A Case Study of Community and Weekly Newspapers in Laurel, Maryland
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: Community journalism as ritual: A case study of community and weekly newspapers in Laurel, Maryland Lindsey Lee Wotanis, Ph.D., 2011 Directed By: Dr. Linda Steiner Professor/Director of Doctoral Studies Philip Merrill College of Journalism University of Maryland, College Park This dissertation is a study of the intersection of community and community journalism in Laurel, an area with just over 100,000 residents in central Maryland. The case study utilizes ethnographic interviews with 40 stakeholders, including journalists, advertisers, city officials and readers. Using James W. Carey‘s theory of ritual communication as its theoretical foundation, the study examines the role of Laurel‘s two weekly newspapers in creating and maintaining community in Laurel. Findings suggest that when the community newspapers failed to meet readers‘ expectations for community content, the readers‘ news reading ritual was interrupted; as a result, their sense of community weakened. Furthermore, place, sharing and relationships proved key to the formation and sustenance of community, with the weekly newspapers playing an important role in the process. The study also found that stakeholders wanted the weeklies to maintain editorial spaces in Laurel, dedicate more resources to hiring more reporters, and be more accepting of user-generated content. COMMUNITY JOURNALISM AS RITUAL: A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY AND WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS IN LAUREL, MARYLAND by Lindsey Lee Wotanis Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2011 Advisory Committee: Professor Linda Steiner, Chair/Adviser Professor Carl Sessions Stepp Professor Carol L. Rogers Professor Kalyani Chadha Professor John L. Caughey ©Copyright by Lindsey Lee Wotanis 2011 For my grandma and grandpa, Florence and Nicholas, and for my mom, Connie. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Praise the bridge that carried you over. ~George Colman, the Younger Without the help and the support of those mentioned here, I would not have been able to cross this long bridge that is the doctoral dissertation. Pat Haag, deputy clerk to the Laurel City Council, and Monica DeLorenzo, administrative assistant to the Mayor of Laurel were helpful in scheduling interviews and directing me to ―the people to talk to.‖ Robbie Morganfield, pastor at St. Mark‘s Methodist Church and fellow doctoral student, and Woody Woodruff, copyeditor at the Laurel Leader and fellow doctoral student, were helpful in connecting me with participants. Lindsey Baker, director of the Laurel Historical Society, assisted me in combing through clip files for information on Laurel and its newspapers. Pete Pichaske, former editor of the Laurel Leader, first welcomed me into its newsroom in 2008 and paved the way for the paper‘s cooperation in this research. To all of you, I am most grateful. My 40 participants were extremely gracious in giving of their time and local knowledge and have made a tremendous impact on this research. Without them, this dissertation would not have been possible. Thank you for welcoming me into your homes and offices, for connecting me with participants, and for sharing with me your invaluable insights. Dr. Maurine Beasley was instrumental in the formative process of this research and provided me with many things about which to think. Thank you. The members of my dissertation committee—Dr. John Caughey, Dr. Kalyani Chadha, Dr. Carol L. Rogers, and Mr. Carl Sessions Stepp—were giving iii of their time and talents throughout the course of this research. Thank you for lending an ear, troubleshooting challenges, and most of all, sharing your support. My dissertation adviser, Dr. Linda Steiner, deserves more thanks than any string of words can hope to signify. Her patience, kindness and wisdom combined made this daunting and overwhelming task not only bearable, but achievable. She, with her red pens (pens plural, as I am certain that she ran out of ink in several throughout this process), has made this work infinitely better. Thank you for the countless hours you spent discussing this project, lending books, reading (and re-reading, and re-reading) drafts, answering questions, and calming nerves. I‘m pretty sure, as dissertation chairs go, you‘re the best. And to my friends, Andrea Frantz, Merrilee Cox, and Michael Breslosky, who supported me throughout this journey. When I needed to air my frustrations or celebrate a benchmark, they were there to lend an ear and to drink some wine. Their constant encouragement throughout this process helped me to stay the course. Thank you. And finally, my mom, Connie Wotanis, deserves all the gratitude I have to bestow. She offered every kind of support possible throughout this journey. She painstakingly transcribed interviews. She helped me copy-edit. She cooked me dinners. But, most importantly, she listened whenever I needed her to. And then, without fail, she gave me a pep talk that gave me the motivation to continue on this journey. I would not have achieved any of my successes, this one included, without her love and support. And so, I say a great big THANKS, MOM. As far as mom‘s go, I know you‘re the best. I share this with you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Content v List of Tables ix List of Figures x Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Focus of the study 3 Purpose of the study 5 Significance of the study 9 Definition of terms 11 Design of study 12 Role of the researcher 13 Chapters ahead 16 Chapter 2: Review of Literature Part I: Community 18 What is ―community‖? 20 Toward a theory of community 25 Condition 1: Place 27 Condition 2: Sharing 31 Condition 3: Relationships 35 Why community matters 40 We‟re all connected 44 Democracy requires community 49 Global issues need local solutions 52 Chapter 3: Review of Literature Part II: Community journalism 55 State of community journalism 55 Communication in community life 59 New communication technologies 63 Newspapers and community 68 An historical glance at early American community presses 68 The 20th century community press in America 71 Stakeholders in community journalism 75 Citizens/readers 76 Public officials 78 Journalists 79 Contemporary research—Different takes on community journalism 82 Public journalism—A model for good community journalism 87 Community blogs—The future of community journalism? 92 v Chapter 4: Methodology 103 Research questions 105 Rationale for qualitative methods 106 Ethnographic interviewing 107 Methodological critique of newsroom ethnographies 113 Participants—Selection, recruitment, and participation 122 Recruitment of residents 125 Recruitment of journalists at The Gazette and the Laurel Leader 127 Recruitment of public officials 129 Recruitment of advertisers/business owners 129 The interviews 129 Institutional Review Board 131 Ethical considerations 133 Thematic analysis 141 Data analysis 142 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion Part I: Community in Laurel 144 History of Laurel 144 “Laurel Factory” 145 “Suburban” Laurel 146 Contemporary Laurel 148 Laurel city government 150 “Parts” of Greater Laurel 151 Divisions in Laurel 153 Old town feel 155 Divisions create confusion 157 Issues of identity manifested 161 Maintaining a positive image 162 Defending against negative imagery 163 Stability versus growth 167 Embracing (and bracing) for growth 168 Resisting change 174 Questioning the city‟s ability to grow 174 Craving better retail 177 Diversity in Laurel 180 Age: A town of old timers? 182 Race and ethnicity 184 The uncounted: Illegal Hispanic and homeless populations 192 Challenges facing Laurel 195 Chapter 6: Results and Discussion Part II: State of community journalism in Laurel 198 History of newspapering in Laurel 198 The Laurel Leader 199 The Gazette—Laurel Edition 205 Other media in Laurel 208 vi State of community journalism in Laurel 208 Content important measure of ―community‖ in community papers 209 Content in the Leader 212 Content in The Gazette 214 Desired local content—or lack thereof 215 Community paper as PR tool or newspaper? 218 Accuracy in reporting 224 Content falling short, audiences ignored 228 The Leader‟s move to Columbia poses challenges, alienates some readers 232 Journalists as insiders or outsiders 239 Neighborhood columnists, citizen journalists 248 Advertising 253 Will the Leader survive? 258 Chapter 7: Results and Discussion Part III: The digital era of community journalism in Laurel 262 Delivering the print editions 262 Delivering the digital edition 266 Digital news provides forum for participation 273 News should make connections for readers 277 Bloggers providing unique content, filling the gaps 279 The intersection of community journalism and community blogging 284 Chapter 8: Conclusion: Reflections on community and community journalism in Laurel 294 Revisiting the research questions 294 Why they‘re worth asking 297 Research Question 1 299 Things working against community 300 A failing mall 300 A depressed Main Street 301 A divided town 302 Things working for community 305 A shared history 305 Many traditions 307 Things complicating diversity 309 Diversity 309 Research Question 2 310 Who or what is responsible? 314 Public officials 314 Residents/Readers 316 Journalists 318 Advertisers 320 Toward a definition of community 321 Research Question 3 324 Stakeholders‟ take 324 vii Restoring great community journalism in Laurel 331 Research Question 4 337 Contributions to theory and application 340