Imagine a world where the very tools designed to connect us are pulling us apart, leaving educators scrambling to capture attention amid a sea of digital distractions. That's the stark reality Emily Goligoski, a seasoned researcher and audience expert, grapples with every day. With years dedicated to unraveling how people engage with online news and enhancing their experiences, Goligoski has lent her insights to giants like The New York Times, CNN, and The Guardian, plus prestigious institutions such as Columbia University and New York University. But here's where it gets controversial: in an industry fixated on metrics, is our obsession with data actually diluting the soul of journalism? Let's dive into her thought-provoking interview from the Mozilla Festival in Barcelona and explore why this matters for everyone who consumes or creates news.
Goligoski admits she doesn't have all the answers, but she's quick to share her insights on the evolving landscape of media audiences. Since the internet burst onto the scene, the sector has been riddled with endless debates and uncertainties. And this is the part most people miss: while we bemoan the noise, the real question is whether we're adapting fast enough to keep our audiences engaged without losing our integrity.
When asked about her worries regarding the 'persistent homogenization' of audiences, Goligoski explains the core issue. Our field is utterly obsessed with quantifying every aspect of success—think page views, unique visitors, the works. She's concerned about what slips through the cracks in this data-driven frenzy. Newsrooms have wrangled for ages over whether to reveal performance stats to journalists, fearing it might warp their storytelling. Reducing the value of a piece to a single number that 'proves' its worth? That's a recipe for trouble, she warns, potentially undermining our long-term goals.
Does this harm the media's interests or society's? Both, she insists. For truly independent outlets, it's crucial for teams to grasp who their readers are and what they truly crave. Relying solely on cold, hard numbers paints an incomplete picture and can sap the joy from the work. Beginners in media might find this tricky—imagine trying to gauge if a story resonates by just counting clicks; it's like judging a book's worth by its page count without reading a word.
And here's a subtle counterpoint that might spark debate: some argue this data obsession democratizes journalism by making it accountable, but Goligoski pushes back, suggesting it breeds a lazy, unimaginative approach. What if, instead of one-size-fits-all metrics, we embraced richer ways to understand impact? For instance, consider how a deeply investigative piece on climate change might not go viral but could inspire real-world action—something raw numbers overlook.
She acknowledges there's no silver bullet alternative. Obsessing over one indicator to label work as good or bad ignores broader context: competing headlines on the homepage, battles for attention against social scrolls, or external factors like a viral meme storm. Making coverage decisions this simplistically stifles creativity and inquisitiveness. To clarify for newcomers: It's akin to judging a chef's meal solely by how quickly diners finish it, without tasting the flavors or considering the ambiance.
Now, with subscriptions rising as the new standard, Goligoski spots an intriguing shift. Independent creators and journalists on platforms like Substack often have a sharper pulse on their niche audiences than big publishers do. Surprisingly, many overlook the built-in surveys for feedback. Behavioral stats like open rates and time spent skimming only scratch the surface. Why not directly ask readers their thoughts? It's a powerful research tool, gathering firsthand perspectives on news topics. Everyone enjoys feeling heard, and this can steer future coverage—think of it as a collaborative brainstorming session that builds loyalty.
Should media treat audiences better? Absolutely, Goligoski urges, but we've been too rigid in our thinking. Let's ditch the producer-subscriber binary for models fostering genuine dialogue. Picture a two-way knowledge exchange, less about transactions and more about shared learning. It's challenging, she sympathizes, given newsrooms' packed schedules and incentive structures that leave little room for deep audience dives. For beginners, this could mean simple experiments: hosting virtual Q&A sessions or polls on story angles to bridge the gap.
Is the media too inwardly focused? Goligoski suggests it's time to branch out. Take the article page—it's had minor updates, but fundamentally, it's static in the digital age. By drawing inspiration from theater's dramatic flair, TikTok's snappy videos, or even festival meetups, we could revolutionize information delivery. Controversy alert: Critics might say mimicking trends like short-form videos waters down serious journalism, but Goligoski invites you to ponder—could blending formats make news more accessible without sacrificing depth?
A troubling trend is news avoidance, fueled by attention overload and the depressing nature of headlines. Goligoski ties this to her classroom struggles: with students addicted to dopamine hits from social media, how does she compete teaching dry theory? It's the same battle news faces against flashy feeds. But here's the optimism she clings to—translation efforts are booming, making global stories accessible in multiple languages, unlike a decade ago when English dominated.
The Substack model shines as a beacon: it values independent voices and reminds us this work deserves fair pay. Plus, Goligoski's buoyed by the fresh talent in journalism grads, sparking hope for a vibrant future pipeline.
Yet, a sobering question looms: Do young adults under 25 even tune into news? From her research, TikTok and Instagram are their digital hubs in the U.S., raising alarms. Publishers pour resources into platform algorithms, but these are corporate-owned, subject to whims that could vanish overnight. For audiences, it's a double-edged sword—convenience at the cost of control.
Is the audience shrinking? Yes, per Reuters data, painting a grim portrait that demands innovation. And are we stepping up? Not really, she laments. Are we too conservative? Absolutely.
What options exist? Start small: old-school letters to the editor, where readers pose questions and editors delve deep. Or crowdsourcing investigations—think rallying the public to share insights, then publishing results. Transparency on funding is key too; instead of vague marketing, detail the grind—jet-lagged reporters, endless hours. This builds trust and opens wallets more effectively.
As we wrap up, Goligoski's reflections leave us with big questions: In a data-obsessed world, are we sacrificing depth for clicks? Should media platforms own our attention, or is it time for creators to reclaim it? And you—do you agree independent models like Substack are the future, or is homogenization inevitable? Share your thoughts in the comments; let's debate and discover together. For more insights, sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay updated on English-language coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition.
