Over a ten-year period, we examined the adoption of digital technologies in the editorial offices of Estonian media outlets. Seventy-two semi-structured interviews with reporters, editors and chief editors conducted throughout the decade helped us develop a model that illustrates the stages of adopting any new technology from the perspectives of employees, management, work processes and audience feedback.

Our focus was on both large and small newspaper and online editorial offices, but this model can also be applied to other types of organizations. Together with my colleague Signe Ivask, we have illustrated this model for an academic article. Here, I will attempt to describe it along with practical tips and compare it to the current trend of AI adoption, which we are also investigating.

Technology as a thing in itself

In the early 2010s editorial offices experimented with new tech gadgets. For example, one newsroom bought smartphones for all its journalists so they could become multi-skilled and produce videos and photos for the web in addition to writing articles.

However, some journalists returned the phones. Some kept them simply to use as a newer gadget. Our study revealed that the constant challenge during tech upgrades was the failure to explain the purpose of the new technology or integrate its use into the workflow.

Journalists didn't understand why they should take photos themselves when a photographer would already do it. Additionally, journalists often didn't have access to edit the online publication, so they had to ask web editors to make extra adjustments, which demotivated everyone.

Thus, the techno-optimism that new technology would automatically bring a leap in development didn't work without proper management. Over ten years, it gradually took root, although it could have been faster by communicating goals to employees and continuously monitoring and introducing the innovations and their usage.

Integrating technology in work processes

Techno-optimism is the belief that technology can accomplish what humans cannot or will not do. While this can be true, each new technology needs to be integrated into the workflow. Integration primarily involves working with people, managing them, directing work and introducing innovations into the organizational culture.

These were the biggest gaps highlighted by our study. Journalists accustomed to the traditional workflow of a newspaper often regarded online journalists as less valuable, even not real journalists.

Online journalists, especially younger ones ready for technological innovations, saw digital technology as offering innovative ways of self-expression: besides text, they could now convey messages through video, images, graphics and animation. It took years for this to take root, but it can be confirmed that this has now "infected" experienced newspaper journalists as well.

Innovations in both the workflow and identity, which are significantly shaped by organizational culture, took root slowly and more due to the support of reporters and editors than to leadership skills and management efforts.

Human capital requires investments

Similar challenges arose with the introduction of new software. For example, journalists were encouraged to use data visualization applications, but they had to learn them on their own. Those who lacked the motivation quickly set aside the new applications.

Training must be conducted continuously alongside daily work to ensure that the acquired skills are retained. The adoption of new technology often starts with individual enthusiasts interested in personal development.

By supporting this personal development, it is possible to successfully spread innovations to other employees within the organization, leading to the adoption of new technology. If leaders do not support or recognize this development, the enthusiasts' motivation wanes. In the worst case, these enthusiasts may leave for competitors, as happened several times during our study.

Audience click technology

Editorial offices at the beginning of the 21st century, especially online editorial offices, have been shaped by feedback from technology. In academic jargon, we call this metrics; more simply, it is the counting of clicks or audience data.

Large screens appeared on the walls of online editorial offices, showing how many people were currently reading each article based on clicks. Over the decade, the focus shifted from clicks to the time spent on an article and paying for it.

Quantitative metrics serve as feedback for the editorial office and journalists, ostensibly indicating which stories are good. This technological innovation significantly influenced journalists' work. However, our interviews revealed that this innovation can quickly both motivate and demotivate.

A thorough, well-crafted investigative story might not receive as many clicks as a report on a car accident or a sex scandal.

One conclusion of our study is that technology-enabled feedback begins to influence work, content and employee motivation. Therefore, it is essential to critically evaluate quantitative feedback, discuss it within the organization and combine it with qualitative, human analysis. Technology is effective but not the only nor an infallible reflection of human work.

Will AI replace journalists?

The past decade, during which editorial offices adopted numerous new technologies due to the development of the web, can be compared to the current period of implementing AI applications.

Our research into editorial work shows that journalists use various AI tools, often without realizing it. We also see some editorial offices avoiding AI entirely due to fears that it will soon replace journalists.

In most editorial offices, there is a cautious optimism about AI. However, innovations are primarily driven by a few enthusiastic journalists rather than by editorial leaders. Once again, we observe a bottom-up approach where innovations slowly spread from enthusiasts to others. Additionally, the use of AI or any digital tools does not apply equally to journalists in different thematic areas. While AI can be highly beneficial in investigative or scientific journalism, its use is quite limited for daily news reporting.

Despite the belief that AI can do everything, a significant barrier is the Estonian language: most AI tools are not yet very capable, accurate or reliable in Estonian, as required by journalistic work. In other words, AI will not replace journalists anytime soon but will instead serve as a supportive and enhancing tool.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!