The problem, in my part of the US anyway, is that there is very nearly no local news. We have the mainstream "local" papers that are owned and operated by large national corporations and we have "local" TV news that is owned and operated by large national corporations. Radio is a little better, but most "local" radio stations are also owned and operated by large national corporations.
The only actual local news in my area are those small independent free weeklies.
The definition of "local" or "national" with regards to media tends to refer to kind and scope of coverage, rather than ownership. My local paper, for instance, despite being owned by a national corporation, has local reporters and reports on local stories. Likewise with local television news.
Even if these entities were entirely locally owned and operated, the kind and scope of coverage would likely remain unchanged, so for the most part ownership doesn't seem very relevant.
I disagree. When my local paper was sold to a national corporation, for instance, it dramatically changed the both the scope and nature of the local news coverage. Yes, the reporting is still done by people local to the area, but they're adhering to guidance from corporate and that led to a dramatic decrease in the quality and usefulness of local news reporting (and a serious loss in the paper's readership, unsurprisingly).
> The only actual local news in my area are those small independent free weeklies.
This should be eggzackly the place where all the cool kids and all the community college journalism students and all the high school prospective activists and all the pissed-off local grannies spend their spare hours.
The problem, in my part of the US anyway, is that there is very nearly no local news. We have the mainstream "local" papers that are owned and operated by large national corporations and we have "local" TV news that is owned and operated by large national corporations. Radio is a little better, but most "local" radio stations are also owned and operated by large national corporations.
The only actual local news in my area are those small independent free weeklies.
The definition of "local" or "national" with regards to media tends to refer to kind and scope of coverage, rather than ownership. My local paper, for instance, despite being owned by a national corporation, has local reporters and reports on local stories. Likewise with local television news.
Even if these entities were entirely locally owned and operated, the kind and scope of coverage would likely remain unchanged, so for the most part ownership doesn't seem very relevant.
I disagree. When my local paper was sold to a national corporation, for instance, it dramatically changed the both the scope and nature of the local news coverage. Yes, the reporting is still done by people local to the area, but they're adhering to guidance from corporate and that led to a dramatic decrease in the quality and usefulness of local news reporting (and a serious loss in the paper's readership, unsurprisingly).
> The only actual local news in my area are those small independent free weeklies.
This should be eggzackly the place where all the cool kids and all the community college journalism students and all the high school prospective activists and all the pissed-off local grannies spend their spare hours.