The Christian Science Monitor's Bold (And Successful) Experiments
from the doing-it-right dept
Reader cram points us to a paidContent post by John Yemma, the editor of The Christian Science Monitor, in which he makes a lot of great points about digital strategies for news publishing.
A year ago, we ceased publishing the daily, 100-year-old Christian Science Monitor newspaper and launched a weekly magazine to complement our website, on which we doubled down by reorienting our newsroom to be web-first. Our web traffic climbed from 6 million page views last April to 13 million in February. Our print circulation rose from 43,000 to 77,000 in the same period.
This is the sort of bold move that might be the last hope for some struggling publications, and it's also an example of CwF+RtB. Magazines still hold value to readers as an attractive physical item in a way that newspapers don't—by connecting with fans online and then giving them a better reason to buy the print product, CSM increased the readership of both.
Those who defend newspapers out of nostalgia often cite the relaxing Sunday newspaper as a reason the medium should survive, but what they fail to realize is that there's no reason that experience has to die along with the cheap daily rag. If there is genuine demand for it, publishers will supply it, and smart publications will shift their focus to improve that aspect of their product, just like CSM did.
Yemma also warns against putting too much stock in "digital razzle dazzle": multimedia for multimedia's sake, deployed with little or no thought given to its purpose or effectiveness. The editorial and design aspects of print news have been evolving for decades; digital news must go back to first premises.
The multimedia debate needs a new question: How are we using technology to create a more relevant product? We're not going to "save" media by out-featuring each other. We can and will re-cement media by using the technology to deliver the experience consumers want most: intelligent, meaningful news that's accessible where they are in the moment.
Hopefully it isn't too blasphemous to say: amen to that!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cwf+rtb
Companies: christian science monitor
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CSM's name comes from a donor. It is NOT a christian newspaper. Given your ignorance I don't think you are capable of finding the relevant wikipedia article. So: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Science_Monitor .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe so
But I do know this -- in an era when there is almost no actual, quality journalism being done by the mainstream journalism outlets, the CSM remains one of the few exceptions to this plight. Evangelism or not, we need more of this type of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CSM has nothing to do with promoting Christian Science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"In an era when the mainstream media has narrowed its lens, we're convinced readers yearn for the opposite."
"No, it’s a real news organization owned by a church – The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Mass., USA."
http://www.csmonitor.com/About/The-Monitor-difference
Also, the wikipedia article above says
"It was started in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist."
and the owner is the "Church of Christ, Scientist"
I think it is safe to assume that profits aren't the only motivation of this organization and that they are motivated in part to promote their message independent of their profits.
That's not to say I disagree with their promotion or business model and I certainly don't agree with IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rupert Murdoch is religious yet that doesn't appear to interfere with his greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And #2, did you even READ you own link? I mean seriously? derp derp?
I would never read this rag, no matter how much they tell me how "unbiased" they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, there's someone I'd listen to on whether to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
CSM has been a well respected newspaper for a very, very long time. Please, look around. They are NOT a religious paper. Seriously. Before they ran into economic troubles they were considered on par with the NY Times in terms of reporting quality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add a Like/dislike button
On a tangent, does tech dirt keep track of the number of discrete clicks each article receives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Add a Like/dislike button
My impression is that they are a relatively normal newspaper with a requirement from the founder that they publish one article about religion each issue and have the name of the church in their title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Monitor staff have been the recipients of seven Pulitzer Prizes, the most recent in 2002."
How many Pulitzer Prizes has Matt Drudge received? Oh right, screw excellence, it's all about eyeballs because the more people who read your work the more correct it is!
That's just basic logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh yes, because some prize that some person/entity grants is the ultimate arbitrator of truth and good journalism since the Pulitzer Prize authorities are computers and machines and hence can't be subject to bias and prejudice.
"it's all about eyeballs because the more people who read your work the more correct it is!"
Who, besides your strawman, is making this argument?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're comparing turds to tomatoes. Drudge doesn't do journalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
Cmon mike you usually point things like that out :s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]