Newspaper Research Journal: Newspaper Journalists Use E-mail to Gather News

A survey of daily newspaper reporters and editors finds a growing role for e-mail in the newsroom, but journalists expressed concern about the security and credibility of the information found in e-mail.

Electronic mail has become the most important tool of the Internet for journalists. Reavy observed that journalists are learning to take advantage of its speed, low cost, convenience, flexibility, power and security despite its equipment and computer literacy requirements, occasional language complications, and accessibility problems.1 E-mail has, in effect, replaced fax machines because it is faster, more reliable, personalized and does not require paper.2 Journalists have observed that e-mail can be used to answer routine questions and fact checking in an efficient manner. E-mail may often be the only method available to contact sources in remote locations or in distant time zones. Reluctant sources find the mask of e-mail to be appealing and reporters have found that difficultto-reach sources are often more accessible using e-mail. It has become valuable for international reporting and research.3 Some journalists take advantage of e-mail's capacity to contact multiple sources with a single message and they like the convenience of follow-up messages.4

Most news media authorities agree that e-mail is an effective way for public relations professionals to communicate with journalists.5 Journalists and public relations practitioners use these tools to monitor public opinion about current events and issues, to exchange information and views about news stories with other journalists and to identify potential sources.6 E-mail has been used for distribution of press releases, texts of speeches, tipsheets, announcements, graphics and press conference notifications. One advantage often noted is that e-mail is easier to target specific recipients who use e-mail and is convenient for distribution to lists of journalists.7 Journalists have responded to contacts by public relations representatives with mixed feelings, noting that they are both a benefit and a nuisance.8 Reporters frequently communicate with editors and colleagues through e-mail, even if these individuals are in the same building.9 News researchers use e-mail extensively, often in the same ways as reporters-to chase down information, confirm facts, monitor distribution lists and discussion groups, exchange information with other news researchers and subscribe to alert services.10 News organizations use e-mail to create interactive communication with audiences and they often value reader feedback on stories and submissions of letters to the editor.11

Concerns that journalists have traditionally offered about sources, such as verification of source identity and general credibility matters, have been expressed about e-mail.12 Anonymity of location, role of the sender and even whether the name of the sender is actually the individual sending the message canbe problematic for journalists. The absence of social context clues is often troubling to newspeople who must evaluate the quality of information before it is used. These matters often lead to forgery problems.13

Buckley determined contact with sources to be the most common use of e-mail. She also found that editors preferred to use e-mail to communicate with public relations representatives, to receive releases and to communicate with free-lance writers and readers.14 Trumbo and his colleagues studied e-mail use by science journalists in 1994 and 1999, reporting a dramatic increase in use and volume. Task functions, they noted, have grown at a faster rate than have social functions.15

Adoption of e-mail in newsrooms appeared to follow Rogers' classic diffusion of innovation model.16 Maier found more than half the newspapers represented in a study of newsroom computer trainers used e-mail in 1999, the second-largest use of computer-based newsgathering resources. He found that lack of time and technical skills, low levels of management support and the absence of training were the primary causes for not using computers.17

Use of new media technology has often been studied within the context of the uses and gratifications theoretical approach. Research based on this approach focuses on the various uses of a new or existing technology as well as the intended gratifications, psychological and otherwise, from that use. This framework for new media research has been applied to cable television, VCRs, cell phones, the Internet, World Wide Web and other new technologies and offers research advantages with its focus on audience members.18

Research Questions

Despite the growing body of literature and an evolving theoretical foundation for the uses and effects of new technologies, only a limited number of empirical studies have viewed e-mail as part of a news reporting strategy. Research has not provided much insight into journalists' perceptions of e-mail use in newsgathering and any related problems.

RQ1:

How often do journalists receive e-mail? How much e-mail do journalists receive?

RQ2:

What are the primary purposes, goals and volume levels of e-mail use?

RQ3:

What are journalists' most significant concerns about the use of e-mail for gathering information in newspaper newsrooms? How serious are these concerns?

RQ4:

What is the amount of use of e-mail in the interview process?

RQ5:

Are there differences in use of e-mail according to gender, age, role in the newsroom or level of computer expertise?

Method

A national mail survey of newspaper journalists was conducted in fall 2001 to determine answers to the research questions. The study employed a six-page, self-administered questionnaire containing both closed-ended and open-ended questions about e-mail access, usage, volume and issues. In addition to typical demographic items, the instrument contained a series of questions determined to measure basic types and levels of use. A 16-item scale sought to measure journalists' concerns about commonly identified problems involving use of e-mail. Items included content credibility, factual reliability and technical matters. Respondents replied to the statements five-point scale where one represented the minimum "do not worry about it at all" position, five represented the maximum "worry about it a lot" position and three represented the mid-point.

Respondents were selected randomly using a multi-stage sample design. From a comprehensive list of nearly 1,600 daily newspapers, 500 newspapers were selected using standard interval sampling. The Web site of each newspaper was visited to determine specific respondents. The name of a reporter or editor was randomly chosen from news coverage on a single business day in September 2001. Cover letters, questionnaires, and stamped, self-addressed return envelopes were sent directly to these respondents in October 2001. A second mailing, to enhance response rate, was sent a month later. A total of 201 journalists returned usable questionnaires, a response rate of 40.2 percent.

Findings

RQ 1:

How often do journalists receive e-mail? How much e-mail do journalists receive?

RQ2

What are the primary purposes, goals and volume levels of e-mail use?

Respondents were demographically diverse. They represented a wide range of newspapers, from very small to very large. Most respondents were either beat or general assignment reporters, but editors and other news managers were also represented. Some respondents, especially those at small dailies, held multiple roles. The sample was slightly more male (57.0 percent) than female and respondents had worked slightly more than a decade (M - 11.69 years, SD = 9.73) as journalists. Respondents were in their mid 30s (M = 36.58 years, SD = 11.81), but 36.2 percent were age 29 or younger and 83.2 percent were age 49 or younger. Most of the respondents were beat reporters (58.5 percent) or general assignment reporters (14.5 percent), but another 19.0 percent were editors or supervisors.19

Respondents perceived themselves as intermediate computer users (66.5 percent). More than nine in ten respondents (91.5 percent) have an e-mail account and address provided by their newspapers. More than half have broadband or other high-speed access (40.6 percent used a T-1 or faster connection, 17.6 percent used DSL and 6.7 percent relied upon cable modem).

Uses of e-mail varied. The most common use was to contact sources. More than three-quarters of respondents (75.1 percent) reported using e-mail to exchange information with sources. Various types of communication with colleagues were reported (61.2 percent). Less frequent uses included communicating with superiors (45.3 percent), sending stories or other news content to the newsroom (33.8 percent), subscriptions to distribution lists (28.9 percent) and subscriptions to discussion or news groups (12.4 percent).

The nature of distribution lists and news groups varies considerably from issue-based themes to source-based categories. The most commonly used lists included special interest groups and issues such as drugs and medicine, gambling, news organizations and news providers, police and other law enforcement groups and state government. Only 23.4 percent of respondents reported posting messages to a distribution list, however. Journalists used a special form of the distribution list, the government agency or other organization-based "alert" list. A total of 39.4 percent reported using one or more alert lists. Special interests, news organizations and state government alert services dominated those used. U.S. Census alerts were also popular among those responding to an open-ended question.

Because e-mail may be accessed from different locations, journalists used it outside the newsroom for both business and personal purposes. In addition to newsroom access above 90 percent, access at home is high. A total of 75.3 percent reported accessing e-mail from home. Of that, 34.2 percent read business and office e-mail from home. In fact, study respondents reported that 78.3 percent of all e-mail read at home is business-related while only 14.5 percent said the balance was about even and 7.2 percent said it was mostly personal in nature.

Journalists received three times the number of business-related messages each day than they sent. Respondents reported a mean of 15.71 business messages (SD = 26.08) per day while sending only about five per day. Personal use of e-mail was lower. Journalists reported receiving about eight personal messages per day while sending about three and one-half per day. Journalists subscribed to several distribution lists (M = 3.79, SD = 2.73). While they used government-based "alert" distribution lists less often (M = 2.60, SD = 1.98), they remained common.

RQ3:

What are journalists' most significant concerns about the use of e-mail for gathering information in newspaper newsrooms? How serious are these concerns?

While e-mail uses were found to be broad-based, journalists expressed a number of concerns. Using the five-point scale of 16 statements where five represented "worry about it a lot" and 1 represented "do not worry about it at all," journalists demonstrated the greatest concern about junk e-mail (M=3.03, SD = 1.40) and viruses transmitted by e-mail that could result in lost information or data (M = 2.99, SD = 1.36) or cause damage to their newsroom's computer system (M = 2.98, SD = 1.40). Respondents appeared less concerned about expressing their personal opinions on distribution lists or news groups (M = 2.50, SD = 1.41), that e-mail will be read by someone other than the person intended (M = 2.47, SD = 1.29), that messages sent will not be received (M = 2.44, SD = 1.08), that important mail may be lost (M = 2.42, SD = 1.22), and that someone else will read mail (M = 2.40, SD = 1.26).

Respondents seemed least concerned about someone else using their e-mail address (M - 1.83, SD = 1.06), that direct quotations taken from a message may somehow be quoted out of context (M - 1.97, SD = 1.21), that someone interviewed using e-mail will not be the person he or she is supposed to be (M = 2.00, SD = 1.32), and that facts obtained cannot be confirmed (M = 2.16, SD = 1.27). The journalists also felt that e-mail interviews do not provide credible information (M = 2.24, SD = 1.36), that information sent should not be used because the source may have thought it was not for publication (M = 2.26, SD = I.32), that a message will be forwarded to people that were not intended to see it (M = 2.28, SD - 1.20), and that he or she will inadvertently send a message to the wrong person (M = 2.29, SD = 1.16).

RQ4:

What is the amount of use of e-mail in the interview process?

E-mail was found to have a small role in journalistic interviewing. While the vast majority of respondent interviews were conducted by telephone (51.3 percent) or in person (41.7 percent), just 6.5 percent of interviews were conducted using e-mail. Another 4.6 percent were conducted by "other" means. Most respondents infrequently used e-mail for interviews. Only one-quarter of those who said they used e-mail for interviews reported e-mail proportions greater than 10 percent of all the interviews.

Journalists who have begun to use e-mail for interviews view it positively. A total of 72.3 percent labeled their experiences "successful" and another 16.1 percent said it was "very successful." Of those responding to the question, only II.6 percent felt it was either "unsuccessful" or "very unsuccessful." Journalists often find e-mail helpful in contacting groups, organizations and public officials about policy issues. Of those responding, 81.4 percent had used e-mail for this purpose. Almost all journalists who have used e-mail in this manner perceived the experience to be successful (61.1 percent) or very successful (23.9 percent). Only 15.1 percent perceived it as a negative experience.

RQ5:

Are there differences in use of e-mail according to gender, age, role in the newsroom or level of computer expertise?

For the most part, male and female journalists do not differ significantly in their concerns about the newsgathering and other pitfalls of e-mail.20 However, women (M = 2.73) are more concerned about someone reading their e-mail on their computers than were men (M = 2.10).

There are also very few age differences. Younger respondents (M = 2.51), defined as those in the lower half of the respondents, were more concerned than were older respondents (M = 2.04) that a message might inadvertently be sent to the wrong person.

However, there was a greater number of statistically significant differences in the concerns about e-mail expressed by the main categories of role players in the newsroom. Role differences were significant for almost half the statements, as shown in Table 1. Editors, supervisors and other newsroom managers are more worried than are their reporters about taking quotations out of context from e-mail. Editors are also more concerned about the credibility of e-mail content and that factual information cannot be confirmed. More than others, they fear that someone will use their personal e-mail address to send a message or that someone other than an intended recipient will read their e-mail. They are also more worried about receiving unsolicited e-mail. Editors also expressed concern-more than did other respondents-that messages that they send will be forwarded to people who were not intended to see it.

There were no significant gender differences found on the volume of business or personal e-mail messages received each day. Similarly, there were no significant gender differences or age group differences in terms of the proportions of interviews conducted in person, by telephone, by e-mail or by other means.

Older respondents received more business messages each day than did their younger counterparts. Older respondents, likely functioning in a supervisory and newsroom management role, received a mean 22.6 messages per day compared to younger respondents at 8.8 (F = 14.17, df = 1,190, p - 0.000). There were no other statistically significant age group differences.

Similarly, newsroom managers received a statistically significant larger number of messages than did their reporter counterparts. Newsroom managers reported receiving a mean 32.9 messages per day compared to 23.9 for others10.7 for beat reporters and 8.6 for general assignment reporters (F = 9.10, df = 3,191, p = 0.000). The LSD (least significant difference) post hoc comparisons analysis revealed significant message volume differences between newsroom managers and beat reporters and general assignment reporters. Those individuals in "other" roles were also significantly different from both groups of reporters.

In terms of messages sent, beat reporters were more active although differences were generally insignificant. Newsroom managers (M = 2.07) and general assignment reporters (M = 3.93) were significantly different (p = 0.046) There were, however, no differences in the volume of personal messages sent or received by these groups. Looking at the proportion of interviews conducted using e-mail and other more traditional approaches, no significant difference in newsroom roles were found.

Continued from page 2.

Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in how beginning, intermediate and advanced computer users viewed their concerns about e-mail or in the proportions of interviews devoted to telephone, in-person, email or other approaches. There was, however, a statistically significant difference in the number of e-mail messages sent for business purposes. Beginning computer users reported receiving significantly more messages (M = 30.5) than did intermediate users (M = 12.8) or advanced users (M = 19.4) (F=3.34, df = 2,192, p = 0.037). The LSD post hoc comparison analysis of beginners to intermediate users (p = 0.024) was significantly different.

Conclusions

It is apparent that there are wide ranges of e-mail use and use levels in newsrooms. This suggests a learning process is underway. Journalists are determining whether e-mail has a serious role in newsgathering. As e-mail technology evolves, new features open new possibilities. There is little evidence of journalists using sophisticated forms of e-mail such as video or audio messaging, conferencing, group mailing lists or even video or audio attachments, but this study did not directly address those issues.

The role of e-mail in the interview process remains unsettled. While journalists use e-mail to communicate with sources, most journalists do not depend on e-mail to conduct interviews. Telephone and in-person interviews remain dominant, and journalists do not view e-mail as a legitimate means-in the same manner as the telephone or in-person conversations-for conducting interviews. However, it is apparent that a few journalists were using e-mail for interviews, and it would be valuable to probe further to determine the types of interviews and types of information that have been used for interviews.

There are legitimate journalistic concerns about use of e-mail in newsgathering. These respondents have noted factors emphasizing the technology and its effects on the newsroom, but not as much about the quality of the information they obtain. Emphasis on wasted time and resources caused by unsolicited junk e-mail rated highest. The potential of lost work caused by viruses and other malicious software also rated very high. Has this fear of problems caused by the technology of e-mail reduced or slowed its journalistic use? The data do not offer a sufficient explanation, but the effects of such concerns should be investigated.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing findings involves newsroom roles. Editors are much more concerned about the security and credibility of information in e-mail than are others in the newsroom. Clearly, newsroom managers take a more reasoned view of sources of information used. This includes e-mail. Managers appear to be much more focused on the problems that may occur in information obtained through e-mail than do reporters. Analysis indicates editors are statistically different on nearly half of the scale items. Certainly this distinction commands additional study.

No major significant differences in how men and women view e-mail were found. Similarly, there were few differences according to age. While there were very few differences found by gender and age, there were some useful findings in terms of how newsroom managers used e-mail. Managers received much more e-mail than did their colleagues. This is clearly a function of their roles and, perhaps, because they may be highly visible communication "targets" in the newsroom. It may also be a function of their longevity and the "age" of their business e-mail address. The study did not measure the types of messages received, but it is likely that many messages were press releases, contact from other potential sources, reader contacts and internal communication. Editors also demonstrate a more traditional approach to interviewing with greater dependence on in-person interviews than use of e-mail or the telephone. Again, this may be more a function of role, but additional research must be conducted to completely understand these differences.

There were no differences in self-evaluated level of computer expertise and use. Computer literate individuals are likely to use the computer differently from less skilled users. This might suggest more volume of use, greater diversity in types of uses or other fundamental differences. Beginners were more involved with e-mail-at least in terms of sending business messages. This finding hints, of course, that more experienced e-mail users might have passed beyond the "fascination" stage and have made attempts to restrict and manage their use of it.

This study would be strengthened with a theoretical base that offers fundamental understanding of newsroom communication and new technologies or that places use of e-mail in a larger context of the information gathering process. It is hoped that the findings reported may contribute to creation of a process model or more comprehensive theoretical framework. Additional research, more directly based in the uses and gratifications approach, could build upon these findings. Credibility of information obtained through e-mail should also be investigated.

A purposive sample design using reporters and management-level editors may have strengthened the generalizability of these findings. This would likely have led to proportional sizing of respondent groups for data analysis by newsroom role, may have increased the size of the editors group and may have created better balance among general assignment and beat reporters. Less dependence upon self-assessments of computer expertise may have improved the analysis of that variable as well.

Greater clarification of the applications used for sending and receiving e -mail may have improved this analysis. It is possible that respondents may not have been specific about certain uses, such as distribution lists, discussion groups, mailing lists and even newsgroups. These functions and resources often mean different things. Because some users read e-mail with clients that cannot view newsgroups, it would have strengthened the study to separate the applications and their uses. Similarly, solicited and unsolicited e-mail are quite different and need additional investigation. The wide variety in messaging systems and capabilities of e-mail clients in newsrooms should be considered. It will be valuable to determine the levels of access to e-mail. This study provided only baseline descriptive data about individual access. What is the impact of less convenient access-such as a central shared computer in a newsroom-on newsgathering use? Are there privacy issues involved? The role of distribution lists will also require additional research. It may be useful to know which lists are being used for what purposes and how often.

Notes

1. Matthew M. Reavy, Introduction to Computer-Assisted Reporting: A Journalist's Guide (Mountainview, Calif.: Mayfield, 2001).

2. Christopher Callahan, A Journalist's Guide to the Internet: The Net as a Reporting Tool (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999).

3. Mary McGuire et al., The Internet Handbook for Writers, Researchers, and Journalists (Toronto: Trifolium Books, 1997); Callahan, A Journalist's Guide to the Internet.

4. Callahan, A Journalist's Guide to the Internet; McGuire et al., The Internet Handbook for Writers, Researchers, and Journalists; Reavy, Introduction to Computer-Assisted Reporting.

5. Elizabeth Witherspoon and Dulcie M. Straughan, "High Tech vs. High Concepts: A Survey of Technology, Integration in U.S. Public Relations Curricula," (paper presented at AEJMC, Baltimore, August 1998); Barbara K. Kaye and Norman J. Medoff, The World Wide Web: A Mass Communications Approach (Mountianview, Calif.: Mayfield, 2001) ; see also Randy Reddick and Elliot King, The Online Journ@list: Using the Internet and Other Electronic Resources, third ed., (Fort Worth: Harcourt College Publishers, 2001) 136-37,143.

6. Kaye and Medoff, The World Wide Web: A Mass Communications Approach; Reddick and King, The Online Journ@list: Using the Internet and Other Electronic Resources; Bruce Garrison, Successful Strategies for Computer Assisted Reporting; (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996); Bruce Garrison, Computer-Assisted Reporting, 2nd ed. (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998).

7. Kaye and Medoff, The World Wide Web: A Mass Communications Approach.

8. Suzanne Buckley, "E-mail Use by Newspapers Editors," (paper presented to the Creativity and Consumption Conference, Luton, U.K., March 1999).

9. Callahan, A Journalist's Guide to the Internet.

10. Paula J. Hane, Super Searchers in the News: The Online secrets of Journalists and Neivs Researchers (Medford, N.J.: CyberAge Books, 2000); Reva Basch, secrets of the Super Net Searchers: The Reflections, Revelations, and Hard-One Wisdom of 35 of the World's Top Internet Researchers (Wilton, Conn.: Pemberton Press, 1996).

11. Michael E. Dupre and Da vid A. Mackey, "Newspaper Letters and Phone-Mail to the Editor: A Comparison of Reader Input," (paper presented to AEJMC, Phoenix, Ariz., August 2000); Brian L. Massey and Mark R. Levy, "Interactivity, Online Journalism and English-Language Web Newspapers in Asia," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 76, no. 1 (spring 1999), 138-151; Wendy Dibean and Bruce Garrison, "How Six Online Newspapers Use Web Technologies," Newspaper Research Journal 22, no. 2, (spring 2001), 79-93; Callahan, A Journalist's Guide to the Internet.

12. Garrison, Computer-Assisted Reporting, 128-129; Bruce Garrison, "Journalists' Perceptions of Online Information-Gathering Problems," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 77, no. 3 (autumn 2000): 500-514; Brant Houston, Computer-Assisted Reporting: A Practical Guide (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1999).

13. Peter J. Carneval and Tahira M. Probst, "Conflict on the Internet," in Culture of the Internet, ed. Sara Kisler (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997): 233-255.

14. Buckley, "E-mail Use by Newspapers Editors."

15. Craig W. Trumbo et al, "Use of E-mail and the Web by Science Writers: A Comparative Study, 1994 & 1999," (paper presented to AEJMC, New Orleans, La., August 1999): 1; Rebecca Dumlao and Shearlean Duke, "The Web and E-mail in Science Communication: Results of In-Depth Interviews" (paper presented to the Science Communication Division, AEJMC, Miami Beach, FIa., August 2002).

16. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. (New York: Free Press, 1995); Everett M. Rogers and Arvind Singhal, "Diffusion of Innovations," in Michael B. Salwen and Don W. Stacks, eas., An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (Mahwah,N.J.: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, 1996); see also Bruce Garrison, "Diffusion of Online Information Technologies in Newspaper Newsrooms," Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 2, no. 2 (August 2001), 221-239; Bruce Garrison, "Computer-Assisted Reporting Near Complete Adoption," Newspaper Research Journal, 22, no. 1 (winter 2001), 65-79.

17. Scott R. Maier, "Digital Diffusion in the Newsroom: The Uneven Advance of ComputerAssisted Reporting," Newspaper Research Journal 21, no. 2 (spring 2000): 95-110.

18. Stanley J. Baran and Dennis K. Davis, Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1995); Werner J. Severin and James M. Tankard, Jr., Communication Theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in the Mass Media, 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1997).

19. The demographics of this sample are similar to those of benchmark national studies of journalists in the past quarter century conducted by Johnstone, Slawski and Bowman, (John Wallace Clarie Johnstone, Edward J. Slawski, and William W. Bowman, The News People: A Sociological Portrait of American Journalists and Their Work (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1976)) and Weaver and Wilhoit ((David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist in the 1990s (Mahwah, N.J.: Eawrence Erlbaum, 1996)) and David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist: A Portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986)). These studies found journalists in the U.S. to be in their mid 30s and male. However, the number of women entering the work force in journalism has increased in recent years and may not be reflected in earlier research.

20. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the F test. While both t and F look for non-chance differences in two group means, ANOVA is recommended for large groups while the t test is most appropriate for small samples. Blalock argues that the "normality assumption can be relaxed whenever the N's are large" or, in his view, both greater than 50 (Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., Social Statistics, 2nd ed., (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972), 223; see also Frederick Williams, Reasoning with Statistics, 4th ed., (Harcourt Brace, Fort Worth, 1992), 89).

Bruce Garrison is a professor in the School of Communication at the University of Miami. He would like to thank Dean Edward Pfister for providing the resources for this study. He would also like to thank Dr. Michel Dupagne, Dr. Michael Salwen, Dr. Randy Reddick and Margarita Martin-Hidalgo for their valuable assistance.