Few thoughts on Black Media & Hyper Local
Many people are saying that hyper local is the next phase of online journalism. Legendary rags like The New York Times have already begun to invest in it, as well as tech/content companies like Aol with the recently acquired Patch.com. Like most things online today, “Hyper local” isn’t really a brand new concept, rather a digital rebirth of the smaller papers that thrived before cities were defined by anything that put Globe, Times or Chronicle behind the city’s name.
But even in the old days, many Black communities felt their views weren’t being represented properly, if at all, and took it upon themselves to create titles like the Amsterdam News, Bay State Banner or the Chicago Defender, to name a few. And well, like most newspapers today, these titles are all feeling the print pinch. The game has changed, their audiences have moved on to the web and the advertising dollars have followed. The remaining customers are either just in love with that feeling of reading a physical paper, or not tech savvy enough to get that news from a digital source (or to a much lesser extent, unable to afford a CPU or smart phone). The latter is the real issue, as the tech savvy in these communities are the fastest growing segment, a new generation that’s not as much defined by old notions of what it means to be a Black in America as they are by the realities of their local environments.
But let’s face it, Black media hasn’t been the quickest to catch on to the opportunities created by the Internet. The oldest Black brands have barely made a move online, if at all. So it’s not likely that many will seize the opportunities presented by hyper local. It’s also unlikely that many of the Black communities they serve will have much of a presence in the new digital representation of their ‘hood. Many of these places stand to be digital gentrified, completely recast to a worldwide audience through the eyes of transplanted hipsters and the like (no shots at my hipster brethren), if not totally forgotten.
It may sound like another Black paranoid rant, but it is worth asking how areas are chosen for hyper-local focus (I’m sure HHI is an influencing factor). For instance, Patch.com’s Massachusetts segment will start with Needham (94% white) and Wellesley (84% white). It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes my hometown of Mattapan (81% Black) to be added to their lineup. The site’s New York segment covers Bedford-Katonah (87%-93% white), Bellmore (95% white), Chappaqua-Mount Kisco (91%-77% white), Garden City (94% white), Glen Cove (60% white), Harrison (89% white), Huntington (89% white), Larchmont-Mamaroneck (92%-88% white), Merrick (95%), Port Washington (85% white), Rye (71% white), Scarsdale (84% white), Syosset (85% white), and Tarrytown-Sleepy Hollow (77%-67% white). Sachem and New York City are coming soon, but what about Brooklyn, Queens or Harlem? Hard to believe that any hyper local initiative that focused on NY could start without the historic borough of Brooklyn. But then again, it is 45% Black. Queens is over 45% Latin. And while Harlem will be included in Manhattan, as the largest African American community of any city in the US it’s definitely worthy of its own hyper local presence.
None of this is a swipe at Patch.com’s hyper local commitment. If you go through the site you’ll see a fair share of Black editors, despite the local percentage of Black residents in the areas they’ve chosen to cover. This is my opinion of how Black media’s missing the mark and not exploiting an opportunity to grow their businesses and value to the communities they serve in ways that were impossible before the Internet. The worst that could happen is that people complain and accuse Patch.com or The Times of being racist and not covering Black communities. The best that could happen would be to channel that energy into working with the existing local papers and help bring them up to speed on the digital front so they can continue to serve these communities as they have for decades.
