Here’s a nice little victory: Hyperlocal news sites and blogs are stimulating more citizen discussion on local policy issues than mainstream news outlets, according to a publicly funded study conducted in Portland, Oregon. I’m talking on the order of four and a half times more discussion. Booyah!
The marketing group that conducted the study didn’t explain the difference, but Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab chalked it up to the ability of topic-specific sites to reach target audiences, versus the watered-down mainstream coverage engineered to speak to the masses.
And there’s this theory from fellow hyperlocalist Cynthia Cotte Griffiths, with Rockville (Md.) Central: “Bloggers are on the front line producing story ideas. We’re free to interact,” she said via Twitter. “Reporters are often restricted.”
Um, no and yes. While bloggers and hyperlocalists are “on the front line,” so are mainstream reporters. Newspapers still break most stories, which bloggers then regurgitate, a Pew study found (in Baltimore, anyway). In that sense, reporters not only occupy the front line, they bring the beer and chips. Bloggers (83 percent of them, according to Pew) just nibble on the crumbs.
I agree that reporters are “restricted” somewhat when it comes to their level of interaction with readers. Good practice requires them to stay out of the fray, to maintain objectivity. But that shouldn’t prevent journalists from eliciting conversation from readers, from “interviewing” them and moderating discussion strings in online comments sections.
Perhaps the bigger problem lies with the institutions that manage mainstream media and the agendas they put forth. Some of the country’s best known publications — The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and Harper’s Magazine, to name a few — are managed by billionaires who jump into the news business primarily because it gives them access to the powers that be, Advertising Age’s Simon Dumenco posted last week.
That’s not journalism for the sake of civic discourse, quality reporting or even business. That’s just journalism for the sake of ego. And if a news outlet operates only to stroke the egos of aloof billionaire backers, then there’s no room left for average news consumers to share their thoughts.
Mainstream media insists on talking to people. Hyperlocalists understand that it’s about talking with people. Until traditional media changes its mind frame, it will continue to circle the drain. No new technology or novel distribution system will reverse that trend.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user bbaltimore.
I can only speak to our local situation in Rockville. As a blogger and also a resident, I can interact with anyone I choose to on the social networks. Our local newspaper forbid reporters from interacting on the social networks and they were forced to “unfriend” the citizens on their personal accounts. This is what I was referring to with my Twitter comment. It’s unfortunate and behind the times.
Yes reporters have to remain objective but I also must remain objective. The difference is my freedom to participate in the discussions as a citizen while the reporter sits next to me mum. In one public work session with large maps and lots of ideas from a group, I could participate and put my ideas forward, change my thinking, and really work on solutions which I could then share on the blog. The reporter got some quotes from the organizers and did a fine story but my pieces are part of the process of discussing and working through our local concerns — as you’ve noted in this post.
Thanks for your comment, Cynthia. Respectfully, I disagree with your statement:
I believe mainstream reporters and hyperlocalists should behave only as witnesses (not participants) at civic meetings and news events. Participation gives the perception of bias, even if the hyperlocalist maintains objectivity in reporting the story.
Ironically (maybe irrationally), I believe mainstream and hyperlocal reporters should interact with readers in the online comments section (or whatever feedback forum is available in that hyperlocal medium). To me, that’s the proper place for reporters to divulge their opinions, instead of during the civic meeting, where the opinion becomes part of the event and possibly the story.
You bring up a good point, can anyone ever really truly be objective?
If you are a reporter who happens to be making a living reporting for a local website with advertising rather than a sugar daddy newspaper, then you most certainly are like other reporters observing and writing what you determine to be important – from your perspective. Community blogging by people who were participating in civic life before blogging is a whole different ball game.
Hyperlocal sites filling a reporting gap left vacant by failing newspapers is certainly a trendy topic. Communities working through issues together online hasn’t been getting as much attention. In our case, we are honest about being members of our community participating in our civic life and writing about it. Community blogging is unique. We can describe all the facts and details from a meeting and interject the opinions expressed at the meeting, including our own. We’re very clear about it.
Perhaps all local blogs and websites shouldn’t be lumped together. I agree that community members blogging about their experiences is different from reporters on a local commercial website reporting. I would never go around preaching that every local web address should be the same. They are not, nor would I want them to be.
Here’s a question to readers (all three of you):
Do you consider yourselves journalists (professional, citizen, whatever) or community bloggers?
Hey, thanks for the link to my Nieman piece, Jennifer.
I’m a professional journalist (at a suburban daily for the next couple months, then launching a topical startup). Seems to me that different MSM outlets have different rules and standards for participation, and so do different independent blogs. Which is great.
Cindy makes a good point that startups’ tendency to interact with readers leads to more conversations.
But Cindy, I’d also argue that anyone who is actively “working through solutions” at a public meeting can’t be reliably objective about any solutions that might emerge from said meeting. That’s fine if your relationship with readers doesn’t rely entirely on objectivity.
I think this also plays into the distinction I’m trying to draw between MSM-style *politics* coverage designed to not piss off anyone in a broad, heterogeneous audience, and startup-style *policy* coverage, where the narrow audience has more shared interests and is much more likely to coalesce around whatever solutions might arise from Cindy’s detailed coverage.