Next Article in Journal
“Virality Alert”: The Construction, Imagination, and Algorithmic Falsification of a Local Disaster
Previous Article in Journal
Revisiting Relationship Cultivation Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Strategic Communication Practice in Kenya’s County Governments and Corporate Sectors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Journalism and Media
Volume 7
Issue 1
10.3390/journalmedia7010057
journalmedia-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Medium’s Agenda or the Audience’s Clicks? Tensions Between Editorial Lines and Audience Interests According to the Editors of Digital Media in Chile

by
Francisca Greene González
1,*,
Eduardo Gallegos Krause
2 and
Cristian Muñoz Catalán
3
1
Faculty of Communication, Universidad de los Andes, Santiago 7620086, Chile
2
Department of Languages, Literature and Communication, Universidad de la Frontera, Temuco 4811230, Chile
3
Department of Journalism, Universidad de la Serena, La Serena 1700000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Journal. Media 2026, 7(1), 57; https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7010057
Submission received: 23 January 2026 / Revised: 27 February 2026 / Accepted: 3 March 2026 / Published: 13 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Topic Crisis, Opportunity, and the Evolution of Digital Journalism and Media Industries)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examines the tension between audience interests and editorial lines in the major national and regional digital media outlets in Chile. It analyzes how editors incorporate metrics and user feedback into content selection and prioritization processes. The sample included the five websites with the largest national reach according to the 2024 ComScore ranking (El Mercurio Online, BioBioChile, La Tercera, Megamedia and Chilevisión), along with digital media outlets from the country’s five most populous cities without counting the capital (La Serena, Rancagua, Antofagasta, Valparaíso, and Temuco). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with directors or editors to assess whether the use of metrics influences journalistic judgment and editorial autonomy. Data were analyzed through a thematic analysis, combining categories drawn from the literature with emergent codes. The findings indicate that audience feedback affects editorial decision-making, although to varying degrees depending on the type of outlet. In national newspapers, a fiduciary vision is more firmly sustained due to greater financial capacity, albeit with internal tensions. In contrast, regional media outlets face greater challenges in maintaining their editorial line in the face of metrics, as lower economic stability and dependence on digital traffic tend to favor dynamics closer to a market-driven model. Although the findings are based on professional discourse and do not include direct observation of production routines, the comparison between national and regional media offers a cross-cutting perspective on editorial autonomy within the Chilean digital media ecosystem, an area that remains underexplored in the country. Overall, the study shows that metrics place pressure on both editorial policy and journalistic practices by requiring a continuous balancing of professional judgment and real-time audience behavior.

1. Introduction

A linear and schematic characterization of the development of digital journalism (Vobič, 2015) proposes three major stages. The first is linked to the beginnings of digital journalism in the 1990s, where the possibility of broadening the editorial perspective and editorial decisions regarding news production was envisioned. Subsequently, since the beginning of the new millennium and with the penetration of the internet to broad sectors of the population, digital journalism demanded investment and a restructuring of the work and definitions of digital media.
Finally, a third stage is identified with the integration of processes and teams where editorial decision-making policies become more flexible, decisions are dispersed, and a greater workload falls on journalists.
The last stage identified by Vobič (2015) also points to a continuous collection, assembly, and production of news that considers broadly the interests and needs of the public. Thus, the nature of news as the result of an editorial decision has changed in the digital world, transforming into a constantly evolving product where multiple users contribute to adding more information by commenting on the initial product (Singer, 2013), or even by defining what the media outlet should publish considering the amount of traffic—and associated advertising—that certain content generates. In this way, one of the consequences of digital journalism is that journalists’ attention has shifted from the interests and perceptions of sources to those of the audience (Steensen, 2009). This context sometimes creates struggles regarding the journalistic authority that could be undermined (Carlson, 2017).
Faced with this scenario, the present study considered 11 interviews with editors of Chilean digital media outlets to understand a series of aspects related to the role of audiences and their feedback within the framework of journalistic routines. In this regard, one of the topics that emerged as part of the analysis of the interviews was the tension between the media outlets’ own editorial line and the audience’s own interests, and whether the media should respond to this reader demand.
In this context, the discussion advanced in relation to the aforementioned tension is somewhat reminiscent of the two models of journalism identified by Schudson (2003): the fiduciary and the market models. In the former, journalists prioritize journalistic and editorial criteria to decide which news stories are important to the public. In contrast, the market model aims to respond to audience preferences. More than a clear and Manichean dichotomy, we argue that the editors’ discourse shows the ways in which they are tensioned and moves between these two models. As will be seen, this tension, identified more than two decades ago, remains fully relevant in the discourse of editors of Chilean digital media outlets.
In this regard, three questions guide this research: (1) To what extent does audience feedback influence editorial decisions in the most widely read digital media in Chile? (2) How do the Chilean digital media tend to move between a fiduciary or a market model? (3) Do national digital media outlets exhibit similar behavior in incorporating audience feedback into editorial decisions compared to local digital media outlets?
In this article, we will understand audience feedback to mean, on the one hand, the metrics provided by the different platforms available to the media: reading time, clicks, demographics, engagement, etc. and, on the other hand, comments written by users on the media’s social networks or the comments section available on some of the web portals.
In the media’s Chilean context, formal documents with editorial policies are non-existent; that is why this study is based on the perceptions of the editors of the digital media outlets mentioned. Only free-to-air television channels have programming principles documents because Chilean law requires them to do so. Other print and digital media outlets do not have editorial policy documents. In this sense the results are consistent with the statements made by the editors when referring to their editorial policies.
Previous studies have examined how editors of nationally distributed websites make decisions influenced by audience feedback (Greene et al., 2022; González-Trujillo et al., 2023). Gronemeyer’s research (Gronemeyer, 2013) indicates that, in this context, the editor becomes more of a broker than a traditional gatekeeper, with click ratings ultimately influencing news coverage and publication decisions. This generally translates into “(…) greater engagement with audiences in the news selection process (…)” (A. M. Lee et al., 2014, p. 505). The study we propose is novel because it extends from the perceptions of editors of the main national digital media to the editors of the most-read digital media in the five most populous cities in the country, according to the latest census of 2024. In this sense, the study allows us to understand whether the relationship between audience feedback and editorial decisions is similar in national newspapers and in local media.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Theoretical Framework

There is a broad consensus that the digital era marks a decisive point, initiating a new chapter for the journalistic profession (Hirst, 2011), one in which new modalities of journalism have emerged (Miller, 2019). These include citizen journalism (Goode, 2009), participatory journalism (Domingo et al., 2008) and reciprocal journalism (Lewis et al., 2014), which are all marked by the users’ active role not only in the production but also in the circulation of news (Gans, 2004; Bruns, 2011a, 2011b).
This reflects a cultural change in how news is being produced, moving towards a more audience-centered approach (Ferrer-Conill & Tandoc, 2018; Belair-Gagnon et al., 2020). New communication technologies have not only enabled different forms of interaction between audiences and news, but they have also created a new way for journalists to monitor audience behavior online: audience metrics (Tandoc, 2014; Loosen & Schmidt, 2012; Welbers et al., 2016; Elsheikh et al., 2024). This remains a subject of ongoing scholarly debate because there are concerns about the use of these tools, which might affect editorial decision-making and the quality of news content (Tandoc et al., 2012; Tandoc & Ferrucci, 2017; Welbers et al., 2016; Nguyen, 2013; Neheli, 2018). Thus, there is still no scholarly consensus on the implications of these technological changes (Jofré Larenas, 2015). For example, while some authors express that this digital evolution has diminished the quality of news (Turner, 1999; Harrington, 2008), others affirm that these technologies have strengthened the role of the popular press by expanding access to information and encouraging mass audience participation (Örnebring & Jönsson, 2004; Gimmler, 2001). However, there is a general consensus that these technological changes have increased pressures on both journalists and newsrooms (Deuze, 2008; Preston, 2009).
Several studies indicate that editors in news organizations are increasingly drawing on data analytics to guide editorial choices, particularly in the selection of news stories (Vu, 2014; Tandoc, 2014; Anderson et al., 2015; Singer, 2013; A. M. Lee et al., 2014). However, this growing reliance on analytics may be problematic, since under a market logic, newsrooms may prioritize entertainment, sports, and lifestyle coverage over hard news and watchdog journalism (McManus, 1994; Ferrucci, 2020). This concern is widely echoed by academics and professionals who warn that the increasing reliance on web analytics could push journalism further towards a market-oriented approach (Tandoc & Thomas, 2015), which does not necessarily align with journalism’s democratic and public function (Ferrucci & Painter, 2016; McChesney, 2004). This is especially concerning given that what is considered news in current times is mostly driven by audience interests, rather than the news itself (Bennett, 2003; Zaller, 1999).
By increasing awareness of audience preferences (Jofré Larenas, 2015), metrics also help news organizations to better connect with the public and boost website traffic (Elsheikh et al., 2024). Therefore, web analytics has opened new channels for rediscovering the audience (Loosen & Schmidt, 2012), allowing news organizations to track down their digital footprints in a fast, automatic, inclusive, and exhaustive way (E. Lee & Tandoc, 2017). All this creates a significant shift in the journalistic industry. Previously, journalists had very limited knowledge about their audiences (Gans, 1979; Schlesinger, 1978), which left room for highly subjective editorial judgments (Whitney & Ettema, 1994). Now, audience information and metrics are easily available, leaving less room for subjectivity as to audience preferences.
However, evidence suggests that, in decisions about the hierarchy of news placement within a media outlet, the influence of audience metrics tends to be moderated by traditional editorial criteria rather than determined solely by data (A. M. Lee et al., 2014; Boczkowski et al., 2011; Bastos, 2014). In fact, editors and reporters still tend to uphold established professional standards and are not fully willing to embrace a click-driven mindset (Anderson, 2011; Boczkowski, 2010; Usher, 2018). Some authors argue that the gatekeeping role of journalists remains relevant (Shoemaker & Vos, 2009; Singer, 2005; Vu, 2014; Singer, 2013; Tandoc, 2014; MacGregor, 2007). Thus, while metrics strongly shape editorial agendas—since editors increasingly rely on them to decide which topics or stories to cover (Vu, 2014; Singer, 2013; Tandoc, 2014; MacGregor, 2007)—journalists emphasize that they still retain the authority to determine which stories are reported and, above all, in what order (A. M. Lee et al., 2014). However, other authors suggest that part of the editorial power to select news has now shifted to the audience (Chakraborty et al., 2016).

2.2. Methodology

The proposed research is a qualitative study examining the responses of 11 directors/editors of Chilean digital news outlets. Directors and editors were chosen because they are the ones who decide what and how to publish. In the case of digital media, they are particularly relevant because they make other decisions, such as the duration of a particular news story on the front page (see Greene et al., 2022). The editor’s role in Chilean media is usually associated with selecting and prioritizing the most relevant news for citizens’ decision-making (Salinas Muñoz & Stange Marcus, 2015; Puente et al., 2014; Greene et al., 2022; Greene-González & Lecaros-Menéndez, 2015). The editors or directors interviewed had similar roles: news selection, directing the editorial meeting, and making the final decision on what and how to publish (see Table 1). In one case (see Table 1), the journalist who made the final decisions about what and how to publish did not hold the position of director or editor, but rather an equivalent role.
Through in-depth, semi-structured interviews, we recorded the experiences of 11 directors/editors or journalists with similar roles in Chilean digital news outlets, regarding their perception of the influence of metrics on editorial decisions. According to Fuchs (2010), this was the number of interviews after which the authors considered that no new topics emerged, and data saturation had been reached. The interviews for this study were conducted by the three authors between March and June 2025, via Zoom or in person. The interviews have been archived in DSpace and assigned the following identifier: https://hdl.handle.net/10533/86023 (accessed on 12 January 2026).
While in-person interviews can facilitate a stronger connection between the researcher and the participant, we found no impediments to maintaining the key principles of in-depth semi-structured interviews (Morris, 2015). These principles include flexible and fluid interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee, space to obtain further clarity and details from the interviewee regarding the question asked, and a balance between a structured interview guide and room for digression. Through semi-structured questions, a thematic discussion was achieved regarding the incorporation of audience feedback into editorial decisions.
Each interview lasted approximately 40 min. They were conducted in Spanish, transcribed, and translated into English. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This analysis was influenced by the research questions and the literature review, but it also included an inductive element that allowed the themes to evolve during the process. We analyzed each interview, developing general themes through a coding process (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). All authors participated in the data analysis process.
The qualitative data collected through the interviews were analyzed using a three-step thematic analysis performed by three independent coders. The first step involved the emergent and inductive coding of four transcripts by the three coders to identify the main thematic areas and develop the codebook and subcodes used to analyze and interpret the collected data (See Table 2).
Once the final codebook was established, and the three coders reached agreement, the remaining interviews were coded by the three coders (second step). All coding was performed using Dedoose software version 9.0. The third step involved the identification of relationships and patterns among the open-source data by the three researchers, who reviewed all the coded interviews to qualitatively determine the influence of audience feedback on editorial decision-making and the differences and similarities in these decision-making processes between national and local media outlets.
Participants were recruited through the authors’ contacts. The identities of the participants will not be revealed in the research results. The ethics committee of the University of the Andes (Universidad de los Andes) in Chile approved the research in March 2025. The editors gave their consent to participate in the research and to speak freely about their work, guaranteeing the anonymity of both their identity and that of their employers.

3. Results

3.1. Editor as “Watchdog”

Within the context of the aforementioned tension, the fiduciary view that prioritizes journalistic and editorial criteria emerges in the interviews when editors are asked about the topics that generate the most response and interest from audiences, as reflected in the metrics. In this regard, the interviewees indicate that there are topics: “(…) that one knows don’t generate much interaction on social media, but that still have an informational relevance that justifies their publication”. (interviewee #6)
This stance exemplifies the traditional view of the editor as a “gatekeeper” who decides what is pertinent to publish. This function sometimes blends with that of a “watchdog” regarding the journalist-editor role in limiting political power and the ways in which politicians access the public sphere: “(…) if a politician insinuates that the president is a drug addict, we could get a lot of clicks if we publish that piece. But the point is: do we really want that click? Our decision is that we do not”. (interviewee #2)
It is interesting to note in the quote that the sources of news are placed in dialogue with what these sources can generate in audiences. In this sense, the editor appears as a kind of filter to guarantee the quality of the information ecosystem in which the media outlet operates, encouraging or punishing certain populist or provocative practices on the part of the sources:
“There are political figures that I do not include in the news agenda because I understand that their impulse is provocation. From that perspective, there are figures who do not enter our publication as political actors. I do not cover all the fights that occur on social media, nor do I feel obligated to do so just because there is a great controversy in X. It is not my topic, and that is a deeply considered decision”.
(interviewee #2)
From this perspective, the journalist appears as the guarantor of an informational order that highlights what should be read and discussed. In the traditional logic of “agenda setting”, it would be the journalist-editors who—from the interviewees’ perspective—would have the capacity and authority to designate the topics that should be read or discussed as part of the public agenda: “(…) there are articles that we publish by editorial decision and highlight, and they do not necessarily respond to metrics; rather, we aim for them to represent the news consumption of this publication”. (interviewee #2)
“(…) there are articles that, even if they do not get many views, stay at the top. For example, one about higher education funding. Nobody reads it, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop publishing it. (…) However, for me, it is editorially relevant. So, it will be published anyway, even though I know it won’t get many readers”.
(interviewee #1)
This issue arises in other interviews where the media brand is also aligned with the various platforms and interests that are closer to those of brand or corporate communication, based on the mission and vision established by certain media outlets with a more international reach:
“We represent a more global brand, therefore, (…) it must also maintain consistency with the television brand. While on television decisions are also made considering the audience, there is also certain content that must be included, not necessarily because of the number of clicks it generates, but because of journalistic responsibility. (…) It is constant work and generally involves a lot of discussion, but we have managed to achieve a true balance. (…) Certain topics must be published that, although they may not generate as much traffic, must be included because it is the right thing to do from a journalistic point of view”.
(interviewee #4)
The concept of the editor as a guarantor of “what the public needs to know” appears much more strongly in the responses from editors of national media outlets. With the exception of the first quote, all the others in this section come from editors of national media.

3.2. The Contribution of Metrics

This fiduciary perspective is sometimes relaxed, for example, regarding news identified as “service profile” (tax declaration deadlines or government benefit payment, for instance) which, without responding to the specific editorial interest of the media outlet, is recognized as a type of news that is worth promoting. However, a distinction is again made between this service journalism and a much more banal kind:
“We have identified which stories generate the most engagement and traffic, but we have defined that this type of content, for us, has a service profile. Indeed, they generate many visits -as does, for example, a story on how to get a tax refund- but we don’t focus on topics like “the kitten” or “the panda bear,” which represent the classic example in the debate between audience and editorial criteria”.
(interviewee #2)
From another perspective, journalistic zeal for the quality of information and editorial line is seen by some interviewees as a kind of imposition: “(…) we are very much journalists because we think we know what people want and, from there, we build a guideline (…)” (interviewee #8). From this perspective, audience feedback metrics are seen as a way to ensure that the topics that interest the public are covered, thus avoiding a kind of ‘editor bias’:
“I think [the metrics] were a tremendous contribution. I was here, I did journalism before metrics existed, and it was like navigating blindly; channels without metrics reported what the editor on duty, biased or not, like any human being, thought was important”.
(interviewee #2)
Thus, the role of metrics in generating an agenda that integrates perspectives beyond the purely editorial-journalistic is acknowledged: “I remember we always talked about agenda-setting, about when the media imposed the topics. That doesn’t work anymore” (interviewee #4). This could be interpreted as a way of recognizing audience interest to avoid newsroom biases, as the extensive quote above indicates. As it is clear from the last quotations, some tension appears regarding the departures from an idealized journalism as opposed to a co-production model of the profession and its place in Chilean society.
However, the same response also reveals the potential for funding and advertising that this can generate, so what initially appears as a journalistic ethos based on ‘the voice of the audience’ easily translates into a dynamic of market access and profit generation:
“(…) today we have a very good level of metrics, since they not only provide the quantity, but they also provide a breakdown of where your readers are coming from. More men or more women? In what age range? (…) it’s an excellent business tool, the fact that you can go to agencies or companies directly with a concrete document on the table that says, ‘Look, I have these many readers’”.
(interviewee #8)
Ultimately, this translates into a kind of balance between the commercial and the editorial: “(…) from an editorial and commercial perspective, visits, the number of visits will always be an extremely important figure for us (…)” (interviewee #8). This dimension of balance between editorial content and metrics even appears as a possibility for providing journalistic and investigative quality to the very interests that arise from the audiences:
“(…) it’s not exclusive; if people want a specific topic, we provide a more journalistic perspective, we delve deeper into that topic, but we also raise other issues that we want to bring to the forefront, whether or not they are popular, whether or not they align with what people want to hear at that moment (…) It has to be complementary; that is, we raise important issues, but we also understand those issues that the people want to know”.
(interviewee #8)
This point of equilibrium between audience interests—manifested in readership metrics—and the editorial perspectives of the media is also highlighted by viewpoints that emphasize the fiduciary nature of the media, as previously mentioned. In this regard, one of the interviews already presented points out the importance of the alignment between the editorial interests of the media outlet and the audience profile that the outlet itself seeks to cultivate: “(…) If the topic is editorially important and also has traffic, perfect”. (interviewee #1)
While this suggests a sort of equilibrium between the market perspective (audience metrics) and the fiduciary perspective (editorial line), it is quite evident that the emphases are different. While the quote just presented points to the construction of an audience profile by the media outlet itself, the previous quotes (interviewee #8) point more to directly gathering audience interests and giving them a more journalistic form through the investigative routines inherent to the profession: “(…) we are extremely open to people guiding us on what topics they are interested in seeing (…)”. (interviewee #8)
For some regional and local media outlets with funding difficulties, this ends up being detrimental to their editorial line, and they see readership metrics as highly detrimental to the type of journalism they would like to develop:
“[The metrics] are limiting because there are stories that could be considered journalistically sound, and the metrics say they aren’t performing and will be dropped… We see ourselves as a political outlet, but we observe that police reports are the most read. The numbers, the figures on social media, on the web, etc., are very harsh if you don’t have readership. If you don’t meet certain goals, you don’t count for advertising agencies. We are a free print publication, so we are captive to the metrics”.
(interviewee #7)
It can be seen that the editors of regional media are the ones who value metrics the most in different ways: for the preparation of the schedule, the in-depth study of certain news stories and the acquisition of sponsors.

3.3. Metrics, Information Quality, and Funding

As in the other interviews presented, the editors also offer their opinions on the audience, which, in this case, seem to be linked to sensationalism. Several of them state the difficulty of achieving a consistent editorial line, and consequently, quality journalistic content: “(…) political stories can be very good, but they penalize us, and we have to start paying a little more attention to crime stories, which can be sensationalist, can be interesting, etc., but the audience usually connects with them a lot” (interviewee #7). However, the limitations of this study, which only considers the editors’ perceptions, make it impossible to know whether the audience is truly uninterested in quality reporting. In this sense, the current research in the Chilean context may need to pay attention to this issue.
Finally, from this perspective, which envisions what we could call a kind of ‘dictatorship of metrics’, the practice of journalism ends up being trivialized and moving away from the normative standards of what are understood as ‘good journalism’: “(…) if I followed 100% what social media dictates, I would end up only publishing pictures of people dancing” (interviewee #5). In this regard, it is worth pausing to consider a more extensive quote regarding the deontological and normative codes in the practice of journalism in digital contexts:
“There are no journalistic events; what is happening is very surprising, and many journalists are resorting to sensationalizing the issues. (…) At university, I learned that journalists didn’t advertise, and today everyone advertises; everyone ultimately sells out to the market. For me, that was inconceivable; that couldn’t be done”.
(interviewee #6)
In this sense, high metrics by themselves cannot serve as an unconditional indicator of genuine audience informational needs, but at the same time, it is clear that the use of metrics puts pressure on the media’s agenda and editorial line, and also on journalistic practices themselves: “(…) data often tends to overshadow intuition (…) we rely on our journalistic training to decide which topics we want to develop or test, even without waiting for the audience to validate it beforehand” (interviewee #5). Both training and intuition are part of the dynamics that balance the commercial interest in generating audience metrics with the fiduciary dynamics of the editorial line: “(…) you must know how to combine that passion for regionalism and for communities with the arithmetic of the site. You must have a nose for that” (interviewee #9). Thus, the issue of training and ‘journalistic instinct’ emerges as part of the discussion among some interviewees regarding the limits of metrics in the newsroom. In this sense, ‘intuition’, ‘instinct’, and ‘nose’ appear as the ways in which editors deal with the metrics from the audiences and reaffirm their know-how as professional journalists.
“But you can’t act solely based on data and algorithms. It’s also necessary to innovate, break the mold, and set new trends. That instinct develops over time. I’ve been working in media -local, regional, national, in different formats-for over 30 years, and I want to transmit that instinct more quickly to my team”.
(interviewee #9)
Furthermore, the point made regarding the importance of audience metrics in local media outlets with limited reach and funding difficulties—such as the case reported by interviewee #7—is even corroborated by national media outlets. These media outlets, with greater financial capacity, are aware that their ability to generate a fiduciary perspective, where the media outlet’s editorial line prevails, is precisely because they have the financial backing to detach themselves from audience interests and position the agenda they deem relevant as a media outlet: “(…) I can afford certain luxuries. Definitely, the editorial criterion is the first of these (…) if I ran a small media outlet, I would have a completely different strategy”. (interviewee #1)
However, the interviewees also acknowledge the difficulty that well-known national media outlets with strong financial backing sometimes face in covering the topics they consider editorially important. In this sense, the tension alluded to in the main thesis of this work is reinforced once again by the editors’ perspective:
“Yes, the editorial line [of the publication] is upheld over the metrics, but I won’t lie to you: it’s difficult. It’s difficult to maintain it and, sometimes, to convince the rest of the team. It’s difficult to say: ‘Let’s do this article that will get 500 views.’ There are journalists who will say: ‘Why are we doing this if nobody’s going to see it?’ In these situations, you also must be convinced and say: ‘This is part of our role as a publication and what we want to do as an editorial line.’ You have to maintain it, even if it’s not always profitable. (…) One can sustain certain things that, perhaps, a smaller publication couldn’t”.
(interviewee #5)
In this sense, the need to ‘convince the rest of the team’ refers to one way for resolving the tension we have been shown. While it is true that the reality of regional media (small newsrooms, limited budgets, specific audiences, etc.) is very different from that of national media, and therefore it might be unfair to compare national media using the same parameters as regional media, when asked about the influence of metrics on decision-making, regional media editors strongly agree that metrics are an indispensable tool for showcasing their work to sponsors. Further research could offer a more nuanced analysis of the factors that influence editorial decisions in this type of medium.
Moreover, the finding that stronger financial conditions in publications enable a greater emphasis on public service journalism is noteworthy, as it suggests that the ideal relationship operates as a push–pull dynamic. In this regard, it is well established that, in the American context, content such as sports and entertainment has historically fulfilled a subsidizing function within U.S. media; audiences for sports coverage, for example, have made it possible to allocate resources to reporting on government proceedings and other issues related to journalism’s “watchdog” role. Whether a similar process of subsidization is possible, or has already occurred, in the Chilean context remains a question for future research.

4. Conclusions

The findings presented and the tensions mentioned confirm what previous research has indicated regarding the value of audience feedback metrics and comments, but also the difficulty of balancing these resources with journalistic intuition and the normative value of journalism and quality information (Zamith, 2018). Thus, many editors see as a risk the fact that news is no longer just ‘what journalists do’, but also what the public wants it to be (Nguyen, 2013).
Likewise, the imposition of market rules on journalism is recognized as a reality that forces many media outlets, especially smaller ones, to abandon or change editorial lines to perceive greater economic benefits associated with higher readership and clicks (Vu, 2014). In this sense, it confirms what recent research has already indicated: journalists are more likely to incorporate audience feedback when media norms and/or policies guide them in this commercial dimension (Christin, 2020; Petre, 2021; Walters, 2023).
The tension highlighted in the proposed study thus allows for a renewed discussion and debate surrounding two opposing viewpoints. One views the fact that a greater audience presence in the newsroom (through feedback and readership metrics) enhances pluralism and the inclusion of diverse voices, while the other expresses concern about the decline in content quality and a sort of dictatorship of metrics. In this regard, a question that arises is how much co-production of journalistic practice happens before the professional judgement loses all meaning and stops being grounds for autonomy? This is a topic to consider in further enquiries.
It is confirmed that while the incorporation of audience metrics can contribute to the economic sustainability of media outlets by attracting advertising investment, this dynamic significantly undermines normative journalistic practice, sometimes eroding the gatekeeper role, given the subordination of editorial decisions to digital traffic indicators. It also affects the watchdog role, compromising the selection and prioritization of content, and weakens journalism’s oversight function, especially in relation to political and economic powers.
The results of this study reveal that the structural dependence on metrics not only reconfigures the news agenda but also erodes fundamental ethical principles, including editorial independence, and commitment to the public interest. Professional practice is progressively transformed into one primarily driven by commercial criteria over normative journalistic values. This transformation is particularly acute in regional or local media outlets with limited resources, where the need to generate advertising revenue through increased traffic and engagement imposes a “dictatorship of metrics”. This leads to the trivialization of content and undermines the ability of journalism to fulfil its role as the fourth estate in democratic societies.
At the same time, the emergence of new professional roles dedicated to interpreting and acting upon analytical data may signal that the quantified view of the audience is already firmly established in the newsrooms and is even gaining further relevance (Ferrer-Conill & Tandoc, 2018). For this reason, it has become more crucial than ever for journalists to clearly distinguish between what the audience wants to know and what it needs to know (Tandoc & Thomas, 2015; Focás, 2023). Although the issue of how to strike a balance within the editorial field remains open (Rebillard & Touboul, 2010; Usher, 2012), one certainty is that the role of journalists is still undergoing adaptation and transformation (Anderson, 2011).
This study has limitations. By focusing solely on the perspective of some editors, it leaves out other dimensions such as, for example, an ethnographic study of the newsroom with its routines, focus groups with audiences, content analysis of publications and written editorial policies, which would clearly enrich the study and are the subject of subsequent research. Moreover, the problem outlined here can be examined through additional theoretical approaches that further underscore the importance of editors’ and journalists’ discourse and its connection to journalistic practice. In this regard, theoretical work on metajournalistic discourse (Carlson, 2016), as well as its relationship to the problem of journalistic authority (Carlson, 2017) and the struggles over journalistic ways of knowing (Carlson, 2025), offers promising avenues for further exploration of this topic.

Author Contributions

The corresponding author (F.G.G.) worked on the writing of the introduction, theoretical framework and Methodology. She also worked on the application of software, formal analysis, investigation, data curation and preparing the original draft. The other two authors (E.G.K. and C.M.C.) worked equally on the application of software, formal analysis, investigation, data curation and preparing the original draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo de Chile under Grant PLU240002.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Universidad de los Andes, Chile, protocol code CEC2025010, 4 April 2025.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data related with this research can be found at https://hdl.handle.net/10533/86023 (accessed on 12 January 2026).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Anderson, C. W. (2011). Between creative and quantified audiences: Web metrics and changing patterns of newswork in local US newsrooms. Journalism, 12(5), 550–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Anderson, C. W., Bell, E., & Shirky, C. (2015). Post-industrial journalism: Adapting to the present. Geopolitics, History & International Relations, 7(2), 32. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bastos, M. T. (2014). Shares, pins, and tweets. Journalism Studies, 16(3), 305–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Belair-Gagnon, V., Zamith, R., & Holton, A. E. (2020). Role orientations and audience metrics in newsrooms: An examination of journalistic perceptions and their drivers. Digital Journalism, 8(3), 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bennett, W. L. (2003). The internet and global activism. In Contesting media power: Alternative media in a networked world (pp. 17–37). Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar]
  6. Boczkowski, P. J. (2010). News at work: Imitation in an age of information abundance. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  7. Boczkowski, P. J., Mitchelstein, E., & Walter, M. (2011). Convergence across divergence: Understanding the gap in the online news choices of journalists and consumers in western Europe and Latin America. Communication Research, 38(3), 376–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bruns, A. (2011a). Gatekeeping, gatewatching, real-time feedback: New challenges for journalism. Brazilian Journalism Research, 7(2), 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bruns, A. (2011b). News produsage in a pro-am mediasphere: Why citizen journalism matters. In News online: Transformations and continuities (pp. 132–147). Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carlson, M. (2016). Metajournalistic discourse and the meanings of journalism: Definitional control, boundary work, and legitimation. Communication Theory, 26(4), 349–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Carlson, M. (2017). Journalistic authority: Legitimating news in the digital era. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlson, M. (2025). Epistemic contests in journalism: Examining struggles over journalistic ways of knowing. Digital Journalism, 13(3), 362–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chakraborty, A., Paranjape, B., Kakarla, S., & Ganguly, N. (2016). Stop clickbait: Detecting and preventing clickbaits in online news media. In 2016 IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining (ASONAM) (pp. 9–16). IEEE. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Christin, A. (2020). Metrics at work: Journalism and the contested meaning of algorithms. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  17. Deuze, M. (2008). Understanding journalism as newswork: How it changes, and how it remains the same. Westminster Papers In Communication and Culture, 5(2), 4–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Domingo, D., Quandt, T., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Singer, J. B., & Vujnovic, M. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond. Journalism Practice, 2(3), 326–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Elsheikh, D., Jackson, D., & Jebril, N. (2024). The power of numbers: Four ways metrics are transforming the news. Digital Journalism, 12(8), 1165–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ferrer-Conill, R., & Tandoc, E. C. (2018). The audience-oriented editor. Digital Journalism, 6(4), 436–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ferrucci, P. (2020). It is in the numbers: How market orientation impacts journalists’ use of news metrics. Journalism, 21(2), 244–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ferrucci, P., & Painter, C. E. (2016). Market matters. Critical Studies in Television the International Journal of Television Studies, 11(1), 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Focás, B. M. (2023). Audience editors: Between metrics and journalistic routines. Universitas XXI, 39, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fuchs, C. (2010). Alternative media as critical media. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(2), 173–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what’s news: Story suitability. Society, 16(3), 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gans, H. J. (2004). Democracy and the news. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27(4), 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. González-Trujillo, R., Olate-Hidalgo, C., & Grassau, D. (2023). Impacto del entorno digital en los medios tradicionales chilenos: Percepciones y actitudes predominantes de sus protagonistas. Palabra Clave, 25(4), 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Goode, L. (2009). Social news, citizen journalism and democracy. New Media & Society, 11(8), 1287–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Greene, M. F., Lecaros, M. J., & Diez, M. F. C. (2022). Medios de prensa digitales en Chile: Influencia del editor y de la audiencia en la reunión de pauta. Cuadernos Info, 51, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Greene-González, M. F., & Lecaros-Menéndez, M. J. (2015). El trabajo del editor y la pauta en medios online chilenos. Palabra Clave, 18(2). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gronemeyer, M. E. (2013). Digitalization and its effect on journalism products and practices in Chile. Palabra Clave, 16(1), 101–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Harrington, S. (2008). Popular news in the 21st century time for a new critical approach? Journalism, 9(3), 266–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hirst, M. (2011). News 2.0. can journalism survive the internet? Allen & Unwin. [Google Scholar]
  35. Jofré Larenas, C. O. (2015). Journalism and news cultures: Journalistic practices and online media in the Chilean newsroom [Doctoral dissertation, Monash University]. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, A. M., Lewis, S. C., & Powers, M. (2014). Audience clicks and news placement: A study of timelagged influence in online journalism. Communication Research, 41(4), 505–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, E., & Tandoc, E. C. (2017). When news meets the audience: How audience feedback online affects news production and consumption. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 436–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lewis, S. C., Holton, A. E., & Coddington, M. (2014). Reciprocal journalism. Journalism Practice, 8(2), 229–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Loosen, W., & Schmidt, J. (2012). (Re-) discovering the audience. Information Communication & Society, 15(6), 867–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. MacGregor, P. (2007). Tracking the online audience: Metric data start a subtle revolution. Journalism Studies, 8(2), 280–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. McChesney, R. D. (2004). The problem of the media: US communication politics in the twenty-first century. NYU Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. McManus, J. H. (1994). Market driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Sage. [Google Scholar]
  43. Miller, S. (2019). Citizen journalism. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Morris, J. W. (2015). Curation by code: Infomediaries and the data mining of taste. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 446–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Neheli, N. B. (2018). News by numbers. Digital Journalism, 6(8), 1041–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nguyen, A. (2013). Online news audiences: The challenges of web metrics. In K. Fowler-Watt, & S. Allan (Eds.), Journalism: New challenges (pp. 146–161). Bournemouth University. [Google Scholar]
  47. Örnebring, H., & Jönsson, A. M. (2004). Tabloid journalism and the public sphere: A historical perspective on tabloid journalism. Journalism Studies, 5(3), 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Petre, C. (2021). All the news that’s fit to click: How metrics are transforming the work of journalists. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Preston, P. (2009). Making the news. In Journalism and news cultures in Europe. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  50. Puente, S., Edwards, C., & Delpiano, M. O. (2014). Modelamiento de los aspectos intervinientes en el proceso de pauta periodística. Palabra Clave, 17(1), 188–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rebillard, F., & Touboul, A. (2010). Promises unfulfilled? ‘Journalism 2.0’, user participation and editorial policy on newspaper websites. Media Culture & Society, 32(2), 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Salinas Muñoz, C., & Stange Marcus, H. (2015). Burocratización de las rutinas profesionales de los periodistas en Chile (1975–2005). Cuadernos.info, (37), 121–135. [Google Scholar]
  53. Schlesinger, P. (1978). Putting «reality» together: BBC news. Available online: https://archive.org/details/puttingrealityto0000schl_f9q9 (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  54. Schudson, M. (2003). Click here for democracy: A history and critique of an information-based model of citizenship. In The MIT press eBooks (pp. 49–60). MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shoemaker, P. J., & Vos, T. (2009). Gatekeeping theory. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Singer, J. B. (2005). The political j-blogger. Journalism, 6(2), 173–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Singer, J. B. (2013). User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space. New Media & Society, 16(1), 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Steensen, S. (2009). What’s stopping them? Journalism Studies, 10(6), 821–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tandoc, E. C. (2014). Journalism is twerking? How web analytics is changing the process of gatekeeping. New Media & Society, 16(4), 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tandoc, E. C., & Ferrucci, P. R. (2017). Giving in or giving up: What makes journalists use audience feedback in their news work? Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tandoc, E. C., Hellmueller, L., & Vos, T. P. (2012). Mind the gap: Between journalistic role conception and role enactment. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 539–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tandoc, E. C., & Thomas, R. J. (2015). The ethics of web analytics. Digital Journalism, 3(2), 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Turner, G. (1999). Tabloidization, journalism and the possibility of critique. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2(1), 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Usher, N. (2012). Going web-first at the Christian science monitor: A three-part study of change. International Journal of Communication, 6, 20. [Google Scholar]
  65. Usher, N. (2018). Breaking news production processes in US metropolitan newspapers: Immediacy and journalistic authority. Journalism, 19(1), 21–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Vobič, I. (2015). From one-man band to integrated newsroom. Journalism Studies, 16(2), 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Vu, H. T. (2014). The online audience as gatekeeper: The influence of reader metrics on news editorial selection. Journalism, 15(8), 1094–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Walters, P. T. (2023). Pushing for social change: How collaborations are recalibrating the journalistic mission. Journalism Practice, 19(2), 321–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Welbers, K., Van Atteveldt, W., Kleinnijenhuis, J., Ruigrok, N., & Schaper, J. (2016). News selection criteria in the digital age: Professional norms versus online audience metrics. Journalism, 17(8), 1037–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Whitney, D. C., & Ettema, J. S. (1994). Audiencemaking: How the media create the audience. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zaller, J. (1999). A theory of media politics: How the interests of politicians, journalists, and citizens shape the news. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zamith, R. (2018). Quantified audiences in news production. Digital Journalism, 6(4), 418–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Principal digital media in Chile and its five most populous cities.
Table 1. Principal digital media in Chile and its five most populous cities.
MediumPlatform and CoverageInterviewee RoleYear EstablishedDefinition of Their Position Made by ThemselvesEstimated Monthly Visits and Average Visit DurationMain Metrics UsedSocial Media
EMOLDigital native, NationalGeneral Editor1999Ultimately responsible for the content of the media outlet43.49 million, 2 min 30Google Analytics and Real Time (El Mercurio’s internal system)Not used
La Tercera Online (latercera.com)Legacy, NationalGeneral Editor1996Responsible for decision-making in the media outlet18.42 million, 1 min 10Marfil.Instagram and X
Bío Bío Chile (biobiochile.cl)Legacy, NationalDirector2010Responsible for selecting, reviewing, correcting and organizing the media content33.67 million, 2 min 37Google Analytics, Similar Web, SEMrush and ComScoreFacebook, Instagram, X, YouTube, TikTok and 3 WhatsApp broadcasts
chilevision.clLegacy, National and InternationalEditor1997Professional who decides which stories are published and assigns tasks to journalists44.67 million, 2 min 53Google Analytics, ChartbeatComScore and Similar WebX, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Twitch and Kik
megamedia.clLegacy, National and InternationalGeneral Editor2010Professional who verifies the accuracy and originality of the information and supervises the closing of the edition and ensures compliance with deadlines55.16 million, 1 min 32 (MEGANOTICIAS); 109.777 million, 55 s (Megamedia.cl)Marfil, Similar Web, Com Score and SproutInstagram, Facebook, X and TikTok
diarioeldia.clLegacy, Regional (Serena)Digital journalist and editor1999Journalist responsible for the journalistic decisions made in the media outlet879.580, 53 sGoogle AnalyticsFacebook and Instagram
eltipografo.clLegacy, Regional (Rancagua)Editor2009Professional who decides which stories are published and assigns tasks to journalists149.819, 5 minGoogle AnalyticsFacebook, X and TikTok
timeline.clDigital Native, Regional (Antofagasta)Director2023Professional who ensures the quality and veracity of the news published in the media136.504, 29 sJetpack, Google Analytics and Similar WebWhatsApp
G5noticias.clDigital Native, Regional (Valparaíso) and nationalDirector2020Responsible for the quality of the news126.205, 29 sGoogle Analytics and MetaX and YouTube
araucaniadiario.clDigital Native, Regional (Araucanía)Editor2019Responsible for decision-making in the media outlet47.160, 39 sGoogle Analytics and MetaFacebook, Instagram and X
Source: Authors’ Own Elaboration.
Table 2. Codebook.
Table 2. Codebook.
CODE AND DECODING
1. TENSION BETWEEN AUDIENCE INTERESTS AND EDITORIAL LINES
Constant conflict and negotiation between publishing what attracts the most public interest and maintaining the content that the media outlet considers to be of informative quality.
Subcodes and decoding
1.1 Editorial Line:
Positions that a media outlet takes on general issues (such as the economy or politics) or specific/current issues.		1.2 Editorial Decisions:
Choices that impact both the selection of the news agenda and the content of the information.		1.3 Use of Metrics:
Digital analytics tools that measure the impact of content and reveal how users consume it (who, what, when, from where and with what level of interaction).		1.4 Audience Feedback:
Explicit (comments, reactions, messages, shares) or implicit (time spent on the website, clicks, reach) responses from users regarding journalistic content, obtained through consumption metrics.
CODE AND DECODING
2. HANDLING OF SOCIAL MEDIA
The way in which the media outlet selects, adapts, and distributes its content on platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok.
Subcodes and Decoding
2.1 Social Media Editor:
Professional in charge of adapting and selecting content for digital platforms (in accordance with the editorial line of the media outlet), as well as interpreting audience behavior and providing feedback to the editorial guideline with the content that generates the most interest.
CODE AND DECODING
3. USE OF DIGITAL PLATFORMS (chronological order)
Spaces for disseminating and circulating content on the internet.
Subcodes and Decoding
3.1 Facebook:
Platform (2004) oriented towards sharing and commenting on content, used by the media to disseminate news and reach, mainly, adult audiences (30+).		3.2 X:
Platform (2006) for real-time public conversation, used by the media to provide immediate coverage, follow contingencies and detect emerging issues in the social and political debate, with the participation of adults between 25 and 45 years old and opinion leaders predominating.		3.3 Instagram:
A social network (2010) focused on the publication and exchange of visual content (images and videos), used by the media for short and engaging stories, especially to capture the attention of young adult audiences.		3.4 TikTok:
Platform (2016) of short videos aimed at young people, where the media adapt news to fast and dynamic visual formats to facilitate connection and understanding.
CODE AND DECODING
4. GENERATION AND BROADENING OF CONTENT RESPONDING TO AUDIENCE FEEDBACK
Process in which the media deepen or continue coverage of a particular topic, after observing high interest or interaction from the audience.
CODE AND DECODING
5. ECONOMIC COSTS/BENEFITS OF INCORPORATING AUDIENCES
Financial impact (negative and positive) of adjusting journalistic content according to what the audience consumes.
Subcodes and Decoding
5.1 Costs5.2 Benefits
Risk of depending on immediate traffic, which can weaken the quality of information and consistency with the media outlet’s editorial line.Increased traffic, reach, and engagement, boosting the media outlet’s visibility and revenue, as well as strengthening its ability to attract advertising and funding in the short and medium term.
CODE AND DECODING
6. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERIZATION
Audience description according to age, gender, geographic location, access platform and consumption habits.
CODE AND DECODING
7. COMMENTS AND SOCIAL POLARIZATION
User interaction through comments, which can intensify conflicts, aggressive speech, and misinformation.
CODE AND DECODING
8. JOURNALISTIC WORK AND ROUTINES
Daily and continuous processes, where journalists and editors produce, adjust and distribute content.
Subcodes and Decoding
8.1 Editor–journalist relationship8.2 Editor’s role8.3 Professional quality8.4 Multiplatform integration
Collaborative link in which the editor directs and prioritizes, while the journalist proposes and reports.Professional responsible for guiding, selecting and prioritizing content.Capacity, both of the medium and of its journalists, to maintain standards of rigor and informative relevance.Adapting journalistic content to different platforms (social networks, websites and print version), adjusting the language and format.
Source: Authors’ Own Elaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Greene González, F.; Gallegos Krause, E.; Muñoz Catalán, C. The Medium’s Agenda or the Audience’s Clicks? Tensions Between Editorial Lines and Audience Interests According to the Editors of Digital Media in Chile. Journal. Media 2026, 7, 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7010057

AMA Style

Greene González F, Gallegos Krause E, Muñoz Catalán C. The Medium’s Agenda or the Audience’s Clicks? Tensions Between Editorial Lines and Audience Interests According to the Editors of Digital Media in Chile. Journalism and Media. 2026; 7(1):57. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7010057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Greene González, Francisca, Eduardo Gallegos Krause, and Cristian Muñoz Catalán. 2026. "The Medium’s Agenda or the Audience’s Clicks? Tensions Between Editorial Lines and Audience Interests According to the Editors of Digital Media in Chile" Journalism and Media 7, no. 1: 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7010057

APA Style

Greene González, F., Gallegos Krause, E., & Muñoz Catalán, C. (2026). The Medium’s Agenda or the Audience’s Clicks? Tensions Between Editorial Lines and Audience Interests According to the Editors of Digital Media in Chile. Journalism and Media, 7(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7010057

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop