|
Going Digital at College Newspapers:
The Impact on Photo Credibility and Work Routines
James D. Kelly
Assistant Professor
School of Journalism
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, IL 62901-6601
[log in to unmask]
voice (618) 536-3361
FAX (618) 453-5200
abstract
A series of six mail surveys of daily college
newspapers measured the adoption rate of digital imaging
technology
between October 1992 and April 1995. Measurement began in the
early
adoption stage (13 %) and concluded in the late majority stage
(66%). Throughout, student editors at both adopting and
non-adopting
papers said the technology would lead to a decrease in
newsphoto
credibility. But editors at adopting papers viewed work routine
changes favorably. Response patterns to both measures suggest
early
adopters and majority adopters reacted differently to digital
imaging.
running head: Going Digital
Submitted to the Visual Communication Division of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication for presentation at the annual
meeting in Anaheim, California, August 1996
Going Digital at College Newspapers:
The Impact on Photo Credibility and Work Routines
abstract
A series of six mail surveys of daily college
newspapers measured the adoption rate of digital imaging
technology
between October 1992 and April 1995. Measurement began in the
early
adoption stage (13 %) and concluded in the late majority stage
(66%). Throughout, student editors at both adopting and
non-adopting
papers said the technology would lead to a decrease in
newsphoto
credibility. But editors at adopting papers viewed work routine
changes favorably. Response patterns to both measures suggest
early
adopters and majority adopters reacted differently to digital
imaging.
running head: Going Digital
Submitted to the Visual Communication Division of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication for presentation at the annual
meeting in Anaheim, California, August 1996
Going
Digital
Going Digital at College Newspapers:
The Impact on Photo Credibility and Work Routines
Since the turn of the century, a long list of new communication
technologies have irreversibly changed the way Americans get their news. Radio,
television, and now computer technologies have each dramatically influenced the
way news information is delivered, and their widespread adoption has changed the
way journalists work and the way audiences interpret the news. But few
technologies have challenged the fundamental veracity of news reports as
directly as has the adoption of computer-based photographic processing by news
organizations.
On several occasions during the last decade, the journalism
profession has been shaken by discoveries that prominent publications have
"altered reality" by digitally retouching news photographs.[1] Discussions and
seminars have been held and guidelines and protocols have been issued in the
wake of these transgressions, but the full impact of digital imaging technology
on photography and on audience interpretation of photographic news reports is
still in a state of flux. Some have suggested that the technology represents
the "end of photography as evidence of anything."[2]
This study uses a diffusion of innovation approach to examine the
adoption of digital imaging technology at daily college student newspapers and
to gauge its effect on student journalists' attitudes about the credibility of
news photography and their work routines. College papers are well suited for
such a study because their adoption of the technology is likely to be more
gradual than was the case at professional papers. Also, their journalists are
less integrated into the professional culture of the newsroom and more likely to
exhibit attitudes contrary to the prevailing professional norm.
The adoption of digital imaging technology at professional daily
newspapers is essentially complete. It occurred quite rapidly, largely as the
result of the wire service decisions.[3] In March 1990, both the Associated
Press and United Press International announced that all photo members and
subscribers would soon be equipped with a digital imaging computer and that
within two years all photo transmissions from either wire service would be
digital.[4] The effect of the announcement was to force the transition to the
new technology much more rapidly than most had anticipated. By June 1992 all
photo subscribers to these two major wire services had electronic darkrooms.[5]
This "forced" adoption made a diffusion of innovation study quite problematic.
Few college newspapers subscribe to a photographic wire service,
however. Therefore, they have not experienced this forced adoption to the same
extent. The adoption process will likely occur over a longer time period and be
more amenable to systematic study.[6] Student newspapers are especially
appropriate subjects for this study because of the nature of their staffs.
College papers inform their communities in much the same way their general
circulation counterparts do. But their staffs are only beginning their
initiation into the newsroom routines and practices that form a basis for
journalists' understanding of the audience and the news.[7] Attitudes about
news and journalism are still being formed by staffers and the effects of
technology adoption on their perceptions of news credibility are more likely
manifest than may be the case for seasoned professionals. Regardless of whether
students are more susceptible to adoption effects, the attitudes and ideas they
develop while in college will contribute to their professional development and
their understanding of journalism's role in society.
There have been thousands of research reports using the diffusion of
innovations approach applied to all manner of innovation.[8] The fundamental
temporal pattern associated with the diffusion process approximates an S-shaped
(sigmoid) curve when the cumulative level of adoption over time is graphed. The
principal effect associated with this curve is the diffusion effectDthat as the
rate of awareness of an innovation among a population increases, peer pressure
begins to develop and the rate of adoption accelerates. This peer pressure is
particularly important in social systems that are highly connected.[9]
Rogers also postulates an adoption and innovation life-cycle curve
that suggests people or organizations that adopt an innovation at similar times
tend to have other similar characteristics. For organizations, key
considerations are the extent to which the organization is open to change (risk
taking) and the degree to which it perceives itself as an opinion leader (social
participation). His life-cycle categories are innovators (first 2.5% of the
population), early adopters (next 13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority
(34%), and laggards (16%). These are based on a normally distributed
population.[10]
Rogers and Shoemaker developed a model describing the stages through
which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation to a decision
to adopt or reject it. Awareness of the innovation is followed by interest, a
period of evaluation, a trial use of the innovation, and eventually, adoption.
This model is particularly useful in describing the sources and channels of
information used by the individual in the adoption decision and the attitudinal
changes associated with adoption.[11]
Research on technology adoption in journalism has focused primarily
on the adoption of computers for text editing.[12] Slater, et al. found that
students using VDTs made fewer mechanistic changes and more structural ones than
students using paper and pencil, suggesting that the change in technology
affected how editors shaped the content of the news.[13]
Much of the research on college student newspapers has been on the
role of the papers' advisors rather than on the nature of the educational
experience newspapers provide,[14] although studies have investigated aspects of
college newspapers such as staff compensation,[15] and the legal implications
of court decisions regarding free press issues.[16] Still, none have
specifically examined the adoption of a new technology over time for either
educational or business related reasons. This is somewhat surprising since more
than half of college journalism programs report that work for a college
newspaper is part of the curriculum requirements.[17]
In 1982 the Gannett Foundation did fund an extensive survey of daily
college newspapers by Paul Atkins.[18] Although more broadly focused than this
study, Atkins examined technological issues, but his report was exclusively
descriptive rather than analytic. He found that the majority of daily
newspapers were using video display terminals and photo typesetters and many
reported transition problems. Atkins also reported that somewhat less than
one-half of the papers had "moderately good" to "excellent" photographic
facilities but suggested that many suffered from inadequate labs and photo
equipment.
In a 1987 article, John Ahlhauser forecast several changes likely to
happen as newspapers adopted digital imaging technologies. They included 1)
increased time shooting, 2) greater contact with reporters and editors, 3)
increased ease of handling, 4) extended deadlines, and 5) the potential for a
lose of control of image selection and marginalization of the photographer.[19]
He suggested that changes in work routine would depend on the preparation and
professionalism of photojournalists.
Purpose of the Study
The study's purpose is to measure the adoption rate of digital
imaging technology during the three-year period immediately following the
adoption of such technology at all Associated Press member newspapers. It
assesses the degree to which student photo editors perceive the new technology
as a threat to newsphoto credibility and attempts to describe the relationship
between technology adoption and credibility attitudes. Finally, the study
examines editors' assessments of how the technology adoption affects the work
routines photojournalist follow as they collect and edit the visual news.
The study advances the following assumption and research questions:
A1: Once digital imaging technology has been
adopted for routine use in a daily college student newspaper,
the technology will not be abandoned within three years of
use.
RQ1: At what rate are daily college student
newspapers adopting digital imaging technologies for the
routine processing of news photographs?
RQ2: How do student editors evaluate the
effect of digital imaging technology on the credibility of
news photography?
RQ3: What is the nature of the relationship
(if any) between the adoption of digital imaging technologies
and student photo editors' perceived effect of the technology
on newsphoto credibility?
RQ4: How do student editors evaluate the
effect of digital imaging technology on the work routines of
newspaper photographers?
This study reports six time points in a survey investigation of
digital imaging technology at college newspapers.[20]
Method
The method was mail survey. The design was repeated cross-sectional
census with accumulation. A four-page questionnaire was sent to all college
newspapers in the Editor & Publisher International Yearbook listing four or more
publication days per week in the following months: October 1992, April 1993,
October 1993, April 1994, October 1994, and April 1995.[21] Questionnaires at
each wave were largely identical and all responses reported here were to
identical questions asked at each of the six surveys. The cover letter for each
survey was addressed to the newspaper's photo editor or chief photographer or
"the photographer with the most authority over the photo staff." Sixty-eight
editors responded to the first survey, sixty to the second, fifty-eight to the
third, seventy to the fourth, sixty-six to the fifth, and fifty-six to the
sixth. The average newspaer returned almost four (3.93) of the six surveys
sent.
In reporting results at each time period, the response from the most
recently completed survey is used. For example, if no questionnaire was
returned for the second period, responses from the first questionnaire are
reported for the second time period as well as the first. Likewise, if a single
question in the third questionnaire is missing, the response to that question
from the previous period is used in reporting on the third period. This method
conservatively measures adoption at each time point since a non-responding paper
may be reported as a non-adopter even though it in fact had adopted the
technology. The underlying assumption is that once the digital imaging
technology is adopted it is not discontinued within the year time period serving
as the cross section. Providing that this assumption is met, the effective
response rate to the sixth questionnaire is 95.2%.
In the introduction to the questionnaire, digital imaging was
defined as "the conversion of an image into a computer readable data file and
the manipulations done on such a file prior to printing on paper." The
questionnaire addressed three principal areas: 1) the paper's current use of
digital imaging technology, and 2) the individual respondent's attitudes toward
digital imaging and newsphoto credibility, and 3) her or his perception of
changes in work routines since adoption.
In each survey, all respondents were asked if their paper had ever
published a digital image and whether the majority of their photos were
processed digitally. Those who responded affirmatively to both were asked when
they began routine use of digital imaging technology. All respondents where
asked whether the adoption of the technology at newspapers would increase,
decrease, or not influence the credibility of news photos in the future, whether
their newspaper had adopted written guidelines on the ethical use of the
technology, and whether, in an "ideal newsroom," anyone other than the photo
staff should be allowed to adjust image characteristics. Respondents at
newspapers using the technology routinely were also asked to rate the effect
adoption had had on work routine by responding either "much worse," "worse,"
"the same," better," or "much better," to the statement: "Compared to the
chemically based creation of photographic prints and halftones, please rate the
following aspects of digital imaging: 1) photo staff's control of content, 2)
ease of picture handling, 3) speed of picture handling, 4) morale of photo
staff, 5) relationship between photo staff and rest of newsroom staff, and 6)
amount of time available for photographic assignments.
Findings
By April 1995, 56 daily student newspapers were using digital
imaging technology on a routine basis for processing the majority of their
photographs and 77 had published at least one photo using the technology as a
trial and all 99 respondents indicated they were aware of the technology at
newspapers. The 56 "adopters" represent 57% of the 99 respondents and 53.8% of
all 104 dailies.[22] Only nine reported using the technology routinely prior to
June 1992, the month when the AP announced all of its members were digitally
equipped. Using Roger's terminology, this study has measured respondents in the
early adopter, early majority, and late majority adoption stages.[23]
Those reporting the routine use of digital imaging in the first and
second surveys were "early adopters." Those responding in the following surveys
were "early majority" save for a few who would, strictly speaking be in the
"late majority" stage since they adopted the technology after a 50 percent
saturation rate had been established. The actual adoption rate, when plotted
cumulatively on a monthly basis, roughly approximates the first half of the
S-shaped adoption curve predicted by Rogers with slight variation occurring each
year in the early fallDtraditionally the beginning of the college school year.
See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Adoption rate of digital imaging
technology.
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Examination of the responses to each of the six questionnaires
indicated that no newspaper discontinued use of digital imaging once they had
adopted it. This finding supports the non-abandonment assumption made above.
Newsphoto Credibility. The student editors were generally quite
pessimistic about the future of newsphoto credibility in the digital era. When
asked in the final questionnaire whether the use of digital imaging technology
by newspapers would increase, decrease, or not change the credibility of
newsphotos, 52.5% said it would decrease credibility. Only 34.9% expressed this
view in the first survey two and a half years earlier. Indeed, the average
response (scoring decrease as -1, no change as 0, and increase as 1) at each of
the six waves was negative.
Additionally, the pattern of responses over time suggests a
difference between both adopters and non-adopters, and between the early
adoption stage and the early majority stage. In October 1992, adopters were
considerably more optimistic about the future of newsphoto credibility than
non-adopters. But by the second wave six weeks later, they were less optimistic
and they remained so through the most recent survey. Both adopters and
non-adopters showed lower averages in the second and third wave than the first,
and both improved in waves four, five, and six. But in these later waves,
adopters' scores were considerably lower than non-adopters. When both groups'
mean responses are plotted over time, similar patterns emerge save for the
extreme divergence at the initial time point and immediately after October
1993Dthe point marking the break between early adopters and early majority. See
Figure 2
Figure 2. All respondents' evaluations of digital
imaging's impact on the credibility of news photos.
range = -1 "decrease credibility" to 0 "not change credibility"
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Work Routine. Although adopters expressed concern about the
credibility consequences of the new technology, they were generally quite
pleased with the effect adoption had had on work routines. With the single
exception of the earliest adopters' concern about control of content, the
average editor at a digital paper said the technology had made the work of the
staff better or much better. See Table 1.
Table 1. Respondents' evaluation of the impact of
the adoption of digital imaging on work routines.
range = 1 "much worse" to 5 "much better" than before digital
imaging
(standard deviation)
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Two work routine considerations were particularly positive and plots
of each reveal a pattern similar to the one found for newsphoto credibility.
Both the ease and the speed with which photos could be processed digitally were
considered better than with chemical prints throughout the time measured and
they were considered much better once the majority stage had begun. Indeed,
across all six aspects of work routine measured there is a noticeable difference
between the evaluations by the early adopters and the majority adopters.
Editors at each time point view adoption as beneficial, but the majority appear
to have less difficulty maintaining image control, deriving efficiency gains and
translating those gains into increased time shooting assignments outside the
newsroom. See Figure 3.
Figure 3. Respondents' evaluation of the impact of
the adoption of digital imaging on work routines.
range = 1 "much worse" to 5 "much better" than before digital
imaging
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Discussion
As predicted by the diffusion of innovation research reviewed
earlier, adoption of digital imaging technology at the country's daily college
student newspapers is following a s-curved (sigmoid) pattern and about one half
are now using the technology for routine processing of news photographs. The
primary anomaly seen in the cumulative percentage diffusion curve is a cyclical
pattern where adoption decisions are clustered around the autumn of each
yearDtraditionally the beginning of the school year and fiscal budget.
Ahlhauser's predictions about changes in the work routine brought on
by the adoption of digital imaging have also been borne out. Students at the
papers routinely using the technology said they had an easier time processing
their photographic reports and that they had established better relationships
with the rest of the newsroom. And the transition from chemical to electronic
technology actually increased the photo staffs' control over their images.
Most disturbing for the photojournalism profession, however, is the
pessimistic attitude these student editors repeatedly expressed about the future
credibility of newsphotos. Certainly the potential for abuse using the
technology was widely known prior to even the earliest college newspaper
adoption. The National Geographic had stirred up considerable controversy in
journalistic circles when it used an early version of today's technology to move
two Egyptian pyramids closer together on a 1982 cover.[24] Since then, the
National Press Photographers Association, the Associated Press, and numerous
other news organizations have issued guidelines and protocols in an attempt to
safeguard the credibility of photographic images published in the press.
The students' concern about credibility is unlikely due entirely to
the introduction of the technology in their own work environmentDdiscussion of
digital imaging has enlivened the profession for years and students are surely
aware of its ramifications. Simply using the technology does not lead one to
predict decreased credibilityDall six waves showed considerable pessimism. But
attitudes did appear to be moderated by the time at which adoption did occur.
The earliest adopters saw very little change resulting from the
technologyDconsiderably less than those who had yet to get it in their
newsrooms. But as time passed, more and more respondents said there would be a
decrease. When the early majority stage was reached, fewer non-adopters
forecast a decrease, but the adopters continued to be far more pessimistic than
their colleagues without digital darkrooms.
It is possible that those who work with the computers daily learn
very well how easy it is to change photographic representation without leaving a
trace. Such a realization may foster a level of pessimism that those who only
read or use the technology less regularly in non-newsroom situations do not
generate.
On the other hand, these adopters attribute significant improvements
in their ability to practice their profession as a result of the use of the
technology. And in the case of work routine, those adopting in the majority are
more likely to see improvement than were those who adopted earlier. This is
possibly do to an increase in the understanding of how to use the technology
generally within the profession as well as to an improvement in the equipment
itself. Early adopters were blazing a trail. They had fewer people "in the
know" to consult about how to best use the technology. Majority adopters also
used computer equipment that was considerably faster and better able to handle
the processing demands of photography.
This study clearly indicates that most daily college newspapers now
use digital imaging technology routinely, just as their commercial colleagues
do. They seem comfortable using the technology and pleased that it frees them
up for more shooting and consulting with their newsroom colleagues. But they're
concerned about what the technology will do to their chosen profession. This
concern is most likely a good thing, however. Credibility is at the heart of
journalism. That students are concerned may make them extra vigilant in
safeguarding the integrity of their images and insure that what they fear is
never realized.
NOTES
[1] "Newspapers' credibility losing focus?" Chicago Tribune, 20
Feb. 1994, sec. 1, p. 6, col. 4. See also Stacie D. Kramer, "Technology Can
Make Photographs Lie," St. Louis Journalism Review 23 (June 1994): 3 and "...And
Nothing But the Truth," The Economist, 19 March 1994, 34 for recent critical
reviews.
[2] Stewart Brand, Kevin Kelly and Jay Kinney, "Digital
Retouching: The End of Photography as Evidence of Anything," Whole Earth Review,
July 1985, 42-49.
[3] . Michael L. Morse, "At the Crossroads," News Photographer,
May 1992, 12.
[4] "AP, UPI to Replace Newspapers' Photo Receivers with
Electronic Darkroom Systems," Presstime, March 1990, 63.
[5] See "AP Drops an Electronic Bombshell," News Inc., March
1990): 7; and "All Electronic Photo-Handling Systems Are Not the Same, Users
Say," Presstime, July 1991, 37.
[6] A recent article suggests digital imaging is being adopted
at some college student newspapers. See Tom Hubbard, "Good News/Bad News in
Teaching Field," News Photographer, March 1992, 25, 30-31.
[7] See Gaye Tuchman, Making News: A Study in the Construction
of Reality, (NY: Free Press, 1978), for a discussion of newsroom acculturation.
[8] Rogers reported 2,297 in his 1983 edition of Diffusion of
Innovations, and a meta-analysis he and associates published in 1987 examined
eleven studies on home computers alone. See Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of
Innovations, 3d ed,(NY: Free Press, 1983); and William H. Dutton, Everett M.
Rogers and Suk-Ho Jun, "Diffusion and Social Impacts of Personal Computers,"
Communication Research 14 (April 1987): 219-50.
[9] Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 76-81.
[10] Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 162.
[11] Everett M. Rogers and F. Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of
Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach, (NY: Free Press, 1971), 52-70.
[12] For examples see William R. Lindley, "From Hot Type to
Video Screens: Editors Evaluate New Technology," Journalism Quarterly 65 (Summer
1988): 485-89; Linda J. Shipley and James K. Gentry, "How Electronic Editing
Equipment Affects Editing Performance," Journalism Quarterly 58 (Autumn 1981):
371-74; Starr D. Randall, "Effect of Electronic Editing on Error Rate of
Newspaper, Journalism Quarterly 56 (Spring 1979): 161-65; James A Crook, "How
the New Technology Affects Student Editing," Journalism Educator 31 (January
1977): 12-15, 46
[13] Michael D. Slater, Donna Rouner, and Martha Tharp, "Impact
of VDTs on structural and mechanical editing," Journalism Educator 45 (Winter
1991): 45-48.
[14] For example, Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver and Ronald E.
Spielberger, "Advisors post some gains, fewer losses," College Media Review 30
(Summer/Fall 1991): 19-23; Michael Ryan and David L. Martinson, "Attitudes of
College Newspaper Advisers Toward Censorship of the Student Press," Journalism
Quarterly 63, (1986): 55-60.
[15] For example, Lillian Lodge Kopenhaver and Ronald E.
Spielberger, "Surveying student newspaper compensation," College Media Review 32
(Winter/Spring 1993): 27-32.
[16] Ruth Walden, "Editorial rights, constitutional restraints
of editors of state-supported newspapers," Journalism Quarterly 62 (Autumn
1985): 616-25; Bruce Dudley, "Control of Small College Student Newspapers,"
Journalism Quarterly 48 (Fall 1971): 21-22.
[17] This figure reported in Gerald M. Kosicki and Lee Becker,
"Annual Census and Analysis of Enrollment and Graduation," Journalism Educator
47 (Autumn 1992): 67.
[18] Paul A. Atkins, The College Newspaper in the United
States, (Parsons, WV: McClain, 1982). See also Julius Duscha and Thomas Fisher,
The Campus Press: Freedom and Responsibility, (Washington, DC: American
Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1973), for a brief history of
the campus press and a series of case studies of college newspapers'
organizational structures.
[19] John Ahlhauser, "How Visual Electronics Will Change the
Newsroom," in Michael Morse, ed., The Electronic Revolution in News Photography:
A NPPA National Report, (Durham, NC: National Press Photographers Association),
26-30.
[20] Funding for the surveys is supported by a grant from the
National Press Photographers Foundation to the author.
[21] This definition of daily college newspaper was used by
Atkins, The Daily College Newspaper, 5.
[22] Because this study is a census of all 104 daily college
newspapers, statistical tests of differences are not necessary. All observed
differences are real. The sample comprises every element of the population and
therefore contains no sampling error. See Roger D. Wimmer and Joseph R.
Dominick, Mass Media Research: An Introduction, (Wadsworth: Belmont, CA, 1983),
56-57.
[23] See Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations,
[24] See Bennett Daviss, "Picture Perfect," Discover, July
1990, 54-58, and Jonathan Alter, "When Photographs Lie," Newsweek, July 1990,
44-45, for this and numerous other examples of digital retouching in editorial
photographs.
|
