Journalism must meet different interests – social, economic, profession-based, and audience-based. Norwegian media researcher Ragnhild Kristine Olsen has created a value matrix for studying journalistic value creation and editorial choices in an increasingly complex media landscape where commercial incentives and social mission often conflict, and professional and audience needs are at times divided.
Ragnhild Kr. Olsen, recent co-editor with Mona K. Solvoll of Innovation Through Crisis: Journalism and News Media in Transition, published by Nordicom, has recently published an article, “Verdimatrisen – et konseptuelt rammeverk for journalistisk verdiskaping” [“The value matrix – a conceptual framework for journalistic value creation”] in Norsk Medietidskrift. Kristin Clay, manuscript editor at Nordicom, took an interest and sat down with Ragnhild to discuss the implications of her research.
Kristin Clay (KC): You begin by noting the increasing tension between commercial and social values and how audience data is being extensively used as guidance in editorial decisions. Coming from a North American background myself – witnessing the erosion of the little bit of social mission that we may have had at one point – it concerns me to see the Nordic countries gradually progressing toward the model of prioritising commercial interests over social mission. What is your take on this? Do you think the social mission and public service tradition in the Nordics is strong enough to withstand the commercial pressure?
Ragnhild Kr. Olsen (RO): In the Nordic countries, we are in many ways fortunate to have commercial media with high professional integrity, well-functioning press support schemes, and strong public broadcasters that reinforce the media’s role in serving society. Additionally, we have both educational institutions and professional organisations that contribute to maintaining high journalistic standards. These are important factors in safeguarding journalism’s value to society.
In the Nordic countries, we are in many ways fortunate to have commercial media with high professional integrity, well-functioning press support schemes, and strong public broadcasters that reinforce the media’s role in serving society.
At the same time, journalism has become more of a popularity contest, with competition for the audience’s attention and loyalty intensifying, and tools for tracking audience engagement growing increasingly sophisticated. As a result, commercial pressures have become more embedded in editorial decision-making. It is difficult for journalists and editors not to be influenced by metrics and analytics that reveal which stories resonate with different audience segments. This can lead to socially important issues and topics being deprioritised because too few people are interested in them, while stories with broad audience appeal receive disproportionate attention – even if they are not necessarily very important.
This is not a new issue, but it has become more pronounced with the increasing datafication of editorial work.
KC: You then explain how there has been a shift in economic value creation, with revenue coming more from user payments than advertisements, and that this can contribute to better journalism by creating “news that people think is worth paying for, rather than journalism that sells ads”. From the perspective of profession-based values, how might this shift affect journalists’ ideas of “good journalism”?
RO: That is an interesting question. The ability to recognise what makes a story newsworthy and suitable for publication is a fundamental part of journalistic expertise. Journalists often describe this ability as a kind of sixth sense – a “nose for news” or an “instinctive reflex” that distinguishes seasoned journalists from outsiders.
In the past, journalists could make editorial decisions without being significantly influenced by audience preferences. However, as paying users have increasingly become the primary source of revenue for commercial news media, understanding what the audience values and is willing to pay for has grown more important. This has required greater attentiveness to and responsiveness toward audience needs.
This shift has been described as an “audience turn” in journalism – moving from keeping audience preferences at arm’s length to closely monitoring audience behaviour online. In many ways, it represents a less paternalistic approach to news: A good story is no longer just what a journalist – based on professional criteria – considers important, but also what the audience is willing to invest their time and money in.
KC: By placing the four perspectives on value creation – societal, economic, professional, and audience – into four quadrants, and by placing at the poles the extremes of different ways of understanding journalism – as a social good, commercial product, expertise, or experience, the value matrix is a framework for making visible and analysing the type of value creation that is emphasised in editorial work. Can you explain for our readers one or two of the main examples you present for how it can be used?
RO: I believe that this matrix can be useful for analysing how journalistic choices and priorities are made. In the article, I demonstrate, for example, how it can be used to compare the evolution of editorial priorities over time by revealing a shift from the left side of the matrix – where journalists’ professional judgments exert the greatest influence over journalism – to the right side of the matrix, where audience preferences have the strongest impact.
Similarly, the matrix can be used to compare different journalistic cultures by placing various journalist roles within it. The classic watchdog role, which involves monitoring power and authorities and ensuring that citizens receive information vital to democracy – regardless of whether the journalism attracts a large audience – belongs in the upper left corner. The increasingly prominent marketer role, which actively works to ensure that journalism reaches the public, is positioned on the right side of the matrix. If this marketer role is focused on making socially important journalism known to the widest possible audience, it would be placed in the upper right corner, where public interest and audience preferences have the greatest influence on journalistic decisions. However, if the role is about cracking the code for stories that convert non-paying readers into subscribers, it would be positioned in the lower left corner of the matrix, where commercial interests and audience willingness to pay exert the greatest influence on editorial choices.
KC: You conclude with the following: “How artificial intelligence and personalised news streams based on advanced calculations of content relevance for the individual subscriber will affect journalists’ and editors’ room for action and influence over journalism is a central question for journalism research going forward. The value matrix offers a compass to follow and analyse the development”. Can you share some specific applications that you would deem particularly relevant? How would you like to see your matrix applied?
RO: Coming back to your first question, I think it is especially important to monitor whether significant topics end up in the media’s blind spots simply because they are not popular enough. Take climate and environmental journalism, for example. It can be so depressing that audiences actively avoid it to protect themselves. If journalistic choices are guided by popularity concerns, this type of important journalism may be deprioritised. The value matrix can serve as a framework for analysing these dynamics.
The value matrix can serve as a framework for analysing these dynamics.
I see this as an important application of the model – not just for research purposes, but also within editorial environments. I believe it is crucial for journalists and editors to have an ongoing conversation about which interests exert the greatest influence on their daily editorial priorities. The value matrix can help guide these discussions in newsrooms and encourage critical reflection on their own practices: Are we too focused on stories that drive subscriptions? (lower right-hand side of the matrix). Are we doing a good enough job of presenting socially important stories in ways that make them appeal to a broad audience? (upper right-hand side of the matrix). Do we dare to challenge audience data and produce stories that may not be popular but are nonetheless important? (upper left-hand side of the matrix).
*The original article was published in Norwegian, and all quotes have been translated.
Image: Adobe Stock.