1

The ‘imagined community’ of hyperlocal journalism: A

case study of Baristanet

Renee Barnes

Senior Lecturer, University of the Sunshine Coast

2

Hyperlocal media• Kurpius, Metzgar and Rowley (2010) have

argued that hyperlocal news websites are the result of mainstream media struggling to maintain audience share and advertising revenue amid a world of ‘rapidly evolving interactive technology and economic turmoil’ (p. 359).

• Hyperlocal media are characterised by their narrow focus on small geographic regions and citizen or community participation in the news production process.

3

• In the current media environment, hyperlocal media operate at the crossroads of locally-oriented news with technology-enabled potential as tools for civic engagement. However, very little work has focused on the dynamics of community development, including the role of participation, on these websites.

• This paper attempts to address this gap through investigating the motivations of the audience participating on Baristanet.

4

The virtual community

• Carpentier (2011) posits that a community is a useful method for understanding audience articulations that are ‘social, virtual and interpretative’ (p. 196).

• Geographic community used as framework for defining a virtual community (Hopkins et al. 2004; Tyler 2006; Nip 2004)

• As a result, much work has investigated how online relationships impact on the nature and character of offline community relationships

5

The virtual community and the ‘imagined community’

• Anderson (1991), in his study of the formation of nations contended that a community is ‘imagined’ by its members as a mental construct through the sharing of common forms.

• He notes in particular the role that mass media plays in forming this community by creating connections between language, place and ideology.

• Billig (1995) expands on this concept by arguing that an imagined community can be recalled habitually and naturally through the use of key discursive words and images.

6

The case study: Baristanet

7

Methodology• Online survey: Baristanet website for a period

of two weeks from October 20, 2011. • 104 people responded to the survey, with a

92.3 per cent completion rate. • Of these respondents, 31.6 per cent (n= 30)

were male and 68.4 per cent (n= 65) were female. The largest age bracket was 51-60 years at 30.9 per cent (n= 29), but was closely followed by the 41-50 years bracket at 24.5 per cent (n= 23).

• Textual analysis of the comments streams of the three most commented on stories of 2011

8

Results: Low levels of participation

• Four possible areas of participation were identified:

• Story submission• Photograph submission• Attending a website run event• Providing a comment following a story• Story submission: 35.1 per cent (n= 34) had

provided a story suggestion or story, while 64.9 per cent (n= 63) had not.

• Photograph submission: 5.1 per cent (n= 5) had provided an image to the website

• Only 11.2 per cent (n= 11) had attended a website-run event.

9

TABLE 1: How often have you made comments on stories on the site?

Answer OptionsResponse

PercentResponse Count

Regularly (at least each week) 5.9% 6

Often (10-30 times) 6.9% 7

Sometimes (3-10 times) 21.6% 22

Rarely (1-3 times) 25.5% 26

Never (go to question 7) 40.2% 41

answered question 102

skipped question 2

• Comments are the most popular form of audience participation on websites (Singer et al. 2011; Hermida & Thurman 2007; Singer & Ashman 2009; Williams, Wardle & Wahl-Jorgensen 2010).

• This is because it is the most offered avenue of participation and provides the least challenge to a journalist’s agency and authority (Hermida 2011).

• Van Dijck (2009) has cited ‘an emerging rule of thumb’: 1 in 100 will be active online content producers, with 10 ‘interacting’ by commenting, and the remaining 89 simply viewing.

10

Results: Evidence of a limited community

• I do not enjoy the regular crew that posts. I find them to be a cynical cliquish bunch. I think that they preclude commentary by others. I occasionally will post a comment under my own name, but try to limit my comment to supplementing facts pertinent to the story, or praising an event (9).

• Most of the comments are banal, emotional & sometimes down right silly. They invariably go waaay off topic so there's really no "discussion" - just a rant. And the commenters are usually the same 6 people over & over again (20).

• The comments are always by the same people and are often argumentative. It gets boring to read such childish and predictable "discussions" (29).

11

• jerseygurl, I don’t usually agree with you but in this case, yes, Sarah Palin should admit that the map was a mistake…. (Nellie)

• About 99.9% of the time, I don’t agree with Cro on anything, but on this point, I do. (Mrs Marta)

• sometimes, Mrs. Martta, with all due respect, you inch a little close to the edge for my comfort level.

• Then again I’m sure I throw out some left-leaning stuff that gives you pause too. (Kit)

12

Results: The role of the imagined community

• Only to a limited extent -- your pool of regulars who leave comments skew the discussion in ways that don't often reflect the larger community we live in (22).

• If I have personal knowledge of the subject. If I am feeling pithy. If I am disgusted and don't want others to think the comments already there are the only viewpoint in my area (26).

13

Discussion

• There can be specific issues in the development of a virtual community formed around a geographic one.

• Respondents to the Baristanet survey suggested that community development is linked to the ‘imagined community’ of the Montclair commuter belt.

• The depiction of this ‘imagined community identity’ impacts upon participation on the site in one of two ways: – For some, it motivates them to comment so they might

‘correct’ the image of the community portrayed.– For others it serves as a deterrent to participation.

14

• Development of a limited community can stymie participation.

• Additional tensions are created as a result of an ‘imagined identity’ when active contributions to the virtual community are limited.

• This suggests that not all community development is beneficial. If the community is not deemed ‘inclusive’ and representative of the broader community, then it is limited in its development.