The convergence of technology and industry has given rise to new interactive forms of television. The question remains: To what extent will these new forms be used by the public? This article focuses on one new form of television—interactive news programs—and describes the results of an in-depth pilot study in the Netherlands concerning the acceptance and use of interactive television news. To compensate for people's unfamiliarity with interactive news, a professional demo was developed: an example of an interactive NOS Journal, the most popular evening television news program in the Netherlands. The findings indicate that viewers are in general very interested and accepting of interactive news. The results also indicate that people prefer fairly transparent selection methods and like to have an “agent” (a news organization or anchor) select the main stories of the day for them. Hence, media organizations are advised to focus on developments in this area. The fear that the importance of their journalistic role will diminish with the rise of new media seems misguided. In fact, the agent function they fulfill might give them a head start in the new media environment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ball-Rokeach, Sandra J.1985. “The Origins of Individual Media System Dependency: A Sociological Framework.”Communication Research12:485-510.
2.
Barwise, Patrick . 1996. “Brands in a Digital World.” Editorial. Journal of Brand Management4(4):220-223.
3.
Burstein, Daniel , and David Kline. 1995. Road Warriors: Dreams and Nightmares along the Information Highway. New York: Dutton.
4.
Cacioppo, John T. , and Richard E. Petty. 1982. “The Need for Cognition.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42(1):116-131.
Dayan, D. , and Elihu Katz. 1992. Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
DeFleur, Melvin L. , and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach. 1989. Theories of Mass Communication. 5th Edition. New York: Longman.
8.
Dutton, William H. 1997. “Multimedia Visions and Realities.” In The Social Shaping of Information Superhighways: European and American Roads to the Information Society, ed. Herbert Kubicek, William H. Dutton, and Robin Williams. New York: Campus Verlag/St. Martin's Press.
9.
Dutton, William H. , E.M. Rogers, and S. H. Jun. 1987. “The Diffusion and Impacts of Information Technology in Households.”Oxford Surveys in Information Technology, vol. 4. New York: Oxford University Press.
10.
Elberse, Anita . 1996. New, Newer, News: Research on Consumer Acceptance of Interactive News Programs. Amsterdam: Department of Communication, University of Amsterdam.
11.
Flynn, Barry . 1995. “Trials and Tribulations.”Cable and Satellite Europe4:50-52.
12.
Fulk, Janet , John Schmitz, and Charles W. Steinfield. 1990. “A Social Influence Model of Technology Use.” In Organizations and Communication Technology, ed. Janet Fulk and Charles W. Steinfield. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Giussani, Bruno . 1997. “Publishers Are `Pushing' for Online Revenues.”New York Times on the Web. Nov. 18 <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/cyber/indext.html>.
14.
Grant, August E. , K. Kendall Guthrie, and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach. 1991. “Television Shopping: A Media System Dependency Perspective.”Communication Research18(6):773-798.
15.
GVU. 1997. GVU 7th WWW User Survey<http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-1997-04.
16.
Heeter, Carrie . 1989. “Implications of New Interactive Technologies for Conceptualizing Communication.” In Media Use in the Information Age: Emergin Patterns of Adoption and Consumer Use, ed. Jerry L. Salvaggio and Jennings Bryant. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Jeffcoate, J. 1995. “Interactive TV.” In The Multimedia Yearbook 1995.
18.
Jeffries, Leo , and David Atkin. 1996. “Predicting Use of Technologies for Communication and Consumer Needs.”Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media40(summer):318-330.
19.
Katz, Elihu . 1990. Viewers Work. Wilbur Schramm Memorial Lecture, University of Illinois.
20.
Katz, Elihu , Jay G. Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch. 1974. “Utilization of Mass Communication by the Individual.” In The Uses of Mass Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research, ed. Jay G. Blumler and Elihu Katz. London: Sage.
21.
Levy, Mark R.1979. “Watching TV News as Para-social Interaction.”Journal of Broadcasting23:69-80.
22.
Levy, Mark R. , and Sven Windahl. 1985. “The Concept of Audience Activity.” In Media Gratifications Research, ed. Karl E. Rosengren, Lawrence A. Wenner, and Philip Palmgreen. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Lynne Markus, M. 1990. “Towards a `Critical Mass' Theory of Interactive Media.” In Organizations and Communication Technology, ed. Janet Fulk and Charles W. Steinfield. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
McQuail, Denis . 1994. Mass Communication Theory. 3rd Edition. London: Sage.
25.
Negroponte, Nicholas . 1995. Being Digital. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
26.
NOS KLO. 1996. Results of the Annual Audience Survey. Audience Research Department, Dutch Public Broadcasting Organization NOS. Hilversum, Netherlands.
27.
Palmgreen, Philip , and J. D. Rayburn. 1994. “An Expectancy-Value Approach to Media Gratifications.” In Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives, ed. Karl E. Rosengren, Lawrence A. Wenner, and Philip Palmgreen. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28.
Perse, Elizabeth M.1990. “Audience Selectivity and Involvement in the Newer Media Environment.”Communication Research17(5):675-697.
29.
Peterson, Ivar . 1997. “700 Newspapers to Read Online.”New York Times on the Web. Feb. 10 <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/cyber/indext.html>.
30.
Rogers, Everett M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd Edition. New York: Free Press.
31.
Rubin, Alan M.1983. “Television Uses and Gratifications: The Interaction of Viewing Patterns and Motivations.”Journal of Broadcasting27(1):37-51.
32.
Rubin, Alan M.1984. “Ritualized and Instrumental Television Viewing.”Journal of Communication34(3):67-77.
33.
Rubin, Alan M. , and Elizabeth M. Perse. 1987. “Audience Activity and Television News Gratifications.”Communication Research14(1):58-84.
34.
Rubin, Alan M. , Elizabeth M. Perse, and Robert A. Powell. 1985. “Loneliness, Parasocial Interaction, and Local Television News Viewing.”Human Communication Research12(2):155-180.
35.
Schiesel, Seth . 1997. “Some Media Organizations Pull the Plug on Web Sites.”New York Times on the Web. Mar. 25 <http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/cyber/indext.html>.
36.
Trevino, Linda Klebe , Richard L. Daft, and Robert H. Lengel. 1990. “Understanding Managers' Media Choices: A Symbolic Interactionist Perspective.” In Organizations and Communication Technology, ed. Janet Fulk and Charles W. Steinfield. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
Van Grinsven , 1998. “City Online and the Secret of Love.”De Volkskrant Internet Edition. Jan. 10 <http://www.volkskrant.nl> (in Dutch).
38.
Webster, J. G. , and J. J. Wakshlag. 1983. “A Theory of TV Program Choice.”Communication Research10(4):430-446.
39.
Wenner, Lawrence A. 1985. “The Nature of News Gratifications.” In Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives, ed. Karl E. Rosengren, Lawrence A. Wenner, and Philip Palmgreen. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
Williams, Frederick , Ronald E. Rice, and Everett M. Rogers. 1988. Research Methods and the New Media. New York: Free Press.
