Emily Goligoski is a devoted audience researcher who has spent years studying how people consume online news and how to enhance their experience. She has collaborated with or contributed to major outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, and The Guardian, and has partnered with institutions like Columbia University and New York University.
“I don’t have a perfect answer,” Goligoski cautions, then shares her thoughts on where audiences are headed. Since the internet’s rise, the media has been plagued by endless complaints and uncertainties. EL PAÍS spoke with Goligoski after a keynote at the recent Mozilla Festival in Barcelona to discuss these ideas.
Question. You’re worried about the “persistent homogenization” of audiences. What does that mean in practice?
Answer. Our industry is obsessed with measuring everything—visits, users, clicks—yet I worry about what gets lost in those numbers. Many newsrooms have debated for years whether to disclose story performance to reporters. Reducing everything to a single metric that supposedly marks usefulness concerns me, because it may ultimately harm our long-term aims.
Q. The interests of the media or of society?
A. Both. In independent media, it’s crucial that everyone involved in shaping the product understands who their readers are and what they need. Purely quantitative data about performance falls short and can drain the work’s satisfaction.
Q. Is there no clear alternative?
A. Relying on one indicator to judge quality ignores broader context: what other stories sit on the homepage, how we’re competing for attention, and the many other factors at play. Making coverage decisions in such a reductive way signals a lack of imagination and curiosity.
Q. Subscriptions are becoming the norm?
A. I’ve observed that shift. Another important trend is the rise of independent creators who publish under their own names on platforms like Substack. These journalists often have a sharper sense of their audience and what they want. I’m surprised that many of these writers don’t make fuller use of the platform’s surveys. Behavioral data—open rates, reading time—tells part of the story, but I’d still want to hear readers’ own opinions.
Q. Why is that?
A. It’s an extraordinary tool. It serves as a research method—collecting people’s perspectives on the news or a topic. People like being asked for input, and their responses can guide what we cover now and in the future.
Q. Should the media treat its audience with more care?
A. We haven’t been creative enough about audience engagement. I’d like us to move beyond a simple “producer” versus “subscriber” mindset and explore two-way, non-transactional exchanges of knowledge. I know it’s hard; many newsroom structures don’t leave room—or incentives—to deeply understand audiences.
Q. Is there too much navel-gazing in the media?
A. I’d like to see more investigative work, for example on the article page itself. It’s been tweaked over time, but the digital article page remains relatively static. When we explore other ways of conveying information—different viewpoints, tones, or formats—and look beyond our usual circle, we discover intriguing alternatives: theater, TikTok, or in-person festival gatherings.
Q. A recent trend is news avoidance.
A. The sheer volume of competing content is worrisome. Fatigue and the sense that news is depressing are real issues, especially around major elections and politics. I think about this a lot, even with my graduate students. In class, I’ve had to establish guidelines for reasonable device use, because social media often feels like a constant dopamine rush, making it hard to focus on theory.
Q. Does this apply to news articles as well?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Is there reason for optimism?
A. There is. Translation efforts have grown: more outlets now publish in multiple languages, broadening access. The Substack and independent-writer model is promising because it reinforces that quality work has value and isn’t free. I’m excited by the talent and curiosity I see in my graduate journalism students and the potential they represent for the field.
Q. Do people under 25 still watch the news?
A. In my client research, TikTok and Instagram are the starting and ending points for young audiences in the U.S. For publishers, this dependency on platform ecosystems—beyond the media’s control—creates a real challenge as platforms dictate many rules. I’m deeply concerned about what this means for audiences.
Q. Is audience size shrinking?
A. Yes, according to Reuters data, which is not an encouraging sign. This will push us toward greater creativity.
Q. And we’re not there yet.
A. No.
Q. Are we too conservative?
A. Yes.
Q. What can be done?
A. Sometimes progress starts with a traditional letter to the editor, posing a question and inviting investigation. Other times it’s a call for crowdsourced help to uncover findings. That kind of openness is a bright spot, but it must be paired with transparent funding disclosures.
Q. Why is transparency important?
A. Our marketing approach is still outdated: we avoid talking about our work and, when we do, we can sound boastful. Explaining how reporting was done—how many flights, how many hours—helps readers understand the effort involved and makes it easier for them to support the work.
Sign up for EL PAÍS USA Edition’s weekly newsletter to receive more English-language coverage.
But here’s where it gets controversial: can we reclaim journalism as a collaborative, reader-informed pursuit without surrendering control to platforms and metrics? And this is the part most people miss: what if the best path forward isn’t more data, but more human conversation with the audience about what matters—and how we’ll cover it? What do you think: should newsrooms double down on audience dialogue, or push ahead with data-driven, platform-aligned strategies? Share your thoughts in the comments.
