The term “audience” is central to discussions about media policy, regulation, and industry strategy, yet it is rarely interrogated beyond its functional use. It serves as a broad, seemingly neutral category that defines the recipients of media content, shaping how institutions justify their public obligations, how funding is allocated, and how content is created and distributed.
However, the way “audience” is understood and applied carries implicit assumptions about power, agency, and participation in the media landscape. Whether it is treated as a consumer base, a demographic unit, or a collective public, the definition of an audience fundamentally shapes how media is structured and who it ultimately serves.
In the context of UK media regulation, audiences are often framed as passive recipients of content, requiring protection from harm, access to diverse programming, and representation in public service media. Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code reflects this approach, ensuring that audiences are shielded from misleading information, offensive material, or disproportionate commercial influence.
Yet, this definition is shaped by a model of broadcasting inherited from an era when media was predominantly one-directional, with content producers delivering information to an audience assumed to be on the receiving end. While this regulatory function remains important, it risks positioning audiences as subjects of policy rather than active participants in shaping media environments.
The commercial sector adopts a different but equally instrumental view, treating audiences as market-driven entities that can be segmented, measured, and monetised. In this model, audiences exist primarily as data points—their value determined by their consumption habits, their ability to generate advertising revenue, and their engagement with content across platforms.
The shift to digital media has reinforced this transactional relationship, with streaming platforms and social media companies using algorithmic systems to refine audience targeting, shaping not only what people watch but also what they are encouraged to believe and engage with. The question then arises: does this definition of audience serve the interests of the people consuming media, or does it primarily benefit those who control its distribution?
Public service media takes yet another approach, framing audiences as citizens rather than just consumers. This perspective assumes that media should provide content in the public interest, ensuring that a broad cross-section of society is informed, educated, and engaged. Yet even within this framework, there are limits to how audiences are conceptualised. The term is often used in a homogenised way, failing to account for the fragmentation of media consumption or the shifting relationship between traditional public service broadcasting and new forms of digital engagement.
When Ofcom speaks about “audiences,” it tends to focus on access to content rather than on participation in its creation, reinforcing the idea that audiences are recipients rather than contributors to the media ecosystem.
There is a growing tension between these different definitions, as audiences themselves no longer fit neatly into these pre-existing categories. People now navigate media spaces in more fluid and participatory ways, shifting between roles as viewers, contributors, commentators, and creators.
The rise of citizen journalism, podcasting, and community media challenges the traditional notion that audiences are external to media production. The term itself begins to feel outdated when applied to platforms where people are considered and valued as producers of content, as much as they are consumers of it.
If the idea of an audience is to remain relevant, it must be redefined in ways that reflect the agency and participation of the public in shaping media landscapes. Instead of being viewed as passive groups, audiences could be understood as communities of engagement—fluid, interactive, and deeply embedded in media production rather than simply responding to it.
A regulatory model built around this understanding would not only focus on protecting audiences from harmful content but would also consider how to empower them to participate in media-making, decision-making, and policy debates.
The consequences of maintaining a limited definition of audience extend beyond media institutions. When audiences are framed primarily as consumers or data points, the civic and social function of media is diminished. The decline of independent and local media, the increasing dominance of algorithmically curated content, and the erosion of shared public spaces for discourse all suggest that media is at risk of becoming less about collective engagement and more about individualised consumption.
If regulatory frameworks continue to prioritise the survival of media institutions over the democratic function of communication, they risk reinforcing a model where audiences are seen as markets rather than as public participants.
A shift in thinking is needed, one that moves beyond simply delivering media to audiences and instead considers how media structures can include them. This would require rethinking funding mechanisms to support collaborative and community-driven media initiatives, re-evaluating regulatory frameworks to encourage participatory engagement rather than just protection, and acknowledging that the most effective media is that which reflects the public as active contributors rather than passive observers.
The language of audiences has shaped media policy and regulation for decades, but as society moves further into an era of interactive, decentralised communication, this language must evolve. If media is to serve the public in meaningful ways, it must rethink not only what audiences consume, but also how they contribute to the shaping of media itself.