Community news, sometimes called hyperlocal news, has become a hot topic among journalism foundations in recent years. You can get a sense of the enthusiasm by browsing the website of Block by Block, a network of online community news sites, or by checking into the work of the Knight Foundation's "$100 million plus Media Innovation Initiative, which seeks new ways to meet community information needs in the digital age." This is big money talking.
This belief in the importance of local news is not new. It reminds me of the old joke about the Los Angeles Times in the 1940s and 1950s, when a critic said that the paper was so locally oriented that its classic headline would be "L.A. dog chases L.A. cat over L.A. fence." Who cares what happens in, say, San Diego? Or New York? Or anywhere outside the city limits?
I've never understood the fascination with local news. I generally find that what happens in Washington can have a profound effect on my personal life, through taxes, health insurance, banking regulations, gun control, and dozens of other things. As a resident of New York City, I'd have a tough time making a similar list of the ways I'm affected by the actions of the city council. Parking? Wherever I've lived, I've always spent more time with the national pages in the paper, or online, than the local pages.
Perhaps that's just a matter of taste, and I wouldn't want to impose mine on anyone else. But there is a serious problem with local news sites: They often operate with scant resources and depend for support upon a small number of readers and grants from foundations that will one day run out. And the effort to husband resources can lead to some poor journalism.
A case in point is a story that appeared last week in ecoRI News, which bills itself as "Rhode Island's environmental news source." The story, by Tim Faulkner, reports that the Rhode Island legislature is considering creating a commission to establish regulations for the marketing of raw milk.
Raw milk is milk that comes directly from a cow and is not pasteurized to kill potentially deadly bacteria. Faulkner properly notes that the state Department of Environmental Management has "significant health concerns" about raw milk.
The risk is not theoretical. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
A study released by CDC in February 2012 examined the number of dairy outbreaks in the United States during a 13‐year period. Between 1993 and 2006, 60% (73/121) of dairy-related outbreaks reported to CDC were linked to raw milk products. Three‐quarters of these outbreaks occurred in states where the sale of raw milk was legal at the time. Experts also found that those sickened in raw milk outbreaks were 13 times more likely to be hospitalized than those who got ill from pasteurized milk during an outbreak.
An article by Kiera Butler in Mother Jones magazine–which would not necessarily be expected to take the government line on such issues–likewise concluded that raw milk was dangerous. She quotes a CDC epidemiologist who says, "None of the science really convinces me that there are any health benefits" to be had by drinking raw milk.
But here are some of the things Faulkner reports:
Proponents of raw milk claim it boosts the immune system and cures allergies, eczema and asthma. “The health concerns have passed,” said Richard Suls, a raw-milk advocate and co-owner of Rachael Bakes of Providence. Raw milk, he claimed, helps prevent tooth decay and contains more vitamins.
And:
Suls’ business partner, Rachael McCaskill, said raw milk cured many of her childhood ailments, including depression. “My whole life has changed," she said.
And these claims are based on what? Certainly not science.
To evaluate such claims, use Raeburn's rule: If proponents say that something cures both depression and tooth decay, you can be sure that it cures neither.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply