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.
On being and nothingness in journalism
Yesterday, I had two terrific conversations on what it means to be a reporter. The first happened on this blog with Rockville (Md.) Central’s Cynthia Cotte Griffiths, who pointed out that community bloggers and journalists serve similar but not identical rolls in the hyperlocal news landscape.
The second transpired on Twitter with Gannett reporter Chris Serico, who shared his thoughts on sportscaster Bob Costas. Serico finds Costas to be a “smart and self-effacing” announcer, whereas I believe Costas is a babbling egomaniac who’s strayed from his roll as a sports reporter.
Of course, some of these questions may never be answered or even understood. But I’d like to take a swing at the first one, on being a reporter, with an emphasis on hyperlocalism. Here goes nothing:
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a reporter is someone who works for a newspaper, magazine, or television company to gather, report and broadcast news. Throw in organizations like radio companies, press agencies and websites, and I’m cool with Merriam-Webster. But the dictionary (and I) distinguish reporters from journalists, those whose writing is characterized “by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.”
Can community bloggers be considered reporters? If they offer new information that’s relevant to the community conversation, then yes. They should be extended all the courtesies and credentials available to the mainstream press. But are community bloggers journalists? No, not if they participate in news creation or inject opinion into their content.
(The same can be asked of Bob Costas and other mainstream content producers. Are they reporters, journalists, commentators, columnists, or what?)
The distinction between reporter and journalist does not diminish the former’s importance in delivering vital information to the community. However, editorializing can be a dangerous thing for both, especially on the hyperlocal level. On the business end, it can alienate potential advertisers and sponsors. But even worse, it can lead news consumers to question motives.
There are some damn good community blogs out there digging up dirt that mainstream media won’t touch, and they’re definitely worth reading. But as far as practice goes, I’ll stick with journalism.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user jef_safi.