Comments on: The Fallacy of “Community” http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/ Chronicling the Decline of Newspapers and the Rebirth of Journalism Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:24:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Recent Links Tagged With "fallacy" - JabberTags http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-2416 Recent Links Tagged With "fallacy" - JabberTags Thu, 16 Oct 2008 06:49:25 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-2416 [...] public links >> fallacy The Fallacy of “Community” Saved by bdeseattle on Tue 14-10-2008 Meaning and condescension Saved by Stormwolf100 on Mon [...] [...] public links >> fallacy The Fallacy of “Community” Saved by bdeseattle on Tue 14-10-2008 Meaning and condescension Saved by Stormwolf100 on Mon [...]

]]> By: › links for 2008-07-13 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1964 › links for 2008-07-13 Sun, 13 Jul 2008 23:34:25 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1964 [...] The Fallacy of Community | Newspaper Death Watch (tags: journalism community socialnews) [...] [...] The Fallacy of Community | Newspaper Death Watch (tags: journalism community socialnews) [...]

]]> By: links for 2008-07-13 « David Black http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1958 links for 2008-07-13 « David Black Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:32:18 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1958 [...] The Fallacy of Community - Paul Gillin “Their strength is creating content and their best chance of building community involves giving people a chance to discuss, comment upon and contribute to their content” (tags: internet newspapers newspapersites participatory journalism socialmedia community) [...] [...] The Fallacy of Community - Paul Gillin “Their strength is creating content and their best chance of building community involves giving people a chance to discuss, comment upon and contribute to their content” (tags: internet newspapers newspapersites participatory journalism socialmedia community) [...]

]]> By: Sips from the Firehose » Blog Archive » Incentivizing Participation: Online Communities and Newspaper Survival http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1956 Sips from the Firehose » Blog Archive » Incentivizing Participation: Online Communities and Newspaper Survival Sun, 13 Jul 2008 01:53:54 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1956 [...] come to this question because of a recent screed by Paul Gillin on Newspaper Death Watch, micturating on the idea that newspapers should be concerned with building a community. Gillin is [...] [...] come to this question because of a recent screed by Paul Gillin on Newspaper Death Watch, micturating on the idea that newspapers should be concerned with building a community. Gillin is [...]

]]> By: Paul Gillin http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1952 Paul Gillin Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:08:20 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1952 I don't see how USA Today readers can be considered a community. The paper does a great job of giving readers the means to respond to stories within the limited confines of non-threaded discussion, but the readers themselves have no means to create groups, initiate their own discussions or contact each other. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it's the direction most newspapers should go. The paper's rather annoying stylistic quirks have little to do with it, I believe. Editorial sections are community only to the degree that a few letters get published there. How many op-eds actually come from residents of the community? In most papers, op-eds are mainly syndicated columnists. Unisgned editorials are a relic. Anonymity is about as anit-community as you can get. Mark, as I noted above, I believe communities can develop around issues and the local paper should be very involved in that process. But issues come and go, so it's hard to sustain the kind of community that forms around, say, local sports teams. There are people who are passionate about the place they live and that enthusiasm can be channeled through a local paper's online presence. In my own hometown, there's a listserv that buzzes with chatter from people who love the place they live. Unfortunately, the local paper has done nothing to get involved with this conversation. It's a perfect opportunity to create community and they just ignore it. I don’t see how USA Today readers can be considered a community. The paper does a great job of giving readers the means to respond to stories within the limited confines of non-threaded discussion, but the readers themselves have no means to create groups, initiate their own discussions or contact each other. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think it’s the direction most newspapers should go. The paper’s rather annoying stylistic quirks have little to do with it, I believe.

Editorial sections are community only to the degree that a few letters get published there. How many op-eds actually come from residents of the community? In most papers, op-eds are mainly syndicated columnists. Unisgned editorials are a relic. Anonymity is about as anit-community as you can get.

Mark, as I noted above, I believe communities can develop around issues and the local paper should be very involved in that process. But issues come and go, so it’s hard to sustain the kind of community that forms around, say, local sports teams. There are people who are passionate about the place they live and that enthusiasm can be channeled through a local paper’s online presence. In my own hometown, there’s a listserv that buzzes with chatter from people who love the place they live. Unfortunately, the local paper has done nothing to get involved with this conversation. It’s a perfect opportunity to create community and they just ignore it.

]]> By: Mark Weber http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1948 Mark Weber Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:13:15 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1948 As someone involved in publishing weekly community newspapers, I find the discussion of "community" interesting. While I agree that a geographic community typically won't be as passionate as a special-interest community, at least long-term, I continue to wonder if there is some formula that would help stimulate people's identification with their geographic community. After all, it's human nature to be curious about one's surroundings: What's that new building going up downtown? When are they going to fix the potholes in my neighborhood? Why can't the city do something about that abandoned house across the street? Yeah, these issues come and go, but there are always new ones popping up. As someone involved in publishing weekly community newspapers, I find the discussion of “community” interesting. While I agree that a geographic community typically won’t be as passionate as a special-interest community, at least long-term, I continue to wonder if there is some formula that would help stimulate people’s identification with their geographic community. After all, it’s human nature to be curious about one’s surroundings: What’s that new building going up downtown? When are they going to fix the potholes in my neighborhood? Why can’t the city do something about that abandoned house across the street? Yeah, these issues come and go, but there are always new ones popping up.

]]> By: ed http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1947 ed Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:13:19 +0000 http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/2008/07/11/the-fallacy-of-community/#comment-1947 USA Today deliberately went out of its way to create a "community" you say is impossible to create, using cloying "we" in stories, referring to Americans. It was a deliberate effort to create a community of Americans, and it worked as USA Today has the largest circulation in the U.S. You also seem to neglect the editorial page of most newspapers, where editorials are written to create a community and a personality. USA Today deliberately went out of its way to create a “community” you say is impossible to create, using cloying “we” in stories, referring to Americans. It was a deliberate effort to create a community of Americans, and it worked as USA Today has the largest circulation in the U.S. You also seem to neglect the editorial page of most newspapers, where editorials are written to create a community and a personality.

]]>