In 2009 the Christian Science Monitor was among the daily newspapers ceasing print publication in favor of web-only distribution. This paper presents ethnographic research on that transition by former journalist and current associate professor of Communication Studies at the University of San Diego Nikki Usher. Usher observed editorial operations and interviewed news staff at the Monitor during three periods between February 2009 and February 2010: before the transition to web-only, after the transition but before adopting a new content management system, and after CMS implementation. Their goal was to understand the meaning of the change to Monitor’s journalists and its impact on their organizational and journalistic values.
Usher begins with a useful literature review concerning the impact and challenges of implementing new technology in organizations, traditional newswork prior to the internet, and change processes in news organizations during their adoption of internet-based technologies. The studies they cite would be of considerable value in understanding how web-only news publishing has reconfigured journalistic identity and authority.
Prior to the transition to web-only publishing, the Monitor’s news staff expressed concerns about how it would alter the Monitor’s values and “humanitarian viewpoint” (p.1903). The print version had long been known for in-depth coverage of international news presented in some analytical depth. Reporters were worried about losing this tradition in favor of fast-breaking and opinion-driven news, and about losing control of their work due to the accelerated pace of online publishing. Usher finds that the ambivalence and anxieties of the news staff during this period centered on retaining the values of the Monitor as an organization, and losing “The Monitor voice” (p.1905).
Usher’s second site visit occurred as the Monitor staff was adjusting to “the new normal.” The transition to online-only publishing “ushered in a new reality, with new deadlines and work patterns” (p.1906). Reporters felt hampered by the pace of deadlines as stories were now posted online throughout the day. Web deadlines also meant less time for in-depth research on complex topics. Stories were shorter and structured for simplicity and quick reading. And reporters were worried that the faster pace would undermine the Monitor’s values of “public journalism with a humanitarian bent” (p.1907). But Usher reports that given the fait accompli of the online switch, the news staff adjusted their expectations and didn’t resist the change.
Reporters were also becoming aware of the importance of website metrics, which show the total traffic on the Monitor website and which stories attract the most readers. (I have written about the rise of website analytics more extensively elsewhere.) Members of the news staff said metrics had no influence on editorial decisions, although one reporter admitted that “it feels good when a story you worked on gets a lot of exposure” (p.1907). Usher reports that despite working harder, the Monitor news staff “were actually positive about what the changes were doing for the Monitor and for Monitor journalism,” and that data from her second visit “illustrates an organization that was extremely adaptable to change” (p.1907).
Usher’s third visit occurred shortly after The Monitor implemented a new content management system, ezPublish. Previously, the home page had to be hand-coded, a lengthy process that had one journalist “wanting to scratch my eyeballs out.” Much hope rested on the new CMS, whose primary goal was to “democratize Web publishing” (1908). At the same time, The Monitor’s strategic plan included specific traffic targets and a five-year goal of 25 million page views each month. There was increased pressure to become profitable by monetizing site traffic, and editors were given new responsibilities for search engine optimization, pushing stories on social media, and paying close attention to Google Trends.
At this point news staff told Usher “they felt increasingly less power over the kind of content they could produce” (1908). While the CMS allowed direct control over the appearance of website stories, it also introduced new constraints. Journalists had previously relied on web production staff, but now with direct responsibility for online publishing. Some welcomed the new process, but others felt the change resulted in more busywork, and less time to do the “real work” of journalism.
Additional tensions surfaced concerning website traffic, which “had transformed into an obsession.” One Monitor journalist told Usher “we need to build traffic or we lose our jobs” (p.1909). Metrics were shared during the daily Page One meeting, and stories and headlines were crafted for maximum SEO and pickup on Google News. Usher reports that one journalist they interviewed “echoed nearly all interviewees’ concern that it seemed like traffic numbers had become the driving force behind decision-making in the newsroom” (1910). News staff felt that in-depth stories were being replaced by “quick-hit traffic pleasers” and breaking news. The obsession over the “mystical value” of website metrics led to journalists feeling a loss of power over the kind of news stories they could cover. And they saw the chase for page views threatening the core values and integrity of The Monitor.
Usher concludes their study with two primary lessons: Journalists are more willing to embrace technological change when they believe their editorial authority and autonomy will not be threatened. But their “professional authority begins to suffer…when the autonomy of the profession butts heads against competing commercial imperatives” that devalue their work (1912). Their analysis of the shift to web-only publishing at the Monitor provides a cautionary tale.
Reference
Usher, Nikki. 2012. “Going Web-First at The Christian Science Monitor: A Three-Part Study of Change.” International Journal of Communication 6 (0): 20. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1404.
Adventures in Information Science 