Mass Communication Project Topics

Technological Advancement – Threat to the Future News Paper and Production

Technological Advancement - Threat to the Future News Paper and Production


Technological Advancement – Threat to the Future News Paper and Production project material PDF document download start from the abstract to chapters 1 to 5.




Fitzgerald and Saba [4] express the change of the newspaper industry with regards to an unprecedented crisis that combines cyclical turbulence with the diffusion of digital technology that steals away revenue and readers at an alarming and seemingly accelerating rate, publishers and editors everywhere have thrown away their rule books and, to find their way in this new and alien environment, are ready to implement previously unthinkable changes Of all the “old” media, newspapers have the most to lose from the internet. Circulation has been falling in America, Western Europe, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand for decades. But in the past few years the web has hastened the decline. In his book “The Vanishing Newspaper”, Philip Meyer calculates that the first quarter of 2043 will be the moment when newsprint dies in America as the last exhausted reader tosses aside the last crumpled edition. Latency has become a massive issue in the delivery of all media, particularly news. We live in a time where on-demand is the norm and products that fall outside that are looking increasingly obscure and irrelevant [5]. As time goes on the period of latency that is acceptable and qualifies information as being “news” is decreasing. 24 hours used to be fine, it was an acceptable latency. Now only minutes and seconds will do. The latency involved with publishing a hardcopy newspaper makes it completely irrelevant to a contemporary audience, who demand accuracy and the very latest, most accurate information.

Newspapers failure to innovate

Cantrell [7] appreciated that the conventional wisdom is that the internet killed newspapers, but considers it too simple of an explanation. He stated that newspapers killed themselves, and the internet was simply the best and most convenient alternative. The Internet was the catalyst that started a process that had been queued up and ready to happen for a very long time. The newspaper industry went wrong by failing to innovate. Rather than constantly trying to outdo themselves, newspapers waited for something to come along and outdo them. Up until a few years ago, the only significant change that was ever made to newspapers was the transition from black and white photographs to colour. Over the course of decades, such a transition looks pathetic. Newspapers failed to look at the online opportunity as a second entertainment medium [8] a second way to command the attention from people–both from the print audience that they were currently reaching and from the audience who, for whatever reason, were not engaged in the print product. Newspapers have failed to realize that they had to compete with Huffington Post, YouTube, and basically anything else that can soak up one’s leisure time or the time in-between when one’s boss walks past one’s desk. The disastrous error that newspapers made early in our digital lives was treating online advertising as a throw-in for their print advertisers. Helping businesses connect with customers was the business of newspapers. While, newspapers were facing technology advancement  and new opportunities they did not do anything to explore how they might use this technology advancement  to help businesses connect with customers. Kruse [9] explained that online newspapers have failed to produce a different experience online. The end result, because of a few programs installed on Web sites, is that the experience is different–it offers much more chance for engagement than the print version. From the ability to comment and react to the ability to share instantly with anyone in the world, the online versions offer a fairly rich experience for content that is not written for reaction. These are opportunities squandered.


PDF versions and tablets

The Printable Document Format (PDF) has been introduced in compatibility with the Internet a few years after its development. Today, many newspapers offer their first page in the PDF version allowing readers to read the paper exactly as they would hold the hard copy in their hands. The PDF version has also been a new possibility of developing online subscription for readers. L’Express e-paper is now available online subject to subscription while Le Matinal and Le Mauricien currently offer their PDF version freely. Since the e-paper remains a replica to the paid for newspaper copy, it will remain impossible for existing newspapers to offer such content freely. However in the Internet context business models often have to be rethought as charging for bundles of news content such as paying for a full physical newspaper is often not a functioning online business practice (OECD, 2010). Newspapers anticipate offering the PDF version with readerfriendly approaches like magnifiers to facilitate reading, tags to make readers assess the main issues of articles. In addition to such a novelty, newspapers in hardcopy version are already providing full access to their readers regarding the PDF version and a collection of past issues. Readers may also benefit from video streaming regarding interviews and specialized commentary both from bloggers and interviewees. UK newspapers like Financial Times or The Economist have erected pay walls for premium-content. Readers can read general articles but matters of premium content pertaining to economy, education and offering the potential of downloading such information are now subject to payment through electronic systems– Visa, Paypal or Matsercard. Tablets on mobile phones. Tablets have become today’s fad with most of the newsworthy media available online. Using Ipad system, mobiles with larger screens offer the possibility of viewing press content online with PDF-style pages while are access by simple screen touch. The tablet has provided opportunities for readers to have access to the latest novels including full access to certain television news channels like France 24 or BBC World. The penetration of tablets is a matter of choice, firstly resulting from the increase in tablet users and secondly, depending upon the prowess f newspaper groups. Tablets offer the best possibility of reading the news without the constant need to have laptops or plugging to electrical devices. Although, not much is said of the diffusion of tablet media in Mauritius, this will evidently become a reality in the coming years through better access of “haut débit” Internet. Doctor [12] however advocates that there is the question of how well, how easily and how dynamically publishers can pull diverse content types (text, photo, graphics, video, and audio) from their content management systems and relate them appropriately. Then there is also the question of how much formatting will have to be done for each of the separate devices.


Theories of technology

Instrumentalization Theory

Much philosophy of technology offers very abstract and unhistorical accounts of the essence of technology. These accounts appear painfully thin compared to the rich complexity revealed in social studies of technology. Yet technology has the distinguishing features sketched above and these have normative implications. As Marcuse argued in One-Dimensional Man, the choice of a technical rather than a political or moral solution to a social problem is politically and morally significant. The dilemma divides technology studies into two opposed branches. Most essentialist philosophy of technology is critical of modernity, even anti-modern, while most empirical research on technologies ignores the larger issue of modernity and thus appears uncritical, even conformist, to social critics (Feenberg 2003). I find it difficult to explain my solution to this dilemma as it crosses lines we are used to standing behind. These lines cleanly separate the substantivist critique of technology as we find it in Heidegger from the constructivism of many contemporary historians and sociologists. These two approaches are usually seen as totally opposed. Nevertheless, there is something obviously right in both. I have therefore attempted to combine their insights in a common framework which I call “instrumentalization theory.” Instrumentalization theory holds that technology must be analyzed at two levels, the level of our original functional relation to reality and the level of design and implementation. At the first level, we seek and find affordances that can be mobilized in devices and systems by decontextualizing the objects of experience and reducing them to their useful properties. This involves a process of de-worlding in which objects are torn out of their original contexts and exposed to analysis and manipulation while subjects are positioned for distanced control. Modern societies are unique in de-worlding human beings in order to subject them to technical action-we call it management-and in prolonging the basic gesture of de-worlding theoretically in technical disciplines which become the basis for complex technical networks. At the second level, we introduce designs that can be integrated with other already existing devices and systems and with various social constraints such as ethical and aesthetic principles. The primary level simplifies objects for incorporation into a device while the secondary level integrates the simplified objects to a natural and social environment. This involves a process which, following Heidegger, we can call “disclosure” or “revealing” of a world. Disclosing involves a complementary process of realization which qualifies the original functionalization by orienting it toward a new world involving those same objects and subjects. These two levels are analytically distinguished. No matter how abstract the affordances identified at the primary level, they carry social content from the secondary level in the elementary contingencies of a particular approach to the materials. Similarly, secondary instrumentalizations such as design specifications presuppose the identification of the affordances to be assembled and concretized. This is an important point. Cutting down a tree to make lumber and building a house with it are not the primary and secondary instrumentalizations respectively. Cutting down a tree “decontextualizes” it, but in line with various technical, legal and aesthetic considerations determining what kinds of trees can become lumber of what size and shape and are salable as such. The act of cutting down the tree is thus not simply “primary” but involves both levels as one would expect of an analytic distinction. The theory is complicated, however, by the peculiar nature of differentiated modern societies. Some of the functions of the secondary instrumentalization do get distinguished institutionally rather than analytically. Thus the aesthetic function, an important secondary instrumentalization, may be separated out and assigned to a corporate “design division.” Artists will then work in par allel with engineers. This partial institutional separation of the levels of instrumentalization encourages the belief that they are completely distinct. This obscures the social nature of every technical act, including the work of engineers liberated from aesthetic considerations, if not from many other social influences, by their corporate environment.

Substantive Theory

Despite the commonsense appeal of instrumental theory, a minority view denies the neutrality of technology. Substantive theory, best known through the writings of Jacques Ellul and Martin Heidegger, argues that technology constitutes a new cultural system that restructures the entire social world as an object of control.2 This system is characterized by an expansive dynamic that ultimately overtakes every pretechnological enclave and shapes the whole of social life. Total instrumentalization is thus a destiny from which there is no escape other than retreat. Only a return to tradition or simplicity offers an alternative to the juggernaut of progress. Something like this view is implied in Max Weber’s pessimistic conception of an “iron cage” of rationalization, although he did not specifically connect this projection to technology or suggest a solution. Equally pessimistic, Ellul does make that link explicit, arguing that the “technical phenomenon” has become the defining characteristic of all modern societies regardless of political ideology. “Technique,” he asserts, “has become autonomous” (Ellul, 1964:14). Heidegger agrees that technology is relentlessly overtaking us. We are engaged, he claims, in the transformation of the entire world, ourselves included, into “standing reserves,” raw materials to be mobilized in technical processes (Heidegger, 1977a: 17). Heidegger asserts that the technical restructuring of modern societies is rooted in a nihilistic will to power, a degradation of man and Being to the level of mere objects. This apocalyptic vision is often dismissed for attributing absurd, quasimagical powers to technology. In fact, its basic claims are all too believable. The substitution of “fast food” for the traditional family dinner can serve as a humble illustration of the unintended cultural consequences of technology. The unity of the family, ritually reaffirmed each evening, no longer has a comparable locus of expression. No one claims that the rise of fast food actually causes the decline of the traditional family, but the correlation signifies the emergence of a technology advancement -based way of life. An instrumentalist might reply that well-prepared fast food supplies a nourishing meal without needless social complications. At bottom, eating is merely a matter of ingesting calories, while all the ritualistic aspects of food consumption are secondary to this biological process. This response is blind to the cultural implications of technology. In adopting a strictly functional point of view, we have determined that eating is a technical operation that may be carried out more or less efficiently, and that in itself is a valuative choice. This example can stand for a host of others in which the transition from tradition to modernity is judged to be a progress by a standard of efficiency intrinsic to modernity and alien to tradition. The substantive theory of technology attempts to make us aware of the arbitrariness of this construction, or rather, its cultural character. The issue is not that machines have “taken over,” but that in choosing to use them we make many unwitting commit ments. Technology is not simply a means but has become an environment and a way of life. This is its “substantive” impact (Borgmann, 1984: 204ff.). It seems that substantive theory could hardly be farther from the instrumentalist view of technology as a sum of neutral tools. Yet I will show in the next section that these two theories share many characteristics that distinguish them from a third approach, the critical theory of technology.

Social shaping of technology

Rather than assume that technology has intrinsic properties—being good, bad, neutral or inevitable—another approach is to assume that technology is a product of society and reflects or embodies its origins in various ways. This general approach can be called “social shaping of technology.” It proceeds by examining social influences on the nature of technology. An extreme version of this approach is to claim that large-scale social structures almost entirely determine technology, for example that capitalist society leads to technology that serves capitalists. This can be called “determined technology” or “social determinism” and is the converse of technological determinism. This approach provides an antidote to technological determinism but isn’t particularly helpful when it comes to developing alternative technologies. If the structure of society determines technologies, then advocating alternatives to current technologies seems futile since it doesn’t change the process of social determination. In other words, this approach assumes that the only way to change technologies is to change the fundamentals of social structure. My analysis assumes the contrary, that technology is one potential avenue for intervening to change society as well as technology itself. A more moderate approach involves examining the interaction of social and technical factors on the development and choice of technology. For example, there have been studies of compression versus absorption refrigerators, numerically controlled machine tools, light bulbs and electricity systems. This approach has been used in a number of studies of military technology, some of which were mentioned in chapter It is valuable for analysis of actual technologies and also for opening up the possibility that other technologies might have been developed if different forces had been influential. One of the most cited examples of social shaping of technology is the low bridges, designed by Robert Moses for New York, which allegedly prevented the twelve-foot high buses from passing underneath and hence prevented those relying on public transport, especially blacks and poor people, from easily visiting beaches. This example has been frequently used to show how social values, in this case racism, can be built into artefacts, in this case bridges. Its pedagogical value seems to arise from it being neither too complex nor too simple, and having an obvious bad guy. Military technology provides plenty of examples that are almost too simple. Weapons are designed to kill and destroy. Detailed examples can be produced by the dozen. Brightly coloured landmines are designed to attract the attention of children. Tumbling bullets are designed to cause horrific exit injuries. One can speculate why scholars haven’t raised these sorts of examples more often. Perhaps the social shaping is too obvious. Although the social shaping approach is quite valuable, it has some limitations as actually applied. Most social shaping analyses look at rejected alternatives that are fairly similar to their successful rivals, such as the AR-15 rifle that was rejected in favour of the M-16. Postulating comprehensive wide-ranging alternatives is unusual, possibly because it requires too much of a jump from the historical record. Certainly there have been no discussions of technology for nonviolent struggle, nor even much study of the field of appropriate technology, which would seem a natural area for analysis. More fundamentally, the social shaping approach deals with the social influences on technology and says little about the actual technologies that exist or might exist. For example, it is all very well to analyse the social forces shaping military and civilian communication systems, but what guidance does this give for assessing which such systems would be useful for nonviolent struggle? The social shaping approach is restricted by its focus on influences on technology, which leaves out the effects of technology. The next stage in the development of this theory is to look at the ways that society and technology co-shape each other. Various more focussed theoretical frameworks, such as labour process theory, can be applied to technology within the general ambit of the social shaping approaches. A different angle on technology is provided by “actornetwork theory,” which is based on getting rid of the dichotomy between humans and artefacts.7 In this approach, anything potentially is an “actor”: a scientist, a scallop, a mechanical door-closer, a bullet. The task of the social theorist is to “follow the actors,” namely to watch what they do without making assumptions about them in advance, and to observe their networks, namely to see how they create, destroy and rearrange relationships between themselves. One advantage of the actor-network approach is that it gets away from the essentialist assumption that social structures such as the state are ordained categories for understanding social reality. There have been a number of criticisms of actor-network theory.8 It tends to overlook groups such as women and the unemployed who are not prominent in networks associated with technological innovation. Actor-network theorists often seem to smuggle in concepts of social structure that they supposedly have jettisoned. More importantly, social constructivists seem to restrict their efforts to explaining existing technology, not taking any stance on whether it is good or bad for humans nor saying how to go about changing it Since actor-network theory builds on actors—including artefacts—that exist, there is no theoretical warrant for examining technology that might be designed in a social system putting a priority on nonviolent struggle, especially since social structural analysis, including the concept of the military, is avoided.

Biased technology

A useful framework for analysing technology for nonviolent struggle is to think of artefacts as non-neutral, biased, political or selectively useful. In other words, they are easier to use for some purposes than others. A key aim of a social analysis of technology then is to find out which purposes a technology can be most easily used for, and why. Most technologies developed by the military are biased, or selectively useful, for killing and destruction. This obviously is because the aim of most military science and technology has been to develop more lethal and destructive weapons.11 It is quite possible to kill or incapacitate someone without technology. For example, a suitable blow from the hand at the back of the neck can do this. Mass killing can occur without technology, but it is much easier—and more tempting—if technology designed for killing is available. Spears, axes, bows and arrows, rifles and explosives make killing easier. Admittedly, they can be used for killing animals and other less lethal purposes, but in many cases they have been specially designed for battles. The idea of biased technology obviously is incompatible with the idea of technology as good, bad or neutral. On the other hand, the idea of biased technology is quite compatible with the social shaping perspective. One would expect that when the military influences the development of an artefact—such as designing a radar system or grenade—it is likely to be selectively useful to the military. But there are no automatic connections. It is necessary to examine actual technologies, not just the social shaping process, to determine which groups can most easily use them. The Internet had military origins but has turned out to be highly useful for communication between antiwar activists. Another way to describe this approach is to say that technologies embody social values or social interests. The idea of embodiment suggests that technologies take on the values of the interest groups crucial to their development and in turn are likely to be selectively useful to these same interest groups. For example, nuclear technology was developed by scientists and engineers working in the service of governments and militaries. Some of the key characteristics of nuclear weapons and nuclear power are high potential danger and large scale, both generating a need for high security and centralised control. These features make nuclear technology selectively useful to the military and the state. The idea of biased technology is quite common among those who examine technological alternatives, such as appropriate technology. But it has never been the centre of popular or scholarly perceptions. The most common popular perceptions of technology seem to be that it is neutral, good or bad. The social study of technology has focused on social shaping approaches; in the past couple of decades, social analysis of the impacts of technology has not been nearly as common as analysis of social influences on technology. There is not even a good name for the view of technology as biased. To talk of biased technology certainly counters the idea of neutral technology, but it suggests that there is something wrong with it: in a general sense, being biased is not seen as a good thing, even if it is biased in favour of harmony or biased against torture. Also, to talk of biased technology suggests that bias could be removed, which is not possible—the question is which way technology is biased, and in whose interests. The meanings of alternative terms such as embodiment or selective usefulness are not immediately obvious. Whatever its name, though, this perspective is quite useful for analysing technology for nonviolent struggle. This appendix began with the assumption that it is worthwhile to analyse technologies, including yet-to-be-developed technologies, according to their value to a system for nonviolent struggle. Working backwards, it is possible to judge theories of technology to see how well they serve this purpose. Ideas that technology or technologies are inherently good, bad, neutral or inevitable are not helpful at all. Ideas of social shaping have more potential, but are not well adapted to looking at alternatives to what exists. Most useful is the idea that technologies embody social values and are selectively useful for certain purposes. It should not be surprising that this has been the framework implicitly used throughout this book!

Read Too:  The Ipob Agitation and It's Socio-economic Implications of South East Development Project.

Conceptual Framework

The Definition and Concept of Technology

Past researchers have viewed and defined the term ‘technology’ from many perspectives and this has influenced the research design and results, negotiations around a transfer and government policies in general (Reddy and Zhoa, 1990). Thus, the term technology has been given various definitions by previous literatures. According to Kumar et. al (1999) technology consists of two primary components: 1) a physical component which comprises of items such as products, tooling, equipments, blueprints, techniques, and processes; and 2) the informational component which consists of know-how in management, marketing, production, quality control, reliability, skilled labor and functional areas. The earlier definition by Sahal (1981) views technology as ‘configuration’, observing that the transfer object (the technology) relies on a subjectively determined but specifiable set of processes and products. The current studies on the technology transfer have connected technology directly with knowledge and more attention is given to the process of research and development (Dunning, 1994). By scrutinizing the technology definition, there are two basic components that can be identified: 1) ‘knowledge’ or technique; and 2) ‘doing things’. Technology is always connected with obtaining certain result, resolving certain problems, completing certain tasks using particular skills, employing knowledge and exploiting assets (Lan and Young, 1996). The concept of technology does not only relate to the technology that embodies in the product but it is also associated with the knowledge or information of it use, application and the process in developing the product (Lovell, 1998; Bozeman, 2000). The early concept of technology as information holds that the technology is generally applicable and easy to reproduce and reuse (Arrow, 1962). However, Reddy and Zhoa (1990) contend that the early concept of technology contradicts with a strand of literatures on international technology transfer which holds that “technology is conceived as firm-specific information concerning the characteristics and performance properties of the production process and product design”. They further argue that the production process or operation technology is embodied in the equipment or the means to produce a defined product. On the other hand, the product design or product technology is that which is manifested in the finished product. Pavitt (1985) suggests that technology is mainly differentiated knowledge about specific application, tacit, often uncodified and largely cumulative within firms. Thus, based on this argument, technology is regarded as the firm’s ‘intangible assets’ or ‘firm-specific’ which forms the basis of a firm’s competitiveness and will generally release under special condition (Dunning, 1981). Tihanyi and Roath (2002) propose that technology can include information that is not easily reproducible and transferable. Based on this argument technology is seen as “tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1967) or firm-specific, secrets or knowledge known by one organization” (Nonaka, 1994). Technology as the intangible assets of the firm is rooted in the firms routines and is not easy to transfer due to the gradual learning process and higher cost associated with transferring tacit knowledge (Rodasevic,1999). Valuable technological knowledge which is the intangible assets of the firm is never easily transferred from one firm to another because the technological learning process is needed to assimilate and internalized the transferred technology (Lin, 2003). Rosenberg and Frischtak (1985) also consider technology as firm-specific information concerning the characteristics and performance properties of production processes and product designs; therefore technology is tacit and cumulative in nature. Burgelman et al. (1996) refer technology as the theoretical and practical knowledge, skills, and artifacts that can be used to develop products and services as well as their production and delivery systems. Technology is also embodied in people, materials, cognitive and physical processes, facilities, machines and tools (Lin, 2003). Based on Sahal’s (1981) concept, Bozeman (2000) argues that technology and knowledge are inseparable simply because when a technological product is transferred or diffused, the knowledge upon which its composition is based is also diffused. The physical entity cannot be put to use without the existence of knowledge base which is inherent and not ancillary. MacKenzie and Wajcman (1985) define technology as the integration of the physical objects or artifacts, the process of making the objects and the meaning associated with the physical objects. These elements are not distinctive and separable factors but form a ‘seamless web’ that constitutes technology (Woolgar, 1987). In defining the term technology, all the three elements must be understood as being inter-connected to each other and a change in one element will affect the other two elements. The latest definition given by Mascus (2003) has broadened the concept of technology where technology is defined as ‘the information necessary to achieve a certain production outcome from a particular means of combining or processing selected inputs which include production processes, intra-firm organizational structures, management techniques, and means of finance, marketing methods or any of its combination’. Other scholars such as Tepstra and David (1985) suggest that technology as a cultural system concerned with the relationships between humans and their environment. From the systems perspective Afriyie (1988) defines technology as encompassing: 1) the basic knowledge sub-system; 2) the technical support system (software); and 3) the capital-embodied technology (hardware). This perspective views that technology recognizes the need to identify the different elements of a particular country’s technology that are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The previous studies done by the researchers have offered various definitions and concepts of technology from different disciplines, contexts and perspectives.

Aspects According to the Historical Conception of Technology of Bigelow

Jacob Bigelow, who is often credited with coining technology in its present-day usage (Li-Hua 2009), was both a physician and Harvard professor in the early nineteenth century. In his book, entitled Elements of Technology (1829), Bigelow states that technology (at that point in time) was “understood to consist of principles, processes, and nomenclature of the more conspicuous arts, particularly those which involve applications of science, and which may be considered useful, by promoting the benefit of society, together with the emolument of those who pursue them” (Bigelow 1829). It may not immediately be apparent the abundance of information that was provided, so I encourage readers to take a second look to fully appreciate its complexity as a reflection of that of the technology itself. Analyzing Bigelow’s statement, if taken as true, reveals that technology, conceptually, was comprised of the following aspects: the physical (process), the metaphysical (principles), the sociocultural (nomenclature), the functional (application of science), the beneficial (considered useful), the purposeful (promoting societal gains), and the economic (emolument). Although the aspect of product was not expressly mentioned, it is implicit to the aspect of process, which is taken to mean action, change, or transition in some form, in that a process must either culminate with itself, or with something else that is not itself. At a subsequent point in time, the continuation of the process would be the process, whereas something other than itself at a later point in time would be a distinct product. Both alternatives, however, may be considered products and could explain why no explicit mention was made in Bigelow’s definition.

Automation system production and nonlinear editing

This section describes the automation system where all equipment integrated together in the same digitisation network. In the automation system Newspaper production, the news crew uses a single integrated computer system to conduct their everyday practice (Keirstead, 2004). Through the automated system, news practitioners are able to make connections and links between a variety of desk stations within the workplace in the same platform or virtually. In this manner, Jones et al. (2013) stated that the Newspaper production automation system is: ‘…The dynamic collaborative work environment in which news journalists, photographers, producers, directors, copy runners, and a host of other support staff run their entire news creation, production, and newscast enterprise presents particular challenges for automation systems, which are quite different from those for master control automation’. (Jones et al., 2013, p.1233) In this respect the automation system, such as the Avid technology in the KNN Newspaper production, allows the journalists to ‘monitor incoming news agency, write news stories, work on a rundown list, access the Internet, and access audio or video clips and their network’s archives from their desktop’ (Meadows, 2007, p.16). Hence, this improvement and development of the Newspaper production workflow has delivered new ways and techniques in dealing with news production. It is creating a ‘networking workplace’ (Keirstead, 2004) where ‘Newspaper production computer system, play out centre, and media devices such as video or file severs also, the automated system is connected to external sources through the IT networking systems’ (Todorovic, 2014, p.219). This aspect of the automated system provides the journalists more flexibility to work, manage their tasks and conduct their news practice faster. The system provides the news crew in the control room with the ability to control all devices through an integrated system. This equipment includes the camera within the news studio, the autocue technology, lighting tools, and audio mixer, well screen technology as well as all these devices integrated together in the digital technology networking. Further, in the control room the news director is able to connect with other units of the station, including the Newspaper production hub, archives network and graphic devices easily and more quickly, especially in the transformation process. In this way, Todorovic (2014) argues that ‘the smooth operation of the system is based on the use of various software solutions, which create a unified user-friendly system out of a plethora of different devices and subsystems’ (Todorovic, 2014, p.219). This means that the digital automated system in the Newspaper production establishes essential links between the workplace technology equipment and human actors within the Newspaper production community or virtual community.

The news reporter’s everyday tasks and responsibility are acquiring the information, writing news stories, interviewing people and joining in the field for live broadcasting. Then, the news reporter goes back to the station, in order to conduct their final checking process for the news script and their news story. Automation systems, such as Avid technology, provide news practitioners with 18 many tools and equipment integrated. For instance the news reporters have a field i-Pad to access the Newspaper production networking. Through the field i-Pad, the news reporter is able to access the Newspaper production automation system and make their news script available for the news producer and for monitoring by other news workers (Online video, Avid, 2016). Hence, the news reporter is able to log in to the i-news central (the automation Newspaper production network) in order to update the news story script, writing up new scripts and finding out about their assignment’s progress. In this production workflow, the news practitioner is directly able to add a voice-over and new media objects to the system. Also, in relation to this, Austerberry (2004) argues that the ‘video and audio objects can then be transferred to a nonlinear editor for craft editing’ (Austerberry, 2004, p.126). Further, the Avid technology provides the news reporter with a great opportunity to write up their story script and the news producer has full awareness of the content of the news item before the practitioners get back to the news station. This aspect of the automation system saves time for the news crew, is more efficient and a good way to manage the news items. Through these facilities the news editor and news producer are able to see the content of the news story in order to prepare breaking news. This aspect of the automation Avid technology is a core factor intended to make the news reporter’s workflow easier and more efficient. Also, it makes the news producer’s workflow simpler and more manageable (Online video, Avid, 2016). Further, Jones et al. (2013) argue that the digital workflow provides the journalists with great capabilities to manage their news practices, in particular, the automation system, includes: ‘…Digital video servers for content creation in shared collaborative environments, nonlinear video editing, digital lowresolution proxy browsing, shot listing and editing, integrated digital graphics production and robotic cameras’. (Jones et al., 2013, p.1233) The digital automation system mainly depends on nonlinear editing process and procedures of news production. Pavlik (2001) argues that the nonlinear editing 19 means that the journalists are able to conduct things in a number of sequences, including dealing with the storyboard of a news item, adding audio track and footage editing, rearranging the footage cut and pasted and mainly dealing with digital storage of news items (Pavlik, 2001, p.107). In this context ‘the using of nonlinear editing systems, means that editing off the server has to be nondestructive’ (Tozer, 2004, p.666). The automation system provides many benefits for the journalists that work within the Newspaper production network, especially the production workflow and workflow management. Hence, the automation system in the workplace offers crucial approaches to produce news and efficiently involves the news procedures in the Newspaper production networking. In the Newspaper production automation system and workplace networking, there are many aspects that help the journalists to establish their tasks. As Keirstead (2004) noted: ‘The Newspaper production computer system vendors now include Internet software in their packages, including software that transfers the news program script (and in some cases, audio and video) to the Web page. Major networks not only send their scripts, they create additional information for viewers who want to know more about current topic’.

Journalism and technology changes in historical context

This section will present the historical context of technology and journalism in the field of media; provide a short discussion of the relationship between journalism and technology development. It briefly considers the long history of engagement between technology in the fields of media, including the newspaper, radio, television and online.

Newspaper and technology change

From the emergence of the printing press in the mid-15th century in the Western countries there has seen a fundamental development and of printing into a master art form (Hernandez and Rue, 2015). The substantive development of journalism and the modern of newspaper had taken place by the end of the 19th century. This was simplified by the use of the ‘cheap, vast quantities of wood pulp paper, automated printing presses, typewriting and typesetting machines’ (Gaudreault et al., 2012, p.383). This delivered a new form of professional practice for the journalists of accurately, objectively reporting and new ways of wide spread newsgathering and distribution in widely using the telegraph (Gaudreault et al., 2012). In this context Randall (2007) argues that: ‘A newspaper’s role is to find out fresh information on matters of public interest and to relay it as quickly and as accurately as possible to readers in an honest and balanced way’ (Randall, 2007, p.25). Fenton (2010) argues that the ‘news journalism as contributing vital resources for processes of information gathering, deliberation and action’ (Fenton, 2010, p.3). In this historical perspective scholars in this field indicated the pioneer of the tabloid newspaper in Britain, the owner of the Daily Mail, Alfred Harmsworth. In this context, Conboy (2011) claimed: ‘That modern journalism began in 1896 – on 4 May 1896 to be precise. This was not because of any single innovation in format or technology but in the way that Alfred Harmsworth’s Daily Mail, launched on that day, managed to draw a complex range of technical, commercial and textual features into one publication’. (Conboy, 2011, p.8) In this respect, the same author has argued that Harmsworth transported and developed the old form of the daily newspaper to a new form in the 20th century. In this way, Harmsworth had an essential role in renewing and modernising journalism and the newspaper innovation process (Conboy, 2011, p.8). Modern journalism and news practice changed by the end of the 19th century, this aspect impacted on the way of work and news practice as well in this field of media (Clayman and Heritage, 2002). Moreover, Eadie (2009) argues: ‘…Modern journalism has a predecessor in pictorial journalism in the middle of the 19th century shortly after the introduction of photography, illustrated newspapers appeared in each of the Western countries beginning with Great Britain’. (Eadie, 2009, p.32) Grøtta (2015) argues that: ‘the rise of the commercial newspaper in the nineteenth century was a media revolution heralding today’s media situation in every aspect’ (Grøtta, 2015, p.24). Anderson et al. (2016) argue that ‘throughout the twentieth century as politics, economics and technology changed, journalism changed as well’ (Anderson et al., 2016, p.162). In this context, Griffiths (2015) argued that the technology advancement is an essential element of the requirement of the contemporary newspaper production and this aspect has become a great part of the contemporary system of journalism (Griffiths, 2015). Hence, technology changes have impacted the content and the form of newspapers and also affect the professional practice of the journalists within their everyday environment. The dramatic changes in the field of journalism have connected directly to the development of technology advancement, in particular the digital news package into a more contemporary online presentation format (Hernandez and Rue, 2015). In this context, Usher (2016) argues that skills improvement and subspecialty has emerged from the integration of a variety of elements including the photography, graphics, maps, data visualisation, design, the way of illustration and computation of modern journalism. These aspects of news journalism intersect in a variety of methods and ways, which support the new shape of interactive journalism in the digital age (Usher, 2016). Rudin and Ibbotson (2002) identify that technology changes in the field of journalism and newspapers are linked to the delivery of computer and software systems, stating that: ‘The impact of this technology and the change in working practice in the newspaper and magazine industries is clearly evident in the use of computers and associated software packages in producing newspapers and magazines’. (Rudin and Ibbotson, 2002, p.78) Hence, modern journalism and the newspaper have been associated with the development of technology advancement  used in creating a new style of journalistic and professional journalism practice. In particular, the way of presenting information, designing the newspaper and distribution for the public interest. The next part will briefly present the development of radio journalism and technology development.

Download Chapters 1 to 5 PDF

Content Structure of Technological Advancement – Threat to the Future News Paper and Production

  • The abstract contains the research problem, the objectives, methodology, results, and recommendations
  • Chapter one of this thesis or project materials contains the background to the study, the research problem, the research questions, research objectives, research hypotheses, significance of the study, the scope of the study, organization of the study, and the operational definition of terms.
  • Chapter two contains relevant literature on the issue under investigation. The chapter is divided into five parts which are the conceptual review, theoretical review, empirical review, conceptual framework, and gaps in research
  • Chapter three contains the research design, study area, population, sample size and sampling technique, validity, reliability, source of data, operationalization of variables, research models, and data analysis method
  • Chapter four contains the data analysis and the discussion of the findings
  • Chapter five contains the summary of findings, conclusions, recommendations, contributions to knowledge, and recommendations for further studies.
  • References: The references are in APA
  • Questionnaire



WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Welcome! We are online and ready to help you via WhatsApp chat. Let us know if you need our assistance.