ΤΗΕ IMPACT OF INTERNET ΟΝ ΤΗΕ MASS ΜΕΟΙΑ ΙΝ EUROPE

Transcript

1 ΤΗΕ IMPACT OF INTERNET ΟΝ ΤΗΕ MASS ΜΕΟΙΑ ΙΝ EUROPE COST Α20 INTERNATlONAL CONFERENCE Delphi (Greece), ΑΡΓίl 2006 NIKOS LEANDROS (editor)

2 Pnblis11ed 2006 by abraωίs ISBN ISBN Nikos Leandros 2006 ΑΙΙ rig11ts reseγved book is copyrig11t. Subject to statntory exception and to provisions οε relevant 'e licensing agreeωents, ΩΟ part οε tl1is publication ωaυ be reprodnced, stoied ίιι a al s)'steω, or transωίtted ία any Εοrω or by an)' means, "\vit11ont t11eprior "\vritten permission οε the ευιίιοτ. Printed and bonnd ίη t11eunited Kingdom & USA )k is sold snbject to tl1e conditions t11at it s11allnot, by "\vayοε trade or ot11envise, be sold, 11ired ουι, or ot11envise circnlated \vithont t11epublis11er's prior consent ιτι any 1 οε bindίng or cover οιίιοτ t11an t11at"\v11ic11it is pnblis11ed and wit110tιt a sίωίιar >ndition inclnding t11iscondition being imposed οτι tl1e snbseqιlent purc11aser. abralnίs is an iιnprint οε arima pnblisl1ing ariωa pnblis11ing ASK Honse, Nort11gate Avenne Βυτγ St Edmnnds, Snffolk ΙΡ32 6ΒΒ, UK t: ( ) "\V"\V\v.arίωaΡnbιis11ίng.cοω

3 Greek Journalists ίτι the Digital Era: Innovators or Laggards? Anna Panagiotarea, Aristotle University of Tl1essaloniki (Greece) Dimitra Dimitrakopoulou Aristotle University of Tl1essaloniki (Greece) Abstract Tllis paper examines t11euse of t11einternet by Greek journalists, tl1eίr attίtudes as far as t1ίis ne\,v technology is conceiωed and its ίmpact οτι t11eir daily working practίces. \Ve furt11er examine ίτι our study several issues suc11 as t11e internal competίtίon ία tl1e journalistίc profession, t1ίe gro\'ving requίred merits for journalists ία t1ίe digital era, technophobia, exclusion of technological illiterate professionals. Our research is based t11eoretίcally οτι t11e model of innovatίon diffusion, wllic11 \,vas formulated by Rogers. \Ve examine t11e four-step process of the diffusion of innovatίons, namely, kno\'vledge, formatίon of attίtude, decision and confirmatίon, ία order to explain t11e adoption or rejectίon of new technologies. The t11eoretίcal discussion is enl1anced by empirical data collected t11roug11a structured questίonnaire distributed to Greek journalists. Οιιτ main concern is t'νvofold: firstly, to discuss ίτι a broader frame\,vork t11ec11allengesof ne\,v communicatίons technologies for t11eprofession of journalism. Secondly, we ain to register tl1e use, knowledge and adoption of new οοωπιιιαίσετίοαε tec11nologies by Greek journalists. Introduction 'Πισ radical c11angesίτι t11efield of new communications tec11nologies and t11eemergence of ne\,v media, especially t11einternet, Ιιενε evoked a stimulatίng scientific discussion regarding t11eimpact of t11einternet οτι journalism ιτι t11edigital era. New informatίon technologies 11avea major impact οτι t1ίe\vay traditίonal jouiωalism is practίced. Journalists are expected to continually update tl1eίr skills and competencies to keep up and adjust to tllls rapidly eyolving digital envίronment. Not all journalists 11ave easy access to training materials and many competent journalists are ία danger of being left behind b)' the profession. Tllis paper examines the use and t11e level of adoptίon of the Internet by Greek journalists, theίr attίtudes as far as t11isne\,v tec11nology is conceiωed and its ίmpact οτι tl1eίr daily \'vorking practices. Our researc11 ίε based tl1eoretίcall)' οτι t11e model of innovation 337

4 λ. Ι)Ι\ΝλC;ΙΟΤΊ\Ιlli,\& D. OI~[ΠH..\KOΓoω~oυ diffusion, \'v11ic11\,vas Eormulated by Rogers. The tl1eoretίcal discussion 1S en11anced by empirical data collected through a structured questίonnaire distributed to Greek journalists. Ια t11e next part, \,ve discuss t11e theoretίcal model οε t11e diefusion οε lnnovatίons, Eocusing οτι the major lnteractίve ne\,v tec11nology, tl1e 1nternet. 'Πιε t11eoretίcal approac11 is backed υρ by tl1e empirical researc11 tl1at we Ιιενε conducted among Greek journalists. 'Πιε results are presented and discussed under t11elig11tοε tlle tl1eory οε innovatίon diffusion. Diffusion of the Internet 'Πιο adoptίon οε noveltίes οε any kind, such as ne\v ideas, practίces and technologies requires tίιne Ια any soclal system and ls a process t11rough \vlιic11 <ιη lnnovatίon ls accepted or rejected ιτι a given society. 'Πισ dieeusion process covers all stages, Erom idea-generatίon to adoptίon or rejectίon, as \,vellas re-evaluatίon οε <ιηlnnovatίon. 'Πιο diffusion οε tec11nological lnnovatίons \νίtlιiη soclal systems Ιιεε been \'videly studied (Rogers, 1995; Rogers & Singhal, 1996). Diffusion ls defined ίτι Roger's se1nirιalwork οιι t11e topic as "t11eprocess by wruch an lnnovatίon ls communicated t11roug11certaln c11annelsover tίιne among the members οε a soclal system" (Rogers, 1995: 5). Understanding tl1e attributes οε an lnnovatίon is οε partίcular importance, Eor t11ereason t11atindividual beliees οε these attributes predict significantly most οε t11evarlance ία Euture adoptίon and use (Rogers, 1995). The diffusion οε the lnnovatίon paradigm provides a systematίc demand side explanatίon οε \,vl1enand 11o\,vnewly-introduced tec11nologies are communicated, evaluated, adopted or rejected and re-evaluated by consumers οε a given tec11nology (Rogers, 1995; Williams et al., 1994). 'Πιε dieeuslon process ls concelved Eundamentally as a process οε lneorιnatίon exc11ange, whic11 ls Eacilitated by mass media and interpersonal c11annels \vlt11ln t11e soclal system (Rogers & Singl1al, 1996). More preclse, Rogers (1995) noted t11at tl1e declslon to adopt an ιιιτιονε αοτι or not ls a process w11ic11lnvolves bot11 ineormatίon-seeking and ineormatίon-processing be11avlor and goes t11rough five stages, namely: a.) knowledge about, or exposure to <ιηlnnovatίon, 2.) Eormatίon or attίtude or persuaslon, 3.) declslon οε adoptίon or rejectίon, 4.) implementatίon and 5.) confιrmatίon-reineorcement. Following Rogers (1986), t11edeclslon to adopt or reject an ίτιαονε αοα ls subject to a \vide varlety οε Eactors. Leung & \V'e! (1999) group tl1ese Eactors into Eour major categorles, namely: adopter-related personality traits socioeconomic influences interpersonal channels and ιnedia use perceived attributes οε an lnnovatίon 338

5 GJU :ΕΚJοuιtNλJ.ISΤS 1 1ΊΙΕ L)]C;lΤλJ, ΕΚλ: JΝΝΟ\'λΤΟΙ~S UI~J.λGG.\J~DS? 'Πισ theory of innovations diffusion Ιιεε been \'videly applied througll0ut tlle social sciences and communication studies ιτι particular. Since tlle earliest diffusion researclles \,vere published ίη tlle 1960s, nearly 500 diffusion studies have been conducted and reported (Rogers & Singhal, 1996). Diffusion theory still remains a dominant tlleoretical model for tlle study of ne\v media, such as the Internet. Many studies uacking tecllnological adoption and diffusion could be reported. Especially, tlle diffusion of tlle internet, broadcast ΊV, cable and computers has been examined by various researches, such as Lin & Jeffries, 1998; Dupagne, 1999; Jeffι-ies & Atkin, 1996; Atkin & al., Regarding tlle professional category of journalists and tlle diffusion of tecllnology, Garrison (2001) Ιιεε perfonned a very useful study of joumalists' uses of computers and tlle Intemet for reporting. His study over a sixyear period recorded tllat computers were clearly entrenclled as ne\vs-gatllering resources. (Garrison, 2001). Altllough it would seem that journalists \,vould be receptive to innovative coιnmunication tecllnologies, Garrison reports a perceived resistance to adoption due to reluctance of managetnent to lead towards adoption, lack of investments ίη ne\,v tecllnologies, lack of u'aining and expertise, little or αο access to the new technology, fear of lost time required to learn and not enough time ιτι the \,vork schedule (Garrison, 1998). Ιτι our study such issues are also examined (see belo\v). Methodology 'Πιιε study seeks to explore wlletller and how tlle tlleoretical concepts about diffusion of innovation (tlle innovation under study is, ία our case, the Internet) are manifested in the professional category of Greek journalists. Por the purposes of tlle present researcll, a structured questionnaire was designed and distribυted to joumalists working ιτι local and nationaltnedia. Α typology of tlle Greek media \vas formulated, ίτι order to include a.) tnedia from all traditional mass media, namely ne\vspapers, television and radio stations, b.) media of local and national range, c.) ne\vspapers of different ideological/political orientation. \Ψe ended ίη 10 national daily ne\'vspapers and two local daily newspapers, seven television stations and four radio stations. Ηοινσνστ, tlle journalists tllat constituted our sample, \,vere not studied as separate professional categories, namely press journalists οτ broadcast joumalists, because the majority \vorks ιτι several media (e.g. newsp:ιper and television or radio and television). Ιτι other words, a clear distinction \,vas not possible. Tllerefore we studied our sample as 'joumalists' ια general, applying otller distinction criteria, sucll as age, gender, education. Of course tlle level of usage of tlle Internet also depends οτι tlle reporting fίeld tllat a journalist belongs to. 'Πιυε, we included ίη οιιτ sample reporters and editors who work ίτι ιίιοεσ reporting departments (reporting aboυt politics, econoιny, society and culture) \Vllere tlle usage of tlle Internet can 339

6 λ.ι">α ΛGIΟΤΑRΕλ & Ι). DΙl\Ι1ΊΊL\ΚΟIJΟULΟU actually influence t11e information t11at t11eyincorporate ίαιο t11eir articles as \vell as t11e formation οε tl1eir οριιιιοτι. 'Πιε questionnaire was distributed to t11ejournalists \vllo completed it themselves and returned it to t11eresearchers. Ια sum, we distributed the questionnaίre to 270 journalists and ended up to 251 completed and returned questionnaίres (93% response rate). 'Πιε questionnaire involves 15 close-ended questions and is divided into t\vo parts: t11e fιrst part includes 5 questions regarding the frequency οε use and t11eadoption οε t11einternet technology by tl1e respondent. The pre-constructed ans\vers to t11ese questions used t11e Likert scale. The second part incorporates demographic data \vllic11are used ιτι explaining t11e differences t11atare related to the age, the gender and t11eeducationallevel οε t11erespondents and t11eίractual answers to tl1e rest οε the questionnaire. Overall, the qnestionnaire consists οε 18 variables. The data collected were coded and transferred ίτιτο the statistical program SPSS and \vere analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and Chi-square analysis). Results Our sample was almost equally divided bet\veen men and women: 52% οε ilie respondents are male and 48% are female. As far as t11eίrage is concerned, 6,5% οε t11erespondents are under 25, 45,7% are years old, 23,5% are 36-45, 18,6% are and 5,7% are over 55. Theίr educational level is ranked as follo\vs: 11,7% Ιιενε a secondary education, 21% have graduated from λτει (Advanced Tec11nological Education Institutes), 52% have a Umversity degree and 15,3% Ιιενε a Master. Internet penetration among Greek journalists reac11es almost t11e11alfοε tllis particular professional category. 'Πισ respondents 11ad to choose an answer regarding t11eίr use οε Internet and fromafrequencyscalerankingfrom.never to "everyday". According to our results, the most popnlar use οε tl1e Internet οτι an eveιύdaυbasis is tl1e searc11for ne\vs (69%), follo\ved by gat11ering information ίη order to write an article (50,6%) and sending s (46%). 'Πιο percentages drop significantly w11en it comes to more specialized interactive features οε the Internet, ειιοίι as forums and chat, w11ic11are also more timeconsuming. 83,50/011avenever joined a forum and 90,30/011avenever entered a chat room. The lnternet appears to be a popular toοl ία matters οε doing research or searc11ingand gat11eringinformation. 40,2% uses tl1e Internet as a researc11medium (see Grap11 1) to a very large extent and 26,3% to a large extent. 44,2% uses it as an infof111ational mediuι11 (see Grap11 2) to a very large extent and 24,3% to a large extent. Ηονοενετ, t11isis not t11ecase \vhen ίτ comes to using t11elnterne as a commumcation medium (see Grap11 3): οηιυ 22,3% use it for commumcation purposes to a very large extent and 23,5% to a large extent. 340

7 GRΙ':Ι'ΧjCJUI{ΝΛL/SΤS ΙΝ ΤΙ ΙΕ OIC;I1'.\J, ERA ΙΝΝΟ\,λΊΌΙ{S 01\ J.λC;C~λΙΙDS? Graph 1: U se of the Internet as research medium 'Ε 30 Φ u.. φ Q Ο Νο\ a\all νlίtllθ Lίtllθ Medium Large ResearchMedium VLarge Graph 2: U se of the Internet as information medium InfoMedium 'Ε 30 Φ u.. φ α, Ο InfoMedium 341

8 ι\. ]>λνλgrοίί\lu~λ & D. ι)rί\nτκλκοr~οuu)u Graph 3: U se of the Internet as cοmmιιnίcatίοn medίιιm i: 15 Φ ~ Φ a Ο ΝοΙ at all VLittle Little Medium Large VLarge CommMedium Τίιίε laggardness ιτι exploiting the Internet as a communication medium ίε evident ίτι tl1e next set οε answers as \vell, \'vhich reeer to the Erequency and t11ekind οε use οε . Only 16,5% use the electron1c mail οιι an everyday basls in order to ask ineormation Eor an article. Communicating Witl1oiliers vla ίε also not very popular: 24,3% comtnun1cate everyday vla wlt11tl1eircolleagues and 13,3% \'vlth their Eriends/ relatίves, while 74,5% never send an Ια order to arrange a professional meeting. It ίε \'vort1l mentioning t11at communicating wlth ilie public ls also not very popular: 67,2% 11avenever commun1cated \,viilit11epublic. A1iliough t11epenetration οε t11ene\,v tec11no10giesls quite modest ία a proeesslona1 group tl1at \,ve expected iliat t11eywou1d make extended use οε iliem, an ovenv11elming majorit)t (98,4%) believe iliat ilie Internet makes t11elr\,vork easier. 'Πιε questionnaire a1so lnc1uded a question \'vl11c11\,vas addressed only to tl1e ones tl1at have never used the Internet or use lt to a very little extent. 'Πιίε question asked the respondents to indicate t11ereasons Eor not using t11einternet: 22% preeer traditiοωι1 ways οε comιnunlcating and researching, 21% b1ame t11emanagement/o\vnership οε re1l1ctanceto 1ead to\vards adoption or invest Ιτι ne\v tec11no10gies,17% Ιιενε αο tralnlng, 16% fωd αο use in enterlng t11einternet, w11ile14% find lt too comp1ex and 10% do not 11avet11etitne to 1earn 110wto use lt or actually use ίτ, 'Πιε 1ast question ιοικίιοε a very important point regarding the futιιre ro1e t11atjοurωιlists see in the proeession οε journalism ία t1le digita1 era (see Grapll 4). It ls interesting t11attl1e ans\,vers are concentrated around t\vo different po1es: 41,1% believe t11atjournalists should 342

9 (;ΚΕΕΚ -,OUH.N,\USTS1 Τι!Ε ΟΙ(; ΠΊ\JJ I~ΙΙι\: Ι O\''\T()I~S ()l~ ]~ι\(χ;'\lu)s? become pro"iders οε specittlized ineorιnation "vllile 34% believe t11tttjournttlists can ειιτνινε only ttscriticttl analysts. 20,7% ttdopt tt more neutralized attitude and believe ίη tlle Euture οε journalists tts neutral ineormation brokers. At tllis point, \ve could note tllat tllis indicates a trend to\vttrds post-broadcast journttlism, whicll introduces the practice οε journalism as 'subjective objectivity" Graph 4: Future role of journalism 'Ε 30 Φ ~ Φο '--- NeutraI Info Broker CήtίcaΙ AnaIyst Info SpeciaIist Other RoleJour Ιτι tlle next section \ve correlate the above presented results \vitll tlle ttge, tlle gender and the education level οε dle respondents, ία order to clleck \vhether they influence tlle Erequency and tlle nature οε the use οε tlle ne\v interactive technologies. Our 11ypothesis is tllat tllere is a strong relation between dle use οε technology and the age, tlle gender and the education οε the journalists. This hypotllesis is tested through non-pttrametric correlation tests using the Chi-square analysis. Factors affecting Internet use and adoption J.Age According to our resettrcll, ttge plays a significant role ίn tlle use and tlle adoption οε the Internet. 'Πιε dieeerences among tlle various age groups are significant and indicative Eor tlle generation gap regarding new technologies. The majority οε the respondents "vho use tlle Internet everyday to pereorm νετιοιιε actions are under 45 years old. 'Πιο respective 343

10 ,\.1>'\,\<.;ΙΟΤ.\Η.Ι':,\ & σ!)iί\ι1τ1\,\κ()j>()l!],()l! percentage clrops significant1y at tlle age οε ονοτ -1-5~'ears old. 'Πιε percentages are presentecl and ana1)tsed at tlle scale οε 100% \.vlt11ln age grol1p. 'Πιε first fιve tlliestions regard tlle ιιεε οε tlle 1nternet to send e111ails, to ask Ιοτ ineof1nation, to searc11 Eor ne\.vs, to enter a Ιοτιιιιι or to cllat. Ιιι tlle tllree Eirst gl1estions, \.ve notice a large differentiation a1110ng age grol1ps. Ιτι partic111ar, 68,8% ιιικίετ 25 years old ιιεεε t1le 1nternet evef)lday to send s. 'Πιε percentages are similar ίη tlle age grotιp (56,6%) and (63,2%). 'Πιε respective percentage drops vertically ίη tlle age grotιp (6,5%). None οε t1le respondents over 56 years old υεεε t11e 1nternet to send emai1s. 'Πισ τσειιίιε are sίmilar ίη t1le next gl1estion πε \vell, \v11lc11reeers to t11e l1se οε t11e 1nternet to ask for information. Once again, t11e percentages are 11igll ία t1le tllree Ετετ age grotιps. 56,3% l1hder 25 years old nses t11e 1nternet evef)tday to as1<:for infof1nation. 'Πιε percent:1ges are again similar ίη t11e age grol1p (64%) and (57,9%). 'Πιε resρectiγe peltentage ls redl1ced by 11a1fια the age grol1p (21,7%). Α limlted υεε οε t11e 1nternet to ask Ιοτ infof1nation ls recorded among t1le respondents ονετ 56 years old (7,1%). 'Πιε percentages ralse significant1y a1110ng ilie respondents υτκίετ 45 ίτι tlle gl1estion al)ont the evef)iday ιιεε of t1le 1nternet to searc11 for ne\vs. 100% nnder 25 years old searc1l tlle 1nternet everyday for news. 'Πιο percentages are 11igh ίη tlle age grol1p (82,9%) and (82,8%). 'Πιο majority of the respondents of t11e age grotιp (58,7%) searc11es ne\vs οτι t11e 1nternet οη1υ once a week. Λτι exceptiona1 large percentage of t11e respondents over 56 years old never υεεε t11e 1nternet to search for ne\.vs (92,9%). 'Πιε τεευίιε are similar \.v11en lt comes to more specialized interactive featιιres of tlle 1nternet, sl1c1l as Ιοιιιαιε and chat, \.v11lc11are a1so more time-conshtning. None οε t11e respondents over 45 years old enters any Ϊοτυπι. 'Πιο action ls pereof1ned οτι an e\teryday basls by 6,3% of t11e age grotιp l1nder 25, by 5,4% of tlle age gronp and by 1,80/0 οε t11e age grol1p 'Πιο percentages are even 10\ver ίη t11e case of c1lattirιg οτι the 1nternet. Οη1)' 2,7% c1lat eveι-υdaυ (age grol1p 26-35), \v11ile none of t11e respondents frotn t11e ot11er age grotιps cllat οη this fregnency. Ιt ls obvlous t1lat tl1ere ιε τιο statistic:11 significant non-1lomogeneity bet\.veen age grotιps. The differences bet\.veen age grotιps are a1so obvlous ία t1le ιιεε of etnail to perform νετιοιιε actions. 'Πιο next gl1estion regards t11e ιιεε of Ιοτ infof1nation gat1lerlng. 18,8% υιιοετ 25 years old send s ιτι οιτίετ to gat1le1' information. 'Πιο pe1'centages are sln1ila1' ία t11e age grotιp (20,7%) and (20,7%). ΟηΙ)' 2,2% of t11e 1'esrondents of tlle age grol1p send seorinformationgathering.as\.ve1lave seen ίη tlle pre\-iol1s section, none of t11e 1'espondents over 56 ιιεεε tl1e electronlc mail so a11 tlle percentages 1Ω t11e Eollo\ving set of gl1estions are Ο. 344

11 'Πιετε ίε a1so limlted use of tiίe eι11;ιί1ω arrange professiona1 meetings. Α SΩ1aΙΙpercentage (12,5%) of t1le l'espondents under 25 c0111munlcate vla emai1 once a week ιτι οιτίετ to anange ;ι professiona1 meetίng. 'Πιε percentages are slmilat ιτι t11eage group (13,5%) and (14%). Tlle respectίve percentage ls very 10\v ίη the age group (2,2%). 'Πισ percentages lncrease \v1len lt comes to ing colleagues. 25% under 25 years old C unlcate \Vlt1lt1lelr colleagues οιι an eveιύdaυbasls. The percentage ls sίω1ίιarιτι tlle age group (27%) \vllile lt ls ralsed significantly ίτι t1le age group (40,4%). Οη11' 6,5% use t1le eω1aίιω coml11unlcate wltll tlleίr colleagues. 'Πισ lnteractίon \vltll tlle publίc ls veιύ constralned. Answerlng of tlle publίc occurs once a \veek ίη a percentage of 12,5% ιτι tlle age group under 25, ralses sliglltly ιτι tlle age group (18,9%) and ία tlle age group (24,6%) and drops down ω 2,2% ίτι tlle age group of ΕΩ1ailing friends ls a ττιοτε popular actίon ία tlle first t1lree age groups. 31,3% of t1le l'espondents under 25 years old send s ω t1leίr friends everyday, \vl1.ile14,3% of tlle age group and 21,1% of tlle age group do so. 8,7% of tl1.erespondents ιτι the age group tllelr friends οηlυ once a week. 'Πιε next tllree questίons researcll and ίτιίοτπιειίοα regal'd tlle level of use of tlle 1ηteΙ'Ωet as a cοmω1unίcatίοn, l11edium al110ng tlle varlous age grotjps. 'Πιε first tllree age groups \vlllcll seeω1 so far tllat tlley belong ω the lnnovators of tl1.ejournalίstίc SΥsteΩ1use tlle 1nternet ω a very 1arge extend as a researcll and informatίon medium. 'Πι«percentages ίη the case of Internet use as a researcll Ω1edίum are 68,8%, 49,6% and 51,7%respectively. of t1le Internet respective age groups. 'Πισ use as an ίηfο1"ω1atiοηa1ιοοί ls even 11igher: 81,3%, 53,1% and 56,9% of tlle 'Πιε οιίιετ two ;:ιge groups whicl1. lnvo1ve jοurn;:ιlists over 46 years old demonstrate ;:ι lίιηited use of tl1e Internet as s CΟΩ1munίcatiοn medium. 67,4% of tlle age grotjp use tlle Ιαιετυετ ;:ιsa σοτιιτιιιιτιισετίοα Ω1edίUΩ1ω a very litt1e extent, \vl1.ile92,9% of tl1.ejonrnalίsts over 56 1'ears old do not use the 1nternet in εικίι a "\va1'at all. 'Πιε fignres are a1so disappointing ία t11euse of tl1e 1nternet ;:ιsa rese;:ιrcl1.medίuω1:58,7% of the ;:ιgegroup use tlle Internet as a researcl1. Ω1edίl1111 to a very litt1e extent, wl1.i1e92,9% of tl1.ejournalists over 56 years old do not nse tl1.einternet as ;:ιresearcl1. ιοο] at all. Ιτι tl1.elast qnestion ;:ιbοut tl1e Internet as an information tool, 69,6% οε tl1.e age group and 92,9% οε tl1.e respondents over 56 Υe;:ιrsold do not use lt ιτι stιcl1.a \vay at all. IJ. Gendel' Tllong11 expected tl1.atgender \vould play a significant role ίτι tlle nse οε tecl1.nology, our researcl1. s110\vstl1.attl1.ere;:ιrenot significant diffel"ences between m;:ι1eand fema1e [οιιαιείίετε

12 ,\. ),\ '\ω(π'\η..ε.\ & η Ι)):\ΙΠΗ.λκο))()ωΩυ Ι t seems t11at t11e Internet and tl1e are ίπιροττειιι tools for t11e journalistic \vork and ιίιιιε are integrated lnto t11e everyday working life of [οιιτιιείιετε irrespective Ιτοπι t11elr gender. As far as t11e ιιε«of t11e Internet οτι an eυeητdaυ basls ls concerned, 55,7% of t11e respondents t11at ιιεε lt to send eιηaί1s are ιηaιe, \'vl1ile 44,3% of tl1e respondents \v110 υεε lt for t11e same pllrpose are \vomen. 'Πιε reslllts are sίιηilar ιτι tl1e case of Llsing tl1e Internet ίη order to ask for ίηfοrιηatiοη: 54,-+% are men and -+5,6% are \V01nen. Μοτεονετ, 55,6% of t11e respondents \,V110seaIcl1 ne\vs οτι t11e Ιηteι-ηet are ma1e and -+4,-+%aι-e feιηaιe. 'Πιε τεειιίιε aie αιοτο eqlla1 \v11en lt σοαιεε to tl1e vlslt of Ιοτιιαιε οι- c11at τοοτιιε: of all t11e Iespondents that ιιενετ entei a Ιοτιιαι, 50,7% aie ιηeη and 49,3% are \,V01nen. 'Πιε Iespectiye percentage ίο t11e case of a c11at τοοσι ls 49,3% (men) and 50,7% (\vοιηeη). 'Πιε sitιιation ls similai w11en it οοττιεε to tl1e ιιεε of eιηaί1: 25% of τίιοεε \v110 send s to their colleagιιes eveiyd:ιy are male and 23,5% are fema1e. SitηilaIly, of the [ουταείίειε \V110 ans\ver to their pllblic's s 46,7% are wοιηeη and 53,3% aie τιιετι. Also, 51,5 /0 ιηeη and -+8,5% \vοιηeη send emai1s to their friends. \Vomen appear to ιιεε t11e slig11tl)i σιοτε t11an men \v11en it σοαιεε to ίηfοrιηatiοη gatl1erlng (16,8% \,vοιηeη and 15,5% men). 'Πιε percentage gap grows significantly ία t11e case of arranging professional tneetings via 61,5% of t11e responden ts who Llse ίτ for ειισιι pllrposes eveιύdaυ are \,vοιηeη and οη1υ 38,5% are men. Νο significant differences are noted bet'\veen men and \vomen as far as t11eir ιιεσ of tl1e Ιατεττιετ as a οοαισιιιτικετιοτι, researc11 and ίαίοταιετίου ιηedίιιm. ΠΙ. Edllcation level T110Llg11we haye seen ίιι t11e aboye section tl1at gendei does not affect t11e ιιεε of tec11nology ίτι tl1e case of ουτ saιηριe, t11e resll1ts differ \vhen we c11eck t11e correlation bet\veen tecl1nology Llse and edllcation level. Οιιτ corre1ation tests s110w t11at there ls significant statistica1 difference ίη the case of Llsing the Internet ίη order to send s, gat11ei infoimation and search for ne\vs. 'Πισ ones wllo υεο tlle Internet tnost ιτι oidei to send s and gat11er information are University gradllates (51,9%, 50,9 /0 and 52,3~/0 respectiye1y), follo\'ved by graduates from t11e Advanced Techno1ogical and EdLlcational Institntes (ΑΤΕΙ) (26,9%, 26,7% and 29% respective1y). Tl1eIe aie τιο diffeiences bet\veen t1le varlolls education leve1s ίη t11e σιses of nse of Ιοτυττιε οι- c1lat τοοαιε. Μοει freqnent users of fornms are λτει gradnates (37,5%), Mastet holdeis (25%) and second-giade gradllates (25%), \'v11ile University giadllates ιιεε lt less (12,5%). 'Πιε ιιεε of c11at rooms ls eqllally divided bet\veen t11e Iesponders of λ ΤΕΙ 1evel (33,3%), Uniyerslt)' giaduates (33,3%) and Master 1101deIs (33,3%). Νο significant statistical correlation ιε evident bet'\veen t11e edlιcation level and emai1 υεε. Ηονοενετ, tl1e 11ig11est use of emai1 Ια infoimation gat11eilng ls done by λ ΤΕΙ (32,5 /0) and 346

13 (;lιj~i':kjouk "USTS ΙΝ ΊΊ 11,:υκ: Π"], ΕΗλ ΙΝ Ο\,,\ΤΟΙΙS ()ΙΙ Ι.,\GC;'\ΙΙ1)S? University graduates (40%). 11.iversity graduates nιake also a hig11 use οε t11e enιail οιι an evef)'day basis ίτι order to arrange proeessional nιeetίngs (53,8%), tnuc11 nιore than tl1e οιίιετ educatίonal groups. 'Πιιε also obvious ιτι tl1e case οε conιmunicatίng "\vith t11eir colleagues via (47,5%), comtnunicatίng "\vit11t11epublic (66,7%) and tl1eir t"rlends (53,1%). Altl10ug11 ιιο statίstίcal significant correlatίon ls reported between tl1e dieeerent educatίonal groups ιτι case οε using t11e Internet as a communicatίon and lneorιnatίon medium, t11e correlatίon tests sho\v a statίstίcal significant non-110mogeneity ίη t11e case οε using tl1e 1nternet as a researcl1 medium. Οοτιοίιιείοτι» Analysis οε the dieeuslon process broadens and enl1ances our ίl11derstaηdίηg οε 110"\va ne"\v tec11nology ls penetrated lnto a soclal s)'stem. Regarding t11e journalistίc field as a soclal system iliat can be studied ία matters οε lnteractίve tecl1nology dieeuslon, our stυdy constίtυtes a contributίon to tl1e discusslon about t11e Eactors tl1at aeeect tl1e level and tl1e scope οε use οε tl1e lnteractίve technologίes οε tl1e \Vorld \Vide \v'eb and ilie . Our stυdy reveals tl1at Greek journalists do not belong to t11elnnovators ίτι adoptίng ne"\v tecl1nologies, as 1nternet penetratίon ία tl1is proeessional categο1ύ ίε a little above 50%. Altl10ugl1 tl1e)' accept and demonstrate their perceived useeulness οε ne\v tec11nologles, tl1ere ls evidence tl1at tl1ere is a level οε reslstance to adoptίon. As our results have s110wn, tl1is reslstance ls ougl1t to Eactors suc11 as the age, tl1e gender and tl1e educatίon level οε tl1e respondents. \'(le 11ave demonstrated t11at age and educatίon play a pivotal role ίη tl1e level οε ne\v tecl1nologies adoptίon, \'v11ilegender aeeects t11euse ία a secοηdalύ Easllion. \'(le could sa)' tl1at t11edominant profile οε a Greek journalist ίη matters οε tec11nolog)' use ls under 45 years old, tnale and University graduate. We could cl1aracterize tl1is group as tl1e innovators οε proeessional journalists, w11ile tl1e rest οε tl1em are tlle laggards or tl1e late adopters. 'Πιε data οε our stυdy tl1at \ve Ιιενε presented ίη tl1e previous sectίon, detnonstπtte tl1at tl1e use οε the 1nternet and tl1e depends to a great extend to the age οε tl1e users. The results are indicatίve οε an important generatίon gap bet\veen t11e users. Journalists tl1at are under 45 )'ears old use botl1 lnteractίve tec11nologίes to a satίseying extend (most ans\,vers attract over 55% οε tl1e respondents Erom the t11ree fu'st age groups (under 25, 26-35,36-45). \Vl1ile tl1e rates regarding 1nternet use are l1ig11,etnail use is guite constralned, even ιτι tl1ese age groιφs. \'(le could observe 11ere tιυιt Greek journalists tend to preeer personal τοωαιυαισιαοο ιτι order to cotnmunlcate \'Vltl1 tl1eir sources or colleagues. 'Πιιε could be explained οτι t11e basis t11at t11e proeesslon οε journalism reguires a personal relatίon and a climate οε trust bet\veen jonrnalists and t11eir sources, \vl1ic11can οηl)' be acl1leved ilirougl1 personal contact. 1t could also be justίfied as a tnatter οε attίtυde to\,vards tl1e ιαιρετεοτιε], 3..J.7

14 λ.!'λ λc;jo")'λη.i':.\ & σ Ι)ΙJ\[ΠΙ\λΚΟI'ΟUJΩU frigid c11aracter οε σοπιυιιιαίσε.ιίοα via elnai1 t11at ρεορίε from Sout11ern countries tend to Ιοται. Overall, the 1nternet is used most πε an inforlnatίon mediull1 and 1east as a οοπισιιιαίοε αοα lnedil1111. mediull1, second1y as a researc11 'Πιε resljectίve ljercentages are disapljointίng (d10ug11exljected) ίη tl1e age groι.φs ονετ 'Πιε rates decrease ίη t11eage groulj and are lnargίna1, ίε not trivia1 ίη t11eage groulj over 56. JoLlrnalists ονετ -1-5seeln to ljrefer d1e traditίona1,vays οε coιnmunicatίng and ι-eseaι-cl1ing. This con1d safe1y lead us to tl1e conc1usion that journalists οε tl1.is age aι-e cοnsίdeι-ed as 1aggaι-ds. As far as tl1e re1atίon bet\veen gender and tecl1nology is concerned, οιιτ εεειιωρτίοτι ριιοτ our researcl1,vas d1at \-.volnen\vou1d use t11ene\-.vtecl111010gies1ess t11atτιισιι. Statίstίcs s110\v t11atyoung ιτιστι aι-e t11eones \v110use d1e 1nternet αιοτο fι-eqιιeηdυ' Ιι seems d1at ιίιίε is not d1e case for jonrnalists. As tl1e 1nternet and d1e ell1ail are vita1 too1s Ιοτ a journalist, \vomen ρτοίεεείοαείε aljpear to be equally actίve ιτι t11ense οε t11einteractίve tec11nologies. 'Πιο 1ast cone1atίon t11at\ve Ιιενε made bet\veen dίffeι-eηt educatίon 1eve1sand t11euse οε ne\-.vtec1lno1ogies, sllo\-.vst11at d1eι-e aι-e differences acquiring inforlnatίon the 1nternet as σοπιττιιιτιισιιιοτι mediuln d1e nse gro,vs ρτοροτιιοαεί gι-aduates. Pos tgraduates \Vl1en t11e1nternet is used an a too1 for οι- ι-eadίηg t11ene\vs, but there are τιο signifίcant dίffeι-eηces ία using for \V11atevet"CΟ111111ι.iηίcatίοn ljuγposes. \,,'e see tl1at \vit11t11eeducatίona1 1eve1 Ιιιιτ οη1υυntί1 t11e1eve1οε Universit}' lna1.. e a ιυοτε limίted use, 11ig11erιίυιτ 11ig11sc11001graduates muc111ess tllat t11eοιίιετ t\vo educatίόηaι1eve1 groι.φs. \ΎIe sllou1d note 11ere t11at d1e reasons ll1entίoned by journalists \-.v110use t11e 1nternet sp01'adically, attribι.ιte t11e 'resljonsibility' οε tl1eir non-use to externa1 factors, SUCl1as re1uctance b)' t11elnanagelnent/o\vnersl1.ilj bι.ιt to 1ead to\vards adoljtίon, 1ack of inyestιl1ents ιυ ne\v tecl1no1ogies and 1ack of training. Ιι εεειτιε tl1at αεκνε organizatίons are not tl1at keen ία embracing ne\v tecl1nologίes tl1at their staff could use. Ιτ is lnosdy expected tl1at journalists 1earn to use tlle ne\v tecl1no1ogίes οιι tl1eir οκνιι, since ιιο training is ljroyided or funded by d1e organizatίons. Λτιοιίιετ problem is tl1e lack οε tίme for journalists. ΤΟ Sl.lJl1ιψ, \ve could say tl1at tl1e re1uctant media οιντιετε, t11elin1.ited training and ljrofessiona1 tίme constraints a burden for journalists t11at11inders t11em to enter t11edigita1 era. At tl1is ροιτιτ, \-.vesl10u1d a1so 11ig11lightt11e responsibilit}' οε t11e state, apart froιn t11e ι-esροηsίbilitυ οε media οιναετείιιρ, regarding d1e embracelnent and d1e promotίon οε tl1e 1nternet. 'Πιε state inyestlnents ίη the 10\vlJenetratίon rates ίτι Greece l. ιτι ne\-.vtec11nologies are extrelne1y limited, \Vl1icl1is ουνίουε are Ι.\ccOl'Jillg to tll~ rccclltrcscarcll (Ι)cccmbcr 2005) of tll~ ~ltί()ll~ll C!:\VΟΓkof J\cscalTll & 'l'ccllllolog\' ίll C~rcccι: (1 :I)I :η. C;rccks lisc tllc Illtcrnct ίll a lo\v rcrccntagc of 19,50Ό (\V"v\v.CLlct.gr.last acccsscj 5/ 1/:20U6). 348 «

15 c;ιωι':κiοuη.ν"j.jsτs JN ΊΊ ιε ΟIClΤλJ. I':Η.λ:JΝΝονΛΤΟJΙS 01{ JJi\GC;,\K[)S? 'Πιετε is also an underl)ting fear t11at tl10se journalίsts \v110"\villnot be able to keep pace wit11 t11ene\v tec11nological developments will be left out of t11eprofession. Of course, t11is does not apply for t11e top οριτιίοα journalists \v110 Ιιενε t11e power οε t11eίr significant signature, but for t11emass οε grassroots journalists \v110 are anonymous and, ιίιιιε, \veaker. 'Πιο danger of loosing t11eir jobs derives also from t11e expanding competίtίon οε t11e new online only media t11at elnploy editors wit11 strong tec11nological skills and lesser jοuωalistίc competences. Last but not least, anot11er issue that \ve consider of l1ig11importance is tl1e \vay tl1at journalists exploit and incorporate into t11eir \vork tl1e various inforιnatίon t11at they gather οτι tl1e Internet. 'Πιε level of reliability and accnracy remains an open questίon οτι tl1e Internet \vl1ere inaccnrate informatίon and possible propaganda c11annels tl1rive uncontrolled. Α recent example is the \veblog οε Margot \"'\-Tallstrom,who is bloggίng weekly ίη an attempt to make tl1e topic of Europe as familiar as the weat11er or taxes. Her attempt Ιιεε already provoked witl1ering critίcism among journalists who claim tl1at the Commissioner's intent is to create a propaganda-st)'le broadcastίng arm. So even in the online 'free' informatίon arena it remains ετι open issne \v11ic11informatίon is really true, transparent and uncontrolled. Bibliography Atkin, D. J., Jeffries, L. \"'(1. and Neuendorf, Κ. Α. (1998) "Understanding Internet Adoptίon as Telecommunicatίons BeI1avior". jolirnai ~rβrοadωstίng and Eiectronic Λ1edίa, 42 (2), ρρ Dnpagne, Μ. (1999) "Exploring t11e Cl1aracteristίcs οε Potentίal Higl1-Defintίon Television Adopters". joιtrnai ~rmedia Εωnοmίι:r, 12 (1), ρρ Garrison, Β. (1998) Comptttel"-A.rsi.rtedReporting. Mah"\vaI1,NJ: ErlbaιHn. Garrison, Β. (2001) "Diffusion of online inforιnatίon tec11nologies 111 ne\vspaper ne\vsrooms". joιlrnaizjom, 2 (2), ρρ J effries, L. \'(1. and Atkin, D. (1996) "Predictίng U se οε Tec11nologies for Commnnicatίon and ConsιHner Needs". joιtrnai ~rβrοadωstίng and Εieι1rΟ17ίΙ'Λ1edίa,40 (3), ρρ Leung, L. and \'(Iei, R. (1999) "More 'Πιειι Just Talk οτι tl1e Move: Uses and Gratificatίons οτι the Cellnlar Ρίιοαε". joltrnaiij-m & Λ1aΗ Cοmmttnίωtίοn Qtιarter/y, 77 (2), ρρ Lin, C. Α. and Jeffries, L. \'V'. (1998) "Factors Influencing tl1e Adoptίon of Multίmedia Cable Technology". jotlr17alzsm& Ma.r.rCοmmιιnίωtίοn Qttαrter/y, 75 (2), ρρ Rogers Ε. (1986) Commllnication Technoiogy: The NeJv Media in Society. Tl1e Free Press. Rogers, Ε. (1995) Diffusion ojί17nοvatίο17s.new York: Free Press. 349

16 λ. Ι)λΝΙ\C;JΟΙ"Λιυ':λ & υ. [)Jl\ΙΠRΙ\ΚΟΓΟUJ,Ου Rogers, Ε. and Singhal, λ. (1996) "DiEEusion οε Innovations", ιn Sal\.ven, 11. Β. and Stacks, D. \ν. (eds) Απ Jntergrated ΑΡΡrοaι-h to Communit-ation TlJe01Y and ReJ"ean-fJ.Mah\.va11,NJ: Erlbaum. Singer, J. Β. (2004) "Strange BedEel1ows? 'Πιε Diffusion οε Convergence in Four Νεννε Organizations". Journaiism Stlldies, 5 (1), ρρ \X'illiams et al. (1994) "Social Aspects οε Νεκν Media Tec11nologies", ιτι Βιγant, J. and Zillmann, D. (eds) Media Effet"ts Αdvanι-es ίπ TlJeory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. 350 a