Small-town newspapers
While the bigfoot journalists complain about the death of newspapers -- meaning the ones that give them the big salaries -- something else is happening to the smaller papers. The most high-profile case: McClatchy's purchase of 31 Knight-Ridder papers. But other prominent media companies, even prominent investment companies, are loading up on weeklies. Is there something different about small-town papers?
One thing about small towns: there tends to be a very strong sense of place. The natural landscapes are so overwhelming, especially compared to the human landscapes, that people have relationships with geographic features. And they tend to share aspects of those relationships. So effective small-town journalists can tap into that sense of place even if they don't personally know a reader.
Another thing about small towns: news has always spread faster than newsprint. A weekly paper that merely summarizes the results of a city council meeting has rarely told readers anything they don't already know. To become indispensable, the small-town journalist needs to bring a thoroughness, or an analysis, or significant background, or a compelling opinion. And readers expect that.
A final consideration about small towns: with a slower pace and fewer information-based jobs, old-fashioned oral and written storytelling has remained more popular than in urban areas.
I'm not sure what, if any, lessons this has for urban journalism. Certainly many cities have great sense of place, but I think it's more complex and less universally shared -- so more difficult to tap into. Certainly big papers are struggling with how to add value to news everyone already knows -- and there are a huge number of lousy small-town journalists who have always failed at this task.
But I do think that for people anywhere, the interest in reading newspapers is tied to a sense of community, and I do think that as a rule small-town papers have been better or luckier at being able to tap into that. Will they continue to? Or will the drive for profits eliminate talent at small-town papers even as it eliminates the sense of place they try to capture?
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks...
One thing about small towns: there tends to be a very strong sense of place. The natural landscapes are so overwhelming, especially compared to the human landscapes, that people have relationships with geographic features. And they tend to share aspects of those relationships. So effective small-town journalists can tap into that sense of place even if they don't personally know a reader.
Another thing about small towns: news has always spread faster than newsprint. A weekly paper that merely summarizes the results of a city council meeting has rarely told readers anything they don't already know. To become indispensable, the small-town journalist needs to bring a thoroughness, or an analysis, or significant background, or a compelling opinion. And readers expect that.
A final consideration about small towns: with a slower pace and fewer information-based jobs, old-fashioned oral and written storytelling has remained more popular than in urban areas.
I'm not sure what, if any, lessons this has for urban journalism. Certainly many cities have great sense of place, but I think it's more complex and less universally shared -- so more difficult to tap into. Certainly big papers are struggling with how to add value to news everyone already knows -- and there are a huge number of lousy small-town journalists who have always failed at this task.
But I do think that for people anywhere, the interest in reading newspapers is tied to a sense of community, and I do think that as a rule small-town papers have been better or luckier at being able to tap into that. Will they continue to? Or will the drive for profits eliminate talent at small-town papers even as it eliminates the sense of place they try to capture?
I'm always interested in feedback, via info at johnclaytonbooks...
