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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a timely and well-conceived qualitative study exploring the tension between editorial autonomy and audience metrics in Chilean digital newsrooms. The research is solidly grounded in relevant theoretical frameworks, employs a sound methodological design with clear research questions, and draws upon a rich interview dataset. The core argument—that financial capacity critically determines whether media outlets can uphold a fiduciary model or are forced into a market-driven one—is compelling and well-supported by the data.

However, the article’s structure requires refinement to maximize its impact. The theoretical exposition, while thorough, is disproportionately lengthy compared to the relatively concise presentation of empirical results. A more detailed and systematic thematic breakdown of findings—perhaps distinctly comparing national and regional outlets—would strengthen the analysis before moving into the integrated discussion. Additionally, a minor clarification is needed regarding the scope, as the sample includes broadcast-affiliated digital platforms, whereas the title specifies "digital newspapers."

Overall, the study makes a valuable contribution, and its conclusions are insightful and thoroughly substantiated. Addressing these structural and presentational issues would enhance the manuscript's clarity, balance, and scholarly rigor, positioning it for successful publication.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the valuable feedback on our work. We welcomed all of it and made the necessary changes. We hope the study is now stronger.

Comments 1: The article’s structure requires refinement to maximize its impact. The theoretical exposition, while thorough, is disproportionately lengthy compared to the relatively concise presentation of empirical results.

Response 1: The theoretical framework was reduced. Phrases that will be eliminated because they do not contribute to the research are indicated in green.

Comments 2: A more detailed and systematic thematic breakdown of findings—perhaps distinctly comparing national and regional outlets—would strengthen the analysis before moving into the integrated discussion.

Response 2: We've included subheadings to the results analysis to make it easier to read. Additionally, after each topic, we've included a comparison between local and national media.

Comments 3: A minor clarification is needed regarding the scope, as the sample includes broadcast-affiliated digital platforms, whereas the title specifies "digital newspapers."

Response 3: Yes, we are talking about "digital media" and not "digital newspapers." We changed the word "newspapers" to "media" whenever it appeared.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed topic undoubtedly presents interest in the context of transformations in editorial practices, reorientation of media markets, implementation of artificial intelligence, and other developments. In this context, examining editors' perspectives can provide researchers with valuable factual material for analysis. At the same time, several conceptual questions emerge during the reading that require clarification.

1. Methodology

The stated problem of balancing a media outlet's editorial policy with audience orientation represents a complex phenomenon that cannot be studied using a single-method approach and, it appears, requires the application of mixed methodology. Declared editorial policy may diverge from actual practice, and in this context, the absence of observational methods for editorial processes may limit the comprehensiveness of the analysis (as the authors themselves mention). Supplementing interviews with other methods (such as analysis of editorial documents, minutes of editorial meetings, or observation of decision-making processes, if such data are available) could enrich the study and enhance its validity.

2. Regarding the conceptual framework, the categories employed by the authors require clarification. The term "audience interests" is somewhat ambiguous. It would be advisable to specify what exactly is meant by this term within the framework of this study: increased metrics (reach, engagement), actual participation in article writing and topic suggestion, or latent audience needs that may exist but are not articulated or manifested in behavioral indicators.

Similarly, the category "editorial policy" requires clarification: does the study analyze formal documents, informal practices, declared values, or implemented editorial behavior? More precise operationalization of these key concepts would contribute to enhancing the methodological rigor of the work.

3. On p. 2, it is stated that audience commenting on articles is the cause of transformation in editorial practices. However, it appears that this factor may influence the tone of content perception rather than directly affect editorial decisions regarding material selection.

4. Even in very trusting communication, parties cannot ensure complete objectivity in their assessments. Declared editorial policy may diverge from implemented practices, and stated values from actual policy. Therefore, such assertions require cross-verification through the application of supplementary methods, such as analysis of editorial documents and minutes, observation of editorial meetings, and interviews with rank-and-file journalists. This would enhance the reliability of the obtained data.

5. The selection of directors as primary informants requires additional justification, since their functional responsibilities typically include management, and many newsrooms operate under the principle of non-interference by leadership in the immediate editorial process. In this context, analysis of existing editorial policies in the studied media could provide a clearer understanding of the functional responsibilities of interview participants and the mechanisms by which they make decisions (p. 4).

It is also worth clarifying the criteria by which particular editors were selected. As the authors themselves rightly note, the analyzed media have access to different platforms (Facebook, TikTok, YouTube). The nature of the content, its presentation, and even the subject matter will vary across different platforms. For example, clickbait headlines can be used to attract traffic to a website, while TikTok or YouTube require different approaches and topics. Consequently, an editor may declare professionalism and a fiduciary approach on one platform and a more market-oriented approach on another, or adhere to a fiduciary approach in high-profile political and investigative materials and a market-oriented approach in entertainment content. Therefore, if the interview was conducted with the editor responsible for the news feed, the results will be one thing, and with the social media editor, something else entirely. This needs to be explained more clearly.

6. The authors use the phrase "dictatorship of metrics," examining its influence primarily on thematic content selection. However, practice demonstrates that metrics and reach may more significantly influence content presentation formats rather than agenda-setting. In large media outlets, detailed categorization allows for presenting a broad thematic palette of materials and, consequently, satisfying the demands of various audience segments without compromising attention retention through personalization algorithms in the website infrastructure. Moreover, high metrics by themselves cannot serve as an unconditional indicator of genuine audience informational needs.

7. The authors discuss newsrooms' choice between fiduciary or market approaches. However, this appears to be a false dichotomy. Empirical reality may be more complex, including hybrid models that differ across platforms and thematic departments, change depending on the situation, or are segmented, where different media divisions operate according to their own rules.

8. As for the comparison of national and regional media, it can be viewed as a proxy variable that hides other factors. Based on such a comparison, differences can be identified, but not necessarily their causes, since these may lie in media thematic specialization, characteristics of audiences in specific regions, so-called news deserts, newsroom size and composition, level of trust in the media brand, ownership structure, limited budgets, etc. Although ownership structure is separately highlighted by the authors in a table, the sample based on the presented criteria is not entirely homogeneous, which may complicate obtaining empirically objective results.

In this regard, the comparison of national and regional media, where the authors conclude that metrics have a predominant influence on regional outlets, could benefit from a more detailed analysis of the reasons for this phenomenon. Is it truly only a matter of budgetary financial constraints, or do other factors also play a role?

9. The article attributes certain characteristics to the audience, such as not consider the importance of quality journalism (p. 10, l. 308–310); however, such conclusions are difficult to substantiate without direct study of the audience itself. Is this really due to a rejection of quality journalism, or could the problem lie in the format in which the information is presented? What empirical data supports this? Perhaps there are segments of the audience willing to pay for trustworthy journalism—do the media take this into account? Focus groups with audience representatives could shed light on this issue.

10. On page 11, line 391, it says that “this leads to trivialization of content.” On what basis do the authors draw this conclusion?

11.The article would have benefited greatly if the authors had not only highlighted the problem, but also described, based on the results of interviews, how editors deal with the dilemma described at the level of editorial protocols and policies, how decisions are made about publishing certain content (including comparisons with objective data from real-world practice). If the results obtained allow, it would be useful to describe in more detail the organizational procedures and communication practices used to transform audience data into editorial decisions, as well as the economic and organizational resources that enable individual editorial offices to remain autonomous from the pressure of metrics. This would greatly enrich the study.

Overall, the research topic is undoubtedly relevant and of considerable interest for understanding the transformation of media practices. At the same time, in the context of this study, it resonates not so much as a problem as an insoluble dilemma, the mechanisms for understanding and resolving which require further clarification. Depending on the volume of data obtained and the objectives of the article, the authors may wish to limit their attention to describing the professional discourse of media editors on the influence of metrics, avoiding conclusions that require additional empirical confirmation.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate all of this reviewer's comments. We have incorporated all of your suggestions to enrich the article.

Comments 1:

Methodology

The stated problem of balancing a media outlet's editorial policy with audience orientation represents a complex phenomenon that cannot be studied using a single-method approach and, it appears, requires the application of mixed methodology. Declared editorial policy may diverge from actual practice, and in this context, the absence of observational methods for editorial processes may limit the comprehensiveness of the analysis (as the authors themselves mention). Supplementing interviews with other methods (such as analysis of editorial documents, minutes of editorial meetings, or observation of decision-making processes, if such data are available) could enrich the study and enhance its validity.

Response 1: we have incorporated as a limitation of the study the impossibility of working with other methods; this will remain as an encouragement for continuing the research. Besides, the absence of formal editorial policies in the Chilean context has been added to the text as an explanation for the emphasis given to the editor’s interviews.

Comments 2: Regarding the conceptual framework, the categories employed by the authors require clarification. The term "audience interests" is somewhat ambiguous. It would be advisable to specify what exactly is meant by this term within the framework of this study: increased metrics (reach, engagement), actual participation in article writing and topic suggestion, or latent audience needs that may exist but are not articulated or manifested in behavioral indicators.

Similarly, the category "editorial policy" requires clarification: does the study analyze formal documents, informal practices, declared values, or implemented editorial behavior? More precise operationalization of these key concepts would contribute to enhancing the methodological rigor of the work.

Response 2: In the introduction we have explained what we will understand in this study by the concepts of audience interest and editorial policy.

Comments 3: On p. 2, it is stated that audience commenting on articles is the cause of transformation in editorial practices. However, it appears that this factor may influence the tone of content perception rather than directly affect editorial decisions regarding material selection.

Response 3: the evidence derived from interviews with editors clearly demonstrates the ways in which editorial decision-making process are placed under strain in response to audience feedback and readership metrics. We do not think in these matters as a strict dichotomy and neither in a manichean way. Instead, it is about the “tensions” regarding the two main models of fiduciary and market driven journalism. We have added some comments in this regard and the reviewer can note in page 17 how, for instance, the interviewee #8 propose the idea of a “balance” between audience interest and editorial perspectives.

Comments 4: Even in very trusting communication, parties cannot ensure complete objectivity in their assessments. Declared editorial policy may diverge from implemented practices, and stated values from actual policy. Therefore, such assertions require cross-verification through the application of supplementary methods, such as analysis of editorial documents and minutes, observation of editorial meetings, and interviews with rank-and-file journalists. This would enhance the reliability of the obtained data.

Response 4: Indeed, we believe this observation is very pertinent. We have included an explanation in the conclusions, in a paragraph, regarding the limitations of this study.

Comments 5: The selection of directors as primary informants requires additional justification, since their functional responsibilities typically include management, and many newsrooms operate under the principle of non-interference by leadership in the immediate editorial process. In this context, analysis of existing editorial policies in the studied media could provide a clearer understanding of the functional responsibilities of interview participants and the mechanisms by which they make decisions (p. 4).

It is also worth clarifying the criteria by which particular editors were selected. As the authors themselves rightly note, the analyzed media have access to different platforms (Facebook, TikTok, YouTube). The nature of the content, its presentation, and even the subject matter will vary across different platforms. For example, clickbait headlines can be used to attract traffic to a website, while TikTok or YouTube require different approaches and topics. Consequently, an editor may declare professionalism and a fiduciary approach on one platform and a more market-oriented approach on another, or adhere to a fiduciary approach in high-profile political and investigative materials and a market-oriented approach in entertainment content. Therefore, if the interview was conducted with the editor responsible for the news feed, the results will be one thing, and with the social media editor, something else entirely. This needs to be explained more clearly.

Response 5: In the introduction, we explained how the role of the editor is understood in Chilean media, referencing previous studies on editors in Chile. Likewise, in Table 1, we included a column in which the interviewed editors defined their role within the media. This information in the methodology section clarifies that the functions of the interviewed editors are quite homogeneous; therefore, their responses are comparable.

Comments 6: The authors use the phrase "dictatorship of metrics," examining its influence primarily on thematic content selection. However, practice demonstrates that metrics and reach may more significantly influence content presentation formats rather than agenda-setting. In large media outlets, detailed categorization allows for presenting a broad thematic palette of materials and, consequently, satisfying the demands of various audience segments without compromising attention retention through personalization algorithms in the website infrastructure. Moreover, high metrics by themselves cannot serve as an unconditional indicator of genuine audience informational needs.

Response 6: the evidence emerging from the interviews with editors highlights the tension between audience opinion and editorial decision-making. See, in this regard, the excerpts presented on page 18. However, the reviewer is correct in noting that high metrics by themselves cannot serve as an unconditional indicator of genuine audience informational needs, and we have therefore incorporated this statement into the discussion.

Comments 7: The authors discuss newsrooms' choice between fiduciary or market approaches. However, this appears to be a false dichotomy. Empirical reality may be more complex, including hybrid models that differ across platforms and thematic departments, change depending on the situation, or are segmented, where different media divisions operate according to their own rules.

Response 7: 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. It´s explained in the Inroduction.

Comments 8: As for the comparison of national and regional media, it can be viewed as a proxy variable that hides other factors. Based on such a comparison, differences can be identified, but not necessarily their causes, since these may lie in media thematic specialization, characteristics of audiences in specific regions, so-called news deserts, newsroom size and composition, level of trust in the media brand, ownership structure, limited budgets, etc. Although ownership structure is separately highlighted by the authors in a table, the sample based on the presented criteria is not entirely homogeneous, which may complicate obtaining empirically objective results.

In this regard, the comparison of national and regional media, where the authors conclude that metrics have a predominant influence on regional outlets, could benefit from a more detailed analysis of the reasons for this phenomenon. Is it truly only a matter of budgetary financial constraints, or do other factors also play a role?

Response 8: While it's true that the reality of regional media is very different from that of national media (small newsrooms, limited budgets, specific audiences, etc.), 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 media. This new paragraph is included in the results.

Comments 9: The article attributes certain characteristics to the audience, such as not consider the importance of quality journalism (p. 10, l. 308–310); however, such conclusions are difficult to substantiate without direct study of the audience itself. Is this really due to a rejection of quality journalism, or could the problem lie in the format in which the information is presented? What empirical data supports this? Perhaps there are segments of the audience willing to pay for trustworthy journalism—do the media take this into account? Focus groups with audience representatives could shed light on this issue.

Response 9: We amended this paragraph to state that some editors' perceptions of audiences suggest that they may not value the quality of information. And, in the conclusions, we added that a more comprehensive study would include focus groups, which represents a limitation of this study.

Comments 10: On page 11, line 391, it says that “this leads to trivialization of content.” On what basis do the authors draw this conclusion?

Response 10: in comment 10 the reviewer questions the basis on which we assert the “trivialization of content” resulting from the tension between the market-driven model and the fiduciary one. This is clearly reflected in the discourse of the editors: “(...) if I followed 100% what social media dictates, I would end up only publishing pictures of people dancing” (interviewee #5), and “(...) 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). Both excerpts are presented as part of the discussion of the findings on page 18 of the manuscript.

Comments 11: The article would have benefited greatly if the authors had not only highlighted the problem, but also described, based on the results of interviews, how editors deal with the dilemma described at the level of editorial protocols and policies, how decisions are made about publishing certain content (including comparisons with objective data from real-world practice). If the results obtained allow, it would be useful to describe in more detail the organizational procedures and communication practices used to transform audience data into editorial decisions, as well as the economic and organizational resources that enable individual editorial offices to remain autonomous from the pressure of metrics. This would greatly enrich the study.

Response 11: with regard to this comment, in which the reviewer suggests that the issue appears rather as an irresolvable dilemma, we believe we have accounted for the ways in which—drawing on the editors’ own discourse—the challenge of audience metrics is addressed within the newsroom and editorial desk. See, for instance, the reference to “journalistic instinct and intuition” discussed on page 18 of the manuscript. Likewise, the final excerpt prior to the conclusions illustrates a further way in which this issue is managed. In both sections, we have added clarifying sentences to make explicit that these constitute strategies through which newsroom and editorial staff attempt to cope with the question of audience feedback.

Comments 12: Overall, the research topic is undoubtedly relevant and of considerable interest for understanding the transformation of media practices. At the same time, in the context of this study, it resonates not so much as a problem as an insoluble dilemma, the mechanisms for understanding and resolving which require further clarification. Depending on the volume of data obtained and the objectives of the article, the authors may wish to limit their attention to describing the professional discourse of media editors on the influence of metrics, avoiding conclusions that require additional empirical confirmation.

Response 12: we have taken the reviewer’s observation into account and have removed from the manuscript any references to the situation or condition of the audience that are not grounded in the editors’ discourse. This has been done in order to avoid making claims that lack empirical support.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, “The Medium’s Agenda or the Audience’s Clicks? Tensions between Editorial Lines and Audience Interests according to the Editors of Digital Newspapers in Chile” for Journalism and Media.

The effects of metrics on news judgment and professional autonomy are a topic of growing importance and I was pleased to see this explored in a context outside the global north. I like the overall grounding in Schudson’s view of the two different types of journalism and that framework carries through the full paper. The data presented through quotations is rich and answers the questions. From my own perspective, I was interested in the ways the editors try to address this changing situation through the perspective of departures from an idealized journalism as opposed to a co-production model of the profession and its place in the Chilean society. Matt Carlson’s work on meta-journalistic discourse provides another lens to think about this.

I think the conclusions here speak to another set of questions that I might like to see posed near the end, if not answered. The relationship between financial models and news judgement is not a new question and goes back for as long as the industry has existed. In the pre-digital era journalistic practice relied on a silent or presumed audience. Journalists claimed control over telling them what they were supposed to care about because the couldn’t tell us. The finding that stronger financial situations in publications allow for more public service work is interesting because it suggests the ideal relationship is a push-pull set-up. I know in the American context that content like sports and entertainment has historically maintained a subsidization function in U.S. media; the audiences for sports coverage made it possible to send reporters to more government meetings. How much co-production of journalistic practice happens before the professional judgement loses all meaning and stops being a grounds for autonomy.

 

I really did enjoy reading this and wish the authors the best of luck.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the valuable feedback on our work. We welcomed all of it and made the necessary changes. We hope the study is now stronger.

Comments:

I was interested in the ways the editors try to address this changing situation through the perspective of departures from an idealized journalism as opposed to a co-production model of the profession and its place in the Chilean society. Matt Carlson’s work on meta-journalistic discourse provides another lens to think about this.

I think the conclusions here speak to another set of questions that I might like to see posed near the end, if not answered. The relationship between financial models and news judgement is not a new question and goes back for as long as the industry has existed. In the pre-digital era journalistic practice relied on a silent or presumed audience. Journalists claimed control over telling them what they were supposed to care about because the couldn’t tell us. The finding that stronger financial situations in publications allow for more public service work is interesting because it suggests the ideal relationship is a push-pull set-up. I know in the American context that content like sports and entertainment has historically maintained a subsidization function in U.S. media; the audiences for sports coverage made it possible to send reporters to more government meetings. How much co-production of journalistic practice happens before the professional judgement loses all meaning and stops being a grounds for autonomy.

Response: we are very pleased with the way this reviewer captured from the article’s “the ways editors try to address the changing situation through the perspective of departures from an idealized journalism as opposed to a co-production model of the profession and its place in the Chilean society”. In addition to that, we have added the references to Carlson work as a way to provide another lens for future research in order to reinterpretate the results from another perspective. We have also found really compelling the reference to the American context to understand the subsidization from highly read sections (sports, entertainment) to others related to the public role of journalism, if these kind of financial strategies are already taken place or can be considered to the future in the Chilean context remains as a question to answer in further researches.