Comments on: Asking whether local is better in journalism is the wrong question

By: Notes from a Teacher: Mark on Media » The local thing

Notes from a Teacher: Mark on Media » The local thing — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:43:45 +0000

[...] Hermida: Asking whether local is better in journalism is the wrong question and Local news unimportant for newspaper [...]

By: Local news unimportant for newspaper readers « Reportr.net

Local news unimportant for newspaper readers « Reportr.net — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:38:04 +0000

[...] newspapersTags: Canadian Media Research Consortium, CMRC Given the whole debate over the role of local in journalism, a recent Canadian study offers some surprising [...]

By: Jim in Austin, TX

Jim in Austin, TX — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:11:53 +0000

There may be a need for a new method of measurement, because the Internet seems to be dictating a different meaning for the term “local”. Local in the digital age is attached to ethos rather than place. Like-minded listeners/viewers/readers/users/consumers of news are carving out their own niches, cultures, and virtual spaces through the Internet. They now have agency as a part of what is coming to be known as the “active audience”.

By: Alfred Hermida

Alfred Hermida — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:27:31 +0000

Thanks for the congrats Bryan. As for the geographical puzzle, I also wonder how having a more transient and migratory population impacts on local journalism. If people are moving to different parts over the course of a lifetime, what does local mean to them?

By: Bryan Murley

Bryan Murley — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:23:13 +0000

I share your concerns about the geographical puzzle, but also wonder if rising prices and a period of economic uncertainty will drive people back to thinking on a more geographically local level in due time?

congrats, btw

By: June Carnival of Journalism by andydickinson.net

June Carnival of Journalism by andydickinson.net — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:05:30 +0000

[...] few strays for the debate. Alf Hermida returns from honeymoon (as good a late note as you can have) and ponders, like Paul Br… “The issue then is less whether local is better, but rather how do we redefine local to [...]

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:56:16 +0000

The motivation for asking the question was that it seemed that some of the best journalism was done by what we would consider local outfits.

Like your Vancouver story they seem to get the stories that have an interest to many over and above the geographical direction. It wasn’t necessarily a value judgment, more a reflection on the kind of content that is appearing from local outlets as apposed to the generic national content.

I agree that proximity is perhaps a better thing to aim for than geography. But part of me thinks what’s wrong with geography?

What is wrong with having local news in terms of geography. We seem obsessed with geotagging the stuff at the moment so why are we so ashamed of applying a little geography?

I don’t see newsapers trying to re-title themselves the ‘of interest to a slightly older, a bit right of center, and a bit wary of computers’ evening news (5 mile radius edition) and I hope we won’t see newspaper websites re branded as generic “the online version of things that might interest you culled from the web to entertain you if you are looking for a car in preston.com”

Local is being re-defined and rightly so, to be a broader reach of interest but that can be ‘as well as’ the geographical element. The amounts will change but the balance will need to be there.

Still, if I harp on about geography and local for too long people will thing I’m turning in to a ludditte