(Rich Gordon)

For more than half a century, newspaper readership has been declining - and so have a variety of other indicators of civic and community engagement, such as participation in PTA's, membership in bowling leagues and turnout on Election Day. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam documented these changes in American society in an influential article and a best-selling book, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community." The book popularized the concept of "social capital," the idea that people's social relationships produce tangible benefits for their communities. "Bowling Alone" also offered some intriguing insights about the relationship between communities and journalism: the best predictor of community engagement, Putnam said, was newspaper readership.

Published in 2000, Putnam's book was based on research completed before the Internet became pervasive in the United States, so Putnam could not assess the impact of new communication technologies on interpersonal connections or community bonds. I found this to be unfortunate, since it was clear that the Internet was reshaping the way people communicate with one another - and, in at least some cases, enabling the formation of powerful new types of community connections.

Now Putnam is back with even more troubling findings: The more diverse a community is in race and ethnicity, the less trust there is among members of that community and the weaker the bonds are that connect people to one another. Based on interviews with more than 30,000 people and research conducted in 41 different communities in the United States, Putnam and his colleagues found that increased racial and ethnic diversity seems to translate into:

• Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
• Lower confidence that people can influence politics.
• Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
• Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve "dilemmas of collective action" (for instance, conserving water in a drought).
• Less likelihood of working on a community project.
• Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
• Fewer close friends and confidants.
• Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
• More time spent watching television and more agreement that 'television is my most important form of entertainment'.

The findings are all the more powerful because Putnam, whom I heard speak last week about his work, clearly is uncomfortable with what his research found. In the one article published about his diversity research so far, he argues that over the long term, greater diversity improves society. He describes the ways in which he sought to find explanations other than diversity (for instance, greater poverty or poorer government services in more diverse neighborhoods) for the findings. And he emphasizes that in diverse neighborhoods, people seem to have less trust in everyone - not just people of other races. But even after controlling for a wide variety of other potential factors, the link between greater diversity and lower "social capital" held true.

"In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse
settings appear to 'hunker down' – that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam says in the article. He goes on to say:

Diversity does not produce 'bad race relations' or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. . . . Diversity, at least in the short run, seems to bring out the turtle in all of us.

Putnam's research ought to be a clarion call for citizens, journalists and media companies in cities, towns and neighborhoods across the United States. "Bowling Alone" made clear that declines in social capital were harming both communities and their local media. The new research reinforces the need, especially in our most diverse communities, to build new ways for people to connect with one another. It seems clear that journalists and media organizations have a role to play in the process - and that online community-building may be at least part of the solution.

Evidence that local media can play a role in fostering community conversation can be found in newspaper history. David Paul Nord's fascinating book, "Communities of Journalism," for instance, describes many instances in which newspapers served as community forums, not just as one-way communicators of news and information. He describes the way newspapers enabled Philadelphians to share valuable information during a yellow fever epidemic in 1793. And how Chicago newspapers built a sense of community through letters to the editor.

Today, there are some interesting examples of newspapers that are building community through online conversations - and building online traffic and loyalty in the process. One example I've written about a couple of times is the Racine Journal Times, which is working hard to build its Web site into a hub of community conversation. I described its first experiment - enabling comments on news articles - in a case study I wrote last year for the Newspaper Association of America. But that case study is outdated now, because the paper has since completely revamped its approach to user participation, moving to a new technology platform and adding features (such as registration, profiles and "friends" lists) more commonly associated with social network sites such as Facebook and MySpace.

In "The Online Community Cookbook," a NAA report I wrote about newspaper initiatives in this area, online leaders say social network features can strengthen community connections and reduce the prevalence of objectionable comments - which have plagued most newspapers' article comment streams. (The report, being released in installments over the course of the next month, also describes different technology approaches for online communities and contains practical advice for managing objectionable comments effectively.)

Online communities have been around for decades, since before the World Wide Web. And anyone who has participated in successful online communities knows that they can build powerful interpersonal connections that transcend members' gender, racial or ethnic differences. Yet, there are also arguments - for instance, by Cass Sunstein in his book Republic.com - that online communities can foster isolation and division by enabling people to connect only with those whose characteristics and attitudes are like theirs. Certainly, there is evidence to support Sunstein's premise, but I would like to believe that this is not inevitable - that people of goodwill, in local communities, can build online forums that help bring people together.

Putnam, in his talk last week at a conference on "Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy," argued that communities need to create places where a broad range of people can come together and focus on matters other than their differences. He called for "practical strategies for building a more encompassing sense of 'we.'"

Shouldn't online communities be one of these strategies? And shouldn't local media be leading the way?


By Rich Gordon (richgor-at-northwestern.edu)
Rich Gordon is Associate Professor and Director of Digital Technology in Education at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University.