High Quality News Decreases Local Participation?

If one were to believe all these surveys that ask people about their media use, then people who are found to be “in the know” regarding public affairs are usually those who read newspapers and, to a lesser degree, watch the news.  People who primarily consume or self-report a preference for entertainment usually score lower on these political knowledge questions (themselves controversial) than news junkies.

Not surprising.  If a person watches and reads the news a lot, then it makes sense for her to know a lot about stuff the news is supposed to cover.  So perhaps a more important question is this: does it make a difference in terms of citizen participation?  Does political knowledge translate into citizen action?  There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the answer is neither simple nor straightforward.  First is the perennial controversy over causal direction, i.e., perhaps people who tend to be more participatory also tend to seek information about politics, not the other way around, or perhaps the influence goes both ways.  Another issue that research has brought to our attention is whether access to and use of national versus local news makes a difference. 

A previous post discusses Roumeen Islam’s most recent edited volume, Information and Public Choice.  A chapter by Lisa M. George and Joel Waldfogel argues that increased circulation of The New York Times, one of the most respected national broadsheets in the United States and abroad, is associated with lower local participation among highly educated readers in some areas (excluding New York since the newspaper has a local metro section).  This is in comparison to those who consume local news sources.  The finding might be surprising because many elites believe that the higher the quality of the news source, the better it is for democracy.  Why?  Because according to these elites, in democracies, the quality of information citizens access and use should affect their capacity to get involved in the running of affairs that, in turn, drive the quality of governance and citizenship. 

Several assumptions underpin this belief, including the following.  First, elite national news are of better quality than their local counterparts.  In contrast, it can be argued that local news, insofar as enough accuracy and fairness is achieved, can be just as or more valuable than national level news because of increased direct relevance to the everyday lives of citizens.  Second, people have the time and resources to actively participate in local and national public life (e.g., voting for mayor and president, writing parliamentarians, serving through the village council).  Perhaps it’s OK for people to choose one or the other.  Pragmatically, it’s probably asking too much to expect everyone to be active at all levels.

In any case, if we accept the finding and assume that local participation can be depressed by national news, then what might be some arising policy considerations?  Should there be a conversation among editors, media scholars, and other media development professionals regarding the content mix options of elite/national as well as grassroots/local media?  If local participation is indeed a cherished goal, are there ways in which we might supplement national with local sources, and vice-versa?  Can this be done in ways that make sense in terms of journalistic work routines and viable business models?  Second, should there be a concerted cross-national effort among communication scholars (e.g., political communication and public opinion researchers) regarding the types of participation in which citizens tend to engage depending on their different contexts and types of media access and use?  Lastly, research has been building up in various areas of entertainment media and the ways in which citizens might learn about public affairs through these outlets.  Should there be a conversation regarding what we might mean by an inclusive “public interest media”, suspending biases toward any particular genre? 

The more general point is this: when one has the power to command people's attention, an increasingly scarce resource especially in contexts of multiple information sources, then shouldn’t there be a corresponding responsibility to contribute to improving their lives and environments?  Admittedly, whatever “better” means is and always will be bitterly contested, but I think it’s at least worth taking seriously.

Photo credit: Flickr user hellomike