What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
Who Gets To Use Unsold Cruise Cabins at Huge Discounts view!
howlifeworks.com - How to access once-in-a-lifetime trips at significantly less than full price
35 Comments
- Hetman, on 03/07/2009, -0/+11I read my local newspapers and watch the news. The good thing about local news is that it highlights local events and disasters. I mean why would the world really care about Chicago festivals, or a fire that happened on the north side?
- Kent4jmj, on 03/07/2009, -0/+8A global audience implies universal beliefs interests and understanding. Does that mean coverage is elevated or succumbs to the lowest common denominator? And of course what is the motivation for marketing to a 'global' audience. A local market has certain unique characteristics. Is that lost? Do we end up with 'McDonalds' paradigm?
- slavetolust, on 03/08/2009, -1/+6news12.com local news for where I live that is still local. So there.
- judicar, on 03/08/2009, -0/+5This article made absolutely zero sense. The author seems to be confusing content delivery with content generation.
- owenadam, on 03/08/2009, -0/+4As the editor of a college newspaper, I have to disagree.
Its more useful to think of the media as two strands, Geography based and interest based.
Interest based media has seen a huge boom through communications technology advancements, but geography based media like local newspapers or websites like the '-ist' blogs still continue to thrive. People read both, too. I might, for instance, read both nationally distributed Cat Fancy and my local newspaper regularly. - terenceyap7, on 03/07/2009, -0/+4A globalised approach, while having its merits, has its down-side: would the cost of such wide distribution be justified; can it bridge the great divide of language, culture and national interest?
- gkbd, on 03/08/2009, -1/+4you just read the summary didn't you? the article was actually talking about how local media should focus on covering local news, and not retelling global news.
- Hetman, on 03/08/2009, -0/+3Or the more logical answer is that print media is dying because of the net. Most local news is done in print. But I take it logic was really never the point of your post.
- JasPruett, on 03/07/2009, -1/+3I think the whole point is to cover local events in such a way that the audience doesn't have to live in the area in order to understand what's going on or who is involved. It's like writers that create serial stories in such a way that they stand on their own and the audience doesn't need to read all the previous stories to understand what's happening in the current one.
- inactive, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1I'm sure the global audience would care less, much less have the time, for my local news.
- cferet, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1This article and its comments offer a decent discussion about how local media attempts to cover global news and how local news is available globally and how that affects decisions on where and how we put news and access news.
I found this right after I had a discussion with a potential client regarding devoting budget to local marketing versus all out branding even though he has multiple locations throughout the city. In the here and now of social media we no longer have to choose.
Even if we organize local events or market to local communities through local media, we shouldn't be surprised that a blogger in Timbuktu hears about it and shares the event with their contacts possibly in our city. The spider web that is communications can no longer be viewed so simply with blinders on to the far reaching access that the internet now allows. Social Media Grass Roots Marketing doesn't have to be only local grass, it also addresses niche markets, as well as extending the news or message's reach throughout the world. - NYConcepts, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1You live in Westchester or somewhere around there. I get that news too. Their modo is "As local as news gets". So you have a point.
- Billions, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1...Because there's the internet now?
- greenwald, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1 BS "Search Google News for "Lodi" and there it is: more than 4,000 news stories, organized roughly by importance. Getting Lodi news on Google is faster, cheaper, more comprehensive and, well, better than the local Lodi paper."
An insightful article, but the above section is misleading. My google news results for Lodi are 80 percent stories that are online or parent syndicated versions of original local newspaper stories. So take away local newspapers and you have far less to work with. Plus if you want current news for the town using Google news you find very little. - Qbryzan, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1That's a good point. Also, like this column by David Simon shows, there's not a lot of real investigative reporting anymore:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
I think someone willing to go the extra mile investigating local stories could easily gain readers from all over. If there's injustice going on, it's never really a local issue, since "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" - Martin Luther King, Jr. - hungryforair, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1Not going to argue that radio isn't a "dying" media. But when describing a dying media why would one pick radio over newspaper? Just in the past year dozens of the biggest papers in America have shuttered their doors. Not too many stations have went out of business. And here's why: Effort to receive media. Stations still sell based on cume. And radio is free. Doesn't take any effort by the consumer. Papers are not free. Takes effort by the consumer.
- terenceyap7, on 03/07/2009, -0/+1Good point.
- hungryforair, on 03/08/2009, -3/+4I'm not so sure the world wants to know that Mr. and Ms. Kelly had twins this past week. Nor would anyone outside my hometown care about the new Dollar General opening on Bakers Ave. The local paper here is meant for people... Here. A Global Audience works for many outlets, not so much rundown little local papers or local AM radio stations.
- esc27, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1The biggest problem I have with local news is that their websites are more often than not horrible, unreadable, poorly designed ad farms, at least that goes for the newspapers. If you can find one, local independent blogs tend to be better.
- j4200, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1This guy is dumb. Communities need their own local media. For the most part the world doesn't care whats going on in any other local other than their own. Terrestrial radio will never lose it's niche.
He must be the type that figures since he's a shut in in his own city, everyone else in the world must be as well. Who cares about local information if you're a shut in right? - CTK14A, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1The problem with the death of the local paper is that citizens will know everything that happens in D.C., New York, or Iraq, and have no idea what's going on in their own city hall. This is an unforeseen consequence that will likely lead to (greater) corruption at the municipal and county level.
- Pyros7, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1In order for local media to survive there has to be news. Sadly the vast majority of the nation now considers celebrity meltdowns, inept criminals, reality TV results, and amusing pet stories "news."
Since there isn't enough of that in town to report on, my local paper's website carries the same stupid stories hours after they appear at the bottom of the Drudge Report. - juliems3, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1I found this article thought provoking...........
I think many are missing the point. Having community and being connected is very important, but it is changing....and how the world interacts as a whole. He wasn't saying that local radio was dying or that local papers were not important. What do you mean no one cares about your local community? Only the next person who may have to move there?! He was suggesting how inefficient "duplicating" coverage and some news was. He is right. If local papers could cover national and international current events in a way in which they are applicable to you and your local community....then that would be great! But local papers and radio do not do this they just grad snippets, AP's and the like and act like they "covered" the world for you. Useless and obsolete for sure.
If you can introduce your local community to the world, listen to a Chicago radio station you learned to love after you have to move to
L.A. and find people long after you left your hometown, or college or your last job...then we are entering a new world...one with far less boundaries and that is what is important to understand. Connections will be made,kept and introduced in ways that were never possible before etc......that is what he meant by the end of "local." Gee do I have to do everyone's thinking on here?! ;) - Solstar, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1A healthy democracy requires journalism that investigates and so that voters can make informed decisions.
More reporters means less bias (approached from more angles).
Fewer stories fall through the cracks. (the next potential Woodward and Bernstein have probably already been laid off)
"Efficiency" far too often sacrifices quality. (too much of that pseudo-intellectual BS is what landed Blackwater and Haliburton with no-bid contracts) - nesagwa, on 03/08/2009, -0/+1This is also what I dont get about the idiots cheering on the death of traditional news outlets.
All of this blog ***** syndicates and links back to REAL journalists. Take them away and all of your news aggregators and link blogs wont really be making any of that sweet sweet advertising revenue. - Ratteler, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1*****. I only live in one place at a time. I'm not going to order LUNCH on E-Bay and wait for it to be shipped.
There will always be a greater need to know what's going on NEAR you, even if your only trying to find the cheapest price on Toilet Paper. - antdude, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1One single print page: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com ...
- manitoba98xp, on 03/09/2009, -0/+1Interesting point, but I could argue the reverse.
People want to read content based on their interests – and interests aren't always geographically grouped. The globalization of content means that people can read about niche topics that are of interest to too few people in a local area to be covered in a newspaper, but have a large enough audience overall to warrant publication.
So no, a global audience doesn't necessarily imply universal beliefs, interests and understanding, only that beliefs, interests and understanding may not be grouped only by geography. - murrdpirate, on 03/08/2009, -0/+0FTA:"Radio stations and newspapers must now consider the larger, newer audience, and stop the bigoted pandering. And they must also stop covering the larger world."
So local news sources need to expand their audience by covering a smaller area? The rest of the article makes about as much sense. I don't follow my own local news, so I'm not sure why people outside my locality would. Not that you shouldn't know what's going on in your community, but theres just so little that goes on a daily basis to warrant much news, that's why my local paper only comes once a week.
Since this article sucks so much, I'll make my own points. I can't wait for internet radio to kill broadcasted radio. I don't know how this industry gets away with 10 minute commercial breaks and annoying DJ's instead of music when they don't even have to pay licensing fees for the music they play. User-specified content like Pandora is the future. - swanyriver, on 03/08/2009, -0/+0I am the station manager of a college radio station and I have been studying media for 3 years now and these articles just break my heart.
every day articles like this are written by tech bloggers that are applying the technological imperative assumption to media (an approach popularized by McLuhan); but technology doesnt shape society, society shapes technology. There are benefits to a local station that takes care in serving a local audience. Ball-Rokeach's research indicates that it fosters a sense of belonging to a local community; something that seems to be all but forgotten about. I intend to work for a local station no matter what the tech bloggers say; and if you want to know the odds on these bets about the death of radio and newspapers, read about the hysterical fear that TV would kill the movies! a medium doesn't die, it just adapts. - almondfilter3, on 03/08/2009, -1/+1The funny thing in the radio world, is how so many PD's and GM's are pressing for local content, or so they say they are. You're seeing syndicated, interesting shows getting dumped for really cheap younger talent to push buttons, under the guise of listeners wanting "local" talent. Yet in an age of global media and iPods and a million other things, they're doing the same things and devices in radio that they did 10 years ago. Hence why radio is a dying medium.
- samsmartjr, on 03/09/2009, -0/+0I listen to a local radio talk show when I'm driving around, and listen to it online when I'm at a computer and can't pick it up on the radio. The show is well known for taking on any callers no matter what they want to talk about. I've listened to them for 10 years. I have never and will never to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
- mentorwarrior, on 03/08/2009, -2/+1This is so true. With radio changing so much in the past few years, it's foolish not to change as a broadcaster. Anyone who wants to be a DJ or announcer or voice over artist should be recording themselves and putting it online for everyone to hear. If you are interested in a career in voice-over or online radio check out the Radio Connection. They match you with a mentor which specializes in your area of interest, whether is is electronica, Djing, hip hop, or talk radio. http://www.radioconnection.comfor more info !
- PhantomPhoenix, on 03/08/2009, -5/+4I hate local TV news, almost as much as I hate Fox News. It's just too sensationalist (like Fox News).
- inactive, on 03/08/2009, -9/+1The Communist in the Large Media Companies realized they could lie to more people and have more propaganda by putting local media out of business.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is