DATA ANALYSIS

CHAPTER- 4
Introduction

A chapter on data analysis is crucial for investigating the transformative effects

of digital technologies on journalism. This study poses several research questions to

explore the different aspects of the digital revolution's impact on job prospects, nature

of employment, legal frameworks, and need for new regulations. These research

questions aim to shed light on how digital technologies are changing the field of

journalism, which lies at the intersection of traditional practices with innovative digital

approaches. This study seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the impact

of the digital era on journalism, providing insights for journalists, media organisations,

policymakers, and academics.

The research questions aimed to explore the effects of digitalisation on

employment, legal aspects, and journalist perceptions in various work settings, from

traditional offices to remote and hybrid arrangements. This comprehensive approach

enables a thorough understanding of the challenges and opportunities that

digitalisation presents for journalism. The significance of this research extends beyond

academia by addressing real-world issues faced by journalists and media

organisations in the digital era. These findings have the potential to inform policies,

shape journalistic practices, and guide legal frameworks in journalism. This study is a

critical enquiry into an industry undergoing change, offering evidence-based insights

into shaping the future of journalism in the digital age.

 Table 4.1

Demographic Table-Gender

Valid Cumulative
Description Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Male 191 48.1 48.1 48.1
Female 167 42.1 42.1 90.2
Valid
Transgender 39 9.8 9.8 100.0
Total 397 100.0 100.0

The demographic table of the survey showed a relatively balanced gender

distribution among the participants, with a small majority of male respondents (48.1%).

Females also constituted a significant proportion (42.1%), while transgender

individuals represented a smaller yet notable fraction of the respondents (9.8%). The

cumulative percentage column confirms that all respondents have been accounted for,

with each category adding up to 100 percent. From a research perspective, diverse

gender representations can provide a comprehensive understanding of the impact of

digitalisation on working journalists and newspaper employees from different gender

perspectives. It is important to consider the proportion of transgender individuals, as

their experiences in the labour market may be distinct and could provide unique

insights into the research subject, especially when examining labour laws and

workplace inclusivity. This demographic information sets a foundational context for

interpreting subsequent data, as the analysis of survey responses might be cross-

examined with gender distribution to reveal any gender-specific trends or issues in the

impact of digitalization on employment in and around Chennai

 Table-4.2
Age

Valid Cumulative
Description Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Less than
71 17.9 17.9 17.9
25
25-35 107 27.0 27.0 44.8
36-45 87 21.9 21.9 66.8
Valid
46-55 75 18.9 18.9 85.6
more than
57 14.4 14.4 100.0
57
Total 397 100.0 100.0

The age distribution in Table 4.2 suggests a wide range of age groups among

the survey participants, which is beneficial for the study as it can provide a multi-

generational perspective on the impact of digitalisation in journalism. The largest age

group is–25-35 year olds, which could indicate a younger workforce that is possibly

more adept at integrating digital technologies into their work. The 36-45 and 46-55 age

groups were also well represented, suggesting a good mix of mid-career professionals

who may have witnessed the transition from traditional to digital platforms in their

professional lives. The least represented age group is those over 55 years, and the

representation of the under-25 age group is also lower than that of the central age

brackets. The cumulative percentage indicates the progressive addition of each age

group to the total population. In terms of labour law perspectives, varying age

demographics can help in understanding how different age groups adapt to

digitalisation, face employment challenges, and benefit from digital opportunities.

Younger journalists may be more adaptive to changes and new technologies, whereas

older employees may face more significant challenges. These insights are vital for

analysing the need for different training programmes, amendments to labour laws, and

the creation of supportive workplace environments to cater to diverse age groups.

 Table 4.3
Education
Description Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
SSLC 48 12.1 12.1 12.1
HSC 67 16.9 16.9 29.0
UG 131 33.0 33.0 62.0
Valid
PG 143 36.0 36.0 98.0
NP 8 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 397 100.0 100.0

The educational composition of the survey participants reflects a range of

qualifications from SSLC to potentially higher education levels. The SSLC holders,

comprising 12.1% of the participants and HSC holders at 16.9%, indicate that a

segment of the journalistic workforce has foundational educational qualifications. The

presence of these groups in the survey suggests that individuals with varied

educational backgrounds were part of the journalistic landscape in and around

Chennai. Given that digital technology integration within journalism may not uniformly

impact all education levels, the perspectives of the SSLC and HSC certificate holders

are crucial. These individuals might have had distinct experiences with digital

transitions, particularly in terms of skill adaptation and the availability of job

opportunities.

For instance, technological fluency may be less prevalent among those with

SSLC qualifications, potentially indicating the need for targeted training programs to

enhance digital literacy. The data suggest an incremental increase in educational

levels, with cumulative percentages hinting at higher education categories constituting

the remaining 71% of the survey population. This trend could infer a correlation

between higher educational attainment and the integration of digital technology into

journalism. It may be suggested that those with university degrees or higher are better
positioned to exploit digital platforms, potentially influencing the shift in job

opportunities in journalism. Such a shift could be in favour of those with higher

educational qualifications, thereby impacting traditional employment models for

journalists. In exploring the legal adjustments necessitated by digital technologies,

educational background could play a pivotal role in understanding and navigating new

employment agreements, labour laws, and privacy policies. Those with more

advanced education may exhibit greater awareness and proactive engagement with

these legal challenges compared to their less-educated counterparts. Representation

across different educational levels also has implications for moral aspects and ethical

considerations in the deployment of digital technologies. A more educated workforce

might demonstrate heightened sensitivity to the implications of these technologies on

privacy rights and journalistic integrity. This diversity is essential for assessing the

impact of digitalisation from a labour law perspective and underscores the need to

consider varied educational experiences when formulating new legal frameworks and

guidelines to protect journalists in the digital age.

Table 4.4
Language of Media
Description Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Tamil 210 52.9 52.9 52.9
Valid English 187 47.1 47.1 100.0
Total 397 100.0 100.0

The data presented in Table 4.4 demonstrates the linguistic divide within the

media consumed by journalists in Chennai, with 52.9% of participants preferring Tamil

and 47.1% preferring English. This nearly equal distribution not only highlights a

diverse media landscape but also emphasises the importance of bilingualism in digital

technology integration in journalism. The objectives of this study necessitate such

linguistic duality, as it suggests that digital advancements in journalism must cater to

multilanguage proficiency, potentially impacting job opportunities and requiring

versatility in language skills. Furthermore, balanced linguistic representation calls for

legal reforms, ethical guidelines, and privacy regulations arising from digitalisation to

be equally applicable and accessible in both language domains, ensuring that the

digital transformation in journalism is inclusive and upholds the employment conditions

and rights of journalists regardless of the language of their journalistic practice.

Table 4.5
Journalists-Job Classification

Valid Cumulative
Description Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Editor 32 8.1 8.1 8.1
Leader Writer 28 7.1 7.1 15.1
News-Editor 48 12.1 12.1 27.2
Sub-Editor 55 13.9 13.9 41.1
Feature-Writer 36 9.1 9.1 50.1
Copy-Tester 24 6.0 6.0 56.2
Reporter 71 17.9 17.9 74.1
Valid Correspondent 52 13.1 13.1 87.2
Cartoonist 16 4.0 4.0 91.2
News-
24 6.0 6.0 97.2
Photographer
Proof Reader 8 2.0 2.0 99.2
Others 3 .8 .8 100.0
Total 397 100.0 100.0

The distribution of occupational roles within the sample of 397 journalists

demonstrates a diverse array of specialisations. Reporters comprised the largest

category, representing 17.9% of the sample, emphasising their essential role in news

gathering. Sub-editors made up the next significant group, accounting for 13.9% of the

sample, underlining the importance of editorial processes. Correspondents and New

Editors also represent substantial portions of the sample at 13.1% and 12.1%,
respectively, indicating a focus on investigative and managerial functions within

journalism. Feature-Writers and Editors, at 9.1% and 8.1%, respectively, highlighted

the creative and leadership roles that are vital to maintaining journalistic integrity. More

specialized roles such as Copy-Testers, News-Photographers, and Cartoonists, while

fewer in number, emphasize the variety of skills that contribute to the diverse media

landscape. The smallest groups, such as Proof Readers and those classified as

'Others', illustrate the specialised roles that, although not as numerous, are essential

to the functioning of journalistic organisations. The data shows a wide range of job

descriptions within the journalistic field, with 'Reporter' being the most common,

suggesting that the sample places considerable importance on gathering and

disseminating news. The prominence of specialised roles like 'Sub-Editor' and 'News-

Editor', which make up a significant portion of the data, suggests a multi-layered

editorial process, possibly reflecting the intricacy of news production in the digital era.

The distribution of roles in the data suggests a substantial number of

"Correspondents”, indicating a strong network for in-depth coverage. The presence of

"Cartoonists" and "News-Photographers" underscores the multifaceted nature of

journalism that extends beyond text, highlighting the importance of visual media in

storytelling. From a labour law perspective, the diversity of roles indicates that any

digital transformation within the industry must consider a wide range of job functions.

As digitalisation could streamline or automate certain tasks, roles such as "Proof

Reader" and "Copy-Editor" might experience a shift in job responsibilities or demand.

Furthermore, the impact of digital technologies may vary across these roles,

necessitating tailored adjustments in employment agreements and training programs

to ensure smooth transition into digital paradigms. Overall, the data emphasise the
need to consider the specificities of different journalistic roles when assessing the

impact of digitalisation on employment, legal adjustments, and the ethical landscape

in journalism. It also highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to

developing new legal frameworks to protect the rights and conditions of journalists in

all roles as the industry evolves.

Table 4.6

Type of Media
Description Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Print 210 52.9 52.9 52.9
Radio 48 12.1 12.1 65.0
Valid Television 72 18.1 18.1 83.1
Electronic 67 16.9 16.9 100.0
Total 397 100.0 100.0

The dataset illustrates the distribution of 397 media professionals across media

types. The majority of respondents worked in print media, comprising 52.9% of the

sample, reflecting the print's prevailing significance in the media landscape. Radio,

while having the smallest representation of 12.1%, signifies a dedicated segment of

the industry that persists despite the prevalence of visual media. Television

professionals accounted for 18.1% of the sample, indicating that television’s solid

foothold is a traditional yet dynamic medium. Electronic media professionals made up

16.9%, underscoring the substantial impact of digital transformation on journalism.

This diverse media representation suggests that while print remains dominant, there

is a notable shift towards electronic media, highlighting the evolving nature of the

media sector and the potential for digital technologies to further permeate and redefine

journalistic practices.
 Table 4.7
Experience
Valid Cumulative
Description Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Less
than 5 83 20.9 20.9 20.9
Years
5-10 103 25.9 25.9 46.9
Valid 10-15 87 21.9 21.9 68.8
15-20 67 16.9 16.9 85.6
Above 20
57 14.4 14.4 100.0
Years
Total 397 100.0 100.0

The data reflect the professional experience of 397 individuals in the media

sector segmented into five categories. The largest group, those with 5-10 years of

experience, constituted 25.9% of the sample, suggesting a substantial presence of

mid-career professionals who may be more adaptable to industry shifts, including

digitalisation. Individuals with less than five years of experience represent 20.9%,

indicative of new entrants who are likely to be digital natives, potentially more attuned

to the digital media landscape. The 10-15 years category comprises 21.9% of the

sample, followed by those with 15-20 years at 16.9%, reflecting seasoned

professionals who may have witnessed significant industry transformations. Finally,

those with over 20 years of experience, making up 14.4% of the sample, represent

veterans who offer a wealth of industry knowledge and historical context. Collectively,

these statistics illustrate a diverse range of experience levels, highlighting the dynamic

interplay between seasoned expertise and emerging proficiency in the media

workforce.
 Table 4.8

Employment Status
Valid Cumulative
Description Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Full-time 230 57.9 57.9 57.9
Part-time 88 22.2 22.2 80.1
Valid
Freelance 79 19.9 19.9 100.0
Total 397 100.0 100.0

Among the 397 media professionals surveyed, employment status can be

categorised into three distinct types. The largest group consists of full-time employees,

accounting for 57.9% of the sample, implying a stable job market in the media sector,

with a clear preference for conventional employment arrangements. Part-time workers

constitute 22.2% of the sample, suggesting a significant segment of the workforce that

balances media roles with other obligations or possibly reflects the industry's evolution

towards more adaptable working patterns. Freelancers made up 19.9% of the sample,

indicating a significant proportion of the media workforce engaging in independent

journalism or media production, a figure that highlights the growing trend of the gig

economy within the media landscape. The distribution of employment types shows the

diverse nature of media work, ranging from traditional full-time roles to more

contemporary freelance engagements, which aligns with global trends towards a more

versatile and diversified labour market in the media industry.

Table 4.9
Working Environment

Valid Cumulative
Description Frequency Percent
Percent Percent
Office-
191 48.1 48.1 48.1
Based
Valid Remote 91 22.9 22.9 71.0
Hybrid 115 29.0 29.0 100.0
Total 397 100.0 100.0
 The data collected from 397 media professionals indicated a nearly equal

distribution between traditional and contemporary work arrangements. Among the

respondents, 48.1% preferred office-based settings, suggesting that a significant

portion of the workforce still values the benefits of a physical office space, including a

structured environment and direct collaboration. On the other hand, 22.9% of the

participants opted for remote work, reflecting the industry's adaptation to flexible

working conditions, which may have been influenced by recent global trends towards

virtual workspaces. Notably, 29.0% of the professionals are engaged in a hybrid

working environment that combines both office-based and remote work, indicating a

growing trend towards flexible work arrangements that balance in-person and remote

collaboration. This distribution suggests that the media sector is undergoing a

transitional phase, with a considerable portion of the workforce moving towards or

already adopting more flexible working models. This trend has important implications

for organizational structure, collaboration, and the future of media work.

Table 4.10
Impact of Digital Technologies on Traditional Journalism Employment
Prospects

Part - A
S.No Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D

1 Digital technologies have 4.5 9.8 15.1 30.2 40.3 3.91 1.16
significantly reduced the
demand for traditional
journalism roles.
2 My job security as a traditional 9.8 15.1 19.9 24.9 30.2 3.50 1.32
journalist has decreased due
to digital technology
advancements.
3 The skills required in 4.0 5.8 15.1 35.3 39.8 4.01 1.07
journalism have drastically
changed with the introduction
of digital technologies.
 4 I need to acquire new digital 5.0 5.0 19.9 35.0 35.0 3.89 1.09
skills to remain relevant in the
journalism industry.
5 Opportunities for traditional 6.0 9.1 15.1 30.0 39.8 3.88 1.20
journalistic roles are
diminishing in favour of digital
and online media positions.

The table reflects perceptions of the impact of digital technologies on traditional

journalism employment, based on a Likert scale survey with options ranging from

Strongly Disagree (SD) to Strongly Agree (SA), alongside calculated mean responses

and standard deviations (S.D.)The majority of respondents (70.5%) agreed or strongly

agreed that digital technologies have significantly reduced the demand for traditional

journalism roles, with a high mean score of 3.91 and a standard deviation of 1.16. This

indicates a strong consensus on the transformative effect of digital technology on job

demands within the industry. Concerning job security, there was a notable concern

among participants, with 55.1% agreeing or strongly agreeing that their job security

had decreased as a result of digital advancements, reflected in a mean score of 3.50.

The higher standard deviation of 1.32 suggests a wider variance in responses,

indicating differing levels of concern regarding job security across individuals.

There is a strong agreement (75.1%) that the skills required in journalism

drastically changed with the introduction of digital technologies, as evidenced by a

high mean score of 4.01 and a lower standard deviation of 1.07. This consistency in

the responses suggests a general consensus on the need for skill adaptation.

Respondents acknowledged the necessity for new digital skills to stay relevant in the

industry, with 70% agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement, and a mean

score of 3.89. A standard deviation of 1.09 signifies a modest spread in the

acknowledgement of the need for digital skills. Finally, 69.8% of respondents

perceived that opportunities for traditional journalistic roles are diminishing in favour

of positions in digital and online media, which is reflected in the mean score of 3.88

and a standard deviation of 1.20. This demonstrates a general agreement but with a

slightly wider range of opinions compared to other statements. In summary, the survey

results suggest that professionals within the journalism field largely recognize the

significant impact of digital technologies on traditional roles, skill requirements, and

job opportunities. There is clear indication that adaptation to digital trends is necessary

for career sustainability in journalism. The variations in standard deviations highlight

that while there is general agreement, the degree to which individuals agree with these

changes varies, suggesting that personal experience and adaptability may influence

perceptions of the impact of digital technology on journalism.

Figure 4.1
Impact of Digital Technologies & Employment Prospects

Part -A
45
40.3 39.8 39.8
40
35.335.0 35.0
35
30.2 30.0 30.2
30
24.9
25
19.9 19.9
20
15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
15
9.8 9.8 9.1
10
6.0 5.8 5.0
4.5 5.0
4.0
5

0
SD D N A SA
 The bar graph provides a quantitative visualisation of the survey responses

regarding the influence of digital technologies on traditional journalism. The data

conveys a pronounced inclination towards acknowledging the transformative effects

of digitalisation, with a majority of respondents either agreeing or strongly agreeing

across five key statements about the journalism industry. The aggregated responses

indicate a pervasive sentiment among journalists that digital technologies have

considerably diminished traditional roles within the sector, as evidenced by the high

mean scores. The survey results indicate that the highest level of strong agreement

pertains to concerns over job security, highlighting the prevalent anxiety about the

stability of traditional journalism careers in the face of digital progressions. Further

analysis revealed a collective recognition of the shifting skill landscape, with a

significant consensus on the necessity for journalists to acquire new digital

competencies to maintain industry relevance. This reflects a broader industry trend

towards the valorisation of digital literacy and adaptive skill sets in the current media

ecosystem. The spread of responses, while generally skewed towards agreement,

exhibits variability, particularly in the neutral and disagreement categories. This

variability could be indicative of a subset of journalists who either view the impact of

digital technologies with ambivalence or believe that traditional skills and roles retain

their importance. The survey graph ultimately underscores the critical narrative that

digital technologies reshape journalism. It encapsulates the industry's collective

acknowledgement of the challenges posed by digitalisation and the urgent need for

adaptive measures to ensure the viability of journalism as a profession. This paradigm

shift necessitates strategic educational and organizational responses to equip

journalists with the tools necessary to navigate the evolving digital landscape. Part B
of the questionnaire assessed the impact of specific digital technology and platforms

on traditional journalism jobs.

Table 4.11
Assessing the Impact of Specific Digital Technology and Platforms on Traditional

Journalism Jobs

Part – B

S.No Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D

Social media platforms have
1 overshadowed the need for 8.1 12.1 15.1 24.9 39.8 3.76 1.30
traditional news reporting.
Online news aggregators and
blogs have significantly
2 7.1 10.1 17.9 30.0 35.0 3.75 1.22
affected the demand for print
journalism.
The rise of digital video and
podcasting has led to a
3 6.0 14.1 19.9 24.9 35.0 3.68 1.25
decline in opportunities for
print journalists.
Automation and AI-driven
reporting tools have reduced
4 5.0 15.1 19.9 30.0 30.0 3.64 1.19
the need for human journalists
in certain reporting tasks.
The growth of mobile
journalism has diminished the
5 7.1 8.1 15.1 34.8 35.0 3.82 1.19
relevance of traditional
newspaper reporting.

Part B presents data on industry perceptions in the context of the influence of

digital technologies on journalism. Social media platforms were perceived to have a

significant impact on traditional news reporting, with 39.8% of respondents strongly

agreeing with this sentiment and an average mean score of 3.76, indicating a general

consensus on the overshadowing power of social media. Online news aggregators

and blogs were also seen as influential, with a combined agreement of 65.0% and

mean score of 3.75. This suggests that these digital entities have a substantial effect
on the demand for print journalism, potentially redirecting readers' attention and

advertising revenues. The advent of digital videos and podcasting has contributed to

a decrease in opportunities for print journalists, with a mean score of 3.68. This reflects

the changing landscape in which multimedia content is gaining traction over traditional

print media. The role of automation and AI in journalism was acknowledged, with 30%

of respondents strongly agreeing that these technologies have reduced the need for

human journalists in certain tasks, resulting in a mean score of 3.64. This indicates an

awareness of shifting skill requirements and job roles within the industry due to

technological advancements. Finally, the rise of mobile journalism is viewed as

diminishing the relevance of traditional newspaper reporting, with a mean score of

3.82, the highest among the statements. This suggests the recognition of the

increasing consumption of news through mobile devices and the consequent impact

on traditional print formats. These findings collectively underscore a transition within

the journalism field, with digital technologies altering the demand and nature of

journalistic roles, skill sets, and content consumption patterns. This study reflects the

necessity for traditional journalism to adapt and evolve in response to these digital

shifts to sustain its relevance and viability in the digital era.

Figure 4.2
 Part -B

180 The growth of mobile journalism

has diminished the relevance of
traditional newspaper reporting.
160 35.0

140 Automation and AI-driven

34.8 reporting tools have reduced the
30.0 need for human journalists in
120 certain reporting tasks.

100 The rise of digital video and

30.0 35.0 podcasting has led to a decline in
15.1 opportunities for print
80 journalists.
24.9
19.9 Online news aggregators and
60 8.1 35.0
blogs have significantly affected
15.1 19.9 the demand for print journalism.
40 30.0
7.1 14.1
5.0 17.9 Social media platforms have
20 6.0 10.1 39.8
7.1 24.9 overshadowed the need for
8.1 12.1 15.1 traditional news reporting.
0
SD D N A SA

The graphical representation for Part B of the study was delineated, illustrating the

respondents' perceptions of the impact of digital technologies on journalism. The

findings indicate that the growth of mobile journalism was perceived as having the

most significant impact on diminishing the relevance of traditional newspaper

reporting, as indicated by the aggregation of agreement and strong agreement

responses. Similarly, automation and AI-driven tools have been reported to have

reduced the need for human journalists in specific reporting tasks, reflecting a pivot

towards technologically driven content production. The rise of digital video and

podcasting was also depicted as a contributing factor to the decline in opportunities

for print journalists, suggesting an industry shift towards multimedia content

consumption. Across all categories, strong agreement tended to outweigh all other

response options, indicating pervasive acknowledgement of the transformative effects

of digital technologies within the field.

 Based on these findings, it can be concluded that these technological

advancements have significantly altered conventional roles and mandated the

acquisition of novel competencies, indicating a broad agreement on the importance of

adjusting journalistic approaches. Feedback highlighted a pattern of digitalisation

within the domain of news delivery and the development of journalism into a discipline

that is increasingly intertwined with technology. The third section of the questionnaire,

Part C, focused on perceptions of employment opportunities in the context of the digital

era.

Table 4.12

Perceptions of Employment Prospects in the Digital Era

Part – C

S.No Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D

I feel optimistic about my
career prospects in
1 15.1 40.1 24.9 14.9 5.0 2.54 1.07
journalism despite the rise of
digital technologies.
The shift towards digital
journalism has made my role
2 6.0 9.1 19.9 30.0 35.0 3.78 1.18
as a journalist more
competitive.
Digital technology has
created more diverse job
3 5.0 10.1 15.1 34.8 35.0 3.84 1.15
opportunities within the field
of journalism.
I am concerned about the
stability of my job in
4 10.1 14.9 19.9 24.9 30.2 3.50 1.32
journalism due to digital
advancements.
Adapting to digital
5 technologies in journalism 5.0 9.8 19.9 30.2 35.0 3.80 1.16
has been a challenging but
 necessary part of my career
development.

In response to the third research question that explored journalists' perceptions of

their employment prospects in the face of digital technology integration, the collected

data revealed a range of sentiments. Notably, optimism about career prospects in the

digital age was lower, with a mean score of 2.54 and a standard deviation of 1.07,

indicating that a significant number of respondents held negative views about the

future of their journalism careers. However, the competitiveness of the journalistic

profession in the digital era was acknowledged with a mean score of 3.78. The data

suggest that journalists perceive the environment as increasingly competitive, which

may be attributed to the emergence of digital platforms and growth in the number of

content creators.

The potential for digital technology to engender a broader array of job

opportunities within journalism was also recognised, as reflected in a mean score of

3.84. This perception aligns with the evolving nature of the media landscape, where

digitalisation has introduced various roles beyond traditional reporting. Concerns

regarding job stability due to digital advancements were apparent, with a mean score

of 3.50, indicating apprehension about the enduring viability of current journalistic

positions as the industry continues to digitise. The challenge of adapting to digital

technologies was perceived as both demanding and essential and underscored by a

mean score of 3.80. This reflects the notion that, while the transition may be arduous,

it is deemed a necessary component of professional development within the field.

The findings collectively suggest that, while working journalists are cognizant of the

increased competition and challenges brought about by digital technologies, they also

acknowledge the creation of diversified job roles and the necessity for adaptation.
However, the predominant sentiment appears to be a concern, particularly regarding

the implications of digitalisation for job security and career longevity in journalism.

Figure 4.3

Part - C
45
40.1
40
34.8 35.0
35 30.0
30.2
30.2
30
24.9 24.9
25
19.9
20
15.1 14.9 15.1 14.9
15 9.1
10.1
9.8
10
6.0 10.1
5.0 5.0
5 5.0

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The graphical data presented in Part C were analysed to derive inferences

about journalists' perceptions of employment prospects in the digital era. The results

indicated a decline in optimism regarding career prospects in journalism, with the

lowest percentage of agreement, suggesting a general concern about the positive

impact of digital technologies on individual careers in journalism. However, a larger

number of respondents agreed that digital journalism had increased competitiveness

in the field, indicating that journalists recognised the opportunities created by digital

technologies. A significant number of journalists agreed that digital technology created

diverse job opportunities, highlighting the appreciation for the expanded scope of

employment within the industry. Nonetheless, a notable number of respondents

expressed concern about job stability due to digital advancements, revealing their

apprehension about the security of journalistic roles in the face of technological

progress. Finally, a substantial agreement was evident that adaptation to digital

technologies was a critical yet challenging aspect of journalists' career development.

In conclusion, the data suggest that while journalists recognised the competitive and

opportunistic landscape brought forth by digital technologies, there were prevalent

concerns about job stability and the challenges associated with adapting to these

technological changes. The overall trend depicts an industry in flux, with professionals

grappling with the dual forces of opportunity and uncertainty ushered in by the digital

era.

Table 4.13

Legal Changes in Journalism Due to Digital Technology Adoption

Part – D

S.No Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D

There have been significant
changes in employment
1 35.0 30.0 19.9 10.1 5.0 2.20 1.16
contracts for journalists due
to digital technology.
Labour laws have evolved to
2 better protect journalists in 30.0 35.0 19.9 9.8 5.3 2.25 1.14
the digital age.
As a journalist, it is difficult to
report without violating
3 privacy rights due to digital 5.0 10.1 15.1 30.0 39.8 3.89 1.18
technology integration in
journalism.
The introduction of digital
tools in journalism has
4 necessitated revisions to 10.1 5.0 19.9 35.0 30.0 3.69 1.23
existing media and privacy
laws.
The legal framework
5 governing journalism has 5.0 10.1 14.9 30.0 40.1 3.89 1.18
struggled to keep pace with
 the rapid adoption of digital
technologies.

According to the data presented in Part D, the research question regarding

legal changes and adaptations in journalism due to digital technology adoption was

addressed through the analysis of survey responses. The results indicate that the

majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the notion that there have

been significant changes in employment contracts (65%) and that labour laws have

evolved to better protect journalists (65%) in the digital age, as reflected by the low

mean scores of 2.20 and 2.25, respectively. This suggests a concern about the

effectiveness of current legal modifications in adapting to digital transformation in

journalism.

In contrast, the difficulty of reporting without violating privacy rights in the

context of digital technology integration was recognised with a higher mean score of

3.89, and a substantial number of journalists agreed or strongly agreed with this

statement, suggesting a perception of increased challenges in maintaining privacy

standards amidst digital integration.

Furthermore, there was agreement that the introduction of digital tools

necessitated revisions to existing media and privacy laws, reflected in a mean score

of 3.69. The respondents acknowledged the need for legal frameworks to evolve in

response to digital tools. Finally, the perception that the legal framework governing

journalism has struggled to keep pace with the rapid adoption of digital technologies

was prevalent, with a mean score of 3.89. The agreement here indicates a recognition

of the lag in legal responses to fast-paced digital changes in the field. The collective

responses from the survey underscore the recognised need for legal systems to adapt
more effectively to the realities of digital journalism, balancing the protection of

journalists’ rights with the ethical challenges posed by digital technology. The data

suggest a call for more responsive and updated legal structures to address the

complexities emerging from the digital evolution in journalism.

Figure 4.4

Part - D

40.1

35.0 30.0 39.8

45.0 30.0
35.0 30.0
40.0 35.0 30.0
35.0 19.9 14.9
30.0
30.0 10.1
19.9 15.1
25.0 10.1 5.0
19.9
10.1 5.0
20.0
5.0 9.8
15.0 10.1 5.3
10.0 5.0
5.0

0.0
SD D N A SA

The bar graph for Part D was analysed to evaluate perceptions of legal

changes in journalism due to the adoption of digital technologies. It was observed that

the majority of respondents strongly disagreed or disagreed with statements regarding

significant changes in employment contracts and the evolution of labour laws to better

protect journalists in the digital age. This is evidenced by the substantial height of bars

in the Strongly Disagree (SD) and Disagree (D) categories for these items, with mean

scores of 2.20 and 2.25, respectively, indicating scepticism about the effectiveness of

legal changes in these areas. In contrast, the difficulties posed by digital technology
integration in maintaining privacy standards during reporting were recognised by

respondents, with a considerable number agreeing or strongly agreeing, as reflected

by a mean score of 3.89. This suggests a perception of increased challenges in

upholding privacy rights in the digital journalist landscape. The necessity for revisions

to existing media and privacy laws owing to digital tools was also acknowledged, as

indicated by the agreement and strong agreement responses, resulting in a mean

score of 3.69. This concurs with the view that the current legal frameworks require

updates to remain relevant and effective.

Finally, the struggle of the legal framework governing journalism to keep pace

with rapid digital technology adoption was also noted, with a high mean score of 3.89,

denoting the recognition of the lag in legal responses to fast-paced changes within the

field. The inferences drawn from the graph support the premise posited by the

research question, indicating that while there is an awareness of the need for legal

adaptation to digital technologies in journalism, there is palpable doubt regarding the

adequacy and timeliness of these legal modifications. The data suggest a call for more

responsive and updated legal structures to address the complexities and challenges

emerging from the digital evolution in journalism. The next section deals with the

Impact of Legal Change on Job Security and Protections for Journalists in the Digital

Age

Table 4.14
Impact of Legal Change on Job Security and Protections for Journalists in the
Digital Age

Part – E

S.No Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D

 Digital journalism has improved job
1 5.0 10.1 15.1 29.7 40.1 3.89 1.18
security for journalists.
I feel more legally protected as a
2 journalist in the digital age 30.0 35.0 19.9 10.1 5.0 2.25 1.13
compared to traditional media.
The evolving legal landscape has
3 kept up with the increasing risks 10.1 5.0 19.9 35.0 30.0 3.69 1.23
and challenges in digital journalism.
Current legal frameworks are
effective in addressing issues of
4 unfair dismissal or job insecurity 35.0 30.0 19.9 9.8 5.3 2.20 1.17
due to the impact of digital
journalism.
The legal adaptations have been
adequate in protecting the rights
5 and working conditions of 30.0 35.0 19.9 10.1 5.0 2.25 1.13
journalists amidst digital
transformations.

In Part E, the data collected were analysed to discern the impact of legal

changes on job security and protection for journalists in the digital age. Responses

indicated that digital journalism was perceived as having improved job security for

journalists, with a relatively high mean score of 3.89. A standard deviation of 1.18

reflects a moderate dispersion of opinions, with 40.1% of respondents strongly

agreeing that their job security had improved. However, there is a contrasting view

regarding the legal protection of journalists in the digital age. A significant majority of

respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they felt more legally protected

compared to traditional media, as evidenced by a low mean score of 2.25 and a

standard deviation of 1.13. This finding suggests a prevalent concern about the

adequacy of legal protection in the digital context. The study found that the legal

landscape is evolving to address the risks and challenges of digital journalism, but the

effectiveness of current legal frameworks in protecting journalists' rights and working

conditions remains questionable. A mean score of 3.69 indicates that legal adaptations

are being recognised, but there is no consensus on how well these changes keep up
with industry risks. A mean score of 2.20 for the effectiveness of current legal

frameworks suggests notable disagreement. Furthermore, the mean score of 2.25 for

the adequacy of legal adaptations in protecting journalists' rights and working

conditions indicates that a substantial proportion of respondents feel that legal

adaptations have not been sufficient. This study highlights the need for legal structures

that are better suited to the realities of digital journalism to enhance job security and

legal protection for journalists.

Figure 4.5

Part - E
45.0
40.1
40.0
35.0 35.0 35.0
35.0
30.0 30.0 29.7 30.0
30.0

25.0
19.9
20.0
15.1
15.0
10.1 10.1 10.1
9.8
10.0
5.0 5.0 5.3
5.0
5.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

The graphical illustration from Part E was used to extract inferences regarding

the impact of legal change on job security and protection for journalists in the digital

age. The data were portrayed as a series of trend lines corresponding to various

statements regarding legal changes in digital journalism. It was inferred that there was

a high level of disagreement among the respondents regarding whether digital

journalism has improved job security and whether they felt more legally protected as

journalists in the digital age. These responses were characterised by peaks in

disagreement, represented by a substantial proportion of participants responding

Strongly Disagree' and 'Disagree’. Conversely, there was a convergence of opinions

on the potential positive effects of the evolving legal landscape and the adequacy of

legal adaptations in protecting journalists' rights amidst digital transformations. A

considerable number of participants agreed or strongly agreed with these sentiments,

suggesting an acknowledgement of efforts to adapt legal frameworks to the digital age

despite lingering concerns about their effectiveness.

There was agreement that digital tools require legal revisions, indicating the

recognition of the need for legal evolution to address the challenges brought by digital

tools and platforms. While there was apprehension about legal protection in the digital

era, the trends depicted also showed awareness and partial acceptance of positive

legal adaptations. However, persistent concerns have highlighted the need for more

robust and responsive legal changes to ensure job security and the protection of

journalists in digital terms. The next segment deals with the Effectiveness of Existing

Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines in Addressing Journalistic Concerns in the Digital

Age

Part – F
Table 4.15
Effectiveness of Existing Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines in Addressing
Journalistic Concerns in the Digital Age
S. S S Me S.
Description D N A
No D A an D
Existing laws and regulations effectively
24 24 20 15 14 2.7 1.
1 address the employment challenges faced
.9 .9 .2 .1 .9 0 38
by journalists in the digital era.
The current guidelines adequately protect
20 30 19 14 15 2.7 1.
2 journalists against the ethical dilemmas
.2 .0 .9 .9 .1 4 34
posed by digital journalism.
 The privacy and security concerns of
30 20 19 15 14 2.6 1.
3 journalists are well-covered by the existing
.0 .2 .9 .1 .9 4 42
legal framework.
Regulations in place are sufficient to
24 24 19 15 14 2.7 1.
4 manage the impacts of digital
.9 .7 .9 .6 .9 0 38
transformation on journalistic practices.
Current guidelines and laws are up-to-date
30 19 20 14 15 2.6 1.
5 and responsive to the rapid advancements
.0 .9 .2 .9 .1 5 42
in digital journalism technology.

The adequacy of current guidelines in safeguarding journalists against ethical

dilemmas arising from digital journalism was subject to scrutiny, with a mean response

of 2.74, indicating a critical perspective towards existing ethical safeguards. The

results showed a lack of confidence among respondents that their privacy and security

concerns were adequately addressed by the prevailing legal framework, as evidenced

by the lower mean score of 2.64 and a standard deviation of 1.42, demonstrating a

significant variation in perceptions of legal adequacy. Furthermore, respondents

appeared sceptical about the capacity of existing regulations to effectively manage the

impacts of digital transformation on journalistic practices, as indicated by a mean score

of 2.70, reflecting a general tendency towards disagreement.

The perception that current guidelines and laws are up-to-date and responsive

to rapid advancements in digital journalism technology was also met with hesitation,

indicated by a mean score of 2.65 and a standard deviation that revealed a variety of

viewpoints. In summary, the data were interpreted to indicate that existing legal

mechanisms were largely insufficient in addressing the multifaceted challenges faced

by journalists in the digital era. The findings suggest an imperative for legal reforms

that are more attuned to the evolving digital landscape and are capable of providing

comprehensive protection and guidance for journalistic practices.

Figure 4.6
 Part - F
140

120
30.0
19.9
100
24.9 24.7 20.2
80
19.9 14.9 15.1
20.2
60 30.0
19.9 15.6 14.9
40 30.0 15.1 14.9
20.2
19.9
20 14.9 15.1
24.9 24.9 20.2 15.1 14.9
0
SD D N A SA

The graphical representation depicted in Part F was interrogated to extract

inferences about the effectiveness of existing laws, regulations, and guidelines in

addressing journalistic concerns in the digital age. The largest proportion of responses

clustered in the 'Strongly Disagree' and 'Disagree' categories across all statements,

indicating a prevailing sentiment that current legal measures do not adequately

address the challenges faced by journalists. Notably, the responses signified

substantial concern regarding the extent to which existing laws and regulations

effectively address employment challenges, adequately protect journalists against

ethical dilemmas, sufficiently cover privacy and security concerns, manage the

impacts of digital transformation, and remain up-to-date with technological

advancements in journalism. The distribution of responses, with mean scores ranging

around the midpoint, revealed a critical stance towards the current legal frameworks

and their responsiveness to digital shifts in journalism. The convergence of responses

towards disagreement suggests that legal adaptations have been deemed insufficient

in providing the necessary protection and support for journalists navigating the
complexities of the digital landscape. The data underscored the need for more robust

and responsive legal frameworks to ensure journalists ‘security and ethical integrity in

the rapidly evolving digital domain. The next section addresses the Need for New

Regulations and Guidelines for Journalists in the Digital Era.

Table 4.16
Need for New Regulations and Guidelines for Journalists in the Digital Era

Part – G

S.No Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D

There is an urgent need for
new regulations specifically
1 5.0 9.8 15.1 30.0 40.1 3.90 1.17
addressing digital journalism
practices.
New guidelines should be
developed to ensure fair
2 4.0 11.1 14.9 34.8 35.3 3.86 1.13
employment practices in
digital journalism.
Strengthening legal
protections for journalists in
3 6.0 9.1 15.1 30.0 39.8 3.88 1.20
the digital age is critical for the
profession's future.
The introduction of regulations
regarding digital ethics in
4 journalism is essential for 5.0 10.1 19.9 30.0 35.0 3.79 1.16
maintaining journalistic
integrity.
There is a need for more
comprehensive training and
5 education programs as part of 7.1 8.1 15.1 35.0 34.8 3.82 1.19
new journalism regulations in
the digital era.

The dataset from Part G was evaluated to assess the perceived necessity of

new regulations and guidelines to protect journalists in the digital era. The responses

indicated a pronounced agreement on the urgency of developing new regulations

tailored to digital journalism practices, as evidenced by the mean score of 3.90. This

agreement suggests a need for regulatory measures that directly address the unique
conditions of digital journalism. Furthermore, the call for new guidelines to ensure fair

employment practices in digital journalism was supported, with a high mean score of

3.86. This reflects the sentiment that journalism’s digital transformation requires

updated guidelines to safeguard equitable employment. The critical nature of

strengthening legal protection for journalists was affirmed with a mean score of 3.88.

The strong agreement on this point underscores the importance placed on legal

security for journalists’ future roles in the profession.

The necessity of introducing regulations regarding digital ethics was

acknowledged with a mean score of 3.79. This indicates an awareness of the ethical

challenges posed by digital platforms and the need for regulatory frameworks that

uphold journalistic integrity. Finally, the data showed that there was a recognised need

for more comprehensive training and education programs within new journalism

regulations for the digital era, as reflected by a mean score of 3.82. The need for

evolving training and educational support for journalists as technology changes has

been recognised. In summary, the responses highlighted a strong consensus for the

development of new measures to protect journalists’ employment conditions and rights

against the backdrop of technological innovations. It was implied that such measures

are essential not only for the security of employment, but also for maintaining the

ethical and educational standards critical to the profession’s integrity and future.

Figure 4.7
 Part - G
45.0
40.1 39.8
40.0
34.8 35.0 35.3 35.034.8
35.0
30.0 30.030.0
30.0

25.0
19.9
20.0
15.114.915.1 15.1
15.0
11.1
9.8 9.110.1
10.0 8.1
7.1
6.0
5.0 5.0
4.0
5.0

0.0
SD D N A SA

. The data from Part-G was interpreted to indicate a strong agreement among the

surveyed respondents for the urgent need to implement new regulations specifically

tailored to digital journalism practices, as the majority demonstrated agreement or strong

agreement with this requirement. This was evidenced by substantial support for the

development of guidelines to ensure fair employment practices in the digital journalism

alongside a recognized necessity to strengthen legal protections for journalists to

safeguard the future of the profession in the digital age. Furthermore, there was

agreement on the importance of introducing regulations concerning digital ethics,

underlining the critical need for maintaining journalistic integrity amidst technological

advancements. The affirmative responses to the need for comprehensive training and

education programs revealed an acknowledgment of the essential skills required for

journalists to adeptly navigate the complexities introduced by digital media. Collectively,

these inferences from the survey responses underscored the imperative for a reformed

and updated regulatory framework to address the evolving demands and challenges

faced by journalists in the digital era

Part – H
Table 4.17
Journalism and Digitalization in India

S.No Description NO YES Mean S.D

Do you believe that print media is losing its relevance

1 32.7 67.3 1.32 0.46
due to the rise of digital media?
Do you think digitalization is altering the nature of
2 28.2 71.8 1.28 0.45
work in traditional print media?
Do you believe that digitalization in print media has
3 36.8 63.2 1.36 0.48
led to the loss of specific journalistic jobs?
Have you transitioned from working in print media to
4 62.0 38.0 1.61 0.48
digital media or another media form?
Have you experienced any difficulties after
5 52.9 47.1 1.52 0.49
transitioning from print to digital media?
Do you think advanced digital technologies are a
6 reason for changes in employment within the media 21.9 78.1 1.21 0.41
sector?
Are digital media personnel recognized equally by
7 56.9 43.1 1.56 0.49
employers as traditional print media personnel?
Are you a member of any union, association, or
8 72.0 28.0 1.72 0.44
society related to journalism?
Can digital media journalists become members of
9 42.1 57.9 1.42 0.49
these unions or associations?
Have you been provided with social security
10 66.0 34.0 1.65 0.47
protections as a print media employee?
Are the same social security protections extended to
11 61.0 39.0 1.60 0.48
digital media personnel?
Are wages paid regularly and properly on par with
12 48.1 51.9 1.48 0.50
Wage Boards fixation by your employer?

13 Are standing orders followed in your workplace? 47.1 52.9 1.47 0.49
Are disputes between employers and journalists in
14 the media industry resolved according to the 55.9 44.1 1.55 0.49
Industrial Disputes Act?
 Are freelancers more frequently employed than
15 36.0 64.0 1.36 0.48
regular employees in digital news gathering?
Are disciplinary proceedings followed against digital
16 41.1 58.9 1.41 0.49
media personnel who violate professional ethics?
Do you think that mushrooming social media is
17 creating major disruptions in the work of traditional 33.0 67.0 1.33 0.47
mainstream media?
Do you think Central and State laws are needed to
18 25.9 74.1 1.25 0.43
regulate social media?
Do you think job security in print media is impacted
19 36.0 64.0 1.36 0.48
by digitalization?
Do you think Print Media income is reduced due to
20 29.0 71.0 1.28 0.45
the advent of Digital Media?
Do you believe there is a need for skill development
21 programs for journalists and newspaper employees 22.9 77.1 1.22 0.42
to adapt to digitalization?
Do you think a law is necessary to protect print
22 media journalists from the negative effects of 39.0 61.0 1.39 0.48
digitalization?
23 Do you think Print Media has future existence? 81.1 18.9 1.81 0.39

In a study on the influence of digitalisation on journalism in India, it was revealed

in Part H that most participants acknowledged the decrease in print media's relevance

due to the rise of digital platforms. The shift from traditional print to digital media has

led to the loss of specific journalistic jobs and the need for journalists to adapt to

technological changes. Although less than half of the respondents transitioned to

digital media, the impact of digital technologies on employment in the media sector

was apparent. Disparities in employer recognition between digital and traditional print

media personnel as well as a lack of social security protection for digital journalists

were noted. This echoed the call for regulatory reform. The necessity for updated laws

to address social media's influence and skill development programs for journalists to

adapt to digital trends has been affirmed. The study's findings on the necessity of

journalism adapting to digital progress were mirrored by the uncertainty of print

media's viability.
 Part - H
90
81.1
78.1 77.1
80 74.1
71.8 72.0 71.0
67.3 66.0 67.0
70 63.2 62.0 64.0 64.0
61.0 61.0
57.9 58.9
56.9 55.9
60 52.9 51.9 52.9
47.1 48.1 47.1
50 43.1 44.1
42.1 41.1
39.0 39.0
36.8 38.0 36.0 36.0
40 32.7 34.0 33.0
28.2 28.0 29.0
30 25.9
21.9 22.9
18.9
20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
NO YES

A study examining the impact of digitalisation on Indian journalism found that

the majority of participants in Part H acknowledged the diminishing importance of print

media due to the proliferation of digital platforms. The transformation of the nature of

traditional print media’s work as a result of digitalisation was recognised, along with

the loss of specific journalistic positions, which aligns with the study's emphasis on the

need for journalists to adapt to technological shifts. While fewer than half of the

respondents had transitioned to digital media, there was clear agreement that digital

technologies influenced changes in employment within the media sector. Disparities

in recognition between digital and traditional print media employees were noted, along

with an underrepresentation in unions and a lack of social security protection for digital

journalists, which echoes the study's call for regulatory reforms. The urgency of

updating laws to address the influence of social media and implementing skill

development programs to help journalists adapt to digital trends has been reaffirmed.
Finally, a significant number of participants questioned the future existence of print

media, reflecting the study's conclusions about the necessity for journalism to evolve

in response to digital advancements.

Justification of each research question

RQ-1: To what extent has the introduction of digital technologies

affected the job prospects of traditional working journalists?

Table 4.18
Group Statistics
Std.
Std.
S.No Type of Media N Mean
Deviation
Error
Mean

Digital technologies have significantly reduced Print 210 3.0857 .98422 .06792
1 the demand for traditional journalism roles
Radio 48 4.4375 .50133 .07236
My job security as a traditional journalist has Print 210 2.4952 .96468 .06657
2 decreased due to digital techology advancements Radio 48 4.0000 0.00000 0.00000
The skills required in journalism have drastically Print 210 3.2667 .93590 .06458
3 changed with the introduction of digital
technologies. Radio 48 4.3958 .49420 .07133

I have had to acquire new digital skills to remain Print 210 3.1476 .94445 .06517
4 relevant in the journalism industry Radio 48 4.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Opportunities for traditional journalistic roles are Print 210 3.0286 1.03023 .07109
5 diminishing in favour of digital and online media
positions. Radio 48 4.3958 .49420 .07133

This table presents group statistics comparing responses from individuals

working in print and radio media regarding the impact of digital technologies on various

aspects of journalism. The hypothesis under investigation is the extent to which digital

technologies affect the job prospects of traditional journalists. For print media, the

mean scores suggest that digital technologies are perceived to have a moderate

impact on reducing the demand for traditional journalism roles, decreasing job

security, changing skill requirements, and requiring new digital skills. The mean scores
range from 2.4952 to 3.2667 on a Likert scale, indicating neither strong agreement nor

strong disagreement but rather a moderate acknowledgement of the impact of digital

technologies. In contrast, respondents from the radio sector reported a strong

agreement that digital technologies have affected their job prospects, with mean

scores of 4.0000 or above for all aspects. Notably, the standard deviation for questions

related to job security and the need to acquire new digital skills was 0.00000 for radio

respondents, indicating no variability in their responses; all radio respondents agreed

that their job security had decreased and that they had to acquire new digital skills due

to digital technology advancements.

The drastic change in skills required and the shift in opportunities towards digital

and online media positions were also strongly agreed upon by radio respondents, with

mean scores of 4.3958 and a low standard deviation, signifying a strong consensus.

Overall, the data suggest that radio journalists perceive a more significant impact of

digital technologies on their job prospects than their counterparts in print media. This

could be due to the inherent differences between the two forms of media and their

respective adaptation strategies to digital technologies. For print journalists, while

there is acknowledgement of the influence of digital technologies, it appears less

pronounced than in the radio sector. This supports the hypothesis that digital

technologies have affected the job prospects of traditional journalists, with a more

substantial effect observed in the radio domain.

Table 4.19
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
S.N Equality of
o
Descriptive Variances
Sig Sig. Std. 95%
F t df
. (2- Error Confidence
 taile Differen Interval of the
d) Mean ce Difference
Differen
ce Lowe
Upper
r
Digital Equal
technologi varianc - - -
15.53 .00 -
es have es 9.23 256 .000 .14637 1.640 1.063
9 0 1.35179
significantl assume 6 02 55
y reduced d
1 the
Equal
demand
varianc - - -
for 141.5 -
es not 13.6 .000 .09924 1.547 1.155
traditional 79 1.35179
assume 21 97 60
journalism
d
roles
My job Equal
security as varianc - - -
149.9 .00 -
a es 10.7 256 .000 .13945 1.779 1.230
08 0 1.50476
traditional assume 91 37 15
journalist d
has
2
decreased Equal
due to varianc - - -
209.0 -
digital es not 22.6 .000 .06657 1.635 1.373
00 1.50476
technology assume 05 99 53
advanceme d
nts
The skills Equal
required in varianc - - -
15.37 .00 -
journalism es 8.09 256 .000 .13947 1.403 .8545
6 0 1.12917
have assume 6 81 2
drastically d
3 changed
Equal
with the
varianc - - -
introductio 135.2 -
es not 11.7 .000 .09623 1.319 .9388
n of digital 06 1.12917
assume 35 47 7
technologi
d
es.
Equal
I have had
varianc - - -
to acquire 75.99 .00
es 6.24 256 .000 -.85238 .13652 1.121 .5835
new digital 7 0
assume 3 23 3
skills to
d
4 remain
Equal
relevant in
varianc - - -
the 209.0
es not 13.0 .000 -.85238 .06517 .9808 .7239
journalism 00
assume 79 6 0
industry
d
Opportunit Equal
ies for varianc - - -
16.36 .00 -
traditional es 8.95 256 .000 .15273 1.668 1.066
8 0 1.36726
journalistic assume 2 03 49
roles are d
5 diminishin
Equal
g in favour
varianc - - -
of digital 152.8 -
es not 13.5 .000 .10071 1.566 1.168
and online 33 1.36726
assume 76 23 30
media
d
positions.
 Statistical analyses were performed to test the hypotheses regarding the extent

to which digital technologies have impacted the job prospects of traditional journalists.

A significant difference between print and radio media professionals' perceptions was

revealed, with the introduction of digital technologies perceived as having a more

substantial negative impact on those in radio. This was evidenced by lower mean

scores and significant t-test values across all variables for radio respondents,

indicating a strong consensus that digital technologies have reduced the demand for

traditional journalistic roles, decreased job security, drastically changed the skills

required, and diminished opportunities for traditional journalistic roles in favour of

digital and online media positions. Moreover, the need for journalists to acquire new

digital skills was emphatically recognised, particularly within the radio sector. Overall,

the results provide robust support for this hypothesis, statistically substantiating the

transformative effects of digital technologies on the professional landscape of

journalism.

The hypothesis positing that digital technologies have adversely affected the

job prospects of traditional journalists is statistically justified. Evidence from

the Independent Samples Test showed significant mean differences,

particularly among radio professionals who strongly agreed that digital

technologies have decreased job security and necessitated new skills. The

uniformly low p-values across all items affirmed a stark recognition of the digital

impacts, substantiating the hypothesis with clear empirical support.

Justification of RQ-2: Are there specific digital technologies or platforms that have

had a more significant impact on reducing employment opportunities for traditional

journalism?

Table 4.20

Group Statistics

Std.
Std.
S.No Type of Media N Mean
Deviation
Error
Mean
Social media platforms have overshadowed the need for Print 210 2.8000 1.06623 .07358
1 traditional news reporting. Television 72 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Online news aggregators and blogs have significantly Print 210 2.8810 1.02603 .07080
2 affected the demand for print journalism Television 72 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000

The rise of digital video and podcasting has led to a Print 210 2.7476 .95252 .06573
3 decline in opportunities for print journalists. Television 72 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000

Automation and AI-driven reporting tools have reduced Print 210 2.7667 .92691 .06396
4 the need for human journalists in certain reporting tasks Television 72 4.7222 .45105 .05316
The growth of mobile journalism has diminished the Print 210 3.0095 1.05808 .07301
5 relevance of traditional newspaper reporting. Television 72 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000

In assessing RQ-2, the data provided in Table 4.20 yielded a clear justification.

Television professionals unanimously agreed, as indicated by the mean scores of

5.0000, that digital platforms such as social media, online news aggregators, blogs,

digital video, podcasting, and mobile journalism have significantly impacted

employment opportunities in traditional journalism. The absence of a standard

deviation underscores the complete consensus among television respondents

regarding these impacts. Conversely, print media respondents demonstrated

variability in their perceptions, with mean scores notably lower, ranging from 2.7476

to 3.0095, and standard deviations indicating some diversity of opinion. This suggests

that while print media professionals do recognise the influence of digital technologies,

they do not perceive them as uniformly impactful as television professionals do. The

stark contrast in mean scores between print and television respondents suggests that

those in television view digital technologies have a more profound and unanimous
impact on diminishing traditional journalism roles, while print media acknowledge the

impact to a lesser, more variable degree. This difference substantiates the hypothesis

that specific digital technologies and platforms have markedly reduced traditional

journalism employment opportunities, with the impact being perceived to be greater in

the television sector.

Table 4.21

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances
S.No Descriptive 95% Confidence
Sig. Interval of the
Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df (2- Difference
Difference Difference
tailed)
Lower Upper
Social media Equal
- - -
platforms variances 202.224 .000 280 .000 -2.20000 .12580
17.488 2.44764 1.95236
have assumed
overshadowed
1 the need for
Equal
variances - - -
traditional 209.000 .000 -2.20000 .07358
not 29.901 2.34505 2.05495
news
assumed
reporting.
Online news Equal
- - -
aggregators variances 144.460 .000 280 .000 -2.11905 .12106
17.504 2.35735 1.88074
and blogs assumed
have
2 significantly Equal
affected the variances - - -
209.000 .000 -2.11905 .07080
demand for not 29.929 2.25863 1.97947
print assumed
journalism
The rise of Equal
- - -
digital video variances 171.309 .000 280 .000 -2.25238 .11239
20.041 2.47361 2.03115
and assumed
podcasting
3 has led to a Equal
decline in variances - - -
209.000 .000 -2.25238 .06573
opportunities not 34.267 2.38196 2.12280
for print assumed
journalists.
Automation Equal
- - -
and AI-driven variances 37.095 .000 280 .000 -1.95556 .11368
17.202 2.17933 1.73178
reporting assumed
tools have
4 reduced the Equal
need for variances - - -
248.485 .000 -1.95556 .08317
human not 23.513 2.11936 1.79175
journalists in assumed
certain
 reporting
tasks
The growth of Equal
- - -
mobile variances 130.969 .000 280 .000 -1.99048 .12484
15.944 2.23622 1.74473
journalism assumed
has
5 diminished Equal
the relevance variances - - -
209.000 .000 -1.99048 .07301
of traditional not 27.261 2.13441 1.84654
newspaper assumed
reporting.

The hypothesis regarding the impact of specific digital technologies on

traditional journalism employment opportunities was examined through an

independent sample test, and the results were statistically significant. For each

technology assessed, the significance (2-tailed) was less than 0.05, indicating a robust

difference between the perceptions of respondents regarding print and television

media. The study found that television professionals perceived a greater impact of

social media platforms on traditional news reporting than their print counterparts did,

with a highly negative t-value indicating a statistically significant difference. Similarly,

online news aggregators and blogs were identified as having a statistically significant

impact on reducing demand for print journalism. The rise of digital videos and

podcasting has also led to a statistically significant decline in the opportunities for print

journalists. The perceived reduction in the need for human journalists owing to

automation and AI-driven reporting tools was affirmed by statistical analysis, which

reported negative mean differences with high levels of significance. The t-test results

support the notion that mobile journalism growth diminishes the importance of

traditional newspaper reporting. The independent sample test data verified that digital

technologies and platforms have had a noticeable impact on reducing employment

opportunities in traditional journalism, with television media professionals facing a

more pronounced effect than print.

 The hypothesis that specific digital technologies or platforms have had a

significant impact on reducing traditional journalism employment opportunities is

justified through statistical analysis. The Independent Samples Test revealed that

television media professionals unanimously agreed, as indicated by the absence of

variance and maximum mean scores, that digital technologies, including social media,

online aggregators, digital video, podcasting, and mobile journalism, have

overshadowed traditional journalism roles. In contrast, print media professionals

reported lower mean scores, demonstrating moderate recognition of this impact. The

substantial negative t-values and significant p-values across all comparisons

confirmed this hypothesis, indicating that the advent of digital technologies has

notably affected employment prospects in journalism, particularly in the television

sector.

Justification of RQ-3: How do working journalists perceive changes in their

employment prospects with the integration of digital technologies in journalism?

Table 4.22
Group Statistics
Std.
Std.
S.No Type of Media N Mean
Deviation
Error
Mean
I feel optimistic about my career prospects in Print 210 1.7143 .45283 .03125
1 journalism despite the rise of digital technologies. Electronic 67 4.2985 .46106 .05633

The shift towards digital journalism has made my role Print 210 2.9381 .98359 .06787
2 as a journalist more competitive. Electronic 67 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000

Digital technology has created more diverse job Print 210 3.0476 1.00125 .06909
3 opportunities within the field of journalism. Electronic 67 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000

I am concerned about the stability of my job in Print 210 2.4905 .96959 .06691
4 journalism due to digital advancements Electronic 67 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000
Adapting to digital technologies in journalism has Print 210 2.9667 .95538 .06593
5 been a challenging but necessary part of my career
development Electronic 67 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000

The perceptions of journalists regarding changes in their employment

prospects with the integration of digital technologies were analysed through Group
Statistics, focusing on the responses of individuals working in print and electronic

media. The results indicated a significant difference in perceptions between the two

groups. Print media journalists exhibited less optimism about their career prospects

despite the rise of digital technologies, with a mean score of 1.7143, indicating a

general lack of confidence. By contrast, electronic media professionals expressed high

optimism, as indicated by their mean score of 4.2985.Regarding the competitiveness

of their roles due to the shift towards digital journalism, print journalists reported a

moderate level of increased competition with a mean of 2.9381, whereas electronic

media professionals unanimously agreed on the heightened competitiveness, as

evidenced by a maximum mean score of 5.0000.In terms of the diversity of job

opportunities created by digital technology, print media respondents perceived a

moderate increase, as reflected by a mean score of 3.0476. However, the electronic

media respondents perceived a significant increase, with a unanimous mean score of

5.0000. Concerns about job stability due to digital advancements were moderately

high among print journalists, with a mean score of 2.4905. Electronic media

professionals uniformly reported the highest level of concern with a mean score of

5.0000. Finally, while adapting to digital technologies was seen as a challenging yet

necessary part of career development by print media professionals, as indicated by a

mean score of 2.9667, electronic media professionals reported unanimous agreement

on this challenge, with a mean score of 5.0000.In summary, the data suggest that

electronic media professionals perceive a more profound impact of digital integration

on their employment prospects, marked by increased optimism, competitiveness, job

opportunity diversity, and concerns about job stability, compared to their counterparts

in print media. This aligns with the research question of how journalists perceive

changes in their employment prospects with the advent of digital technologies.

Table 4.23

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances

S.No Descriptive
95% Confidence
Sig. Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df (2-
Difference Difference
tailed)
Lower Upper

I feel Equal
- - -
optimistic variances .156 .693 275 .000 -2.58422 .06382
40.495 2.70985 2.45859
about my assumed
career
1 prospects in Equal
journalism variances - - -
109.599 .000 -2.58422 .06441
despite the not 40.119 2.71188 2.45656
rise of digital assumed
technologies.
The shift Equal
- - -
towards variances 102.831 .000 275 .000 -2.06190 .12031
17.138 2.29876 1.82505
digital assumed
journalism
2 has made my Equal
role as a variances - - -
209.000 .000 -2.06190 .06787
journalist not 30.378 2.19571 1.92810
more assumed
competitive.
Digital Equal
- - -
technology variances 133.776 .000 275 .000 -1.95238 .12247
15.941 2.19349 1.71128
has created assumed
more diverse
3 job Equal
opportunities variances - - -
209.000 .000 -1.95238 .06909
within the not 28.257 2.08859 1.81617
field of assumed
journalism.
I am Equal
- - -
concerned variances 210.946 .000 275 .000 -2.50952 .11860
21.159 2.74300 2.27604
about the assumed
stability of
4 my job in
Equal
variances - - -
journalism 209.000 .000 -2.50952 .06691
not 37.507 2.64142 2.37762
due to digital
assumed
advancements
Adapting to Equal
- - -
digital variances 96.718 .000 275 .000 -2.03333 .11686
17.399 2.26339 1.80327
technologies assumed
in journalism
has been a
5 challenging
Equal
variances - - -
but necessary 209.000 .000 -2.03333 .06593
not 30.842 2.16330 1.90336
part of my
assumed
career
development
 The Independent Samples Test in Table 4.23 was analysed in relation to the

research question on how journalists perceive changes in their employment prospects

with the integration of digital technologies. Statistical analysis provided significant

insights. For the statement regarding optimism about career prospects despite the rise

of digital technologies, the test revealed a highly significant difference between the

groups, as evidenced by the very low p-value. The negative mean difference, with a

high t-value, indicated that electronic media professionals felt significantly less

optimistic than their print media counterparts did. Similarly, the perception that the shift

towards digital journalism increased competitiveness in the field showed a notable

difference between the two groups.

A significantly negative t-value and mean difference indicated that electronic

media professionals agreed more strongly with this statement. The belief that digital

technology has created more diverse job opportunities in journalism also displays a

significant difference. The negative mean difference and substantial t-value suggested

that electronic media professionals perceived a greater increase in job diversity.

Concerns about job stability due to digital advancements were significantly higher

among electronic media professionals, as indicated by the negative mean difference

and high t-value. This shows a substantial disparity in the level of concern between

print and electronic media respondents. Finally, the challenge of adapting to digital

technologies was perceived differently by the two groups. A significant mean

difference and negative t-value indicated that electronic media professionals found

adapting to digital technologies more challenging but necessary for their career

development. In conclusion, the data from the Independent Samples Test

substantiated that electronic media professionals perceive a more pronounced impact

of digital integration on their employment prospects, including decreased optimism,

increased competitiveness, greater job diversity, heightened job stability concerns,

and more significant challenges in adapting to new technologies compared to print

media professionals.

The research question of how journalists perceive changes in their

employment prospects due to digital technology integration was conclusively

justified by the data. The Independent Samples Test indicated that electronic

media professionals perceive a significantly greater impact of digital

technologies on their employment prospects than print media professionals.

This was evidenced by substantial negative mean differences across all aspects

examined, including career optimism, competitiveness, job diversity, job

stability, and the challenge of adapting to digital technology. The stark disparity

in perceptions between print and electronic media professionals, as shown by

the statistically significant results, affirms that digital technologies have a

pronounced and varied impact on journalists' employment prospects,

particularly in the electronic media sector.

Justification of RQ-4: What legal changes and adaptations have occurred in

employment contracts, labour laws, and privacy regulations as a result of the adoption

of digital technologies in journalism?

Table 4.24
Group Statistics
Std.
Std.
S.No Language of Media N Mean
Deviation
Error
Mean
There have been significant changes in employment
1 contracts for journalists due to digital technology.
Tamil 210 1.3381 .47419 .03272
 English 187 3.1711 .93476 .06836
Labour laws have evolved to better protect journalists Tamil 210 1.4333 .49672 .03428
2 in the digital age. English 187 3.1765 .94236 .06891
My privacy as a journalist has been more vulnerable Tamil 210 3.0476 1.00125 .06909
3 due to digital technology integration in journalism. English 187 4.8449 .36295 .02654
The introduction of digital tools in journalism has Tamil 210 2.8619 1.08710 .07502
4 necessitated revisions to existing media and privacy
laws. English 187 4.6364 .48234 .03527
The legal framework governing journalism has Tamil 210 3.0524 1.00340 .06924
5 struggled to keep pace with the rapid adoption of
digital technologies. English 187 4.8503 .35777 .02616

The data from Table 4.24 was scrutinized to address the fourth research

question regarding legal changes and adaptations in employment contracts, labour

laws, and privacy regulations following the adoption of digital technologies in

journalism. The group statistics revealed distinct differences in perceptions between

Tamil and English media professionals. It was observed that Tamil media

professionals reported significantly lower mean scores for the belief that there have

been significant changes in employment contracts and the evolution of labour laws to

better protect journalists in the digital age. Their mean scores of 1.3381 and 1.4333,

respectively, indicated general scepticism or lack of awareness of such legal changes.

In contrast, English media professionals demonstrated a higher acknowledgement of

legal adaptations, with mean scores of 3.1711 for changes in employment contracts

and 3.1765 for the evolution of labour laws. This suggests a greater perception or

awareness of legal progress in the context of digital technology adoption in the English

media sector. The vulnerability of journalists' privacy due to digital technology

integration was perceived differently, with Tamil media respondents reporting a

moderate level of concern (mean score of 3.0476), whereas English media

respondents reported a high level of vulnerability, with a mean score of 4.8449. In

terms of the need for revisions to media and privacy laws due to digital tools, Tamil

media professionals had a moderate perception, with a mean score of 2.8619, while
English media professionals strongly agreed with the need for legal updates, with a

mean score of 4.6364. Both groups agreed that the legal framework struggled to keep

pace with digital technology adoption, with mean scores of 3.0524 and 4.8503 for

Tamil and English media, respectively.

Table 4.25
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances

S.No Descriptive 95% Confidence

Sig. Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df (2-
Difference Difference
tailed)
Lower Upper
There have Equal
- - -
been variances 54.780 .000 395 .000 -1.83303 .07323
25.032 1.97699 1.68906
significant assumed
changes in
1 employment Equal
contracts for variances - - -
268.466 .000 -1.83303 .07579
journalists not 24.187 1.98224 1.68382
due to digital assumed
technology.
Labour laws Equal
- - -
have evolved variances 44.654 .000 395 .000 -1.74314 .07448
23.404 1.88956 1.59671
to better assumed
2 protect Equal
journalists in variances - - -
274.469 .000 -1.74314 .07697
the digital not 22.648 1.89466 1.59162
age. assumed
My privacy Equal
- - -
as a variances 147.748 .000 395 .000 -1.79730 .07739
23.223 1.94945 1.64515
journalist assumed
has been
more
3 vulnerable Equal
due to digital variances - - -
268.661 .000 -1.79730 .07402
technology not 24.283 1.94303 1.65158
integration assumed
in
journalism.
The Equal
- - -
introduction variances 73.217 .000 395 .000 -1.77446 .08619
20.587 1.94391 1.60501
of digital assumed
tools in
journalism
has
4 necessitated
Equal
variances - - -
revisions to 295.401 .000 -1.77446 .08290
not 21.406 1.93760 1.61132
existing
assumed
media and
privacy
laws.
The legal Equal
- - -
5 framework variances 155.911 .000
23.221
395 .000 -1.79789 .07743
1.95011 1.64567
governing assumed
 journalism
has struggled
to keep pace Equal
with the variances - - -
266.826 .000 -1.79789 .07402
rapid not 24.290 1.94362 1.65215
adoption of assumed
digital
technologies.

In the evaluation in Table 4.25, significant differences were found in the

perceptions of legal changes and adaptations in journalism due to the adoption of

digital technologies. The analysis revealed that significant alterations in journalists’

employment contracts were acknowledged, as indicated by a substantial negative

mean difference and a very low p-value. The evolution of labour laws to better protect

journalists in the digital age was perceived differently across media sectors, with a

notable mean difference suggesting the need for legal evolution. Concerns about the

increased vulnerability of journalists' privacy due to digital integration are also

highlighted, with a significant perception gap and widespread agreement on privacy

issues. The necessity for revisions to existing media and privacy laws in light of digital

tools was affirmed by the statistical results, indicating broad agreement on this

necessity. Finally, the perception that the legal framework governing journalism has

struggled to keep pace with rapid digital technology adoption was significantly

supported, underscoring a general consensus on the challenges faced by the legal

system in adapting to digital advancements. The integration of digital technology has

generated legal changes and adaptations in journalism, with varying degrees and

consistency across different media sectors, as demonstrated by collective evidence.

The research question-4 on the extent of legal changes and adaptations

in journalism due to digital technology integration was conclusively

substantiated by data analysis. Significant differences across media sectors

highlighted the widespread acknowledgement of substantial alterations in

employment contracts, labour laws, and privacy regulations. The consistent

negative mean differences and exceptionally low p-values in the statistical

results indicate strong agreement that digital technologies have necessitated

notable legal revisions. This included the evolution of labour laws to offer better

protection in the digital age and the need for updates to media and privacy laws

to address the challenges posed by digital tools. Furthermore, consensus on

the increased vulnerability of journalists' privacy and the struggle of the legal

framework to keep pace with rapid digital advancements was evident. These

findings collectively justify the research question, affirming that digital

technology integration has indeed led to significant legal changes and

adaptations in the field of journalism.

Justification of RQ-5-How do these legal changes impact the job security and legal

protections of working journalists in the digital age?

Table 4.26
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
S.No Description
Squares
df
Square
F Sig.

Between
321.406 2 160.703
Groups
Digital journalism has improved job
1 security for journalists.
Within 271.328 .000
233.360 394 .592
Groups
Total 554.766 396
Between
397.302 2 198.651
I feel more legally protected as a Groups
2 journalist in the digital age compared Within 677.599 .000
115.509 394 .293
to traditional media. Groups
Total 512.811 396
Between
3 Groups
309.262 2 154.631 208.313 .000
 The evolving legal landscape has kept Within
292.466 394 .742
up with the increasing risks and Groups
challenges in digital journalism. Total 601.728 396
Between
432.438 2 216.219
Current legal frameworks are effective Groups
4 in addressing issues of unfair dismissal Within 747.047 .000
114.036 394 .289
or job insecurity in digital journalism. Groups
Total 546.474 396
Between
The legal adaptations have been 397.302 2 198.651
Groups
adequate in protecting the rights and
5 working conditions of journalists
Within 677.599 .000
115.509 394 .293
Groups
amidst digital transformations.
Total 512.811 396

The ANOVA analysis in Table 4.26 was conducted to examine the impact of legal

changes on job security and legal protection for journalists in the digital age. The

results showed statistically significant differences across the various aspects of job

security and legal protection. First, there was a pronounced difference in perceptions

among different groups regarding whether digital journalism had improved job security

for journalists, as indicated by a high F-value (271.328) and significance level of .000.

Similarly, there were substantial disparities in perceptions of legal protection

enhancements in the digital era among the groups, underscored by an exceptionally

high F-value (677.599) and p-value of .000.A significant difference was observed in

opinions regarding the adequacy of the legal landscape's evolution in the face of digital

advancements, with an F-value of 208.313 and a p-value of .000. The effectiveness

of current legal frameworks in addressing issues of unfair dismissal or job insecurity

in digital journalism also showed strong divergences in views, as demonstrated by a

very high F-value (747.047) and p-value of .000. Lastly, the adequacy of legal

adaptations in protecting journalists’ rights and working conditions amidst digital

transformations was also significantly different, with an F-value of 677.599 and a p-

value of .000. ANOVA demonstrated substantial variation in the perceived

effectiveness of legal measures to protect journalists in the digital age. The data
suggest that, while legal changes have occurred, their impact on job security and legal

protection is perceived differently among different groups of journalists.

Table 4.27
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test
for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means
Variances

S.No Descriptive 95% Confidence

Sig. Interval of the
Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df (2-
Difference Difference
tailed)
Lower Upper
There have Equal
- - -
been variances 54.780 .000 395 .000 -1.83303 .07323
25.032 1.97699 1.68906
significant assumed
changes in
1 employment Equal
contracts for variances - - -
268.466 .000 -1.83303 .07579
journalists not 24.187 1.98224 1.68382
due to digital assumed
technology.
Labour laws Equal
- - -
have evolved variances 44.654 .000 395 .000 -1.74314 .07448
23.404 1.88956 1.59671
to better assumed
2 protect Equal
journalists in variances - - -
274.469 .000 -1.74314 .07697
the digital not 22.648 1.89466 1.59162
age. assumed
My privacy Equal
- - -
as a variances 147.748 .000 395 .000 -1.79730 .07739
23.223 1.94945 1.64515
journalist assumed
has been
more
3 vulnerable Equal
due to digital variances - - -
268.661 .000 -1.79730 .07402
technology not 24.283 1.94303 1.65158
integration assumed
in
journalism.
The Equal
- - -
introduction variances 73.217 .000 395 .000 -1.77446 .08619
20.587 1.94391 1.60501
of digital assumed
tools in
journalism
has
4 necessitated
Equal
variances - - -
revisions to 295.401 .000 -1.77446 .08290
not 21.406 1.93760 1.61132
existing
assumed
media and
privacy
laws.
The legal Equal
- - -
framework variances 155.911 .000 395 .000 -1.79789 .07743
23.221 1.95011 1.64567
governing assumed
5 journalism
Equal - - -
has struggled 266.826 .000 -1.79789 .07402
variances 24.290 1.94362 1.65215
to keep pace
 with the not
rapid assumed
adoption of
digital
technologies.

The comprehensive analysis of the data, spanning Tables 4.20 to 4.27, offered a

nuanced understanding of the multifaceted impact of digital technologies on the field

of journalism, particularly addressing several key research questions. The data

consistently revealed that the adoption of digital technologies has significantly

reshaped the landscape of journalism, affecting various aspects, from employment

opportunities to legal frameworks. Regarding the impact on job prospects (RQ-1 and

RQ-2), the data pointed to a pronounced difference in perceptions between print and

radio, as well as between Tamil and English media professionals, with those in radio

and English media particularly perceiving a greater impact of digital technologies. This

was evidenced by significant mean differences and very low p-values, indicating that

digital technologies have notably diminished traditional journalism’s roles and

increased competition within the field. The unanimous agreement among certain

groups suggests an acute awareness of the need to adapt to digital transformation.

Concerning legal changes and adaptations in journalism due to digital technology (RQ-

4), a significant disparity in perceptions about the evolution of labour laws, employment

contracts, and privacy regulations was observed. The data underscored a strong

consensus that these legal aspects have been considerably altered by digital

technology, although the extent of these changes varies across journalistic sectors.

Moreover, the impact of these legal changes on job security and legal protection for

journalists (RQ-5) was also evident, with substantial agreement that digital

technologies have led to increased vulnerability of journalists’ privacy and

necessitated revisions to media and privacy laws. The significant mean differences

and low p-values across these aspects highlight widespread concern about the

adequacy of current legal frameworks in addressing the challenges posed by digital

journalism. In conclusion, the data provide a robust empirical foundation supporting

the hypotheses that digital technologies have led to notable shifts in employment

prospects, intensified competition, and necessitated significant legal changes in the

field of journalism. The findings emphasised the need for the industry to adapt, both in

terms of employment practices and legal frameworks, to the evolving digital

landscape.

Research Question 5, focusing on how legal changes due to digital technologies

impact job security and legal protection for journalists, was convincingly

justified through the analysis in Table 4.27. The data revealed statistically

significant disparities in perceptions across the various aspects of job security

and legal protection. The considerable negative mean differences and

exceptionally low p-values across all examined variables indicate a strong

consensus that digital technology has profoundly altered employment

contracts, evolved labour laws, heightened journalists' privacy vulnerabilities,

necessitated revisions to existing media and privacy laws, and that the legal

framework has struggled to keep pace with rapid digital advancements. These

findings underscore the substantial impact of digital technologies on legal

aspects of journalism, highlighting increased concerns about job security and

the adequacy of legal protections in the digital age.

Justification of RQ-6

How have existing laws, regulations, and guidelines addressed these concerns?
 Table 4.28
ANOVA
Sum of Mean
S.No Description Squares
df
Square
F Sig.

Between
668.013 2 334.006
Groups
Existing laws and regulations effectively address
1 the employment challenges faced by journalists in Within
87.317 394 .222
1507.128 .000
the digital era. Groups
Total 755.330 396
Between
625.799 2 312.900
Groups
The current guidelines adequately protect
2 journalists against the ethical dilemmas posed by Within
87.012 394 .221
1416.844 .000
digital journalism. Groups
Total 712.811 396
Between
717.216 2 358.608
Groups
The privacy and security concerns of journalists
3 are well-covered by the existing legal framework.
Within
85.413 394 .217
1654.212 .000
Groups
Total 802.630 396
Between
669.689 2 334.845
Groups
Regulations in place are sufficient to manage the
4 impacts of digital transformation on journalistic Within
88.416 394 .224
1492.132 .000
practices. Groups
Total 758.106 396
Between
721.575 2 360.787
Groups
Current guidelines and laws are up-to-date and
5 responsive to the rapid advancements in digital Within
84.455 394 .214
1683.140 .000
journalism technology. Groups
Total 806.030 396

The results of the analysis conducted to examine the adequacy of existing

laws, regulations, and guidelines in addressing the concerns posed by digital

technologies in journalism revealed statistically significant findings (see Table 4.28).

Specifically, the ANOVA tests demonstrated notable differences in the perceptions of

the effectiveness of existing legal frameworks in addressing various challenges in the

digital era. With respect to the effectiveness of current laws and regulations in

addressing employment challenges in digital journalism, an extraordinarily high F-

value (1507.128) and a significance level of .000 were observed, indicating a marked

variation in the perceptions held by different groups. This suggests that there are

differing opinions regarding the effectiveness of current legal measures in tackling

employment issues arising from digitalisation. The analysis revealed that the
adequacy of current guidelines in protecting journalists against the ethical dilemmas

posed by digital journalism was also found to vary significantly, as evidenced by a high

F-value (1416.844) and a p-value of .000.This highlights substantial disagreements on

whether the current guidelines sufficiently address ethical concerns in the digital

context. Regarding the coverage of privacy and security concerns by the existing legal

framework, the data indicated a significant disparity in views, with an F-value of

1654.212 and a p-value of .000. This pointed to varying beliefs about the adequacy of

the legal framework for safeguarding journalists' privacy and security in the face of

digital advancements. The sufficiency of regulations to manage the impacts of digital

transformation on journalistic practices also showed a significant difference, with an

F-value of 1492.132 and a p-value of .000, suggesting diverse opinions on the

effectiveness of existing regulations in adapting to digital changes.

Overall, the findings from the ANOVA indicated varying perceptions among

different groups of journalists regarding the effectiveness and adequacy of existing

legal measures in addressing the challenges posed by digital journalism technologies.

The results, which revealed a very high F-value (1683.140) and p-value of .000,

highlighted that the responsiveness of current guidelines and laws to rapid

advancements in digital journalism technology was perceived differently among

groups. This underscored differing views on whether legal frameworks keep pace with

technological advancements. Thus, the ANOVA results provide a robust empirical

foundation for supporting the hypothesis that while there are existing legal measures

addressing the challenges posed by digital technologies, the perception of their

effectiveness and adequacy varies significantly among different groups of journalists.

Therefore, it is essential to reevaluate and potentially enhance legal frameworks to

address the evolving landscape of digital journalism more effectively.

 Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Std. Mean
S.No Descriptive N Mean
Deviation Error
Minimum Maximum
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Existing laws Office-
191 1.4817 .50098 .03625 1.4102 1.5532 1.00 2.00
and regulations Based
effectively Remote 91 2.9670 .34803 .03648 2.8946 3.0395 2.00 4.00
address the
1 employment Hybrid 115 4.5130 .50202 .04681 4.4203 4.6058 4.00 5.00
challenges faced
by journalists in
the digital era. Total 397 2.7003 1.38109 .06931 2.5640 2.8365 1.00 5.00
The current Office-
191 1.5812 .49467 .03579 1.5105 1.6518 1.00 2.00
guidelines Based
adequately
protect Remote 91 2.9560 .36246 .03800 2.8806 3.0315 2.00 4.00
journalists
2 against the Hybrid 115 4.5217 .50171 .04679 4.4291 4.6144 4.00 5.00
ethical
dilemmas posed
by digital Total 397 2.7481 1.34165 .06734 2.6157 2.8805 1.00 5.00
journalism.
The privacy and Office-
191 1.3770 .48590 .03516 1.3076 1.4463 1.00 2.00
security Based
concerns of
journalists are Remote 91 2.9560 .36246 .03800 2.8806 3.0315 2.00 4.00
3 well-covered by
the existing Hybrid 115 4.5130 .50202 .04681 4.4203 4.6058 4.00 5.00
legal
framework. Total 397 2.6474 1.42367 .07145 2.5069 2.7878 1.00 5.00
Regulations in Office-
place are 191 1.4817 .50098 .03625 1.4102 1.5532 1.00 2.00
Based
sufficient to
manage the Remote 91 3.0000 .36515 .03828 2.9240 3.0760 2.00 4.00
4 impacts of Hybrid 115 4.5130 .50202 .04681 4.4203 4.6058 4.00 5.00
digital
transformation
on journalistic Total 397 2.7078 1.38362 .06944 2.5713 2.8443 1.00 5.00
practices.
Current Office-
191 1.3770 .48590 .03516 1.3076 1.4463 1.00 2.00
guidelines and Based
laws are up-to- Remote 91 2.9670 .34803 .03648 2.8946 3.0395 2.00 4.00
date and
responsive to Hybrid 115 4.5217 .50171 .04679 4.4291 4.6144 4.00 5.00
5 the rapid
advancements in
digital Total 397 2.6524 1.42668 .07160 2.5116 2.7932 1.00 5.00
journalism
technology.

Evaluation of the efficacy of existing laws and regulations in addressing

employment challenges revealed significant disparities among the three groups.

Office-based journalists recorded a lower mean score of 1.4817, indicating their

apprehension about the effectiveness of current legal frameworks. On the other hand,
Remote and Hybrid workers expressed higher levels of agreement, with mean scores

of 2.9670 and 4.5130, respectively, implying a more favourable perspective on legal

effectiveness in these work environments.

Similarly, the sufficiency of current guidelines in safeguarding journalists

against ethical dilemmas in digital journalism is perceived differently. Office-based

journalists displayed lower levels of agreement (mean score of 1.5812), while Remote

and Hybrid journalists expressed higher agreement, with mean scores of 2.9560 and

4.5217, respectively.

The findings of this study revealed a discernible pattern in the assessment of

the adequacy of the legal framework in addressing privacy and security concerns. The

Office-Based respondents demonstrated lesser satisfaction (mean score of 1.3770),

while the Remote and Hybrid respondents expressed greater satisfaction, with mean

scores of 2.9560 and 4.5130, respectively. In evaluating the sufficiency of regulations

to manage the repercussions of digital transformation, Office-Based journalists

exhibited lower concurrence (mean score of 1.4817), whereas Remote and Hybrid

journalists manifested greater agreement, with mean scores of 3.0000 and 4.5130,

respectively. Lastly, in terms of the responsiveness of current guidelines and laws to

digital advancements, Office-Based journalists indicated lesser agreement (mean

score of 1.3770), whereas Remote and Hybrid journalists conveyed higher levels of

agreement (mean scores of 2.9670 and 4.5217, respectively).In brief, the study’s

findings showed a disparity in the perceptions of legal adequacy in the digital era

based on the working environment. Office-based journalists tend to be more sceptical

about the effectiveness and sufficiency of existing legal frameworks, whereas Remote

and Hybrid journalists perceive current laws and regulations as more effective in

dealing with the challenges of digital journalism.

 Research Question 6, probing how existing laws, regulations, and guidelines

have addressed concerns in the digital era of journalism, was substantiated through

detailed analysis of the data. The findings revealed notable divergence in perceptions

based on journalists' working environments. Office-based journalists consistently

reported concerns about the effectiveness of current legal frameworks in addressing

employment challenges, ethical dilemmas, privacy and security concerns, and the

impacts of digital transformation. By contrast, journalists working in Remote and

Hybrid settings perceived these legal measures to be more effective. This disparity

highlights a significant variation in the perceived adequacy of legal adaptations to the

digital age, suggesting that the effectiveness of existing laws and regulations is viewed

differently depending on the working environment. The findings, therefore, provide a

clear justification for the research question, indicating that, while legal frameworks

have evolved to address the digital era's challenges, their perceived effectiveness

varies significantly among journalists, particularly among those working in traditional

office settings and those in more digitally integrated environments.

Justification of RQ-7

What measures should be taken to develop new regulations and guidelines that protect

the employment conditions and rights of working journalists, while embracing technological

innovations in journalism?

Table 4.29
ANOVA

Sum of Mean
S.No Description Squares
df
Square
F Sig.

There is an urgent need for new Between

1 regulations specifically Groups
337.700 2 168.850 311.647 .000
 addressing digital journalism
practices. Within
213.469 394 .542
Groups

Total 551.169 396

Between
313.332 2 156.666
Groups
New guidelines should be
developed to ensure fair
2 employment practices in digital Within 311.674 .000
198.048 394 .503
journalism. Groups

Total 511.380 396

Between
347.874 2 173.937
Groups
Strengthening legal protections
for journalists in the digital age
3 is critical for the profession's Within 304.858 .000
224.797 394 .571
future. Groups

Total 572.670 396

Between
356.313 2 178.157
Groups
The introduction of regulations
regarding digital ethics in
4 journalism is essential for Within 378.269 .000
maintaining journalistic 185.566 394 .471
Groups
integrity.
Total 541.879 396

Between
334.984 2 167.492
Groups
There is a need for more
comprehensive training and
5 education programs as part of Within 286.083 .000
new journalism regulations in 230.674 394 .585
Groups
the digital era.
Total 565.657 396

The data derived from Table 4.29 were subjected to analysis to address

Research Question 7, with a focus on the measures necessary for drafting new

regulations and guidelines aimed at safeguarding the employment conditions and

rights of journalists amidst technological advancements. The ANOVA results provided

noteworthy insights: Initially, the urgent need for the formulation of new regulations

specifically addressing digital journalism practices was emphatically underscored. The

substantial F-value (311.647) and significance level of .000 indicated a unanimous

consensus among different groups regarding the importance of this issue. This finding
suggested a near-universal recognition of the necessity for updated regulatory

measures that are tailored to the digital journalism landscape. Furthermore, the

development of new guidelines to guarantee fair employment practices in digital

journalism was considered crucial. The statistical analysis yielded a notable F-value

(311.674) and p-value of .000, demonstrating a consensus on the significance of fair

employment practices in the digital context. The need to strengthen legal protection

for journalists in the digital age was also deemed vital for the future of the profession.

This was evidenced by a significant F-value (304.858) and a very low p-value,

indicating a strong agreement on the importance of enhanced legal safeguards.

Regarding the necessity for regulations on digital ethics in journalism, a

substantial agreement was observed. The high F-value (378.269) and p-value of .000

emphasized the crucial role of such regulations in preserving journalistic integrity in

the face of digital advancements. Finally, the importance of incorporating

comprehensive training and education programs as part of new journalism regulations

in the digital era was reaffirmed. The significant F-value (286.083) and p-value suggest

a broad consensus on the need for training and education to equip journalists for the

ever-evolving digital landscape.

In conclusion, the data conclusively supported the research question, indicating

a recognised and urgent need for new, comprehensive regulations and guidelines.

These measures are essential to safeguard the employment conditions and rights of

journalists, while effectively embracing and adapting to technological innovations in

journalism.

Table 4.30
Descriptives
95% Confidence
Interval for
Std. Std. Mean
S.No Descriptive N Mean
Deviation Error
Minimum Maximum
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
 Office-
191 2.9634 1.00195 .07250 2.8203 3.1064 1.00 4.00
There is an urgent Based
need for new Remote 91 4.4835 .50250 .05268 4.3789 4.5882 4.00 5.00
regulations
1 specifically Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
addressing digital
journalism practices.
Total 397 3.9018 1.17976 .05921 3.7854 4.0182 1.00 5.00

Office-
191 2.9791 .97310 .07041 2.8402 3.1179 1.00 4.00
New guidelines Based
should be developed Remote 91 4.2747 .44885 .04705 4.1812 4.3682 4.00 5.00
to ensure fair
2 employment
practices in digital Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
journalism.
Total 397 3.8615 1.13638 .05703 3.7493 3.9736 1.00 5.00
Office-
191 2.9319 1.03139 .07463 2.7847 3.0791 1.00 4.00
Strengthening legal Based
protections for
journalists in the Remote 91 4.4725 .50201 .05263 4.3680 4.5771 4.00 5.00
3 digital age is critical
for the profession's Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
future.
Total 397 3.8841 1.20255 .06035 3.7655 4.0028 1.00 5.00

The introduction of Office-

regulations 191 2.8534 .94003 .06802 2.7192 2.9876 1.00 4.00
Based
regarding digital
4 ethics in journalism Remote 91 4.2637 .44310 .04645 4.1715 4.3560 4.00 5.00
is essential for Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
maintaining
journalistic integrity. Total 397 3.7985 1.16978 .05871 3.6831 3.9139 1.00 5.00
There is a need for Office-
191 2.9110 1.06001 .07670 2.7597 3.0623 1.00 4.00
more comprehensive Based
training and Remote 91 4.2527 .43699 .04581 4.1617 4.3438 4.00 5.00
education programs
5 as part of new Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
journalism
regulations in the Total 397 3.8237 1.19517 .05998 3.7058 3.9416 1.00 5.00
digital era.

Table 4.30, pertaining to Research Question 7 on the need for new regulations

and guidelines in digital journalism, displayed distinct perceptions based on the

working environment. Office-based journalists generally reported moderate

agreement at all points, with mean scores of close to 3. Remote and Hybrid workers

consistently showed higher agreement across all variables, with mean scores often

approaching the maximum value of 5. This contrasts sharply with office-based

workers, suggesting a significant difference in perceived urgency and importance. The

hybrid workers showed unanimous agreement, indicating a consensus on the critical

need for updated regulations and training programs in the digital journalism era.

Research Question 7, which focused on the development of new

regulations and guidelines for digital journalism, was convincingly justified by

the data. The analysis showed a notable difference in perceptions based on

journalists' working environments. Office-based journalists moderately agreed

on the need for new measures, while Remote and Hybrid journalists strongly

concurred, often reaching a maximum agreement. This stark contrast highlights

the urgent demand among Remote and Hybrid workers for comprehensive legal

adaptations and training programs to address the challenges and opportunities

presented by digital journalism, thus substantiating the necessity for evolving

regulatory frameworks in this rapidly changing field.

General Section

Table 4.31
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Scale Cronbach's
Corrected
Mean if Variance Alpha if
S.No Description Item if Item
Item-Total
Item
Correlation
Deleted Deleted Deleted
Do you believe that print media is losing its
1 relevance due to the rise of digital media?
68.73 884.21 .975 .993

Do you think digitalization is altering the nature

2 of work in traditional print media?
68.57 887.07 .958 .993

Do you believe that digitalization in print media

3 68.80 882.54 .976 .993
has led to the loss of specific journalistic jobs?
Have you transitioned from working in print
4 69.64 889.60 .921 .993
media to digital media or another media form?
Have you experienced any difficulties after
5 transitioning from print to digital media?
69.73 892.55 .908 .993
Do you think advanced digital technologies are a
6 reason for changes in employment within the 68.05 910.60 .859 .993
media sector?
 Are digital media personnel recognized equally
7 by employers as traditional print media 69.83 898.69 .898 .993
personnel?
Are you a member of any union, association, or
8 society related to journalism?
69.95 903.02 .857 .993

Can digital media journalists become members of

9 these unions or associations?
68.65 890.38 .973 .993

Have you been provided with social security

10 protections as a print media employee?
69.92 901.16 .878 .993

Are the same social security protections extended

11 69.75 895.10 .917 .993
to digital media personnel?
Are wages paid regularly and properly on par
12 with Wage Boards fixation by your employer?
68.91 883.01 .976 .993

13 Are standing orders followed in your workplace? 68.91 880.69 .974 .993
Are disputes between employers and journalists
14 in the media industry resolved according to the 69.71 895.13 .929 .993
Industrial Disputes Act?
Are freelancers more frequently employed than
15 regular employees in digital news gathering?
68.53 889.62 .959 .993
Are disciplinary proceedings followed against
16 digital media personnel who violate professional 68.74 885.54 .976 .993
ethics?
Do you think that mushrooming social media is
17 creating major disruptions in the work of 68.52 891.57 .956 .993
traditional mainstream media?
Do you think Central and State laws are needed
18 68.40 895.53 .931 .993
to regulate social media?
Do you think job security in print media is
19 68.58 887.31 .962 .993
impacted by digitalization?
Do you think Print Media income is reduced due
20 to the advent of Digital Media?
68.40 893.15 .923 .993

Do you believe there is a need for skill

21 development programs for journalists and 68.25 900.25 .887 .993
newspaper employees to adapt to digitalization?
Do you think a law is necessary to protect print
22 media journalists from the negative effects of 68.63 888.02 .968 .993
digitalization?
23 Do you think Print Media has future existence? 70.18 914.52 .786 .994

The examination of Table 4.31, which focused on the effects of digitalisation on

the media industry, yielded substantial insights into journalists’ perceptions of a range

of issues. The highly Corrected Item-Total Correlations for the majority of the items

indicated the strong relevance of each statement to the overall theme of the survey,

consistently highlighting the significant impact of digitalisation across various facets of

journalism. This was further reinforced by the consistently high Cronbach's alpha
values, which remained stable regardless of the deletion of any single item, indicating

a high level of internal consistency in the responses and emphasising coherence in

the respondents' perceptions about the influence of digitalisation.

The results in Table 4.31 demonstrated the significant concerns raised by

journalists in response to the effects of digitalisation. Recognition of the loss of specific

journalistic roles and the declining relevance of print media, as well as the necessity

for legal regulation of social media and the protection of print media journalists from

the negative impacts of digitalisation, were identified as highly correlated items. This

suggests a pressing need for regulatory action. However, opinions were less uniform

regarding the future existence of print media, indicating a more varied perspective on

this issue. The survey responses revealed the diverse challenges journalists face in

transitioning to digital media, including concerns about recognition and social security

protections for digital media personnel. The strong correlations found in questions

about the recognition of digital media personnel and the provision of social security

protections highlight widespread concerns about equality and security in the digital

media landscape.

Overall, the data provided in Table 4.31 offers a comprehensive understanding

of the profound changes brought about by digitalisation in the media sector. It

highlights a range of concerns, from job loss and the need for legal reforms to issues

of job security and recognition in the digital age, and underscores the critical juncture

at which the industry finds itself.

Conclusion:
 A comprehensive examination of the data was conducted with respect to

various research questions with the aim of elucidating the multifaceted impact of

digitalisation on journalism. This analysis was deemed essential for uncovering the

profound and diverse consequences of digital technologies on the industry. The results

of the investigation revealed that digital technologies have had a significant impact on

job prospects in journalism, particularly regarding traditional roles. The shift to digital

media has altered the nature of work, presenting new challenges and competitive

pressure. Observations of journalists from different sectors and working environments,

such as print, radio, office-based, remote, and hybrid, indicate varying levels of

concern and adaptation to these changes. This highlights the need for a nuanced

approach to address the evolving employment conditions in the journalism sector.

Simultaneously, the data revealed significant changes in legal frameworks in

response to digitalisation, particularly in the areas of employment contracts, labour

laws, and privacy regulations. However, the perception of these changes varied

among journalists depending on their working environment. Many journalists have

expressed concerns about the adequacy of legal changes in protecting job security

and addressing new challenges in the digital age. This suggests the need for an

ongoing legal evolution to better protect journalists. A consensus has emerged among

journalists regarding the urgent need for new regulations that specifically address

digital journalism challenges. This includes the development of fair employment

practices, enhanced legal protection, ethical guidelines, and comprehensive training

and education programs to ensure that journalists can navigate and thrive in digital

journalism.
 Those who work in settings with greater digital integration, such as remote and

hybrid work arrangements, tend to perceive a more significant impact of digitalisation

and express a greater need for new regulations and adaptations. These data are

important because they provide a comprehensive picture of the seismic shifts

occurring in journalism due to digitalisation. It demonstrates the various ways in which

digital technologies affect journalism, including changing job prospects and

employment conditions and requiring significant legal and regulatory adaptations. This

information is crucial for stakeholders in journalism, including media organisations,

policymakers, and journalists themselves, as it provides a basis for developing

strategies and policies that ensure the sustainability of journalism as a profession and

its critical role in society amid technological advancements. In summary, these data

serve as an essential guide for navigating the challenges and opportunities presented

by the digital era in journalism.