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

Percen Valid Cumulative

Description Frequency
t Percent Percent
Male 191 48.1 48.1 48.1
Vali Female 167 42.1 42.1 90.2
d 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
Vali 36-45 87 21.9 21.9 66.8
d 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
Vali UG 131 33.0 33.0 62.0
d 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
Valid
Description Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Percent
Tamil 210 52.9 52.9 52.9
Vali
English 187 47.1 47.1 100.0
d
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
Vali Reporter 71 17.9 17.9 74.1
d 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
Percen
Description Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
t
Print 210 52.9 52.9 52.9
Radio 48 12.1 12.1 65.0
Televisio
Valid 72 18.1 18.1 83.1
n
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 Percen
Percent
t
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 Percen
Percent
t
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
Vali
Remote 91 22.9 22.9 71.0
d
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.N Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D
o
1 Digital technologies have 4.5 9.8 15.1 30.2 40. 3.91 1.16
significantly reduced the 3
demand for traditional
journalism roles.
2 My job security as a traditional 9.8 15. 19.9 24.9 30. 3.50 1.32
journalist has decreased due 1 2
to digital technology
advancements.
3 The skills required in 4.0 5.8 15.1 35.3 39. 4.01 1.07
journalism have drastically 8
changed with the introduction
of digital technologies.
4 I need to acquire new digital 5.0 5.0 19.9 35.0 35. 3.89 1.09
skills to remain relevant in the 0
journalism industry.
5 Opportunities for traditional 6.0 9.1 15.1 30.0 39. 3.88 1.20
journalistic roles are 8
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
5 4.0

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.N
Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D
o
Social media platforms have
15.
1 overshadowed the need for 8.1 12.1 24.9 39.8 3.76 1.30
1
traditional news reporting.
Online news aggregators and
blogs have significantly 17.
2 7.1 10.1 30.0 35.0 3.75 1.22
affected the demand for print 9
journalism.
The rise of digital video and
podcasting has led to a 19.
3 6.0 14.1 24.9 35.0 3.68 1.25
decline in opportunities for 9
print journalists.
Automation and AI-driven
reporting tools have reduced 19.
4 5.0 15.1 30.0 30.0 3.64 1.19
the need for human journalists 9
in certain reporting tasks.
5 The growth of mobile 7.1 8.1 15. 34.8 35.0 3.82 1.19
 journalism has diminished the
relevance of traditional 1
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

160 35.0 The growth of mobile journalism

has diminished the relevance of
traditional newspaper reporting.
140 Automation and AI-driven report-
34.8 ing tools have reduced the need
30.0 for human journalists in certain
120 reporting tasks.
The rise of digital video and
podcasting has led to a decline
100 30.0 35.0 in opportunities for print journal-
ists.
15.1
80 Online news aggregators and
24.9 blogs have significantly affected
19.9 the demand for print journalism.
60 8.1 35.0
Social media platforms have
15.1 overshadowed the need for
19.9 30.0 traditional news reporting.
40
7.1 14.1
5.0 17.9
6.0 10.1 39.8
20 7.1 24.9
12.1 15.1
8.1
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.N
Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D
o
I feel optimistic about my
career prospects in 24.
1 15.1 40.1 14.9 5.0 2.54 1.07
journalism despite the rise of 9
digital technologies.
The shift towards digital
journalism has made my role 19.
2 6.0 9.1 30.0 35.0 3.78 1.18
as a journalist more 9
competitive.
Digital technology has
created more diverse job 15.
3 5.0 10.1 34.8 35.0 3.84 1.15
opportunities within the field 1
of journalism.
I am concerned about the 19.
4 10.1 14.9 24.9 30.2 3.50 1.32
stability of my job in 9
 journalism due to digital
advancements.
Adapting to digital
technologies in journalism
19.
5 has been a challenging but 5.0 9.8 30.2 35.0 3.80 1.16
9
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
5.0 10.1 5
5 5.0

0
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

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.
4 The introduction of digital 10.1 5.0 19.9 35.0 30.0 3.69 1.23
 tools in journalism has
necessitated revisions to
existing media and privacy
laws.
The legal framework
governing journalism has
5 struggled to keep pace with 5.0 10.1 14.9 30.0 40.1 3.89 1.18
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

30.0
45.0 35.0 30.0
40.0 35.0 30.0
19.9 14.9
35.0 30.0
10.1
30.0
10.1 5.0 19.9 15.1
25.0
10.1 19.9
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.N Mea
Description SD D N A SA S.D
o n
Digital journalism has improved 10. 15. 29. 40. 1.1
1 5.0 3.89
job security for journalists. 1 1 7 1 8
I feel more legally protected as a
30. 35. 19. 10. 1.1
2 journalist in the digital age 5.0 2.25
0 0 9 1 3
compared to traditional media.
The evolving legal landscape has
kept up with the increasing risks 10. 19. 35. 30. 1.2
3 5.0 3.69
and challenges in digital 1 9 0 0 3
journalism.
Current legal frameworks are
effective in addressing issues of
35. 30. 19. 1.1
4 unfair dismissal or job insecurity 9.8 5.3 2.20
0 0 9 7
due to the impact of digital
journalism.
The legal adaptations have been
adequate in protecting the rights
30. 35. 19. 10. 1.1
5 and working conditions of 5.0 2.25
0 0 9 1 3
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
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5

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
30.0
60
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.N
Description SD D N A SA Mean S.D
o
There is an urgent need for
new regulations specifically 15.
1 5.0 9.8 30.0 40.1 3.90 1.17
addressing digital journalism 1
practices.
New guidelines should be
developed to ensure fair 14.
2 4.0 11.1 34.8 35.3 3.86 1.13
employment practices in 9
digital journalism.
Strengthening legal
protections for journalists in 15.
3 6.0 9.1 30.0 39.8 3.88 1.20
the digital age is critical for the 1
profession's future.
The introduction of regulations
regarding digital ethics in
19.
4 journalism is essential for 5.0 10.1 30.0 35.0 3.79 1.16
9
maintaining journalistic
integrity.
There is a need for more
comprehensive training and
15.
5 education programs as part of 7.1 8.1 35.0 34.8 3.82 1.19
1
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 10.1
9.1
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

14 Are disputes between employers and journalists in 55.9 44.1 1.55 0.49
 the media industry resolved according to the
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 64.0 64.0
63.2 62.0
61.0 61.0
57.9 58.9
60 56.9 55.9
52.9 51.9 52.9
47.1 48.1 47.1
50 44.1
43.1 42.1 41.1
39.0 39.0
40 36.8 38.0 36.0 36.0
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 Deviatio Error
n 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
Equality of
Variances
S.N 95%
o
Descriptive Sig. Std. Confidence
Mean
Sig (2- Error Interval of the
F t df Differe
. taile Differe Difference
nce
d) nce Lowe
Upper
r
Digital Equal
technologi varian - - -
15.53 .00 -
es have ces 9.23 256 .000 .14637 1.640 1.063
9 0 1.35179
significant assum 6 02 55
ly reduced ed
1 the
Equal
demand
varian - - -
for 141.5 -
ces not 13.6 .000 .09924 1.547 1.155
traditional 79 1.35179
assum 21 97 60
journalism
ed
roles
My job Equal
security as varian - - -
149.9 .00 -
a ces 10.7 256 .000 .13945 1.779 1.230
08 0 1.50476
traditional assum 91 37 15
journalist ed
has
2 decreased
Equal
due to
varian - - -
digital 209.0 -
ces not 22.6 .000 .06657 1.635 1.373
technolog 00 1.50476
assum 05 99 53
y
ed
advancem
ents
The skills Equal
required in varian - -
15.37 .00 - -.854
journalism ces 8.09 256 .000 .13947 1.403
6 0 1.12917 52
have assum 6 81
drastically ed
3 changed
Equal
with the
varian - -
introductio 135.2 - -.938
ces not 11.7 .000 .09623 1.319
n of digital 06 1.12917 87
assum 35 47
technologi
ed
es.
I have had Equal
to acquire varian - -
75.99 .00 -.583
new ces 6.24 256 .000 -.85238 .13652 1.121
7 0 53
digital assum 3 23
skills to ed
4 remain Equal
relevant in varian -
209.0 -.980 -.723
the ces not 13.0 .000 -.85238 .06517
00 86 90
journalism assum 79
industry ed
5 Opportunit Equal 16.36 .00 - 256 .000 - .15273 - -
ies for varian 8 0 8.95 1.36726 1.668 1.066
traditional ces 2 03 49
journalisti assum
 c roles are ed
diminishin
Equal
g in favour
varian - - -
of digital 152.8 -
ces not 13.5 .000 .10071 1.566 1.168
and online 33 1.36726
assum 76 23 30
media
ed
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 t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances
S.N
o
Descriptive 95% Confidence
Sig. Std.
Mean Interval of the
Sig (2- Error
F t df Differenc Difference
. tailed Differenc
e
) e Lower Upper
Equal
Social media
variance - - -
platforms 202.22 .00
s 17.48 280 .000 -2.20000 .12580 2.4476 1.9523
have 4 0
assume 8 4 6
overshadowe
d
1 d the need
Equal
for
variance - - -
traditional 209.00
s not 29.90 .000 -2.20000 .07358 2.3450 2.0549
news 0
assume 1 5 5
reporting.
d
Equal
Online news
variance - - -
aggregators 144.46 .00
s 17.50 280 .000 -2.11905 .12106 2.3573 1.8807
and blogs 0 0
assume 4 5 4
have
d
2 significantly
Equal
affected the
variance - - -
demand for 209.00
s not 29.92 .000 -2.11905 .07080 2.2586 1.9794
print 0
assume 9 3 7
journalism
d
3 The rise of Equal
digital video variance - - -
171.30 .00
and s 20.04 280 .000 -2.25238 .11239 2.4736 2.0311
9 0
podcasting assume 1 1 5
has led to a d
decline in Equal - 209.00 .000 -2.25238 .06573 - -
opportunities variance 34.26 0 2.3819 2.1228
for print s not 7 6 0
journalists. assume
 d
Automation Equal
and AI- variance - - -
.00
driven s 37.095 17.20 280 .000 -1.95556 .11368 2.1793 1.7317
0
reporting assume 2 3 8
tools have d
reduced the
4 need for Equal
human variance - - -
248.48
journalists in s not 23.51 .000 -1.95556 .08317 2.1193 1.7917
5
certain assume 3 6 5
reporting d
tasks
The growth Equal
of mobile variance - - -
130.96 .00
journalism s 15.94 280 .000 -1.99048 .12484 2.2362 1.7447
9 0
has assume 4 2 3
diminished d
5 the Equal
relevance of variance - - -
209.00
traditional s not 27.26 .000 -1.99048 .07301 2.1344 1.8465
0
newspaper assume 1 1 4
reporting. d

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.
S.N Std.
Type of Media N Mean Error
o Deviation
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.N
o
Descriptive
95% Confidence
Sig. Std. Error Interval of the
Mean Difference
F Sig. t df (2- Differenc
Difference
tailed) e
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
4 about the assumed
stability of Equal - - -
209.000 .000 -2.50952 .06691
my job in variances 37.507 2.64142 2.37762
 not
journalism assumed
due to digital
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.
S.N Std.
Language of Media N Mean
Deviation
Error
o Mean

There have been significant changes in employment Tamil 210 1.3381 .47419 .03272
1 contracts for journalists due to digital technology.
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. Std. Error Interval of the
Mean Difference
F Sig. t df (2- Differenc
Difference
tailed) e
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
147.74 - - -
as a variances .000 395 .000 -1.79730 .07739
8 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 - - -
4 introduction variances
73.217 .000
20.587
395 .000 -1.77446 .08619
1.94391 1.60501
 of digital assumed
tools in
journalism
has
Equal
necessitated
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
155.91 - - -
framework variances .000 395 .000 -1.79789 .07743
1 23.221 1.95011 1.64567
governing assumed
journalism
has struggled
5 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 321.40
2 160.703
Groups 6
Digital journalism has improved job Within 233.36
1 security for journalists. 394 .592 271.328 .000
Groups 0
554.76
Total 396
6
Between 397.30
2 198.651
Groups 2
I feel more legally protected as a
2 journalist in the digital age compared Within 115.50 677.599 .000
394 .293
to traditional media. Groups 9
512.81
Total 396
1
Between 309.26
2 154.631
Groups 2
The evolving legal landscape has kept
3 up with the increasing risks and Within 292.46 208.313 .000
394 .742
challenges in digital journalism. Groups 6
601.72
Total 396
8
Between 432.43
2 216.219
Groups 8
Current legal frameworks are effective
4 in addressing issues of unfair dismissal Within 114.03 747.047 .000
394 .289
or job insecurity in digital journalism. Groups 6
546.47
Total 396
4
Between 397.30
2 198.651
The legal adaptations have been Groups 2
adequate in protecting the rights and Within 115.50
5 working conditions of journalists 394 .293 677.599 .000
Groups 9
amidst digital transformations. 512.81
Total 396
1

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 t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances
S.N 95% Confidence
o
Descriptive Sig.
Mean Std. Error Interval of the
Sig (2- Difference
F t df Differenc Differenc
. tailed
e e
)
Lower Upper
There have Equal
- - -
been variance .00
54.780 25.03 395 .000 -1.83303 .07323 1.9769 1.6890
significant s 0
2 9 6
changes in assumed
employmen
1 t contracts
Equal
for - - -
variance 268.46
journalists 24.18 .000 -1.83303 .07579 1.9822 1.6838
s not 6
due to 7 4 2
assumed
digital
technology.
Labour Equal
- - -
laws have variance .00
44.654 23.40 395 .000 -1.74314 .07448 1.8895 1.5967
evolved to s 0
4 6 1
better assumed
2 protect Equal
- - -
journalists variance 274.46
22.64 .000 -1.74314 .07697 1.8946 1.5916
in the s not 9
8 6 2
digital age. assumed
My privacy Equal 147.74 .00 - - -
3 as a variance 8 0 23.22
395 .000 -1.79730 .07739
1.9494 1.6451
 journalist s
3 5 5
has been assumed
more
vulnerable
due to Equal
- - -
digital variance 268.66
24.28 .000 -1.79730 .07402 1.9430 1.6515
technology s not 1
3 3 8
integration assumed
in
journalism.
The Equal
- - -
introduction variance .00
73.217 20.58 395 .000 -1.77446 .08619 1.9439 1.6050
of digital s 0
7 1 1
tools in assumed
journalism
has
4 necessitated Equal
- - -
revisions to variance 295.40
21.40 .000 -1.77446 .08290 1.9376 1.6113
existing s not 1
6 0 2
media and assumed
privacy
laws.
The legal Equal
- - -
framework variance 155.91 .00
23.22 395 .000 -1.79789 .07743 1.9501 1.6456
governing s 1 0
1 1 7
journalism assumed
has
struggled to
5 keep pace
Equal
with the - - -
variance 266.82
rapid 24.29 .000 -1.79789 .07402 1.9436 1.6521
s not 6
adoption of 0 2 5
assumed
digital
technologie
s.

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
S.N Sum of Mean
Description Squares
df
Square
F Sig.
o
Between 668.01
2 334.006
Groups 3
Existing laws and regulations effectively address
1 the employment challenges faced by journalists in Within 1507.128 .000
87.317 394 .222
the digital era. Groups
755.33
Total 396
0
Between 625.79
2 312.900
Groups 9
The current guidelines adequately protect
2 journalists against the ethical dilemmas posed by Within 1416.844 .000
87.012 394 .221
digital journalism. Groups
712.81
Total 396
1
Between 717.21
2 358.608
Groups 6
The privacy and security concerns of journalists Within
3 are well-covered by the existing legal framework. 85.413 394 .217 1654.212 .000
Groups
802.63
Total 396
0
Between 669.68
2 334.845
Groups 9
Regulations in place are sufficient to manage the
4 impacts of digital transformation on journalistic Within 1492.132 .000
88.416 394 .224
practices. Groups
758.10
Total 396
6
Between 721.57
Current guidelines and laws are up-to-date and 2 360.787
Groups 5
5 responsive to the rapid advancements in digital 1683.140 .000
journalism technology. Within
84.455 394 .214
Groups
 806.03
Total 396
0

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
Std. Interval for
Std. Mean
S.No Descriptive N Mean Deviatio
Error
Minimum Maximum
n Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Existing laws Office-
191 1.4817 .50098 .03625 1.4102 1.5532 1.00 2.00
and regulations Based
effectively Remot
91 2.9670 .34803 .03648 2.8946 3.0395 2.00 4.00
address the e
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 Remot
protect 91 2.9560 .36246 .03800 2.8806 3.0315 2.00 4.00
e
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
3 concerns of Remot
91 2.9560 .36246 .03800 2.8806 3.0315 2.00 4.00
journalists are e
well-covered by Hybrid 115 4.5130 .50202 .04681 4.4203 4.6058 4.00 5.00
 Total 397 2.6474 1.42367 .07145 2.5069 2.7878 1.00 5.00
the existing
legal
Regulations in Office-
place are 191 1.4817 .50098 .03625 1.4102 1.5532 1.00 2.00
Based
sufficient to Remot
manage the 91 3.0000 .36515 .03828 2.9240 3.0760 2.00 4.00
e
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- Remot
91 2.9670 .34803 .03648 2.8946 3.0395 2.00 4.00
date and e
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.

Between
337.700 2 168.850
Groups
There is an urgent need for new
regulations specifically
1 addressing digital journalism Within 311.647 .000
213.469 394 .542
practices. 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

The introduction of regulations

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

Between
334.984 2 167.492
There is a need for more Groups
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
S.N Std. Std. Mean
o
Descriptive N Mean
Deviation Error
Minimum Maximum
Lower Upper
Bound Bound
Office- 2.820
191 2.9634 1.00195 .07250 3.1064 1.00 4.00
Based 3
There is an urgent
need for new 4.378
Remote 91 4.4835 .50250 .05268 4.5882 4.00 5.00
regulations 9
1 specifically 5.000
Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
addressing digital 0
journalism practices.
3.785
Total 397 3.9018 1.17976 .05921 4.0182 1.00 5.00
4
Office- 2.840
191 2.9791 .97310 .07041 3.1179 1.00 4.00
Based 2
New guidelines
should be developed 4.181
Remote 91 4.2747 .44885 .04705 4.3682 4.00 5.00
to ensure fair 2
2 employment 5.000
practices in digital Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
0
journalism.
3.749
Total 397 3.8615 1.13638 .05703 3.9736 1.00 5.00
3
Strengthening legal Office- 2.784
protections for 191 2.9319 1.03139 .07463 3.0791 1.00 4.00
Based 7
3 journalists in the
digital age is critical 4.368
Remote 91 4.4725 .50201 .05263 4.5771 4.00 5.00
for the profession's 0
 5.000
Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
0
future. 3.765
Total 397 3.8841 1.20255 .06035 4.0028 1.00 5.00
5
Office- 2.719
The introduction of 191 2.8534 .94003 .06802 2.9876 1.00 4.00
Based 2
regulations
regarding digital 4.171
Remote 91 4.2637 .44310 .04645 4.3560 4.00 5.00
4 ethics in journalism 5
is essential for 5.000
Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
maintaining 0
journalistic integrity. 3.683
Total 397 3.7985 1.16978 .05871 3.9139 1.00 5.00
1
There is a need for Office- 2.759
191 2.9110 1.06001 .07670 3.0623 1.00 4.00
more comprehensive Based 7
training and 4.161
Remote 91 4.2527 .43699 .04581 4.3438 4.00 5.00
education programs 7
5 as part of new 5.000
Hybrid 115 5.0000 0.00000 0.00000 5.0000 5.00 5.00
journalism 0
regulations in the 3.705
digital era. Total 397 3.8237 1.19517 .05998 3.9416 1.00 5.00
8

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 has led to the loss of specific journalistic jobs?
68.80 882.54 .976 .993

Have you transitioned from working in print

4 media to digital media or another media form?
69.64 889.60 .921 .993

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 to digital media personnel?
69.75 895.10 .917 .993

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 to regulate social media?
68.40 895.53 .931 .993

Do you think job security in print media is

19 impacted by digitalization?
68.58 887.31 .962 .993

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.