Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Conceptualizing the Active Audience:

Rhetoric and Practice in "Engaged
Journalism"
Jacob L Nelson

Journalism

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Put t ing "Place" in t he Cent er of Journalism Research: A Way Forward t o Underst and Challeng…
Nikki Usher

T he Elusive Engagement Met ric

Jacob L Nelson

T he digit al newsroom: Social media and journalist ic pract ice in T he Guardian

Vaios Papanagnou
934246
research-article2020
JOU0010.1177/1464884920934246JournalismSchmidt et al.

Article

Journalism
1–19
Conceptualizing the Active © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Audience: Rhetoric and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884920934246
DOI: 10.1177/1464884920934246
Practice in “Engaged journals.sagepub.com/home/jou

Journalism”

Thomas R. Schmidt
University of California, San Diego, USA

Jacob L. Nelson
Arizona State University, USA

Regina G. Lawrence
University of Oregon, USA

Abstract
A constellation of journalistic tools, platforms, companies and nonprofit funding has
recently emerged, promoting the idea that allowing the audience to contribute to the
news agenda is a promising strategy to increase trust in journalism, create new revenue
streams and foster community-building. Despite a growing body of research, however,
two main issues remain currently unexplored: (1) the extent to which engaged journalism
as a practice aligns with engaged journalism as a theoretical construct, and (2) the
extent to which the audience assumptions underlying the pursuit of engaged journalism
align with actual audience expectations and desires. This paper begins to address both
of these issues by comparing how advocates of engaged journalism conceptualize the
public’s interest in participating in journalism with observations of actual instances of
that participation. We find that there is indeed a gap between engaged journalism theory
and practice, which we attribute to a distinction between what engaged journalists
believe audiences want from news and how those audiences actually behave. At the
same time, we also find that institutional rigidity in newsrooms that leads to some
reluctance with regard to making news production more collaborative.

Corresponding author:
Thomas R. Schmidt, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0503, USA.
Email: t1schmidt@ucsd.edu
2 Journalism 00(0)

Keywords
Engaged journalism, ethnography, Hearken, participatory journalism, public journalism

“Engaged journalism” has been heralded by some journalists, entrepreneurs and non-
profit foundations as a promising strategy to increase trust in journalism, create new
revenue streams, and foster community-building (Das, 2017; Green-Barber and
McKinley, 2019; Knight Commission on Trust Media and Democracy, 2019). This grow-
ing network of proponents, practitioners and scholars has coalesced around the norma-
tive idea that journalists better serve the public when they go beyond the role of detached
arbiters who authoritatively decide what is newsworthy. Instead, they believe journalists
should work with their audiences by soliciting their ideas, experiences, questions, and
opinions throughout the news production process. As a result, these advocates put forth
a reform agenda, blending elements of a past journalism movement (public journalism)
and current technological capabilities of interactivity. From the perspective of its propo-
nents, then, engaged journalism de-centers journalists’ power in favor of news created
collaboratively with citizens.
The engaged journalism philosophy has clearly caught on in some corners of the
profession. Journalism foundations such as the Knight Foundation, Democracy Fund,
and the Lenfest Institute for Journalism have poured millions of dollars into initiatives
that draw on engaged journalism techniques to improve the relationship between news
publishers and their audiences. And hundreds of newsrooms across the globe have used
their diminished capital to pay for services provided by audience engagement compa-
nies, such as Hearken and GroundSource. The enthusiasm behind engaged journalism
has grown even more pronounced as news publishers increasingly look to audience-
supported revenue models (e.g. subscriptions, memberships, and donations) to offset
losses in advertising revenue – or to replace advertising revenue altogether (Hansen and
Goligoski, 2018; Kiesow, 2018).
A growing number of academic studies has illuminated certain aspects of these
engaged journalism efforts (Ferrer-Conill and Tandoc, 2018; Lawrence et al., 2018;
Lawrence et al., 2019; Nelson, 2018b; Schmidt and Lawrence, 2020; Wenzel, 2019);
however, the institutional dynamics and professional challenges of this approach to
journalism invite closer examination. Two issues specifically currently remain unex-
plored: (1) the extent to which engaged journalism as a practice aligns with engaged
journalism as a theoretical construct, and (2) the extent to which the assumptions about
audiences underlying the pursuit of engaged journalism align with actual audience
expectations and desires.
This paper begins to address both of these issues by comparing the evolution of the
normative ideals of engaged journalism with the implementation of these ideals in daily
journalistic routines. We draw on the interplay between Hearken, a company that offers
digital tools and consulting services to newsrooms, and 15 news organizations in the
U.S. that have implemented its tools and its model of “public-powered journalism.” We
specifically explore (1) how willing journalists are to reshape their practices based on the
engaged journalism philosophy, which frames audiences as eager and untapped potential
participants in news-making, and (2) how successful they feel in executing those changes,
Schmidt et al. 3

especially with respect to audience participation. We find that there is indeed a gap
between engaged journalism theory and practice, which we attribute to a distinction
between what engaged journalists believe audiences want from news and how those
audiences actually behave. We conclude with a discussion about what this gulf between
expectation and reality means for a news industry that is increasingly sure that its future
depends on how well it understands the people that it hopes to reach.

Literature review
The emergence of engaged journalism
Faced with uncertain economics (Jerde, 2019), political polarization (Newman et al.,
2018), and the rise of misinformation (Fawzi, 2019), a growing number of news publish-
ers, funders, and collaborators have embraced “engaged” journalism as the remedy to
these ails (Nelson, 2019; Knight Commission on Trust Media and Democracy, 2019). In
this context, engaged journalism has been defined as “an inclusive practice that prior-
itizes the information needs and wants of the community members it serves, creates col-
laborative space for the audience in all aspects of the journalistic process, and is dedicated
to building and preserving trusting relationships between journalists and the public”
(Green-Barber and McKinley, 2019). The emphasis on working collaboratively with the
public sets “engaged journalism” apart from broader “engagement” trends both across
media industries generally and news media specifically that frequently focus more on
how audiences interact with news content after the fact rather than with news reporters
as they go about preparing their stories (e.g. Ksiazek et al., 2016).
Advocates of engaged journalism believe that journalism’s economic and credibility
issues are entwined: people don’t support the news because they don’t trust it. They
therefore argue that, to earn public trust, journalists must be more transparent and col-
laborative. Rather than deliver news stories that are largely pre-determined in the news-
room, for example, journalists should solicit the public’s input throughout the reporting
process in order to tap into people’s curiosities and lived experiences. And rather than
assume the public will believe that the news is credible simply because it comes from a
professional news organization, news organizations should be more responsive and
collaborative.

Engaged journalism as public journalism 2.0

Some of the practices included in today’s engaged journalism share strong similarities
with approaches that not too long ago were referred to as “participatory” or “reciprocal”
journalism (Hermida et al., 2011; Lewis et al., 2014; Singer, 2011), and, most notably,
with the “public journalism” movement that preceded it (Ferrucci et al., 2020; Min, 2020).
As Geneva Overholser notes, “Engaged journalism is a much-evolved descendant” of
public journalism, “born into a radically changed landscape” (2016). The public journal-
ism movement of the 1990s began with journalism scholar Jay Rosen and newspaper
veteran Buzz Merritt, who argued that journalists had alienated their audiences by taking
an elitist, uninterested approach to them (Rosen, 2002). While traditional journalism has
4 Journalism 00(0)

long assumed that citizens are innately uninterested in public affairs, public journalists
embraced John Dewey’s philosophy about citizens. They argued that the public wants to
be involved in civic life, and that journalists should help them to do so (Dewey, 1927).
Like today’s engaged journalism advocates, public journalists believed that news pro-
duction should include listening to the stories and ideas of citizens, reporting on public
problems in ways that would most likely help citizens solve them, and systematically
communicating with the public throughout all stages of the reporting and publishing
process (Voakes, 2004). As the public journalism movement receded and the idea of
“participatory journalism” took root, this notion of a public longing for deeper engage-
ment continued. As Hermida et al. (2011: 6) put it, “a Deweyan ethos underlies much of
the rhetoric on participatory journalism.”
Throughout the evolution of these ideas, however, there has been some reason to
doubt that the public would jump at the chance to play a part in making the news – doubts
sharpened in the social media era. Indeed, the so-called 90-9-1 rule – that “lurkers” make
of roughly 90 of social media interaction with news and brands, versus 9 percent who
participate occasionally and 1 percent who participate heavily – is well known among
practitioners. As a result, many express skepticism about the public’s eagerness for
meaningful engagement, particularly through comments sections (Nelson, 2018a;
Quandt, 2018). Nonetheless, today’s engaged journalism movement contains a strong
element of Deweyan optimism and hopefulness about the potential for greater public
engagement with news. In essence, engaged, participatory journalism promises to trans-
form the news by tapping into a latent public appetite to participate in making the news.
In short, public reluctance might limit the actual practice of engaged journalism on the
audience side.

Discursive constructions of journalistic roles

Conversely, engaged journalism might also be hampered by journalists’ own notions
about their role vis-à-vis the audience. Engaged journalism proponents challenge the
traditional journalistic notion that journalists “have” to be the gatekeepers of news
because the public doesn’t have the gumption or intelligence to know what information
they need. A body of research confirms journalism’s reluctance to “share the road”
(Singer, 2011; see also Domingo et al., 2008; Peters and Witschge, 2015) as new digital
affordances have empowered ordinary citizens to make news themselves (as well as to
widely and instantaneously share and critique journalists’ work). While digital and social
media have eroded the news gates, traditional journalism’s attachment to its gatekeeping
role has remained remarkably persistent. Part of the challenge might be that journalists’
perceptions of their audience only change slowly – if at all. As Robinson (2019: n.p.)
noted in this context, “attention should be paid to how well a journalist’s imagined read-
ership aligns with reality.”
To explore how the ideals and practices of engaged journalism affect and potentially
transform journalistic routines, we turn to the discursive construction of journalism’s
institutional identity as conceptualized by Hanitzsch and Vos (2017, 2018). According to
this view, journalistic roles “set the parameters of what is desirable in a given institutional
context, and they are subject to discursive (re)creation, (re)interpretation, appropriation,
Schmidt et al. 5

Figure 1. The process model of journalistic roles (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2017).

and contestation” (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2017: 6). This framework (see Figure 1) allows us
to identify two analytically distinct levels of engaged journalism: role orientation and role
performance. “Role orientations refer to discursive constructions of the institutional val-
ues, attitudes, and beliefs with regards to the position of journalism in society and, conse-
quently, to the communicative ideals journalists are embracing in their work” (123). On
the other hand, “Role performance refers to the roles of journalists as executed in practice,
or as observed and narrated by the journalists. The performative properties of journalists’
roles may thus be analytically extracted from direct observation of their work or from self-
reports of journalists” (124).
According to Hanitzsch and Vos’s theory, role conceptions are articulated through
normative ideals and cognitive orientations. Within this study, for example, Hearken’s
public-powered journalism model suggests a particular role conception for journalists as
“hearkening” to a public brimming with ideas and curiosities to be heard. Role perfor-
mance, on the other hand, encompasses professional practices and journalists’ “narrated
performance” of their work. In short, our study examines how journalists narrate their
attempts to actually implement the role conception espoused by Hearken. As we will
show, the normative ideal of citizen participation promoted in the Hearken model has
been adopted at to some extent in the newsrooms we study, but that ideal also creates
practical challenges as well as institutional tensions.
Following the five analytically distinct vectors in the Hanitzsch and Vos model, we
trace if and to what extent journalists internalize, enact, reflect, negotiate and normalize
6 Journalism 00(0)

the normative ideals of engaged journalism through the process of implementing

Hearken’s tools and philosophy. As we analyze the discourse both at Hearken and in 15
newsrooms, we delineate the origins of normative ideals as well as tensions and connec-
tions between the positions of different actors. We focus on and attempt to clarify the
discrepancy between engaged journalism and audience participation.
To differentiate these analytical dimensions, we explored three research questions:

RQ1: What normative ideals of engaged journalism does Hearken construct and pro-
mote, particularly with respect to audience participation?
RQ2: How do journalists reshape their practices based on the engaged journalism
philosophy and how successful are they in executing those changes (i.e. to what extent
do their practices align with the previously identified normative ideals)?
RQ3: What are the tensions and inconsistencies between engaged journalism’s philo-
sophical notions about the public and the pursuit of participatory journalism in
practice?

Methodology
This study looks at both Hearken and at newsrooms using Hearken’s tools and services.
It draws from a dataset combining interviews with and observations of Hearken employ-
ees (conducted by researcher 1) and interviews with editors and reporters at 15 news-
rooms around the country (conducted by researchers 2 and 3). The data sets were initially
created for separate purposes with no interaction until both data sets were completed.
After both data collection on both projects was completed independently, we realized
that the data sets could be combined to assemble a comprehensive study of how audience
engagement gets first conceptualized and subsequently implemented.
Hearken was founded in 2015 and currently partners with more than 130 newsrooms
across the globe. A for-profit firm, it sells newsrooms digital tools with which news-
rooms can solicit questions from their audiences and, through its consulting services,
encourages newsrooms to increase opportunities for journalist-audience collaborations.
It offers an online platform that allows audiences to submit questions directly to news
organizations, and tools to allow audiences to vote on these questions, with the winning
question eventually (in theory) becoming the focus of a news story. Hearken’s revenue
model is based on providing its services to newsrooms for an annual subscription fee,
which averages about $8,500.
Along with the software tools it sells to newsrooms, Hearken promotes a philosophy
of journalism centered on a vision of the public as active participants in news. Hearken
advocates for including the public in every stage of the news-making process, from pitch
to story assignment to reporting, as well as at the feedback stage after publication (where
most current engagement efforts focus). Hearken also provides consulting to help news
organizations implement its model and by encouraging newsroom staff to transition from
perceiving the public as consumers of news active participants in its production.
To gather the first data set, Researcher 1 spent January through March of 2017
observing and interviewing Hearken employees in their office space in downtown
Schmidt et al. 7

Table 1. Interview details for Hearken staff.

Title Name Number of Hours

interviews recorded
CEO/Co-Founder Jennifer Brandel 5 3.75
CTO/Co-Founder Corey Haines 2 2.2
Engagement consultant Ellen Mayer 2 2
Engagement consultant Julia Haslanger 1 1.4
Engagement consultant Summer Fields 5 3.3
Director of business development Anna Thomas 2 1.65
Business operations manager Remy Schwartz 1 1.25

Chicago. He spent approximately 250 hours total observing, which included time spent
sitting in on internal meetings as well as presentations to potential newsroom clients.
Because Hearken is such a unique company, Researcher 1 chose to rely on observa-
tions to inform his interview questions rather than on assumptions about how its
employees approach their work. Consequently, these observations were a necessary
prerequisite for the interviews with Hearken employees, which were continual through-
out the data collection period (see Table 1). For example, Researcher 1 observed
Hearken employees meeting to discuss strategies for pitching their offerings to news-
rooms. Researcher 1 observed that these discussions typically involved finding ways
to persuade newsrooms that their audiences wanted to participate in the news produc-
tion process, which led him to ask about the origin of that news audience perception
during subsequent interviews.
The second data set is based on a sample of newsrooms researchers 2 and 3 selected
from a list provided by Hearken of 33 news organizations that had been using its plat-
form for a least a year as of December 1, 2017. The researchers selected an initial sample
of 15 organizations, stratifying the sample to achieve diversity in terms of geography,
newsroom size, and medium (radio, print, online); we also considered the level of audi-
ence involvement that, according to Hearken, each newsroom had achieved using its
tools, though that was not a determinative factor in constructing our sample. Since we
were interested in examining journalists’ practices across various organizations, we
decided to analyze “narrated role performances,” described by Hanitzsch and Vos (2017:
127) as “subjective perceptions of and reflections that journalists carry out in practice,”
and determined that semi-directed interviews would be the most efficient and fitting
method for data collection. For each news organization, the researchers aimed to inter-
view one editor who supervised the production of Hearken-driven stories and one jour-
nalist who produced those stories (see Table 2). Interviews with 28 journalists were
conducted, 26 interviews over the phone and two in person, between January and April
2018, with the shortest interview lasting 18 minutes and the longest 1 hour and 1 minute.
Following a semi-structured protocol, the interviews covered areas such as main reasons
for using Hearken, challenges when using Hearken and questions about expectations and
attitudes with regard to audience engagement. Interviewees were given the opportunity
to share experiences off the record to encourage frank conversations without fear of any
Table 2. Interview details for newsrooms.

8
Organization Location Hearken project Interviewees/job title at time of interview
AL.com Alabama Ask Alabama/Reckon Elizabeth Koekenga-Whitmire, Senior Director of Audience
John Hammontree, Managing Producer
BOISE STATE PUBLIC Boise, Idaho Wanna Know Idaho Tom Michael, General Manager
RADIO (BSPR) Lacey Daley, Digital Content Coordinator
CALmatters California The question tool is Marcia Parker, Publisher and COO
attached to individual stories Matt Levin, Data and Housing Reporter
THE COLUMBIAN Vancouver, Washington Clark Asks John Hill, Editor
KCRW Los Angeles, California Curious Coast Caitlin Shamberg, Digital Editor
Jenny Hamel, Reporter
KQED San Francisco, Bay Curious Olivia Allen-Price, Producer and Host
California Jessica Placzek, Reporter
KUOW Seattle, Washington Local Wonder Brendan Sweeney, Managing Producer
Jim Gates, Senior Editor
LANCASTERONLINE Lancaster, Pennsylvania We The People Dustin Leed, Digital Editor
Lindsey Blest, Reporter
TEXAS TRIBUNE Austin, Texas Texplainer Amanda Zamora, Chief Audience Officer
Alex Samuels, Community Reporter
VPR Vermont Brave Little State Angela Evancie, Managing Editor and Host
WBEZ Chicago, Illinois Curious City Shawn Allee, Senior Editor of Editorial Operations
Katherine Nagasawa, Multimedia Producer
WDET Detroit, Michigan CuriousiD Sandra Svoboda, Special Assignments Manager
Shelby Jouppi, Multimedia Producer
WFPL Louisville, Kentucky Curious Louisville Laura Ellis, Senior Producer

Journalism 00(0)
Ashlie Stevens, Reporter
WUFT Gainesville, Florida Untold Florida Ethan Magoc, News Editor
Christina Morales, Reporter
WUWM Milwaukee, Wisconsin Bubbler Talk Michelle Maternowski, Digital Services Coordinator
Ann-Elise Henzl, News Director
Schmidt et al. 9

potential repercussions. However, there were only two minor instances when interview-
ees requested to make comments off the record.
We recognize that in partnering with Hearken to create our interview sample we
traded access for full autonomy in determining the population of newsrooms on which
our sample is based. Nevertheless, we remain confident that our sample was big and
diverse enough to encompass a variety of viewpoints. Moreover, consulting directly with
Hearken was by far the most efficient way to determine what newsrooms around the U.S.
are using its services.
Data analysis unfolded as an iterative process among the three researchers, adopting
the theoretical framework of “discursive construction” (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2017). First,
the Hearken-focused researcher summarized the interview data specifically outlining
elements that denoted role orientations. In a second step, the other two researchers exam-
ined the interviews with journalists and identified how descriptions of their work aligned
or contrasted with those role orientations. These themes were then discussed among the
researchers with regard to referential adequacy (i.e. “checking preliminary findings and
interpretations against archived raw data, previous literature and existing research to
explore alternative explanations for findings as they emerge” (Erford, 2015: 102).
Finally, in a third step, the researchers determined master themes and recurring patterns
and tensions, illuminating key elements of enacting Hearken’s model in particular news
outlets and their variation across organizations.
We are not the first to analyze journalistic practices with respect to potential gaps
between role conceptions and role performances (see Mellado and van Dalen, 2014) but
to our knowledge, there have not been attempts to do so in the area of engaged journal-
ism. Moreover, while our analysis focuses on tensions and potential inconsistencies
between the “rhetoric” of Hearken and the “role performance” of journalists in our sam-
ple of newsrooms it is not our intention to single out Hearken and its philosophy as test
case for all kinds of engaged journalism. Consequently, this research strategy fore-
grounds a situational analysis of discursive practices in the interest of understanding how
norms, values and practices of engaged journalism are constructed.

Findings
Conceptualizing engaged journalism
Our interview and observational data reveal that that Hearken conceptualizes and advo-
cates for a set of interlinked normative ideals around citizen participation in the news.
Two ideas animate Hearken’s philosophy of “public-powered journalism:” (1) Citizens
want to be part of journalism but haven’t been given access and tools. (2) Participation
enhances journalism: Giving citizens voice makes news more “relevant, useful, and orig-
inal” (Hearken, 2019).

(1) Hearken encourages news organizations to see the public as partners in setting
the news agenda. The company designs its tools and offerings to provide news
organizations the means with which journalists can actively include the audience
in their journalistic practices. To that end, its pitch focuses on persuading
10 Journalism 00(0)

newsrooms that news audiences want this sort of inclusion in the first place. For
instance, when describing why people would welcome the opportunity to partici-
pate in the news production process, Hearken co-founder and CEO Jennifer
Brandel explained, “I don’t think human beings will ever not be curious. I don’t
think people will ever stop asking really important questions.”

This is a stark contrast to the notion that the public is somewhat apathetic toward civic
life, a notion that Hearken employees said came up often during meetings where they
would attempt to pitch their offerings to newsrooms. Another counter-argument Hearken
employees reported hearing when they made this optimistic argument about ordinary
citizens was that news organizations already have mechanisms in place for hearing from
the public – such as social media channels, email, and online comments – and rarely is
that input valuable for the news production process. To these objections, Hearken
employees were in the habit of suggesting the tools available to the public for engaging
with journalists are to blame for lackluster communication between the two. When jour-
nalists would lament the mean-spirited, unhelpful comments they came across in their
online articles, for example, Brandel would respond, “Comments were not the greatest
design.. . . Of course you’re going to think they [the public] suck if the only times you
hear from them are when they suck.” The Hearken mechanism for soliciting audience
input was pitched as more collaborative, specific, and inviting, which its employees
argued would lead to better, more thoughtful input.

(2) Another central component of Hearken’s public-powered journalism model is

the notion that involving citizens in the reporting process enhances journalism
because it enables “journalists to know before publishing that their work is rel-
evant” (“Hearken,” 2019). In making this argument, Hearken’s pitch also pre-
supposes that citizens are alienated from journalism because journalism in its
current form frequently fails to put a spotlight on the curiosities and concerns of
“everyday” people. In interviews, Hearken employees consistently described
members of the public as feeling left out of both the ways in which news stories
were typically reported, as well as the finished form those stories inevitably
took. As Hearken engagement consultant Ellen Mayer explained, “If you’re not
an elected official or celebrity, the only way that you get into the news is if you
have done something truly terrible or something incredibly remarkable. . . so I
think one of the things that Hearken does is make space in the news for people
who are just valuable because they have a question, you know, and everybody
has questions.”

In other words, members of the public, from Hearken’s perspective, don’t want to just
consume news. They want to have a relationship with the news, one based on what they
perceive as accurate representations of themselves and their stories by journalists.
Hearken employees pitch their offerings as an opportunity for newsrooms to solve these
two problems simultaneously. In doing so, they argue, news organizations can improve
the quality of their journalism as well as its appeal to audiences. As Brandel explained,
“It’s a natural phenomenon that when people are paid attention to by institutions or
Schmidt et al. 11

people with more power than them, it’s exciting.. . . That’s a fundamental thing that
newsrooms could do a better job recognizing and capitalizing on.” By involving audi-
ence members in the reporting process, representing “average” citizens becomes both a
method and a goal.
These two normative ideals are connected by the conviction that if news organiza-
tions more actively communicate with ordinary citizens, they will produce better sto-
ries that tap into more relevant community issues, which will lead to a larger,
potentially more diverse audience. Hearken’s pitch to news organizations thus aims at
challenging traditional notions of journalists’ roles. But how are journalists respond-
ing to this call?

Implementing engaged journalism

Since the newsrooms in our sample are early adopters of Hearken’s tools and services, it
comes as little surprise that all our interviewees embraced audience involvement in news
production, something that clearly motivated their decision to implement the company’s
offerings. We find a clear pattern indicating that journalists in our sample have internal-
ized Hearken’s assumptions that public participation enhances journalism. Several jour-
nalists mentioned that they wanted to improve the relationship not just with their audience
but with the community at large. For example, before signing up to Hearken, editors
from LancasterOnline wrote in a strategy document that their “first goal is to gain trust
and readership from our audience.” They also acknowledged that they “don’t have a
relationship with the community today.” Some journalists in our sample described the
use of Hearken as a as a form of “listener outreach” (Tom Michael, Boise State Public
Radio) or “listening campaign” to better feel “the beat of the community” (Ethan Magoc,
WUFT in Gainesville). Taken together, we find that journalists in our sample have suc-
cessfully translated Hearken’s normative goal (“Participation enhances journalism.”)
into specific cognitive roles, that is, “journalists’ individual aspirations and ambitions
and the communicative goals they want to achieve through their work” (Hanitzsch and
Vos: 125).
However, in order to actualize these ideals of citizen participation, journalists have to
enact these ideals in their daily practice. To assess whether this enactment is successful,
journalists do not rely so much on conventional metrics but rather deem audience partici-
pation in the news-making process as successful if it shapes the news product in mean-
ingful ways. “I like that it introduced us to bringing the listener, the community, into the
reporting process a lot earlier, [helping us rethink] the way that we decide what our
coverage is,” said Michelle Maternowski (WUWM, Milwaukee). As Laura Ellis (WFPL,
Gainesville) put it, “It definitely makes us think about who we’re involving in a story.
There’s always this cliché of, ‘Let’s find a real person who’s going to be affected by this
story and see what they’re saying.’ I think that at least for me, I think more about how
can this person shape the story? How can this person’s experience or curiosity determine
things about how this story ends up sounding?” Ultimately, for most newsrooms in our
sample, giving the public more voice in the news also means giving people more oppor-
tunities to shape the stories that are being produced.
12 Journalism 00(0)

Enacting the ideal of audience involvement is particularly important when it comes to

a central element of Hearken’s model of public-powered journalism: the inclusion of
question-askers in the reporting process. To many of the journalists we talked to, bring-
ing ordinary people along during reporting and having them play a role in shaping the
process of gathering information constitutes an ideal type of participatory journalism. At
The Columbian, for example, “We liked the idea of engaging the readers” in reporting,
said John Hill, particularly because it might offer a way to preempt public perceptions of
media bias and accusations of fake news because audience members would be given a
voice in reporting stories.
However, Hill also pointed out one central challenges of audience involvement: a lack
of interest to participate. When he and his colleagues started reaching out to readers, they
were surprised to find that most question-askers didn’t want to be involved in the report-
ing process. “We thought they would be jumping at the chance,” said Hill. KQED in San
Francisco and WBEZ in Chicago are two of the most active newsrooms in our sample
when it comes to involving audience members in the reporting phase. But both organiza-
tions told us about substantial limitations. “It’s a challenging thing to do,” said Olivia
Allen-Price (KQED), “because you’re usually having to schedule a question-asker who
has a 9-to-5 job, a journalist and a source, all during work hours. It’s a trickier piece of
the puzzle than I wish it was because I wish we could do it more often than we do.”
In some cases, she and her colleague at least tried to update the question-asker about
the process and let him or her know about questions that might arise as they reported the
story. While many of these news organizations report a robust interest from audience
members to participate as question-askers, their experiences also indicate that many peo-
ple are not that curious about being part of the reporting process. Taken together, we find
a clear discrepancy between the role orientation (“The audience wants to participate (in
the reporting process)”) and the actual role performance. In this sense, journalists were
not able to successfully align new practices with normative ideals of engagement. As
Ethan Magoc (WUFT) put it, “Most people would just prefer to send their questions to
us and have us go ahead and report it.”

Negotiating tensions
This dissonance between an ideal type of participatory journalism and the reality of lack-
luster audience participation requires journalists to negotiate tensions and potentially
adjust their expectations regarding the question of how much listeners and readers really
want to be involved in story creation. “The uncomfortable answer, after doing it awhile, is
that the easier it is for them to do, the more likely they’ll do it,” said Shawn Allee of
WBEZ. “It doesn’t mean that they won’t do the hard stuff, it’s just that fewer of them
will.” At KCRW, reporter Jenny Hamel included question-askers several times in her
reporting. “But for the most part it’s hard,” she said, “because you’re a little busy, you’re
trying to coordinate with these listeners.” As a result, Hamel focuses her energy less on
participation and more on notification (e.g. sending updates to question-askers about the
reporting process). “They’re all usually involved in the beginning and then, of course, I
reach out to them and say, ‘Hey, I’ve answered your question. Here’s the blog post. Here’s
the audio file. Share with your friends.’” This reaction – simultaneously acknowledging
Schmidt et al. 13

the limits of participation in the reporting process yet embracing the outreach to readers
and listeners – was a common one. As Lindsey Blest (LancasterOnline) put it:

I think it actually embodies what I hope to do as a journalist to a degree in that it is driven by

what people want to know, and I think journalists have the ability to find answers to things
and accessibility to information and time to find information that other people in the public
may not have.

The lack of audience interest was not the only indication of divergence between the
ideals and practices of engaged journalism. For some newsrooms, even when public
response is more robust, finite resources and capabilities prevent journalists from real-
izing the full public-powered engaged journalism ideal. “There’s really no shortage of
enthusiasm,” said Angela Evancie (VPR). “It’s just a matter of what we can manage on
our end in terms of all of that connection.” As Marcia Parker (CALmatters) put it, the
biggest challenge was building the new workflow and philosophy into the DNA of the
newsroom. “Everybody’s busy, right? So you just have to constantly keep it in front of
everyone and remind us at every editorial meeting, ‘OK, where is there a Hearken
engagement opportunity in whatever you're doing?’”
Despite these tensions, however, we also find that many of the journalists we inter-
viewed normalized their experiences toward viewing the public as partners in setting the
news agenda. Through the process of implementing the Hearken model, many of these
journalists have adopted the notion of citizen participation as the “new normal” within
their newsrooms, at least to some extent (in some cases, this vision is what drove their
interest in Hearken in the first place).
Some journalists mentioned that they got fresh ideas about coverage, sometimes about
issues that were overlooked. For John Hammontree (AL.com), for example, hearing from
readers has “solidified our expectation that the audience knows what it wants. That we
should trust the audience when they say, ‘This is something that we’re interested in,’ even
if we think, ‘Oh, well. Nobody would ever be interested in that story.’ If the audience says
they are, then they are. I think that we expect our audience to ask good questions, and they
expect us to give good answers now. And so, I think, to some extent, that’s changed the
way we do engagement.” Some reporters changed their perspective on the public’s ability
to contribute to the news agenda only after overcoming initial skepticism. “One of the
things that Hearken does,” Ann-Elise Henzl (WUWM, Milwaukee) said,

is it encourages us to use a voting round for listeners to select what they want to hear. I remember
[when] that was being presented to us at the initial meeting and I thought, ‘Oh, come on, we’re
going really turn over control to listeners?’ Because again, I had no idea what people would be
interested in. Maybe I just didn’t respect how constructive their ideas would be, or how creative,
and how interested they are in things that are around them.

Validating the perspective of ordinary people as meaningful and important was a

recurring theme when journalists talked about the value of picking up questions from
their audience. As Ashlie Stevens (WFPL, Louisville) put it, “I think that maybe some-
times what we need to realize as reporters. . .[is] that the people who are actually living
it have questions that we may not even think about.”
14 Journalism 00(0)

To sum up, when we compare the rhetoric of engaged journalism (i.e. role orientation)
with the perceptions and experiences of journalists in our sample (i.e. role performance),
the following picture emerges: (1) Many journalists we talked to internalized and enacted
ideals of deep audience engagement, confirming that Hearken’s conceptualization of
engaged journalism is resonating in newsrooms. (2) But our findings also indicate that
actual audience expectations and desires (as perceived and experienced by journalists)
look somewhat different from assumptions about the audience underlying the pursuit of
engaged journalism. This indicates a discrepancy between Hearken’s philosophy, which
is grounded in optimistic conceptualizations of everyday citizens and community
engagement, and journalists’ experiences of a more reticent audience. (3) Moreover, our
analysis also finds that limited financial and human resources in newsrooms shape and
constrain how much audience members can be involved in the news-making process.

Discussion
A growing number throughout the news industry believe that journalism must embrace
the philosophy of “engagement” in order to solve its current crises of revenue and pub-
lic trust. This study set out to uncover what happens when that philosophy gets imple-
mented within news production. By comparing data collected from those who are
attempting to persuade newsrooms to embrace this more collaborative approach to their
audiences with data collected from newsrooms actually attempting to make this
approach a reality, this study provides a useful side-by-side comparison of the rhetoric
and performance of engaged journalism. In particular, it offers the first close look at
how engaged journalism proponents at one leading organization conceptualize the audi-
ence, and how well that conceptualization matches the experiences of journalists imple-
menting the model. In doing so, it attempts to identify and understand the gap between
the assumptions underlying “engaged journalism” – specifically surrounding what the
public wants from journalism – and the reality that journalists find themselves facing
“when the rubber meets the road.”
We find that Hearken’s model rests on a philosophical reorientation of news produc-
tion wherein journalists act as facilitators of public participation. This approach to jour-
nalism rests on an assumption shared by its advocates about unmet audience demand for
greater participation in the news. However, our interviews suggest that even as journal-
ists internalized and even normalized that role conception, some also experienced a gap
between the public participation they expected and that which they actually experienced.
Conversely, we also find that some newsrooms we interviewed experienced the opposite:
journalists reported feeling overwhelmed by their audience’s input and organizationally
unable to respond to it all. The result is a situation in which – either because of journal-
ists’ expectations or audiences’ reactions – a gap has emerged between the promise and
reality of engaged journalism.

Limitations
We faced some limitations in this study. First, there were aspects relating the affordances
of Hearken’s tools that we could not explore due to space constraints. For example, for
Schmidt et al. 15

this study, we did not explore if and to what extent Hearken’s software structures inter-
actions between journalists and audiences in patterned ways (see Schmidt and Lawrence
[2020] for such an analysis). Second, since this wasn’t a longitudinal research project,
it is impossible for us to conclude if the “normalization” we observed is temporary or if
it does indeed seep “into the DNA” of the newsrooms in which Hearken has been
adopted. On the one hand, previous research has found that when those within a news-
room most excited about Hearken leave their organization, those newsrooms become
more likely to drop Hearken’s services (Nelson, 2018b). On the other hand, Hearken’s
impact could be broader than newsrooms that have paid for their services. Some news-
rooms that have used Hearken may stop not because they do not believe in the philoso-
phy of engaged journalism, but because they have decided they can’t afford it or have
decided either to seek out alternative providers of engaged journalism services, or to
make do on their own.
This possibility gets at another limitation: although this study focused on Hearken,
that company is far from the only one promoting engaged journalism, nor is it the only
possible iteration of this philosophy (Green-Barber and McKinley, 2019). To be sure,
this study is more than an evaluation of Hearken’s practices. In fact, Hearken mainly
serves as a focal point to analyze the intersection of individual motivations and institu-
tional patterns in the interest of exploring how emerging practices of engaged journalism
point toward institutional change (if at all). By analyzing first how Hearken employees
conceptualize journalistic norms and values, and then how these norms and values are
interpreted and enacted by journalists, we seek to illuminate how the dialectic between
rhetoric and role performance creates both a community of practice with distinct journal-
istic routines and outlooks but also occupational and professional tensions that are not
easily reconciled. In short, we examine how the rhetoric of public-powered journalism is
translated into journalistic practices, and we analyze how normative assumptions (that is,
what engaged journalism advocates argue engagement with citizens should look like) are
enacted through the lived experiences of journalists (that is, what journalists’ attempts at
engagement with citizens actually looks like).
Finally, this study does not reflect the actual views of audiences about their willing-
ness to participate as the Hearken model of engaged journalism suggests that they will.
Rather, our findings reflect the views of journalists who have been working to evoke and
respond to public participation. Yet our findings point in the same direction as other stud-
ies that find moderate public response (at best) to new participatory affordances (Borger
et al., 2016; Domingo et al., 2008; Nielsen and Schrøder, 2014). It is interesting to con-
sider to what extent the negative feedback loop described by Borger et al. (2016: 722), in
which “the viability of participatory projects could. . .be diminished by a need and wish
for, but a factual lack of, reciprocity” was at work in the newsrooms we studied. As noted
above, some we interviewed spoke of the difficulty of responding effectively to audience
input, which may have lead some in the public to conclude the efforts weren’t truly recip-
rocal (see also Belair-Gagnon et al., 2019). Finally, it is possible that the forms of partici-
pation newsrooms pursue affect the public response. Strategies that invite the public into
journalistic spaces (ride-alongs with reporters and visits to the newsroom, for example)
may be viewed differently by members of the public than initiatives that bring journalists
into community spaces – a possibility worthy of future research.
16 Journalism 00(0)

The future of engaged journalism research

Understanding the way in which an idea about how journalism should be produced
becomes an actual set of practices within newsrooms – as well as the extent to which the
assumptions underlying such ideas align with reality – is essential for understanding both
the philosophy behind the ongoing attempts to repair journalism, as well as the likeli-
hood that those attempts will succeed. To put it more simply: understanding the path that
audience-focused interventions in journalism take from theory to practice reveals more
than just how journalism may or may not change. It also shows how aligned journalists’
and reformers’ ideas about the public are with how the public actually behaves.
With that in mind, we do not mean for our findings to suggest that journalists should
cease pursuing engaged journalism techniques such as those advocated by Hearken. On
the contrary, many we interviewed were happy with the changes to newsroom practices
that using Hearken brought to the news agenda and to their metrics. Instead, we hope that
these findings illustrate something that has long gone unsaid in journalism: it is extraor-
dinarily difficult to know what audiences want. This is something that is quite obvious
within the wider world of media: If movie studios could predict how audiences would
react, there would be far fewer box office bombs. Yet it seems necessary for this notion
to be made explicit within journalism specifically. The assumption underlying the pursuit
of engaged journalism – that audiences want to participate more in the news production
process – is clearly true for some people in some markets, but less true for others. It may
also depend on what kind of relationship already exists between an outlet and the various
communities within its market. As reported in Schmidt and Lawrence (2018), many
newsrooms that take up Hearken’s tools struggle with how to expand their reach beyond
those (often white and affluent) communities that are already active consumers of their
work (see also Wenzel, 2019).
Ultimately, as engagement journalism is taken up by more newsrooms, the questions
that journalists – and the scholars who study them – grapple with may shift from whether
to encourage more public participation in news to the questions of how much participa-
tion is desirable and to what end. The Deweyian impulse to enable broader public partici-
pation in democracy has resonated – and invited criticism – for decades precisely because
the question of “how much participation is enough” is not easily settled. Newsrooms
experimenting with community engagement may find the public response is either more
enthusiastic or less so than they imagined. In either case, as journalism’s pursuit of audi-
ence engagement continues, we believe scholarly attention should begin to shift away
from the how and more to the why. Doing so will shed light not only on journalism’s
approach to the public, but also on their expectations of the public as well.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iDs
Thomas R. Schmidt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4497-9180
Jacob L. Nelson https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2714-9924
Schmidt et al. 17

References
Belair-Gagnon V, Nelson JL and Lewis SC (2019) Audience engagement, reciprocity, and the
pursuit of community connectedness in public media journalism. Journalism Practice 13(5):
558–575.
Borger M, van Hoof A and Sanders J (2016) Expecting reciprocity: Towards a model of the par-
ticipants’ perspective on participatory journalism. New Media & Society 18(5): 708–725.
Das A (2017) Pathways to Engagement: Understanding How Newsrooms are Working with
Communities. Democracy Fund. Available at: https://www.democracyfund.org/publications/
pathways-to-engagement-understanding-how-newsrooms-are-working-with-communi
Dewey J (1927) The Public and its Problems. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Domingo D, Quandt T, Heinonen A, et al. (2008) Participatory journalism practices in the
media and beyond: An international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers.
Journalism Practice 2(3): 326–342.
Erford BT (2015) Research and Evaluation in Counseling. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Fawzi N (2019) Untrustworthy news and the media as “enemy of the people?” How a populist
worldview shapes recipients’ attitudes toward the media. The International Journal of Press/
Politics 24(2): 146–164.
Ferrer-Conill R and Tandoc EC Jr. (2018) The audience-oriented editor. Digital Journalism 6(4):
436–453.
Ferrucci P, Nelson JL and Davis M (2020) From ‘public journalism’ to ‘engaged journalism’:
Imagined audiences and denigrating discourse. International Journal of Communication
14(9), 1586–1604.
Green-Barber L and McKinley EG (2019) Engaged Journalism: Practices for Building Trust,
Generating Revenue, and Fostering Civic Engagement. Available at: https://s3-us-west-2.
amazonaws.com/lindsaygreenbarber.com/assets/IA+Engaged+Journalism+Report+1.31
.19.pdf
Hanitzsch T and Vos TP (2017). Journalistic roles and the struggle over institutional identity: The
discursive constitution of journalism. Communication Theory 27(2): 115–135.
Hanitzsch T and Vos TP (2018) Journalism beyond democracy: A new look into journalistic roles
in political and everyday life. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism 19(2): 146–164.
Hansen E and Goligoski E (2018) Guide to Audience Revenue and Engagement. Available at:
https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/guide-to-audience-revenue-and-engagement.php
Hearken (2019) Available at: https://www.wearehearken.com/
Hermida A, Domingo D, Heinonen AA, et al (2011) The active recipient: Participatory journal-
ism through the eyes of the Dewey-Lippmann debate. In: Presented at the International
Symposium on Online Journalism, University of Texas, Austin, TX, April. Available at:
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55727961.pdf
Jerde S (2019) It was a very bad media week. Adweek 60(3).
Kiesow D (2018) What it Takes to Shift a News Organization to Reader Revenue. Available at:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/reader-revenue/what-it-takes-to-shift-a-news-organ-
ization-to-reader-revenue/single-page/
Knight Commission on Trust Media and Democracy (2019) Crisis in Democracy: Renewing Trust
in America. Available at: http://csreports.aspeninstitute.org/documents/Knight2019.pdf
Ksiazek TB, Peer L and Lessard K (2016) User engagement with online news: Conceptualizing
interactivity and exploring the relationship between online news videos and user comments.
New Media & Society 18(3): 502–520.
Lawrence RG, Gordon E, DeVigal A, et al. (2019) Building engagement: Supporting the practice
of relational journalism. Agora Journalism Center at the University of Oregon. Available at:
http://bit.ly/building-engagement
18 Journalism 00(0)

Lawrence RG, Radcliffe D and Schmidt TR (2018) Practicing engagement: Participatory journal-
ism in the Web 2.0 era. Journalism Practice 12(10): 1220–1240.
Lewis SC, Holton AE and Coddington M (2014) Reciprocal journalism: A concept of mutual
exchange between journalists and audiences. Journalism Practice 8(2): 229–241.
Mellado C and van Dalen A (2014) Between rhetoric and practice. Explaining the gap between
role conception and performance in journalism. Journalism Studies 15(6): 859–878.
Min SJ (2020) What the twenty-first century engaged journalism can learn from the twentieth cen-
tury public journalism. Journalism Practice 1–16. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2020.1758188.
Nelson JL (2018a) And deliver us to segmentation. Journalism Practice 12(2): 204–219.
Nelson JL (2018b) The elusive engagement metric. Digital Journalism 6(4): 528–544.
Nelson JL (2019) The next media regime: The pursuit of ‘audience engagement’ in journalism.
Journalism 146488491986237.
Newman N, Fletcher R, Kalogeropoulos A, et al. (2018) Reuters Institute Digital News Report
2018. DOI: 10.1177/107769900608300106.
Nielsen RK and Schrøder KC (2014) The relative importance of social media for accessing, find-
ing, and engaging with news. An eight-country cross-media comparison. Digital Journalism
2(4): 472–489.
Overholser G (2016) Civic Journalism, Engaged Journalism: Tracing the Connections. Democracy
Fund. Available at: https://www.democracyfund.org/blog/entry/civic-journalism-engaged-
journalism-tracing-the-connections
Peters C and Witschge T (2015) From grand narratives of democracy to small expectations of
participation. Journalism Practice 9(1): 19–34.
Quandt T (2018) Dark participation. Media and Communication 6(4): 36–48.
Robinson JG (2019) The audience in the mind’s eye: How journalists imagine their readers. Tow
Center for Digital Journalism. Available at: https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/how-
journalists-imagine-their-readers.php#education
Rosen J (2002) Questions and answers about public journalism. Journalism Studies 1(4):
679–683.
Schmidt TR and Lawrence RG (2018) Putting Engagement to Work: How News Organizations
are Pursuing ‘People-Powered Journalism’. Agora Journalism Center. Available at: https://
dl.orangedox.com/putting-engagement-to-work
Schmidt TR and Lawrence RG (2020) Engaged journalism and news work: A sociotechnical
analysis of organizational dynamics and professional challenges. Journalism Practice 14(5):
518–536.
Singer JB (2011) Sharing the road. In: Singer JB, Hermida A, Domingo D, et al. (eds) Participatory
Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell,
pp. 1–9.
Voakes PS (2004) A brief history of public journalism. National Civic Review 93(3): 25–35.
Wenzel A (2019) Public media and marginalized publics: Online and offline engagement strate-
gies and local storytelling networks. Digital Journalism 7(1): 146–163.

Author biographies
Thomas R. Schmidt is assistant professor in the Department of Communication at University of
California, San Diego, and the author of the book Rewriting the Newspaper: The Storytelling
Movement in American Print Journalism (University of Missouri Press, 2019) as well as numerous
journal articles (e.g. in Journalism, Digital Journalism, Journalism Practice). He was inducted
into the Kappa Tau Alpha National Honor Society for media scholars and received competitive
fellowships such as the Fulbright Scholarship and the Transatlantic Media Fellowship.
Schmidt et al. 19

Jacob L. Nelson is an assistant professor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass
Communication at Arizona State University, and a fellow with the Tow Center for Digital
Journalism. He uses qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the relationship between
journalism and the public. His research has been published in academic journals including New
Media & Society, Journalism, and Journalism Studies, as well as in public-facing outlets such as
Columbia Journalism Review and The Conversation.
Regina Lawrence is the Associate Dean of the School of Journalism and Communication Portland
and the Director of the Agora Journalism Center. She is a nationally recognized authority on politi-
cal communication, civic engagement, gender and politics, and the role of media in public dis-
course about politics and policy. Her two latest books are Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White
House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail and When the Press Fails: Political
Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina, winner of the Doris A. Graber Outstanding Book
Award from the Political Communication section of the American Political Science Association.