Is (digital) journalism better the more local it is and what does that do to growth?

In keeping with last months Carnival of Journalism which focused on a theme, our host Andy Dickinson has posed the following question to the lot of us: “Is (digital) journalism better the more local it is and what does that do to growth?”

This question obviously goes back to the Rob Curley fiasco of LoudounExtra from a few weeks ago, which can (and was) dissected in every way possible.

What interests me more about this question is the second part, “what does that do to growth”? As for the “is local journalism better” part – that’s a value judgment. As I see it some will say “yes” others will say “no” and they are both right. I’m not going to tell anybody “your opinion is wrong.”

I will say this: national or international news isn’t going to disappear and because of its larger scope – what is said below might not apply to that type of news coverage.

It was said best at the Future of Civic Media conference last week (I believe Dan Gillmor): “dog bites man” is news to somebody – especially if you are the dogs next door neighbor, or the man’s co-worker, etc. That’s the case for hyperlocal.

But that’s exactly what leads to the second question “what does that do to growth”? Perhaps “dog bites man” is news to somebody, but the question is whether or not it is something newspapers can ever cover. Right now, probably not. Can they grow into that coverage?

Related to this question is – where do I see journalism in five years. What does a journalist or a news organization look like in the year 2013?

We constantly look at news and journalism as an industry – but the scenario played above “dog bites man” is more like life happening and being broadcast online. A newspaper isn’t going to send a reporter out to cover that event. But that event will end up on Twitter, a blog, or a citizen journalism website. It will end up broadcast online not as ‘news’ but as part of somebody’s life.

In my sci-fi vision of the world – there is no “media.” People just live their lives online and to that extent – their lives are broadcast. Who wants to call their life “media”? Not me. It’s almost as if the media dies – but journalism and news continues under a different name. This is something Jay Rosen has said many times. Lisa Williams describes it as “journalism surviving the death of its institutions.” The question is how we can ensure that the better parts of the media (the part that informs and empowers communities to speak truth to power) continues.

This means that reporters are going to be the thread that weaves between people’s lives. In my sci-fi reality if you want to professionalize news at the local level it has to be done by individuals who are already part of that community and also living their life in a public way. We see this now with Robert Scoble in the tech community. Granted – Scoble makes his living now from mainstream media, but I suspect if he left FastCompany he would find a way, perhaps even through small donations from readers, to continue as a source of news and information for heavy techno-geeks. As the blogosphere matures, I suspect we will see more Scobles for broader (local) communities.

The first time I had this realization was when I started working for Propeller as a scout. The best way to explain my job there is as a ‘news recommender.’ I get paid to recommend news articles.  Although not doing the reporting myself – I consider it an act of journalism. I am acting almost as an editor – helping to distinguish between what is and isn’t important news that day. Granted – my decisions are subject to veto and voting by the community, but through that I learn to react to the communities needs and desires. Either way, I’m a news recommender and the community values me as such by paying me accordingly.

Now take a look at Spot.Us. I envision individual reporters beholden to a community and reporting on topics that are of direct concern to them. It’s the Robert Scoble model I hinted at above. The reporter is a freelancer, a lone-gunmen, they make journalism happen without a news organization. It’s news without the newspaper, journalism without the media. It doesn’t grow, it just happens – because that’s what people want.

Where did I find out about Tim Russert’s death? Twitter.

Was it “media”? No, it was a friend who sent me a direct message knowing that I am interested in journalism. It was just two people living their lives and sharing information.

Now I could have found out about Russert’s death via the AP (which I can’t link or quote from article without being charged), but if that had been a local event (dog bites man) there wouldn’t have been any other source of information except my friends. It would have been up to us, as a community to either (a. Try and piece together the information ourselves or (b. Decide we don’t have time to piece it together and pay somebody else in our community to do it for us. That’s spot.us, that’s journalism in a world where local communities organize themselves online.

Where will local journalism happen? Between people. It will not be the media-sphere. The only way news organizations can play part is if they create the platform through which people live their lives. This requires a radically different approach to how newspapers organize their online presence. But that’s how it will grow. The real question is if that platform will be built by somebody who holds the same values of traditional media or somebody who wants to make a quick buck. And that, my friends, is a question with real-world consequences for local democracies.