Journalists are increasingly aware of the need to understand their audiences, yet often rely on abstract or outdated conceptions of who they are writing for, according to a growing body of research into the evolving relationship between news providers and news consumers.
A 2016 tweet from Matt Pearce, then a national correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, highlighted the core issue: “Who was the audience supposed to be?” Pearce’s question, posed after covering the phenomenon of Trump voters, underscores a central irony in modern journalism. While journalists routinely state their work is intended for the public, the actual audience often remains an “unfocused, imagined abstraction,” built on assumptions and imperfect understanding, as noted in a recent report from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism.
This reliance on imagined audiences isn’t new. Writing, by its nature, separates the creator from the immediate feedback of the audience, forcing writers to anticipate reader reactions. Success, the Tow Center report explains, hinges on the accuracy of these anticipations. However, the digital era has complicated this dynamic. The proliferation of news sources and the fragmentation of audiences indicate that the “reader” is no longer a monolithic entity.
Melanie Sill, writing in Nieman Reports in 2001, observed that the “Reader” – or “Viewer” – is often invoked as a justification for content decisions, a convenient spirit to support arguments lacking independent merit. Common refrains include assertions about reader attention spans or preferences, often without concrete evidence. Sill argued that news organizations frequently overlook the reality of diverse and conflicting audience preferences, particularly as traditional readership declines.
The challenge, then, is not simply to acknowledge an audience exists, but to actively learn who that audience is. This requires a shift from relying on internal assumptions to engaging in more robust audience research and analysis. The journalism-audience relationship is a key area of theoretical review, with ongoing systematic analysis of peer-reviewed research since 2000, according to a recent study.
Research suggests that a journalist’s own expertise in written communication shapes how they read and interpret information, potentially influencing their understanding of audience reception. This expertise may lead to distinct reading practices compared to other professionals, but doesn’t necessarily equate to accurate audience perception.