The Emotional Turn in Journalism Needs to be About Audience Perceptions

Abstract

The emotional turn in journalism studies is fueled by new forms of emotion-driven journalistic work, such as immersive journalism and constructive journalism. However, because these innovations are developed to ultimately re-connect journalists with disenfranchised and fragmented audiences, they highlight the need for a more thorough study of audience perceptions in our field.

The need to (re-)connect

Emotions are a central part of journalism – but they were long ignored or brushed aside in research. This has changed considerably. As this virtual special issue shows, there is great interest in exploring how emotions influence journalistic industries, production, content, and influence. For instance, studies in this virtual special issue by Kilgo et al. (2017), Zou (2018), and Waddell (2018) show how impactful emotions are in digital information environments.

The emerging research field on emotion in journalism is sustained by a recent surge of emotion-driven journalistic innovation, such as immersive journalism and VR journalism. This innovation in journalism is motivated by the need to find ways for a closer emotional connection with an audience that is believed to be disenfranchised, fragmented, and distrustful. Just like earlier novelties such as civic journalism, these contemporary innovations are ultimately connected to assumptions about what audiences want. I argue that new forms of emotion-driven journalism aim to create reporting that leads to an intimate and trustful relationship with the audience. They operate based on the assumption that creating this bond can be achieved through the elicitation of emotional responses among audiences. Yet, whether and how this works, and if increased emotionality is actually a “good thing” is, largely unexplored in our field. More importantly, from a conceptual point of view, innovation that is so closely connected to the relationship between journalistic work and individual people needs audience-centered theories also. In short, the study of emotion-driven innovations must in many cases include both journalist and audience perspectives.

Not just about technology

Because they are made possible by digital technologies, such as VR and immersive audio, new forms of emotion-driven journalism seem to be motivated by technological innovation. However, as a number of scholars such as Beckett and Deuze (2016) and Peters (2011) have pointed out, “emotionality” as a trend or even buzzword in journalism is associated with other forms of change too. As Wahl-Jorgensen (2019) in this virtual special issue shows, it can be found in all aspects of the work, such as in innovative storytelling techniques, changed journalistic role conceptions, and new business models.

Having said that, technology does play a large role in the emotional turn in journalism (studies). Journalistic production has borrowed and further developed emotion-driven technologies from other fields such as gaming and health communication, and made them part of their daily production. There are novel aspects of visual reporting such as news visualizations and infographics, and there are immersive technologies such as virtual reality, augmented reality reporting, and news games. These innovations are radical not only because they are new, but because they aim to transform complex social or political issues into personal and involving experiences with the goal of creating a bond between audience and journalist. Most importantly, as Sánchez Laws (2017) suggests in this virtual special issue, these experiences are created with the precise goal to cause emotional reactions, for example empathy with a person or group of people at risk.

Still, these technologies are connected to other changes too, and it is hard to disentangle what came first. For instance, there is emotion-driven innovation in storytelling, which is characterized by a refusal to strictly follow the so-called ‘inverted pyramid’ of writing news stories, and to create all-encompassing emotional reading and viewing experiences through the integration of deep background, emotional language, entertainment features, and solutions for problems. What is more, technology has aided (but again is not the only reason for) a number of emotion-driven journalistic movements such as constructive journalism, restorative narratives, and solutions journalism. These are interventions thought up in newsrooms to fundamentally change in the practice of journalism, including changes to journalistic culture or even organizational structures. The most prominent example is probably constructive journalism, which seeks to fundamentally change the profession through the inclusion of positive emotions in journalistic reporting (e.g., Hermans and Gyldensted 2019). With more examples discussed and studied in this special issue and beyond, it has become clear that, today, journalism is increasingly dominated by the thought that emotionality is a way to bring journalism into this uncertain and digital age.

The people formerly known as …

For journalism scholars, these types of emotion-driven journalistic innovations are a fascinating research field. They are characteristic for a society that is in need for certainty, connection, and sense-making – and that is information-rich and technologically advanced. Consequently, scholars in and beyond this special issue, such as Sánchez Laws (2017) and Hassan (2019), ask imperative questions connected to the theoretical and empirical realities of this new type of emotion-driven journalism that has emerged during recent years. Based on their critical insights, the next necessary step is to take the affective turn as inspiration for a more thorough integration of audience perspectives in journalism studies. It is almost absurd to not systematically study the audience when looking at emotion-driven innovation in journalism. This type of innovation is about what audiences (allegedly) need and want, so the audience needs to tell us what to make of these innovations.

However, there is one problem. As Wahl-Jorgensen (2019) in this virtual special issue points out, journalism scholars traditionally have left the study of perceptions and effects to communication researchers, finding that their more psychology-oriented approaches did not mix well with the sociological tradition of journalism studies. I support this view unreservedly, and it is of course also connected to the fact that the media effects literature has already a rich tradition of studying the question of how emotion in media content influence individual opinions, attitudes, and behaviors. This literature must be informative to journalism scholars, and can act as a basis for asking the question of how “successful” emotion-driven journalism should and will be in the future.

But, reflecting on this literature is only the first step. If research in journalism studies is based on sociological principles, then it can for instance study audience emotions and meta-emotions not just as individual, but also as shared experiences. Emotion-driven journalism, such as immersive journalism, likely changes how individuals and the groups they belong to make sense of the world, it changes how public opinion is formed, it influences stereotypes, and group identities. In short, the study of the “effects” of emotions is not just about individual-level emotional responses. So, journalism studies as an important and growing discipline can do more. Beyond that, there is the need to integrate media effects expertise within the studies and projects we conduct when studying journalism. This is connected to a thinking beyond disciplinary boundaries, and the creation of shared spaces of media scholarship, where those who study production can meet those who study “effects”. Media effects scholars are occasionally eyed with suspicion at journalism conferences. But this suspicion is not just based on epistemological differences. It has to do with the question of who gets to judge what “good” journalism is: Is it those that observe the profession, or is it the group of scholars who examine the audience? The answer is, of course, that quality (whatever that means) can only be negotiated between content producer and content user. And this has never been more the case than when emotionality is studied.

My personal experience is perhaps exemplary of the sometimes-troubled relationship between media effects and journalism studies. I started out by studying news framing effects, using longitudinal survey experimental study designs, and for a number of years I was mostly concerned with theories of attitude formation and information processing. But I increasingly became fascinated with our “independent variable”, that is, the work of journalists. I was drawn to conduct media effects research through a journalism-lens, to see what is out there and study its effects at the same time. Here, again, emotion was the perfect starting point. If the goal of emotion-driven journalism is to “re-connect”, then this is where those of us who understand how people form opinions, and decide how to behave may be of service, right? In my view, epistemological cleavages are no longer useful in a time, when sociological and psychological traditions have given way to a fully formed academic discipline of journalism studies, and when digital forms of data collection and processing allow us to examine large and small numbers of individuals and groups at the same time. We now have the opportunity to explore the complexity of media effects, but we can contextualize them by including journalistic real-time innovation in those studies. Why not further develop a joint tradition, instead of keeping it separate? In the end, the audience turn in journalism studies has motivated scholars like me to enter the field.

However, and perhaps more importantly, journalism (and media effects) researchers may consider a second important aspect often discussed when the “audience turn” in journalism studies is brought up. The effects of emotion-driven journalism depend as much on audience perceptions as they depend on how humans will in principle process emotional journalistic content. Perception studies are not as highly regarded in many fields of media and communication research, and I cannot quite figure out why. In my view, it seems important to directly ask individuals what their views on, for instance, certain journalistic innovations are. What do they expect of journalists now and in future years? To think that they may only be studied in an “effects” paradigm through experimental research is limiting. Rather, audience credibility judgments, interpretations, and hopes for where journalism is going must inform our field as well as professional journalistic innovation.

Conclusion

The need for more audience-centered research in journalism studies is not a new argument. But it is an argument that is particularly pertinent when we consider the emotional turn within our field.

Emotion-driven journalism, even more so than other types of journalism, is about re-connecting with the audience. Assumptions about the value emotions hold in how effective, informative, and even economically viable emotion-driven journalistic work are informed by the media effects and related available literatures. However, to answer the question how important or valuable emotions are for journalism in particular must be accompanied by new research strategies. Emotionality makes connections, yes, but is this something audiences want or need? After all, as scholars, we can observe why and how journalists want to re-connect, but we also need to know if their audiences share that feeling.

To me, the further development of emotion-driven journalism depends on empirical and theoretical evidence of audience perceptions. This means that academic narratives on the value of journalistic innovation and investment in the field of emotion-driven journalism should be directly informed by empirical observations of audience perceptions of such innovations. We can achieve this using a variety of strategies, ranging from collaborative research projects that combine both newsroom- and audience-centered data collection, to increased efforts to communicate evidence-based insights on audience expectations to the journalistic practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.