Journalism in a state of flux

Abstract

The move to a networked media environment presents a range of challenges for journalistic roles, norms and daily practices. This article employs actor network theory to investigate how different actors negotiate and ultimately shape the manner in which the internet and related digital technologies are embedded in the newsroom. Findings suggest that professional culture – articulated in skills, ideas and practices – acts as a network that weakens the potential impact of technology towards innovation and audience-oriented models of journalism. The results point to the conclusion that the internet and related tools are seen as empowering journalists to do their (traditional) jobs better instead of moving on to the next stage built around a stronger commitment to capitalize on the growing sociotechnical potential.

Keywords

Actor network theory Greek media journalism culture networked journalism newsroom innovation technology adoption

Introduction

A long-standing tradition of millenarian prophecy in relation to new media and their impact on the democratization of journalism has been reinitiated due to the Web 2.0 era and its inherent architecture celebrating participation, collaboration and self-expression (O’Reilly, 2004). Although journalism has always been vulnerable to technology (Pavlik, 2001), it is currently in a state of flux, as it is undergoing rapid and dramatic structural changes, affecting it as a practice, as a product and as a profession. Journalism has systematically been accused of inadequacy in serving its societal role (Scott, 2005), yet it is the first time in its long history that journalism faces not only a credibility crisis (Broesma, 2010), but also one of sustainability (Picard, 2011b) and professionalism (Saltzis and Dickinson, 2008; Witschge and Nygren, 2009) articulated, on the one hand, in the quest for new business models, and, on the other hand, in changing roles, new skills and emerging practices.

Web 2.0, being both a technological and a societal development (Jenkins, 2006) emphasizing engagement, self-expression and new modes in media consumption exemplified in the notion of the people formerly known as the audience (Rosen, 2006) and ‘produsage’ (Bruns, 2005), has accelerated predicted implications for doing journalism, described as convergent journalism (Erdal, 2011; Quinn and Allan, 2005) or networked (Beckett, 2010; Jarvis, 2006) or participatory journalism (Bowman and Willis, 2003; Singer et al., 2011). Due to these developments, many commentators claim that journalism is undergoing a fundamental transformation. One of the key reasons cited for this transformation is the changing nature of technology which is claimed to impact directly upon the practice of journalism and access to the profession.

Drawing upon the notion of journalism as a social network (Hemmingway, 2005) open to change and innovation (Boczkowski, 2004; Domingo, 2008) and influenced by technological, organizational, professional, economic and political factors (Preston, 2009), the present study investigates the manner in which Greek journalists perceive and implement the internet and related technologies into their daily working routines. Assumed changes with regard to the development of the ‘multi-skilled media worker’ (Deuze et al., 2007) and networked journalism (Beckett, 2010) need further empirical investigation as different combinations of initial conditions and local factors lead news organizations along different paths (Boczkowski, 2004).

The impact of technology on journalism: towards a social constructivist approach

Earlier considerations on the impact of technological innovation on journalism assumed a deterministic impact of technology on the role and working practices of journalists. The technological potentialities of the internet and digital-related technologies were perceived as the means to direct journalism into its heralded societal function of serving the people by fostering increased accountability and transparency as well as by establishing dialogical and participatory models of communication (Kawamoto, 2003; O’Sullivan, 2005). But as relevant research moved from the speculative and prescriptive to the empirical and critical, technological determinism was generally rejected as promoting digital utopias instead of a well-grounded explanatory framework (Domingo, 2008).

The impact of technological innovation and relevant tools tends to be investigated through a social constructivist approach (Paterson, 2008; Steensen, 2011; Weiss and Domingo, 2010). Journalism is perceived as a social phenomenon rooted in and shaped by professional, organizational and economic factors (Fenton, 2009). Empirical attempts to investigate the adoption of technology and newsroom innovation have stressed different agents and conditions influencing the manner in which new technologies are embedded into journalistic practices. Ursell (2001) found that the use of technological applications is contingent upon the goals and judgements of executive personnel and political regulators. Innovation, convergence and dialogical models of journalism come in different shapes and sizes, strongly influenced by local contingencies both internal (practices, rituals, routines) as well as external (regulation, competition, stakeholders, publics) (Boczkowski, 2004; Deuze, 2004). Although journalists tend to acknowledge the dialogical and participatory attributes of the web (Hermida and Thurman, 2008) they hesitate to embrace participatory practices (Heinonen, 2011). Reluctance to surrender control (O’Sullivan, 2005; Singer and Gonzalez-Velez, 2003), increased workload and difficulties in moderating and controlling user-generated content (Chung, 2007; Thurman, 2008), lack of necessary skills (Brannon, 2008; O’Sullivan, 2005) and a rigid professional culture rooted in established working routines and professional beliefs (Paulussen and Ugille, 2008; Ryfe, 2009) are among the most cited factors hindering innovation and networked models of journalism.

Actor network theory as a theoretical framework for technological innovation in newsrooms

One of the most profound changes associated with the exponential growth of Web 2.0 technologies is a clear shift in communication control and journalistic practices (Heinonen, 2011; Singer, 2011). Convergent journalism defined as ‘(increasing) cooperation and collaboration between formerly distinct media newsrooms’ (Deuze, 2004: 140) and participatory journalism defined as ‘the act of a citizen, or group of citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing, and disseminating news and information’ (Bowman and Willis, 2003: 9) summarize the two main pillars of change affecting journalistic roles, skills and practices.

Recent academic literature stressing the need for new theories with which to make sense of the production and distribution of journalism since new media technologies have begun to invade the journalists’ domain, has brought to the fore actor network theory's applicability to journalism studies (Anderson, 2009; Fioravanti and Vehlo, 2010; Hemmingway, 2005; Turner, 2005). Originally proposed by Latour (2005) and Law (1999 [1992]), actor network theory (ANT) is a conceptual framework to understand processes of technological innovation assuming a mutual shaping of technology and society. Two key concepts of ANT are the actor and the network. Actors can be humans or non-humans, for instance a technological tool or an organization. ANT assumes that actors ‘take their form and acquire their attributes as a result of their relations with others’ (Law, 1999 [1992]: 3). Networks are processual, built activities performed by the actors out of which they are composed. ANT claims that the relations among actors are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic (between concepts). Together these form a single network. Central to ANT is the concept of translation which is both a process and an effect. Network actors, as well as the relations that bind them, are translated. Following specific stages, or ‘moments’ different actors negotiate their attributes, roles and goals in order to reach a specific outcome. As Crawford (2004: 2) notes, translation is both a practice and an outcome. Finally, an important element in the ANT approach is the concept of intermediaries and mediators, which can be of special relevance for journalists (Fioravanti and Vehlo, 2010). An intermediary is a network entity of minor importance, while mediators exercise greater influence as they can ‘transform, translate, distort and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry’ (Latour, 2005: 12). The interplay among different networks –perceived in terms of different actors and their relationships – produce patterns, generating and reproducing hierarchies, organizations, agents and order. However, social order can be disrupted either because of order resistance or due to novel actors contesting existing hierarchies and the networks’ power relations.

Following ANT’s paradigm, journalism is conceptualized as a complex network of actors (see Figure 1) all negotiating with and for and against one another. ‘It is within this network of different agents, both human and non-human, all undergoing constant translation, that the embedding of new technologies can be more rigorously analysed and understood’ (Hemmingway, 2005: 10). Convergent and networked journalism suggest a horizontal and non-hierarchical model of journalism (Beckett, 2010; Kawamoto, 2003; Quinn and Allan, 2005) that can potentially disturb established ideas and manners of newsmaking rooted in the dominant journalistic culture. Within this network of human and non-human actors, journalists can act either as intermediaries or mediators, and translate the network, meaning affect the practice and outcome of the network (the journalistic product) by negotiating with other human actors (for instance, other journalists, editors, technical staff, users) as well with non-human actors, such as technologies, tools, knowledge and skills, structures, protocols and rules. An actor network approach can be especially effective in tracing the power relationships between the different actors involved in newsroom innovation (Weiss and Domingo, 2010).

Figure 1.

ANT diagram illustrating the newsroom network.

Journalists are a group of professionals operating within a specific journalist culture ‘manifest in the way journalists think and act; it can be defined as a particular set of ideas and practices by which journalists, consciously or unconsciously, legitimate their role in society and render their work meaningful for themselves and others’ (Hanitzsch, 2007: 369). Conceptualized as a shared occupational ideology (Deuze, 2005), journalistic culture expresses itself in three dimensions. The cognitive dimension refers to the knowledge, techniques and training required to produce journalistic artefacts that conform to the standards required by the normative dimension. The normative dimension refers to the ‘rulebook’ which defines the way journalists perform their work (for instance, methods of reporting, news values, working routines). Finally, the evaluative dimension refers to issues of autonomy and prestige and responds to ideas and perceptions regarding journalism’s identity and role (Singer, 2003). Scholars refer to journalists’ professionalization process as a distinctly ideological development, as the emerging ideology that continuously refines and reproduces a consensus about who is a ‘real’ journalist, and what ‘real’ journalism is. These evaluations shift subtly over time; yet they always serve to maintain the dominant sense of what is (and should be) journalism (Deuze, 2005).

Although the notion of a universal professional identity and ideology of journalists cannot be denied (Hanitzsch et al., 2011), yet more thorough research identifies variations in national journalistic cultures (Preston, 2009). Journalists may be perceived as a homogeneous occupational group, but significant differences occur between journalists in terms of how and to what extent they use the internet and related technologies in their daily work (Hermans and Vergeer, 2009). Recent evidence provided by Steensen (2009) claims that a significant determinant for processes of innovation in newsrooms is innovative individuals, while extensive cross-national research (Fortunati et al., 2009; Sarrica et al., 2010) on the influence of the internet in newsrooms concludes that national journalistic cultures influence the development of attitudes towards internet implementation in newsrooms. Exploring the interactivity myth, Domingo (2008: 681) argues that any development in journalism towards conversation ‘is the consequence of decisions taken in specific newsrooms in particular circumstances by journalists that have a professional culture, knowledge and expectations about the Internet as a news medium’.

In ANT terms, this article attempts to shed light on the way in which complex interactions and power relations among actors of traditional primary agency (the journalists), new actors (technological tools, notions of convergence and participation) and former intermediary agents of minor importance – such as the audience – potentially becoming primary agents, are affecting hierarchies and established modes of doing journalism, giving space to new translations and outcomes. Drawing upon the concept of ANT, the article attempts to investigate how Greek journalists perceive and use the available technological tools, how integration, multi-platform delivery and participation are translated into working practices and how the dominant journalistic culture adapts to or shapes the new technological potentialities.

The research

Available technological tools along with a novel perception of the audience as active users instead of passive recipients disrupt established and well-rooted notions of professional journalism’s role, skills and practices (Witschge and Nygren, 2009). However, the degree and manner to which new technologies affect newsroom innovation, attitudes and journalistic outputs is under constant discussion. Evidence from previous research indicates either strong resistance to change resulting in innovation rejection (Hermida and Thurman, 2008; Ryfe, 2009) or the creation of a hybrid culture promoting a mixing of old and new ways of doing things (Chung, 2007; Deuze, 2004; Deuze et al., 2007; Erdal, 2009).

Greek media were slow to respond to the new digital era. It was in 2005 when newspapers began experimenting seriously with their online presence, while radio and television stations followed later. Owners kept treating their traditional vehicles as the primary ones, journalists refused to abandon established working practices (Spyridou and Veglis, 2008) while seriously lacking in new skills and software familiarity (Matsiola, 2008; Spyridou, 2009). Since the beginning of the country’s debt crisis, alternative media, such as sociopolitical blogs and web-only news sources have gained in importance. Advertising revenues online are small (IAB, 2010) and media distrust is particularly widespread (Panagiotopoulou, 2009). Within this context, and alongside constant advances in information and communication technologies, the Greek media are pushed towards new ways of producing and disseminating news.

The study focuses on aspects of potential change related to the three dimensions of professional culture. First, on skills associated with the use of software and social media (cognitive dimension). Second, on journalists’ opinions regarding the potentialities enabled by internet-related technologies in newsmaking (evaluative dimension). Third, on emerging practices conforming to networked models of news production and dissemination (performative dimension).

Method and data collection

Data were collected within a four-month period (May–July 2011) using questionnaires containing questions with fixed answer options. A random sample of 300 journalists from the Journalists’ Union of Macedonia-Thrace database, consisting of approximately 700 members, was selected. The members were chosen regardless of the medium in which they worked and regardless of their position (editor, journalist, reporter, etc.). The Journalists’ Union of Macedonia-Thrace is the second biggest union in Greece covering a large geographical region. The questionnaires were both handed out in person and posted on a website created for the purpose. The link to fill out the questionnaire was sent via email. After the initial call, two reminders were sent either via email or by telephone. Ultimately, 112 journalists responded, which is a response rate of 37.3%.

Reliability

Statistical analysis of the data collected began with a reliability test using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The test demonstrated high reliability coefficients for the total of the items used (Table 1).

Table 1.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.

1a	Technology-literacy	.928
1b	Use of internet-related technologies	.871
2	Attitudes towards the potentialities of internet-related technologies in newsmaking	.858
3	Emerging news practices	.943
4a+4b	Confidence and job difficulties	.725

Findings

Technology literacy and new skills

Proficiency in computer technology and the internet has become central to the ability of journalists to do their jobs. Besides traditional skills – for instance, writing skills or news judgement – journalism professionals need to adapt to media structures and newsmaking processes requiring increased technical capabilities (Robinson, 2011; Singer, 2011). Social media, beyond serving as tools for ideas and information gathering, do serve the new culture of connecting and engaging and ‘point to how news organizations must change to be considered relevant and value-creating’ (Skoler, 2009: 39). Despite a wide discourse on whether multi-skilled journalists are needed to make better journalism or whether to serve a new, labour-intensive working model – which is also the case – convergence theorists argue that ‘successful convergence satisfies the twin aims of good journalism and good business practice’ (Quinn, 2004: 109). Journalists were asked to determine their knowledge level regarding operational systems and software (Table 2) and social media (Table 3).

Table 2.

Level of knowledge of operational systems and software.

	Excellent (1)	Very high (2)	Fairly high (3)	A little (4)	Not at all (5)	Mean	SD
Windows	40.5	36.9	21.6	1.0	0.0	1.83	0.796
Word (or equivalent)	45.4	32.4	16.6	5.6	0.0	1.82	0.905
Excel (or equivalent)	17.3	20.2	28.8	21.2	12.5	2.91	1.27
Quark Xpress, InDesign (or equivalent)	5.2	5.2	20.5	34.0	35.1	3.89	1.108
Photoshop (or equivalent)	6.3	6.3	20.7	34.4	32.3	3.8	1.148
Sound editing software (e.g. Audition)	5.2	4.2	16.6	27.1	46.9	4.06	1.131
Content management systems (e.g. Joomla)	4.1	6.1	14.3	20.4	55.1	4.16	1.137
Video editing software (e.g. Premiere)	3.8	11.1	21.3	28.8	35.0	3.8	1.152

The ability to use Windows and text writing software is very high. However, as we move away from basic skills to convergent journalism skills, knowledge levels drop markedly. Familiarity with content management systems (CMS) is remarkably low with a mean of 4.16, closely followed by sound and video editing software receiving a mean of 4.06 and 3.80 respectively.

Table 3.

Level of knowledge of internet-related tools and social media.

	Excellent (1)	Very high (2)	Fairly high (3)	A little (4)	Not at all (5)	Mean	SD
www	65.4	27.9	5.8	0.9	0.0	1.42	0.649
Email	63.4	29.5	6.3	0.8	0.0	1.45	0.655
chat-IRC	30.3	25.0	17.0	13.7	14.0	2.57	1.409
Social networks (e.g. Facebook)	34.0	27.1	17.8	11.2	9.9	2.34	1.31
Blogs	29.1	29.1	21.8	14.5	5.5	2.38	1.204
Twitter	20.6	16.7	12.7	31.4	18.6	3.11	1.434
Podcasting	6.1	10.0	15.2	20.2	48.5	3.95	1.265
YouTube	35.3	30.4	21.6	8.8	3.9	2.16	1.124
Web radio	27.9	28.8	22.1	13.5	7.7	2.44	1.245
Web TV	25.2	31.1	15.5	19.4	8.8	2.55	1.297

Greek journalists prove more acquainted with internet-related tools and social networks in comparison to various types of software, yet the general impression of the results points to significant knowledge gaps (see Table 3). Once again, basic services and tools such as web navigation and email demonstrate high familiarity levels. Greek professionals are fairly well acquainted with social networks and blogs, but much less so when it comes to podcasting and Twitter. Concerning Twitter the results are disproportional to Twitter’s popularity as a reporting tool, which apart from being an essential mechanism to distribute breaking news quickly and concisely, is considered a valuable instrument for soliciting story ideas, sources and facts (Hermida, 2010).

Opinions

Newsmaking potentialities enabled by the internet and digital-related technologies

New media techniques and tools form expectations in different ways, from positive implications on functional aspects of newsmaking (for instance, to work faster or enhance research and analysis methods) to more complex issues related to structural changes facilitating conversation, participation, transparency and accountability (Gillmor, 2004). Respondents were asked to declare their level of agreement on several statements using a five-point scale.

Findings suggest positive attitudes regarding the impact of new technology on doing the job (Table 4). Speed, efficiency, more thorough research and collaboration in the newsroom are viewed as positive ramifications of using new technology. Minor objections expressed via a neutral/negative opinion are documented with regard to accuracy, pointing to previous research concluding that the need for ultimate immediacy contributes to less fact-checking and less accurate information (Fortunati et al., 2009).

Table 4.

Impact of new technology on functional aspects of newsmaking.

	Totally agree (1)	Agree (2)	Neither agree nor disagree (3)	Probably disagree (4)	Disagree (5)	Mean	SD
Work faster	69.1	24.6	5.0	1.3	0.0	1.36	0.602
Work more efficiently	50.9	26.9	17.6	4.6	0.0	1.76	0.906
Allow for more accuracy on journalistic content	36.8	28.3	23.6	10.4	0.9	2.10	1.05
Enhance research and analysis	52.8	33.0	10.4	3.8	0.0	1.68	0.911
Facilitate productive collaboration among professionals	45.8	26.2	20.6	5.0	2.4	1.92	1.029

Journalists tend to agree that internet technology and related tools can have positive effects on news coverage exemplified in terms of immediacy, a larger amount of news and pluralism. However, they tend to object with regard to in-depth analysis, a finding associated with increasing instances of ‘copy-and-paste’ journalism (Fenton, 2009), as a response to greater speed, which results in more stories, but more superficially presented. The respondents agree on the web’s ability to increase young people’s interest in news and also agree on the democratizing effect of new media (Papacharissi, 2002) in allowing citizens to be heard and fostering dialogue between professionals and users. However, when asked about deeper structural changes related to transparency, accountability, media independence (McQuail, 2003) and shifting roles (Bruns, 2005), findings suggest a neutral stance (illustrated in the mean response score of 2.50). A more detailed analysis of the percentages shows that the sample is indeed split as about half of them see potential enhancement and the other half rejects such a possibility (Table 5).

Table 5.

Perceptions of potential impact of ICTs on elevating journalism.

	Totally agree (1)	Agree (2)	Neither agree nor disagree (3)	Probably disagree (4)	Disagree (5)	Mean	SD
Increase immediacy	56.1	31.8	11.2	0.9	0.0	1.57	0.728
Widen news topics due to elimination of time and space limits	41.0	27.6	24.8	5.7	0.9	1.98	0.990
Increase plurality	42.7	32.0	19.4	3.9	2.0	1.90	0.975
Provision of specialized news and information	30.1	40.8	19.4	6.8	2.9	2.12	1.013
Contribute to in-depth analysis	19.2	31.7	29.8	14.4	4.9	2.54	1.105
Increase constructive competition	22.1	44.2	20.2	8.7	4.8	2.30	1.060
Increase young people’s interest in news	47.7	35.5	11.2	3.7	1.9	1.77	0.927
Increased transparency	26.3	33.0	28.3	10.4	2.0	2.40	1.101
Greater control of media organizations and journalists	23.9	24.8	35.8	8.2	7.3	2.50	1.160
Decrease the power of established elites which manipulate the media	29.2	32.1	22.6	9.4	6.7	2.32	1.184
Allow for citizens to be heard	38.3	37.4	17.8	4.6	1.9	1.94	0.960
Facilitate dialogue between journalists and users	46.2	31.1	15.1	5.7	1.9	1.86	0.999
Contribute to the exchange of roles between professionals and users	26.7	37.1	20.0	10.5	5.7	2.31	1.146

Participatory opportunities and role perceptions

The term participatory journalism is best perceived as an umbrella term under which a wide variety of participatory opportunities can be placed ranging from simple commenting mechanisms under strict editorial control to collaboration in all stages of the news production process (Hermida, 2011; Outing, 2005; Spyridou and Veglis, 2008). The study investigated journalists’ opinions on basic forms of participatory journalism and role self-perceptions in the new digital environment (Table 6). Only one in four agree that comment posts are a positive thing and 70% believe that the gatekeeping and agenda-setting functions of journalists are not to be disputed. What is of interest is that the option ‘totally disagree’ on that question amounted to a mere 0.9%. Findings overall suggest a neutral to negative oriented stance demonstrating a contradiction with aforementioned findings upon the dialogical potential of new technology. Although such developments are considered possible on a theoretical basis, in practice journalists tend to diminish the value of dialogical opportunities as they contradict established self-perceptions of the trade.Although such developments are considered possible on a theoretical basis, in practice journalists tend to diminish the value of dialogical opportunities as they contradict established self-perceptions of the trade. The findings point to the dominant ‘we write, you read dogma’ of traditional journalism (Deuze, 2003), which embodies journalists’ perceptions upon their role and status in the hierarchy of the communication process.

Table 6.

Opinions on roles and basic participatory forms of journalism.

	Totally agree (1)	Agree (2)	Neither agree nor disagree (3)	Disagree (4)	Totally disagree (5)	Mean	SD
Social networks enhance the relationship between journalists and users	39.4	25.7	25.7	6.4	2.8	2.07	1.078
Comment posts are a positive thing	14.7	26.6	31.2	21.1	6.4	2.78	1.133
Question submissions are a positive thing	20.2	35.8	31.2	11.0	1.8	2.39	0.990
Discussion forums as an interactive feature elevate journalism	13.2	32.1	34.9	17.0	2.8	2.64	1.007
Topic ratings are a positive thing	19.4	33.3	31.5	13.0	2.8	1.46	1.036
Bloggers are influencing public opinion	10.1	36.7	21.1	22.9	9.2	2.84	1.164
Within an environment of too much information people will choose the established brands	14.8	30.6	25.9	23.1	5.6	2.74	1.139
The role of journalists as gatekeepers and agenda-setters is fundamental and should not be questioned	40.4	30.3	21.1	7.3	0.9	1.98	1.000

Emerging practices

Technology, social transformation and emerging external players with different values and norms exercise pressures on news organizations to reconsider their values, norms and practices (Mitchelstein and Boczkowski, 2009; Picard, 2011a). Emerging practices in the daily working activities of journalists is a vast territory to explore. The study focused on: (a) online sources, (b) the use of new tools for information gathering, (c) the use of technological tools to disseminate content, (d) consideration of audience feedback, (e) incorporation of user-generated content and (f) new story-telling techniques.

Findings indicate that journalists most often tend to resort to mainstream sources: news agencies, other traditional media and search engines are the most frequently visited websites leaving a diverse pool of sources outside their routine (see Table 7). The findings confirm prior research that standard sourcing patterns, first, yield routinized workflows allowing journalists to accomplish their work efficiently and reliably, and second, provide reporters with a strategy to present an account of the world while remaining within the self-imposed confines of the objectivity paradigm (Carlson, 2011).

Table 7.

Online sources.

	Always (1)	Often (2)	Sometimes (3)	Rarely (4)	Never (5)	Mean	SD
Websites of companies, institutions, organizations	28.8	40.4	24.0	3.8	3.0	2.12	0.969
News agencies’ websites	46.8	37.8	14.4	1.0	0.0	1.69	0.748
Traditional Greek media websites	45.5	39.1	13.6	1.8	0.0	1.72	0.768
Traditional foreign media websites	30.5	36.2	21.0	7.6	4.7	2.20	1.104
Web native news portals (e.g. In.gr, newsit.gr)	27.4	45.3	20.8	4.6	1.9	2.08	0.917
Search engines (e.g. Google, Yahoo)	47.7	37.8	14.5	0.0	0.0	1.67	0.718
Blogs	13.1	29.9	30.8	23.4	2.8	2.73	1.051
Social networks	9.8	23.5	28.4	21.6	16.7	3.12	1.229
Wikipedia	13.5	44.2	21.2	18.3	2.8	2.53	1.033
YouTube or other web video	5.9	33.3	23.5	23.5	13.8	3.06	1.167
Twitter or other micro-blogging sites	6.9	17.8	21.8	18.8	34.7	3.56	1.315
Podcasts of various websites	4.2	4.2	13.7	29.4	48.5	4.14	1.078

A basic feature of Web 2.0 culture is ‘engagement’ and ‘participation’ (O’Reilly, 2004). In the case of journalism, the scope of engagement is twofold: on one hand, to allow professionals to interact with users and foster a dialogical relationship (Skoler, 2009) and on the other hand, as part of strategies to increase traffic, brand loyalty and ultimately profitability (Vujnovic et al., 2010). The results show that content dissemination on social media is far from a standard routine for Greek professionals. One in three publishes content on blogs on a frequent basis, one in two posts material on Facebook and one in four posts content on Twitter (Table 8).

Table 8.

Use of technological tools to disseminate journalistic content.

	Always (1)	Often (2)	Sometimes (3)	Rarely (4)	Never (5)	Mean	SD
Blogs	10.5	24.8	15.2	11.4	38.1	3.42	1.466
Social networks (e.g. Facebook)	16.8	31.8	8.4	9.3	33.6	3.11	1.562
Micro-blogging sites (e.g. Twitter)	7.1	19.2	13.1	9.1	51.5	3.79	1.423
Photo and video sharing sites (e.g. Flickr, YouTube)	3.0	13.9	17.8	12.8	52.5	3.98	1.241
Discussion forums	2.9	9.8	18.6	15.7	53.0	4.06	1.176

The disconnection thesis pointing to a serious gap between journalists and the audience is currently being revisited as research reveals a fundamental shift in contemporary newswork. The ‘people formerly known as the audience’, once subordinated to journalists’ expert news, are taken into serious consideration in terms of both their desires and needs as well as their opinion about journalistic content (Anderson, 2011). In the Greek case, traditional measurements remain the basic source of knowledge regarding people’s appreciation of content, while internet-related technologies comprise a useful monitoring tool for a small minority of professionals (Table 9). An interesting finding is that, overall, the practice of considering the audience’s opinion on the content produced is not widely incorporated into the journalists’ working routine, connoting authoritative rituals based on one-to-many communication models.

Table 9.

Consideration of audience feedback.

	Always (1)	Often (2)	Sometimes (3)	Rarely (4)	Never (5)	Mean	SD
Traditional measurements (readership, viewership, etc.)	29.9	28	18.7	11.2	12.2	2.48	1.348
Emails	19.2	30.8	21.2	13.5	15.3	2.75	1.335
Through comments on the website	15.8	26.7	14.9	17.8	24.8	3.09	1.443
Posts on Twitter	11.2	8.2	12.2	17.3	51.1	3.89	1.406
Comments on social networks	16.5	17.5	16.5	12.4	37.1	3.36	1.529
Through ‘share-links’ on social networks	12.9	10.8	15.1	17.2	44.0	3.69	1.452

Requesting users’ contribution is not an ordinary journalistic practice. But networked journalism is all about the collaborative nature of journalism 2.0 enabling professionals and amateurs to work together, to get the real story, link to each other across brands and old boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, perspectives (Jarvis, 2006). According to our study, Greek journalists rarely ask for users’ contributions (Table 10). When they do, the most popular channel is email. However, the fact that they contact someone via a personal email address shows that in most cases they address personal contacts or people that became known to them during the journalistic process, thus their moves do not comprise an open invitation to users to contribute at some point in the news production but rather ordinary sources.

Table 10.

Ask for users’ contribution.

	Always (1)	Often (2)	Sometimes (3)	Rarely (4)	Never (5)	Mean	SD
Through email	24.3	24.3	17.8	12.1	21.5	2.82	1.478
Through comments on the medium’s website	10.8	23.5	11.8	20.6	33.3	3.42	1.431
Through my blog	3.2	18.1	2.1	11.7	64.9	4.17	1.292
Through Facebook	15.2	18.2	14.1	14.1	38.4	3.42	1.519
Through Twitter	10.2	9.2	7.1	15.3	58.2	4.02	1.399
Through discussion forums	3.0	13.1	9.1	14.1	60.6	4.16	1.218

Incorporation of user-generated content (UGC), although surrounded by increased hype (Paulussen et al., 2007), still remains a challenge for the news industry (Deuze et al., 2007; Domingo, 2008). Unsurprisingly, given the aforementioned results, Greek journalists do not choose to incorporate UGC except in rare cases (Table 11). The most interesting finding is related to the fact that no discrimination is attributed to various types of content which is rather odd. Although relevant research has shown skepticism in regard to UGC's quality and credibility (Chung, 2007; Hermida and Thurman, 2008). photos and videos are often ‘allowed’ and sometimes welcomed as evidence of witnessed material and because such content does not seriously disturb established norms and routines of the profession (Steensen, 2011).

Table 11.

Use of UGC.

	Always (1)	Often (2)	Sometimes (3)	Rarely (4)	Never (5)	Mean	SD
Opinion, views	4.6	16.5	33.9	19.3	25.7	3.45	1.174
Evidence	6.7	21	26.7	26.6	19.0	3.10	1.194
Photos	4.6	16.7	28.7	24.1	25.9	3.50	1.180
Videos	4.7	14	18.7	26.2	36.4	3.76	1.220

Erosion of time and space restrictions permits new presentation and story-telling techniques. The notion of the ‘news package’ (Boczkowski, 2004; Deuze, 2004), promoting a richer, more interactive and multimedia style of reporting and news delivery, is assumed to provide added value to journalistic content. Respondents were asked to declare their opinion on how often relevant features should accompany a story (Table 12). Findings point to a neutral stance articulated as ‘sometimes’, a result confirming previous research that journalists tend to acknowledge the positive potentialities of technology in newsmaking, but they tend to be more reluctant in implementing it. Considering that ‘relevant stories’ – the feature entailing the least effort compared to the rest – was slightly more favoured, issues of extra workload, insufficient skills – as shown from the results – or reluctance to collaborate closely with the technical department (Kawamoto, 2003) are among the possible explanations.

Table 12.

Story-telling techniques.

	Always (1)	Often (2)	Sometimes (3)	Rarely (4)	Never (5)	Mean	SD
Multimedia	17.2	32.2	44.4	5.1	1.1	2.40	0.868
Interactive guides	14.3	29.6	45.9	9.2	1.0	2.53	0.888
Relevant stories	25.0	35.0	32.0	7.0	1.0	2.24	0.944
Background information	26.8	23.7	37.1	10.3	2.1	2.37	1.054
Interactivity opportunities (ratings, comments, etc.)	21.4	30.6	35.7	8.2	4.1	2.43	1.045

Job difficulties and confidence in keeping up with new job requirements

Layoffs, buyouts or general staff reductions have become an everyday occurrence (Curran, 2010). Educational standards and skills are being challenged and redefined to meet new needs and new content strategies. Multi-skilling and multi-tasking are becoming the new tenets of professional journalism (Mensing, 2010). Reflecting the impact of the financial crisis in Greece, the top concern expressed by journalists is low payment followed by work pace and volume. Matters of self-censorship which in the past were on the minds of journalists or issues of training and skills are not described as a problem for journalists to any significant extent (Table 13). Despite lacking the digital mindset and qualifications, as clearly demonstrated by the present research, Greek professionals perceive themselves as fully capable of performing well (Table 14).

Table 13.

Job difficulties.

	Totally agree (1)	Agree (2)	Neither agree nor disagree (3)	Probably disagree (4)	Disagree (5)	Mean	SD
Work pace	56.1	22.4	13.1	6.5	1.9	1.76	1.036
Work volume	41.1	31.4	17.1	8.5	1.9	1.99	1.052
Unsatisfactory salary	64.8	24.1	8.3	0.9	1.9	1.51	0.837
Lack of motivation	23.3	31.1	21.4	10.7	13.5	2.60	1.324
Inadequate skills	20.8	40.6	23.6	8.5	6.5	2.40	1.11
Having multiple jobs	36.9	25.2	21.4	10.7	5.8	2.23	1.222
Self-censorship	18.9	30.2	30.2	16	4.7	2.58	1.112
Lack of training	22.4	33.6	24.3	12.1	7.6	2.49	1.185

Table 14.

Responses to an evolving working environment.

In the evolving working environment, I can respond:		Mean	SD
Very satisfactorily (1)	42.2
Pretty satisfactorily (2)	55.0	1.61	0.560
With difficulty (3)	2.8
Probably I cannot (4)	0.0
I definitely cannot (5)	0.0

Finally, categorical regression analysis was used to determine possible correlations among independent variables (sex, age, level of education and experience) and journalists’ opinions on new technology potentialities in newsmaking and their impact on their work. Besides age, no significant correlations emerged with the rest of variables. In particular, it was found that younger people tend to believe in greater structural changes resulting in greater transparency and media control as well as dialogical opportunities (Table 15).

Table 15.

Predictors of journalists’ opinions on new technology potentialities in newsmaking.

		Age
Increased transparency	Beta	–.438
	Est. err.	.156
	Sig.	.000
	Imp.	.701
Greater control of media organizations and journalists	Beta	–.324
	Est. err.	.190
	Sig.	.039
	Imp.	.448
	Est. err.	.217
	Sig.	.000
	Imp.	.688
Allow for citizens to be heard	Beta	–.449
	Est. err.	.162
	Sig.	.000
	Imp.	.507
	Est. err.	.185
	Sig.	.000
	Imp.	.813
Comment posts are a positive thing	Beta	–.381
	Est. err.	.151
	Sig.	.003
	Imp.	.001
	Est. err.	.174
	Sig.	.018
	Imp.	.557

Conclusions

The work that journalists do is changing fast (Fenton, 2009; Picard, 2011a). Technological and economic challenges, among others, ‘are rewriting the very basis on which the industry has flourished and survived’ (Warren, 2008: 3). Although the changing nature of technology is often cited as one of the driving forces behind that change, prior deterministic views are abandoned in favour of approaches claiming a mutual relationship between technology and journalism, a concept referred to as the ‘materiality of work’ (Boczkowski, 2009; Domingo, 2008). Technology may not affect newswork in predictable ways, but the new technological infrastructure available to journalists tends to influence editorial practice and roles.

This long-standing discussion on journalism’s transformation and technological impact exceeds beyond issues of structural change per se, emphasizing technology’s potentiality to assist journalists to carry out their civic role better than they have done in the past (Singer, 2011). Hence innovation articulated in terms of openness and dialogue gains significant interest. Reworking ANT as a theoretical tool, the study conceptualizes journalism as a network attributing agency to all actors involved. Web 2.0 tools and networked journalism assume an active audience and equal rights to all involved parties in the communication process. ANT, focusing on power relations, hierarchies and order, is used to illustrate how the news production network determines the way in which new technologies become embedded and how traditionally powerful agents negotiate and shape the final outcome.

The study focused on aspects associated with the three dimensions of the journalistic culture: skills, ideas and practices, perceived as actors influencing journalistic innovation. Findings suggest that within the wider network (Figure 1) technology (software, Web 2.0 tools, etc.) is translated by elements of the dominant journalistic culture. All three actors still operating under traditional norms and conventions result in what could be named as ‘intense adaptation’. In other words, the potential of technology is severely mitigated by the influence exercised by low skill sets, neutral and negative opinions and standardized working routines.

At a time when journalism is experimenting with new formats and genres revolving around convergence, multimedia reporting and participatory models, Greek professionals exhibit significant knowledge gaps with regard to applications and tools beyond the very basic. With the exception of tools such as email, text software and web navigation, Greek professionals are barely acquainted with more sophisticated software. Approximately 50% are very familiar with blogs and Facebook, and about 30% with Twitter. Low familiarity with Twitter – at a time when Twitter is associated with communication revolutions and crowd sourcing instances of investigative journalism (Mair and Keeble, 2011) – suggests that in general Greek journalists cannot be described as ‘innovators’.

Respondents’ opinions on the potential impact of technology indicate positive attitudes, first towards enhancing functional jobs of traditional newsmaking, such as speed, efficiency and research, and second, towards delivering a more immediate, pluralistic and thematically wider news product. On the other hand, they tend to disagree about deeper changes touching upon issues of transparency, accountability and collaborative journalism. However, it ought to be mentioned that the opinions expressed revolve around a neutral/negative orientation showing that journalists are going through a phase of embarrassment and confusion. Correlating independent variables with opinion statements, it turns out that younger professionals are more positive towards the potential changes. This dual stance in the network implies latent tendencies worthy of further analysis.

Finally, investigation of dominant practices regarding sourcing, content dissemination through social media, audience monitoring and use of UGC demonstrates authoritative rituals and top-down approaches in newsmaking. Routines are a way for media producers to reduce uncertainty and accomplish their work. Routines also play a vital role in distinguishing journalism from other types of media work, since they are tied with notions of objectivity and commitment to truth, which build legitimacy around the notion of journalism (Karlsson, 2011). Following journalism’s core values, it comes as no surprise that journalists’ reporting is mainly based on established norms and rules rejecting more open practices. Hence, they mostly rely on mainstream and rather elite information sources, whereas consideration of audience feedback is limited to traditional tools of audience measurement. Dialogical practices, such as content dissemination through social media, are highly selective, and use of UGC scarce and sporadic.

The results indicate that the three actors under investigation – which of course are inextricably connected – tend to influence one another, creating a strong (sub)-network resisting change and innovation. Furthermore, the findings suggest that beyond journalistic culture as operationalized in the study, the established order is further reinforced by practical matters in the daily lives of news workers, such as work pace and volume, and more importantly by the issue of ‘how to make a decent living’. Journalists seem to face so many difficulties in the current climate that they have little time or inclination to venture into new ways of doing their jobs. To sum up, internet and related tools are seen as empowering journalists to do their (traditional) jobs better rather than moving on to the next stage built around a stronger commitment to capitalize on the growing sociotechnical potential. Radical changes in the media environment and a widespread economic uncertainty have pushed Greek journalists into a defensive posture promoting perpetuation of established routines rather than engaging in innovative practices.

Discussion

Journalism is undergoing a fundamental shift – a cyberspatial-post-industrial mindset is replacing a physical-industrial mindset, promoting a more participative, collaborative and decentralized journalistic process (Hermida, 2010). Efforts to normalize the potential and repercussions of internet technologies on the role and practices of journalists are well documented (Hermida and Thurman, 2008; Metykova, 2008; O’Sullivan and Heinonen, 2008; Steensen, 2011). But research has shown that journalism has entered a second, more rigorous and vigorous developmental stage (Nguyen, 2010) at which journalists are pushed to negotiate their gatekeeping power and take advantage of the sociotechnical capital available (Karlsson, 2010; Lasorsa, 2011; Vujnovic et al., 2010).

Once technology is introduced, the assumed onslaught of a technological determinant is replaced by a complex mutual translation process. And to fully understand the path taken by an innovation, the resistance put up by different actors must be evaluated (Hemmingway, 2005). In the Greek case, changes occur slowly and tend to get normalized or ‘rationalized’ through the values and norms of the dominant journalistic culture – a journalistic culture characterized by strong ties with political and economic elites and a low sense of media accountability (Leandros, 2010; Papathanasopoulos, 2001).

Old journalism, with its over-reliance on the same sources, experts and analysts is out of touch as a culture based on information sharing, connection and the collective wisdom of diverse voices is growing (Skoler, 2009). News reporting in the near future will be more of a conversation (Singer, 2011). Beyond factors related to journalistic culture, different organizational agendas putting emphasis on economic motives behind innovation or genuine commitment to fostering openness and participation (Vujnovic et al., 2010) lead to the emergence of hybrid models between traditional top-down journalism and journalism 2.0. Whatever the circumstances, each media platform and each news organization needs to have distinct strategies in order to produce relevant and value-creating journalism. The results of the research presented in this article demonstrate that in the Greek case there is no agenda or strategic planning. Journalists at the time the research was conducted were a social group in a state of defensiveness and embarrassment, trying on one hand to resist the changes introduced, yet not rejecting them overall. As ANT claims, networks resist change and order disruption. News organizations and professionals in Greece, though, need to begin to explore how they can change, either out of desperation or out of honest desire. Unless professional journalists decide to go where the audience is, act as hubs rather than destinations, engage in conversations and increase their reliability, journalism's credibility and sustainability will be further endangered. At a time when advertising revenues plummet, editorial staffs shrink, new digital and social media platforms spring up everywhere and knowledgeable amateurs with blogs provide an increasing number of alternative, authoritative information sources, professional journalists and legacy media need to redefine their products and services. Losing the exclusivity and control of news is something that professional media can adapt to, but losing influence and relevance is something that most journalists would not dare to contemplate.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Anderson

(2009) Web production, news judgment, and emerging categories of online newswork in metropolitan journalism. In: 10th International Symposium on Online Journalism, 17–18 April. Available at: online.journalism.utexas.edu/2009/papers/Anderson09.pdf.

Anderson

(2011) Deliberative, agonistic, and algorithmic audiences: Journalism’s vision of its public in an age of audience transparency. International Journal of Communication 5: 529–547.

Beckett

(2010) The value of networked journalism. Available at: www2.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/POLIS/Files/networkedjournalism.pdf.

Boczkowski

(2004) Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Boczkowski

(2009) Materiality and mimicry in the journalism field. In: Zelizer

(ed.) The Changing Faces of Journalism: Tabloidization, Technology and Truthiness. London and New York: Routledge.

Bowman

Willis

(2003) We Media – How Audiences are Shaping the Future of News and Information. Reston, VA: The Media Center at the American Press Institute.

Brannon

(2008) Maximize the medium: Assessing obstacles to performing multimedia journalism in three US newsrooms. In: Paterson

Domingo

(eds) Making Online News: The Ethnography of New Media Production. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 99–111.

Broesma

(2010) The unbearable limitations of journalism: On press critique and journalism’s claim to truth. The International Communication Gazette 72(1): 21–33.

Bruns

(2005) Towards produsage. Available at: snurb.info/files/12132812018_towards_produsage_0.pdf.

10.

Carlson

(2011) On the condition of anonymity – unnamed sources and the battle for journalism. Board of Trustees, University of Illinois.

11.

Chung

(2007) Profits and perils: Online news producers’ perceptions of interactivity and uses of interactive features. Convergence 13(1): 43–61.

12.

Crawford

(2004) Actor network theory. In: Ritzer Encyclopedia. Available at: www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5222_Ritzer__Entries_beginning_with_A__%5B1%5D.pdf.

13.

Curran

(2010) The future of journalism. Journalism Studies 11(4): 464–476.

14.

Deuze

(2003) The web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. New Media and Society 5(2): 203–230.

15.

Deuze

(2004) What is multimedia journalism? Journalism Studies 5(2): 139–152.

16.

Deuze

(2005) What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism 6(4): 442–464.

17.

Deuze

Bruns

Neuberger

(2007) Preparing for an age of participatory news. Journalism Practice 1(3): 322–338.

18.

Domingo

(2008) Interactivity in the daily routines of online newsrooms: Dealing with an uncomfortable myth. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(3): 680–704.

19.

Erdal

(2009) Cross-media (re)production cultures. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 15(2): 215–231.

20.

Erdal

(2011) Coming to terms with convergence journalism: Cross-media as a theoretical and analytical concept. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2): 213–222.

21.

Fenton

(2009) Drowning or waving? New media, journalism and democracy. In: Fenton

(ed.) New Media, Old News: Journalism and Democracy in the Digital Age. London: Sage.

22.

Fioravanti

Vehlo

(2010) Let’s follow the actors! Does actor network theory have anything to contribute to science journalism? Journal of Science Communication 9(4): 1–8.

23.

Fortunati

Sarrica

O’ Sullivan

. (2009) The influence of the internet on European journalism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(4): 928–963.

24.

Gillmor

(2004) We the Media. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

25.

Hanitzsch

(2007) Deconstructing journalism culture: Toward a universal theory. Communication Theory 17(4): 367–385.

26.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Mellado

. (2011) Mapping journalism cultures across nations. Journalism Studies 12(3): 273–293.

27.

Heinonen

(2011) The journalists’ relationships with users: New dimensions to conventional roles. In: Singer

. (eds) Participatory Journalism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 34–55.

28.

Hemmingway

(2005) PDP, the news production network and the transformation of news. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 11: 8–27.

29.

Hermans

Vergeer

(2009) Internet in the daily life of journalists: Explaining the use of the internet by work-related characteristics and professional opinions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 15(1): 138–157.

30.

Hermida

(2010) Twittering the news. Journalism Practice 4(3): 297–308.

31.

Hermida

(2011) Mechanisms of participation: How audience options shape the conversation. In: Singer

. Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 13–33.

32.

Hermida

Thurman

(2008) A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journalism Practice 2(3): 343–356.

33.

IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau Hellas) (2010) Online ad expenditure in Greece was 57.8 Millions in 2009. Available at: www.iab.gr/default.aspx?la=1&pid=144&cid=29&aid=198 (accessed September 2010).

34.

Jarvis

(2006) Networked journalism. Available at: www.buzzmachine.com/2006/07/05/networked-journalism/.

35.

Jenkins

(2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York; NYU Press.

36.

Karlsson

(2010) Flourishing but restrained. Journalism Practice 5(1): 68–84.

37.

Karlsson

(2011) Rituals of transparency. In: Frankin

(ed.) The Future of Journalism. London: Routledge.

38.

Kawamoto

(2003) Digital Journalism – Emerging Media and the Changing Horizons of Journalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

39.

Lasorsa

(2011) Normalizing Twitter: Journalism practice in an emerging communication space. Journalism Studies 1(1): 1–18.

40.

Latour

(2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

41.

Law

(1999 [1992]) After ANT: Topology, naming and complexity. In: Law

Hassard

(eds) Actor Network Theory and After, Oxford and Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review, pp. 1–14.

42.

Leandros

(2010) Media concentration and systemic failures in Greece. International Journal of Communication 4: 886–905.

43.

McQuail

(2003) Media Accountability and Freedom of Publication. New York: Oxford University Press.

44.

Mair

Keeble

(2011) Investigative Journalism; Dead or Alive? Bury St Edmonds: Arima Publishing.

45.

Matsiola

(2008) New technological tools in contemporary journalism: Study concerning their utilization by the Greek journalists related to the use of the internet as a mass medium. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Journalism and Mass Media, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

46.

Mensing

(2010) Rethinking (again) the future of journalism education. Journalism Studies 11(4): 511–523.

47.

Metykova

(2008) Drifting apart? European journalists and their audiences. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture (University of Westminster, London) 5(2): 42–59.

48.

Mitchelstein

Boczkowski

(2009) Between tradition and change: A review of recent research on online news production. Journalism 10(5): 562–586.

49.

Nguyen

(2010) Harnessing the potential of online news: Suggestions from a study on the relationship between online news advantages and its post-adoption consequences. Journalism 11(2): 223–241.

50.

O’Reilly

(2004) What is Web 2.0. 30 September. Available at: www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

51.

O’Sullivan

(2005) Delivering Ireland: Journalism’s search for a role online. Gazette 67(1): 45–68.

52.

O’Sullivan

Heinonen

(2008) Old values, new media: Journalism role perception in a changing world. Journalism Practice 2(3): 357–371.

53.

Outing

(2005) 11 layers of citizen journalism. Poynter. Published 31 May 2005, updated 2 March 2011. Available at: www.poynter.org/uncategorized/69328/the-11-layers-of-citizen-journalism/.

54.

Panagiotopoulou

(2009) Trust in the media. deScripto: A Journal of Media in South East Europe 01/02: 15–17.

55.

Papacharissi

(2002) The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media and Society 4(1): 92–97.

56.

Papathanasopoulos

(2001) Media commercialization and journalism in Greece. European Journal of Communication 16(4): 505–521.

57.

Paterson

(2008) Why ethnography? In: Paterson

Domingo

(eds) Making Online News: The Ethnography of New Media Production. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 1–11.

58.

Paulussen

Ugille

(2008) User generated content in the newsroom: professional and organisational constraints on participatory journalism. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 5(2): 24–41.

59.

Paulussen

Heinonen

Domingo

Quandt

(2007) Doing it together: Citizen participation in the professional news making process. Observatorio (OBS*) Journal 3: 131–154.

60.

Pavlik

(2001) Journalism and New Media. New York: Columbia University Press.

61.

Picard

(2011a) Certainty and uncertainty of change in journalism. In: Lowrey

Gade

(eds) Changing the News: The Forces Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times. New York: Routledge, pp. vii–ix.

62.

Picard

(2011b) Mapping digital media: Digitization and media business models. Reference Series No. 5. Available at: www.soros.org/initiatives/media/articles_publications/publications/mapping-digital-media-digitization-media-business-models-20110721/OSF-Media-Report-Handbook%20Digitization%20and%20Media%20Business%20Models-final-07-18-2011-WEB.pdf.

63.

Preston

(2009) Making the News: Journalism and News Cultures in Europe. New York: Routledge.

64.

Quinn

(2004) An intersection of ideals: Journalism, profits, technology and convergence. Convergence 10(4): 109–123.

65.

Quinn

Quinn-Allan

(2005) The world-wide spread of journalism convergence. In: Stockwell

Isakhan

(eds) Proceedings of the 2005 Journalism Education Association Conference. Griffith: Griffith University, School of Arts.

66.

Robinson

(2011) Convergence crises: News work and news space in the digitally transforming newsroom. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 61(6): 1122–1141.

67.

Rosen

(2006) The people formerly known as the audience. 27 June. Available at: archive.pressthink.org/2006/06/27/ppl_frmr.html.

68.

Ryfe

(2009) Broader and deeper: A study of newsroom culture in a time of change. Journalism 10(2): 197–216.

69.

Saltzis

Dickinson

(2008) Inside the changing newsroom: Journalists’ responses to media convergence. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives 60(3): 216–228.

70.

Sarrica

Fortunati

O’Sullivan

. (2010) The early stages of the integration of the internet in EU newsrooms. European Journal of Communication 25(4): 413–422.

71.

Singer

(2003) Who are these guys? The online challenge to the notion of journalistic professionalism. Journalism, 4(2): 139–163.

72.

Singer

(2011) Journalism and digital technologies. In: Lowrey

Gade

(eds) Changing the News: The Forces Shaping Journalism in Uncertain Times. New York: Routledge, pp. 213–229.

73.

Singer

Gonzalez-Velez

(2003) Envisioning the caucus community: Online newspaper editors conceptualize their political roles. Political Communication 20: 433–452.

74.

Singer

Hermida

Domingo

. (2011) Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

75.

Skoler

(2009) Why the news media became irrelevant – and how social media can help. Nieman Reports Fall: 38–40.

76.

Spyridou

L-P

(2009) Journalistic content on the web: Studying interactivity in Greek online newspapers. Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Journalism and Mass Media, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

77.

Spyridou

L-P

Veglis

(2008) Exploring structural interactivity in online newspapers: A look at the Greek web landscape. First Monday 13(5). Available at: firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2164/1960.

78.

Steensen

(2009) What’s stopping them? Towards a grounded theory of innovation in online journalism. Journalism Studies 10(6): 821–836.

79.

Steensen

(2011) Online journalism and the promises of new technology. Journalism Studies 12(3): 311–327.

80.

Thurman

(2008) Forums for citizen journalists? Adoption of user generated content initiatives by online news media. New Media and Society 10(1): 139–157.

81.

Turner

(2005) Actor-networking the news. Social Epistemology 19(4): 321–324.

82.

Ursell

(2001) Dumbing down or shaping up? New technologies, new media, new journalism. Journalism 2(2): 175–196.

83.

Vujnovic

Singer

Paulussen

. (2010) Exploring the political-economic factors of participatory journalism. Journalism Practice 4(3): 285–296.

84.

Warren

(2008) Foreword. In: Este

Warren

Connor

. (eds) Life in the Clickstream: The Future of Journalism. The Media Alliance. Available at: www.alliance.org.au/documents/foj_report_final.pdf.

85.

Weiss

Domingo

(2010) Communities of practice innovation processes in online newsrooms as actor-networks and communities of practice. New Media and Society 12(7): 1156–1171.

86.

Witschge

Nygren

(2009) Journalism: A profession under pressure? Journal of Media Business Studies 6(1): 37–59.