So I guess my point in invoking the Olympics was really this: Will we pay for a dozen comparatively mundane but unquestionably newsworthy local reporting efforts, or one expensive, prestigious splash in Beijing? I don’t begrudge an editor who can afford both in 2008, I just don’t know who they might be. And I have a feeling that even given the current economic climate, a surprising number of editors will still choose the big, prestigious splash.

@Patrick Y: Who says the h-word (sorry, but I already vowed never to use the word again is easy? More importantly, which part of the global audience should The Olathe News of Kansas or The Grand Island Independent of Nebraska target? Presumably, not the part currently occupied by The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC, CNN, etc. An audience of 100,000 people ain’t too shabby if there are only that many residents in the entire three-county area you’ve served for 100 years.

Global journalism has the potential to appeal to a larger audience than hyperlocal journalism, and thus, has the potential to generate more revenue.

Of course, it requires a completely different way of thinking, i.e. a completely different philosophy, to succeed. And we all know too well how improbable it is to expect journalists to alter their philosophy.

So they go in the opposite direction, i.e. hyperlocal, because it’s not too difficult and it’s something most people can grasp their heads around.

Nevermind that a hyperlocal audience might only appeal to 100,000 people at most, as opposed to an ever-growing global audience of a billion or more.

That’s not to say that hyperlocal journalism isn’t relevant or doesn’t have it’s place in the market, I’m actually all for it. But I will say, hyperlocal journalism discussions/debates do not require half as much philosophical depth as global journalism discussions/debates. Guess which one gets talked about more. We already know.

There’s an old saying in science, “Act locally, think globally.”

The general point is well made, however. You have a better chance of selling newspapers if the news is relevant to the readership. If it’s a lightly warmed up version of what’s on the TV networks and thep popular dailies, then forget it. If you haven’t got the content to offer readers, it doesn’t matter whether you are losing money in print or online.

With databases and social media, this should be easier than ever…and yet…

I was working on a project at my old newspaper, assigned to me by my editors. I spent three months hanging out and interviewing three teenage boys from the same high school. One was black, one was white and one was Hispanic. The article was meant to provide a glimpse into what it’s like to grow up in a primarily white/resort/retirement community with a different background. My editors were all for it. And the boys spoke openly and honestly about their feelings. When it came time to write the story, my eds gave me two days to work on nothing but that. When I finished it and turned it in, I was somewhat happy with it. I knew it only scratched the surface, but it definitely provided some insight into something that our readers weren’t used to reading about. But my editors killed the story. They were concerned that I didn’t get at the heart of the matter. Maybe I didn’t. It wasn’t an easy story to write. I remember crying in the parking lot from disappointment.

So anyway, I’d like to think that the ambition to write stories that extend beyond “look how much teenagers spend on prom these days” is prevalent among reporters. It’s just not always easy to get the time to break out and do these types of stories. And you’re right, it’s getting harder and harder as editors try to squeeze more and more copy out of reporters.