An entry on Community Attachment that I wrote for the Oxford Bibliographies, edited by Patricia Moy, just went live this week. The bibliographies are a really great resource — I often recommend them to students as a starting point for their research projects. Many eminent scholars (across many disciplines) have contributed to the resource and I am pleased to be a part it as well. My entry can be found in the Communication section — which is gated, so the link above may not work. In the entry, I provide an overview of the conceptualization of community attachment, an exploration of its historical roots, and an introduction to its study within Communication. If you do have access to the Oxford Bibliographies via your institution/library, you can check out my whole entry. If not, here’s the first paragraph. Out of respect to the publisher, I won’t be posting the whole entry here…
Community attachment may be thought of as the extent to which residents of a place possess cognitive or affective ties to each other and to that place. Interest in the concept can be traced to the rise of urbanization and industrialization in the 19th century. As new immigrants flooded into rapidly developing cities, the social, economic, and political systems under which agrarian societies and their communities had long been organized were disrupted. How would these new cities, and the residents that had left their families and homes behind, fare? In 1887, pioneering sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies theorized about this transition in Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, catalyzing a generation of scholarly concern about the rootlessness of new urban residents. In the mid-20th century, Morris Janowitz brought the interests in cities and communication shown at the School of Sociology at the University of Chicago (Chicago School) to a study of the community press. The modern study of the relationship between community attachment and mass media stems from this work. When Janowitz published his seminal study, the population of American cities had stabilized, but it was dominated by enclaves with ethnic roots. If the study of community attachment was driven initially by concern about the integration of immigrants into cities, interest in the interplay between these enclaves and the larger community spurred post–World War II studies of community attachment. As the 20th century progressed, the decline of American cities, the rise of suburbs, and the increasing mobility of the workforce prompted a renewed focus on community attachment as places of residence grew less fixed. What prompts residents of a community to stay, to engage civically and politically within that community, and to feel a sense of connection and responsibility to that community? Today, as individuals turn from geographically proximate mass media toward interest-based niche information sources, the question of community attachment remains a salient one.
I’m not exactly sure why, but I spent part of my morning thinking & writing about slow news. I probably had more important work to do than generating this blog post, but…here it is.
Tweet tweet tweet goes the Twitterverse. Blah blah blah go the talking heads. A suspect has been named. A dark-skinned man has been arrested. There are multiple suspects – and they look like frat boys! There’s a dragnet! Refresh. Stay tuned – back right after this…
Unspeakable trauma, again, enthralls the nation. This week, we all turned to Boston – witness to a tragic and terrible attack made during an annual celebration of life and liberty. Before this, we were shocked – and riveted – by events in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and beyond. By this point, audience and media both know the drill for these stories: immediate and ongoing updates are the currency of the moment. The public and the press, swept up in the same wave, all seemingly powerless. Surely, this routine is as unhealthy as it is predictable. Dan Gillmor – and others like Ariana Huffington – have the answer: slow news.
For the past couple of years, I’ve been working on a paper that examines whether or not there were any negative effects upon Seattle and Denver when they lost one of their major newspapers (the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Rocky Mountain News). After a slow process, the paper has now been accepted for publication in Political Communication – a great journal that will hopefully expose the piece to an interested audience.
My research was cited in a feature article in the Christian Science Monitor – subsequently republished by a few other sources like the MinnPost and Alaska Dispatch — and a few people actually came to this website, poking around, looking for the source material.Their interest was exciting but, lo and behold, there was nothing to find here…because I was bashfully waiting for the peer-review process to work its magic.
Now that the paper has been accepted, I’m posting a draft copy here. A commenter on a previous post noted that he wasn’t convinced by my evidence; as of today, you can be the judge. My basic take is: it looks like there may well have been a negative effect of closing a local newspaper on citizens’ civic engagement, but a few more datapoints would be very illuminating. Given a few more years of newspaper closures and US Census data, I guess we’ll get those datapoints. Too bad it’ll cost a bunch of journalists their jobs, and a bunch of citizens their newspaper…
Over the weekend, the Christian Science Monitor posted the online version of a cover story that they just published about the implications of the demise of newspapers – and the story features some quotes from your truly. By now, it’s old news: newspapers are fading into oblivion around the United States. Big papers like the Seattle PI are gone; big papers likethe New Orleans Times-Picayune are now printing on reduced schedules; even fake big papers like the Daily Planet are feeling the pinch (see above). Even the Christian Science Monitor itself is down to a single weekly edition. Little papers? Also in dire straits. Still, even if we generally know that newspapers are disappearing, we don’t really know what this means for citizens, their communities, and democracy.
I’ve been interested in the effects of the transition in the media system from geographic/proximate media to niche/national media for many years now. This interest was the impetus for my dissertation and it continues to drive much of my research. Jessica Bruder tracked down some of my work, interviewed me, and featured me in her piece for the CSMonitor. The teaser:
The death of newspapers – by cutbacks, outright disappearance, or morphing into lean websites – means a reduction of watchdog reporting and less local information. Some say it has caused a drop in civic participation. Is it a blow to good citizenship?
The piece is well-written, provides some nice anecdotal/human context for the empirical work I do, and gives my work some friendly attention. All in all, pretty nifty.
As a bonus, after the story hit the web yesterday, I was contacted by a community radio station host Arnie Arnesen from 94.7 in Concord, New Hampshire. This morning, I did a 20 minute interview for her program to talk generally about media, newspapers, and communities. The conversation was interesting & lively — I tried not to stray too far from my expertise & only butchered a couple words. (Who knew saying bicyclist could be so hard?) At any rate, Arnie’s a fun host and did a good job making my work & our conversation engaging. I’ve uploaded the 20+ minute segment that I was on here so that it will be preserved for posterity…
PS. I haven’t really posted the research that prompted the CSMonitor article yet; it’s under peer review right now and I guess I’m a bit superstitious. If you Google around, you can find conference versions…
Nice news for an academic: two articles that I spent a lot of time working on over the past couple of years went to press on literally the same day this past week. Both will be featured in the fall edition of two very nice journals. One comes out of a larger project that I helped two colleagues work on during my post-doc & the other is a solo-authored piece that traces back to my dissertation. In both cases, I am very pleased that the papers are out for the world to see.
The first article, Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation, is co-written with Tali Mendelberg and Chris Karpowitz (and stems from a larger project on deliberation). It’s in the fall edition of the American Political Science Review and details the results of an experiment that focuses on the deliberative interactions of mixed-gender conversation groups. In short, it details how the contributions of men and women differ based upon the group composition and the conditions that structure the conversation. Should be noteworthy to anyone who studies deliberation — or is interested in small-group communication broadly defined.
The second article, Local Political Knowledge and Assessments of Citizen Competence, stems from my dissertation research. This piece compares levels of local and national political knowledge in the same population and relates the findings to the ongoing debate in political science about citizen competence. In short, the idea is that we hold many assumptions about who is knowledgeable about politics — and therefore a ‘competent’ citizen — based on studies of national politics. I feel like these assessments of the public are reductive at best and pejorative at worst — and suggest that local political knowledge is indicative of a kind of competence as well. This article is published in Public Opinion Quarterly and it puts some of my research into a new, relevant context. Curious to see if it generates any reaction…
The Times published an interesting piece this week about the decline of local TV news. The article, available here, summarized a practice that I was only vaguely aware of: TV stations sharing newsrooms & producing replica newscasts (but with different anchors). Obviously, it’s cheaper to produce a newscast if you don’t have to pay, you know, reporters — and who cares about quality? And, since we live in a socialist state, competition is something we frown upon…wait. Huh?
Anyways, this quote stood out to me:
DuJuan McCoy, the owner of KIDY, said he believed such arrangements were necessary in small markets. It can cost up to $1 million to run a TV news operation in a market the size of San Angelo’s. “It is very difficult, if not impossible, to generate enough revenue to justify the expense for a locally produced newscast,” he said.
Really? $1 million to run a local news broadcast for a town with less than 100k people? I’m positive that I could produce solid local TV news for half, or probably a quarter, of that. In this day and age, when media production has never been more accessible or affordable, this explanation simply isn’t a valid defense of debasing a public good: local news.
If your station can’t produce quality, unique local TV news, then why should it have a free broadcast license? Why should the government prevent competition from companies that would produce unique content?
So, I was just flipping through my journal RSS feeds & ran into an interesting article from the last issue of Political Communication. The article (by Shaw & Gimpel) describes the results of a really interesting field experiment that studies the effects of campaign appearances.
In their words:
We seek to pinpoint the magnitude and nature of candidate appearance effects across these different dimensions. The central feature of our project is a major statewide field experiment conducted in the midst of the 2006 gubernatorial campaign in Texas. Incumbent Republican governor Rick Perry allowed us to randomly select the location of his campaign visits for 3 full days, while his polling, fundraising, and organization teams agreed to provide us with detailed information on critical metrics of voter support, financial contributions, and volunteer sign-ups. We also gathered information from local television stations and newspapers to address the role of media coverage of campaign events. To our knowledge, this is the first field experiment conducted in a statewide partisan election with the full cooperation of a major party candidate. As such, we believe it provides a unique and
thought-provoking estimation of appearance effects.
Can you believe this? Rick Perry, in the midst of a real-life gubernatorial campaign, let academics randomly run his campaign visits for 3 days! This is fantastic! Now, I love this choice because it’s a risk and, who knows, it may give Perry an idea about whether or not his events have an effect. This could be a tiny advantage in the contest — and it came without any real $$ cost, right? Plus, as an academic, it suggests that Perry is less anti-intellectual than I expected. And, it stroked my little (big?) academic ego: I might really matter, after all!
But still! This is so crazy! Heck, why not just run an entire campaign via darts & the Texas map next time? Or, when running for president, why campaign in Iowa or NH if the darts take you to Montana and Alabama?
The trajectory of your home-town newspaper over the last 20 years probably hasn’t been upward. As the chart above suggests, starting even before the rise of the internet, major daily newspapers have steadily seen their audience erode (and possibly die, literally). Pew has covered the dissolution of the newspaper industry in great detail over the years, notably in annual reports on the state of the news media. It’s probable that this isn’t news to you…on the other hand, if you’re one of the many who doesn’t read a paper anymore, maybe it is.
Anyways, over the past few years many voices in the public sphere have bemoaned the collapse of newspapers. Paul Starr wrote convincingly of a looming problem with corruption. Clay Shirky wrote about their doom. Even the FCC lumbered onto the scene with a take on how to inform communities in the future. But should we really care about the decline of newspapers? Are they actually important? At this point, if so few people are reading them, does it matter if they exist? Isn’t the internet better at delivering information than mashed up dead trees?
For whatever reason, there is very little empirical, scholarly research that indicates that newspapers actually matter. A smattering of projects over the years have shown a correlational relationship between newspaper readership and various outcomes: voting in a local election, knowing more about local politics, having greater civic responsibility. But this work is only correlational — not causal; in other words, it shows that newspaper readership and various local civic/political outcomes are related, but it doesn’t show that newspapers cause any of these outcomes (like knowledge gains). What’s the problem? How could people learn about local politics if not from newspapers? By attending city council meetings? Who does that? Maybe it’s just hard to measure the importance of newspapers because they have been so pervasive…
Until now. Now, newspapers are falling from their perch at the center of local civic/political life. In fact, some of them are just disappearing entirely.
Which is terrible. But also, an opportunity.
Accordingly, I’ve been working on a research project that uses the closure of two newspapers, the Rocky Mountain News from Denver and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, to search for empirical evidence of the civic/political effect of newspapers upon their communities. The project isn’t done yet, but if you click through you can see some preliminary results.
Wait, what’s this? I’ve woken from my blog stupor? Was I having a good dream? Hard to say, but I know that the first thing I read this morning didn’t make me feel good: Google’s new ‘privacy’ policy.
So, tech companies change their privacy policies all the time — no big deal. But this time? When Google announced that it’s integrating its data on users across virtually all of their services, whether you like it or not, across any device? They’ve gone too far for me. This time, I’m actually doing something about it. So what’s the problem? Well, Google claims it is supportive of data freedom — but their offer to people who might not want every search they make, from every location, associated with their phone number & social network profile is pretty ugly: take it all, or leave it. Either use all of Google, or nothing.
Basically, this reminds me of two ugly tech management episodes of recent history:
Microsoft’s decision to force Internet Explorer on the public by virtue of its monopoly in operating system.
Netflix’s decision to abruptly tell consumers what their service should be & would be — regardless of how consumers felt about Netflix.
What are the parallels? To me, Google’s new policy sounds like a monopolist exercising unfair market power — just like Microsoft in the browser wars. Like Netflix, this policy is completely declarative: we know what’s best for you, the consumer, and you’re gonna love it. So take it & shut up.
Really? Well, no matter how many billions Larry & Sergey have, how many happy Googlers ride their wifi buses from SF to Mountain View, or what the share price is: I, the consumer, get to decide whether my privacy is worth a spell check that knows how to correct my friends’ names. Wait…I like my privacy more.
If Google really cared about ‘privacy’, then it would let me, the consumer, make my choices about how data about me is aggregated (even if I can’t really control how that data is sold or used down the line). They’d let me do this by having a panel that allowed/disallowed data across products and devices. Most people wouldn’t do anything with that control, but I would. Instead? They try to cram a policy that is clearly very lucrative for them (the holy grail of market research: your life in a database) down my throat — and call it a spoonful of sugar. Give. Me. A. Break.
Do I think Google is evil & wants to violate my privacy? Not really — but I think the company is making an arrogant miscalculation: that it knows what’s best for me better than I do. And that’s just wrong.
So, guess what? Google has this achilles heal: something like 90% of its revenue comes from search ads. And guess what? Those ads are especially lucrative on mobile devices.
I love many Google services — which is why leaving entirely isn’t really an option. But you know what I can do?
Disable Google Search on my iPhone. Settings/Safari/Search Engine: Bing. Bing is now my search option in Firefox too: all you have to do is click the little icon next to the search window & select a new provider. Bye-bye! Bing is a totally viable alternative for knowing whether or not Drive got any Oscar nominations — I lost no utility, Google loses a key piece of info, Google loses its cash cow.
That’s my message here — and I wonder if other users will react similarly. Netflix felt the backlash that happens at warp speed these days last summer, will Google? My sense is they should — declarative and creepy policies like this shoul make people feel uncomfortable, and this should lead to pushback. And one wonders, when does this gorilla-in-the-segment behavior attract real antitrust attention?
Alright — gotta go teach 160 folks about mass media. (Wonder what I’ll say about Google today…)