“Making Peace with Metrics: Relational Work in Online News Production.”
Open accessAbstract
How do workers make peace with performance metrics that threaten their professional values? Drawing on Viviana Zelizer’s concepts of relational work and “good matches,” we focus on the case of online news production and analyze efforts to align audience metrics with journalistic values. Whereas existing research on web metrics tends to frame editorial production and audience data as “hostile worlds” of professional and market forces that cannot be reconciled, we show that journalists rely on relational work to make metrics acceptable within organizations. Drawing on ethnographic material, we identify five key relational strategies: moral boundary-drawing between "good" and "bad" metrics, strategic invocation of "best-case scenarios," domestication through bespoke metrics, reframing metrics as democratic feedback, and justifying metrics as organizational subsidies. We then turn to cases of failure and document a process that we call overspelling, which can coincide with organizational breakdown. We conclude by discussing the concept of “failed matches” and the indirect relationship between metrics and markets in online news production.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Like other digital laborers, creators interpret performance metrics in ways that affirm their identities, akin to the way that journalists reinterpret poor click rates as signs of their high editorial standards.
“Relatedly, and like other digital laborers, creators interpret performance metrics in ways that affirm their identities, akin to the way that journalists reinterpret poor click rates as signs of their high editorial standards (Christin and Petre 2020).”
From Learning to Like the Likes and the Hate: The Labor of Internet Fame in the New Attention Economy (2026) · cites this paper as Christin and Petre 2020
Cites
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
(2006) · Habermas · doi:10.4324/9780203020166-5 · Cited by 4,779 · see citing works
Toward a Comparative Sociology of Valuation and Evaluation
Lamont, M. (2012) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120022 · Cited by 1,492 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Drama of Metrics: Status, Spectacle, and Resistance Among YouTube Drama Creators
Christin, A., & Lewis, R. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305121999660 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Self-citationLearning to Like the Likes and the Hate: The Labor of Internet Fame in the New Attention Economy
Mears, A., & Beauvais, T. (2026) · Social Problems · doi:10.1093/socpro/spaf028 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Christin, A., & Petre, C.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Sociologica
- Publisher
- Sociologica
- Published
- 2020-09-18
- ISSN
- 1971-8853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3087252159
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- sociologica.unibo.it
- Licence
- Locations
- Sociologica (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Università degli Studi di Bologna (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media and Communication Studies
- Keywords
- relational work, digital news production, audience metrics, performance indicators, journalistic values, journalists, domestication, organizational breakdown, news market, Viviana Zelizer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review