upload the article or any news article to social
media unless you take a picture and upload it, so in terms of social media and
sharing the physical newspaper, you couldn't really, which is why the scanned
version is better in terms of sharing to social media.

6. I would personally share the articles to Facebook, as I believe
Facebook provides the best service to actually accessing and
reading the article. I'm not a big social media user either, and with
most of my friends or contacts having a Facebook and being
updated/online on there, it's the easiest way for me to
communicate with people personally (except Skype or social
media apps, but I hardly use those anymore either) and social
media using the internet is one of the fastest ways to
communicate with people all over the world.
That makes it easier for citizen journalists and readers to share
and read articles as most households own at least one piece of
technology that provides access to the internet or social media
apps, so anyone can access any type of story made and written by
anyone, and it's all free (mainly) so it's a lot quicker, easier and
cheaper than physical copies of news.

7. The story in the 17th century
The story I chose was Hurricane Irma and the damage it caused, but
as the hurricane occurred in the Bahamas and Cuba area, but if it was
during the 17th century, I doubt anyone in the 17th Century would
have known about it's attacks as it wasn't local to England, and
communication was limited up until recent technology advancement
and the internet. The same applies to the 20th century, even though
global communications was better as technology improved a lot after
the world wars, but I still don't think the story would have been as big
as a hit or even shared as it wasn't local to England and the countries
the hurricane hit especially didn't have specific communications with
other developed countries, so I don't think the story would have been
shared globally as much as it was.