What a cool and interesting study!Great to see a scientific approach to this discussion.

In my browsing experience, I find a lot of the local sites refer to each other, and this is a great way to learn about alternative news and resource sites. I find that the ones that know how to harness social media are getting more hits from me, because I tend to use facebook and twitter to quickly scan articles I want to "read more." The ones that can't jump on this phenomenon tend to get less viewtime. And cooperation, retweeting and cross-linking is key --- the Oakland Museum did a great job promoting their opening this way.

I echo what Paula was saying about momentum building with each new addition of local news reporting and blogs. I found Oakland Local and Oakland Rising about the same time (and was hoping for such things, as previously all I found were arts and entertainment blogs for local things and there was a dearth of news), and because of Oakland Local's blog directory, found several others that I now follow.

Frankly, it helps when they are all linked in on FB- this is how I personally can easily follow them all regularly. I think that is the only valid "gentrification of the web" claim- people like me follow these blogs via FB and there have been claims (not all unfounded) that FB has gentrified (in the racial sense) social networking sites.

This is a very interesting study. We are working in the Austin neighborhood, and I have wondered about a similar issue. Though working across Chicago where neighborhood, not race is an issue, we have found that working together and cross-publishing is good for all the publications involved.

(Summarized and cross posted from Facebook) I think all the opinions here are important, but I think what's got folks from longtime community media organizations upset is more along the lines of their concern over exclusion from this new digital playing field. A lot of this is about perception and acknowledgement, or lack there of. They've been covering their communities (however they choose to define that) for years, often without any attentionfrom mainstream news outlets, funders, or people outside of their communities.

Now since the MS news is crumbling all types of attention is being focused on local and niche media-the same area covered by orgs like Poor Magazine, Block Report, El Tecolote, the SF Bayview and the Oakland Post and Cityflight for years. And with very few exceptions these orgs aren't consulted or brought to the table. Folks with deep histories in certain communities watch as the "hyperlocal movement" comes in with (perceived or real) grant money and (perceived or real) resources that have been systematically denied them throughout their media careers. Usually because these community media orgs didn't fall into narrow definitions of "professional journalism" (which is another false qualifier that needs to be discussed).

It's not enough to just say eff the haters, who cares or say we're not gentrifiers. These are people's lives and livelihoods we're talking about. If you've been doing something all your life then someone newer, glossier and more well funded comes into your space w/o even acknowledging you and acts like they invented your job, wouldn't you be pissed? That's the perception of a lot of people locally and nationally.

And the Digital Divide is a very real component of this. Even if there were more inclusion of "legacy community media" would the people who need this information but who are also largely without computers and high speed internet, get to read it?

And are the reporters and media makers who worked in these old community media outlets equipped with the skills to step into the new media world? Or are they like many of their mainstream counterparts and in need of hours of (possibly) expensive training? And if so where does this training come from? Surely not from the same grant funders who've been denying them money for their whole careers?

The issue of funding scale is another divide that needs to be addressed. Where we fall on the funding issue is largely dictated by class and we have to understand how this plays into the process:

While a 10k grant might not be much to someone coming from a mainstream news outlet used to pulling 70k a year, to a newsroom run by a homeless all volunteer staff, that 10k is enough to last damn near all year. Believe me, Oakland Local and other similar orgs have our money problems. But we need to also consider that even our small endowments are more than some folks' annual budgets. Hell, next time you see me remind me to tell you the story about the W. Oakland preacher who's been running his education program for the last 10 years from one $500 gift he got 5 years ago.

But let it also be said that Oakland Local is taking all of these issues very, very seriously, (as I'm hoping the discussion here and on our social media properties show) We're having continuing and active dialogs and I encourage any media makers and journalist to conduct a similar self examination on your organization. How community friendly are you, really?

I vouch for the OL staff being one of the most talented, open minded teams I've worked with. They're hardworking, sincere and willing to roll up their sleeves and dig into these hard issues. Some are Oaklanders for life, some got here recently, but all are sincere about making the city better.

Thanks folks for bringing up the issues and keeping us honest. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. -kwan

Thanks Kwan for your addition to the story. I read it yesterday and was put off by the beginning:

"This person  dishes out insults and talks about conspiracy theories and Big Brother. Still, the question he raised - can you gentrify the local web?" 

Its inappropriate to brush off another local journalist this way. His concerns do come from a real place, and I think you explained that place well.

The study is interesting, and I'm glad to hear that Oakland's original local news sources aren't losing traffic. I hope folks who read this article will follow the links and check out the journalists who have been working hard n covering Oakland's streets for years. 

Can you gentrify the local web? It seems like every other medium has been--radio, print news, TV. Web based media like social networking sites, blogs, and local news sites have the potential to be "gentrified" just like everything else. I think a better question is, how can we use/define the local web so it doesn't get gentrified? how can we build local media outlets so they don't feel exclusive? 

Melody, those are factual statements, not a brush off. The questions came with insults; the insults were unwarranted, the questions very important to consider. Thank you for your feedback on all this; these are important issues, as we're saying.

While the Block Reporter who shall remain nameless might have some valid concerns, a truism of journalism is that no one "owns" the news. in the Internet era, this is more true than it ever has been.

That's point #1. Point #2 is that the notion of "gentrifying the web" seems oxymoronic; after all, the Internet is an entirely democratic medium; anyone with a search bar can find anything, regardless of race, class, creed, sexual preference, religious affiliation or gender. If anything, susan's research-namely that **'s website found increased traffic post-OL's launch--makes a case for the opposite point: that the web is already gentrified, and "ghettoizing" the web (for lack of a better term) in and of itself doesnt close the digital divide. Which is to say, you can cater to a specific online demographic, but (unless you are a subcription only site) you can't choose who your page views will come from, especially if your target demographic may not be as computer-savvy and web-literate as one might hope for in an ideal scenario.

Point #3 is simply that **'s comments might come from a place of fear and assumptive reactions as much as so-called reality. Cross-posting and linkage is an accepted, courteous Internet protocol which allieviates most, if not all of these concerns. Promotions and marketing savvy might also come into play, but i think there's a discernable difference between the threat of "Net gentrification" posed by an out-of-town corporation, and a site trying to be a community hub, which is based out of the very community it purports to serve.

Point #4: Let's be real: this is ** playing the race card yet again, in a situation where it comes off as an overreaction. it's somewhat of an egotistical conceit to expect to be the only source of community information in a community as diverse as Oakland's. And, falling back on the ol' conspiracy theories seems a bit of a knee-jerk response to the emergence of a site which is both ally--in the sense that the two sites offer an alternative to mainstream news--and competitor--in the sense that both are competing for advertisers and page views. But the egalitarian nature of the internet rewards innovation as well as diversity: if i cant find what i'm looking for on website X, i go to website Y.

Point #5: Obviously Oaklanders take gentrification very seriously. However, in media matters, how an issue is perceived often comes down to the context in which it is framed. That said, engaging in constructive dialogue rather than blind-side attacks might have more constructive results.

Point #6: I respect **'s work as an advocacy journalist, but i dont always agree with his positions on every issue. i do enjoy getting his take on things, but to be completely honest, i had never even visited his website until i saw the mention by SF Gate blogger Zennie 62. I suspect many other viewers might have the exact same response. So if this was actually a ploy by ** to drive traffic to his site without making a concerted promotional effort in outreaching folks who weren't already aware of it, then it was a brilliant move. if one the other hand, its an attempt to bully Net surfers just wanting more local news and info into taking sides or choosing loyalties by using the "G"-word, it's a misguided one.

Where would one go to get a more complete and nuanced story about gentrification in general and Oakland in particular? I've never looked at the issue much but my gut reaction is that, while sad, gentrification to some extent is necessary to avoid urban decay. I am not interested in a flame war! :)

I want to thank Kwan for making a nuanced and thoughtful comment. I want to suggest that links and clicks are not what's really being debated here. Susan's response is non-responsive to what's really on the table.

Gentrification is usually defined as a take-over of the real estate from the long-term inhabitants, who watch the standard of living and amenities improve after they are vacated from the premises. It is about how the playing field changes after certain folks move in - when those changes never occurred when the long-term inhabitants were the dominant population. In every sense of the word, that is a political question.

I think the real estate we are discussing is not links and clicks. The real estate we are discussing is funding, intellectual capital, and the ability to represent onself as an or (the) important voice.

Oaklad Local did not spring up from nowhere. It sprung up from an initiative called J-Lab from the Knight Foundation which provided $17,000 to the project over two years to create this site to a former Yahoo executive, Susan Mernit, who has I think - also worked or consulted for the Knight Foundation itself and who had recently moved to Oakland from Silicon Valley. 

I concede that $17,000 is not a fortune and I also concede that one does not need to have lived in Oakland for twenty years to undertake a project to cover the community.

But I do not concede that long-time community journalists of merit don't have a point in saying - where did this come from and if there was money on the table to cover the Oakland community, why didn't we have any access to it?

There is a similar project called Mission Local, which is covering the community in SF's Mission District, using Berkeley J-School students and a much larger Bay Citizen project, also using J-school students and planning to cover San Francisco.

There is truth to the accusation is hyperlocal sites are originating from extra-local sources. Oakland Local is not the biggest, nor the most disturbing, of this nationwide trend.

The issue it seems to me, is who is going to be making a living from new innovative community journalism thingies 5-10 years from now, and who isn't? And what relationship this has to who has deep roots in the community and who doesn't, and who has a history as long-time local journalists, bloggers. artists, advocates etc ?

The gentrification metaphor is trying to do and build "local, alternative journalism rooted in community" under starvation conditions for years - and then the idea tracks and some resources finally appear. Soon after a bunch of people move onto the idea-turf, discover your neighborhood and rave about what an undiscovered jewel it is, and housing prices rise, schools improve, the hyperlocal journalism movement gets sexier. The idea wins, but the people who've been doing it for 25 years don't. They just get to move out because there's too much money floating around to effectively compete.

So sure, you may not be able to gentrify the web, but you can always gentrify an idea or perhaps more correctly gentrify an idea to attract funding support. It's not craziness to understand there are real consequences - just as there are when neighborhoods "flower".

Best,

Tracy Rosenberg

Media Alliance

Tracy, thanks for your note. I agree it is important to give everyone a place at the table and not displace long-time media players. It is also important to make everyone aware of funding opportunities they can apply for if they are qualified (Oakland Local is a non-profit, which is why we qualified to apply to J-Lab--which funds nonprofits--for start-up money).(And by the way, the J-Lab organization is housed at American University, and was itself a recipient of funding from Knight, but there was no overlap between people I worked with when I consulted for Knight and the independent board of outside judges who awarded the grants.)

I would also point out that in seeking funding from outside the area--and in deciding to go ahead with the site despite the relatively small funding in relationship to what we hoped to accomplished, we created a very high-quality, frequently updated product that has a level of quality outside of what the budget was (and we don't think this truth is unique to OL, either). If we'd had no funding at all, we probably still would have started the site, because we did not see anyone doing what we wanted to do in Jan 2009. In other words, we created a new opportunity based on our shared vision, part of which was to partner and support others.

In the spirit of supporting local writers, in our short life, we have partnered with local journalists to support their efforts to get funding for prison justice stories (Soros), scholarships to journalism conferences (ONA), scholarships to NetRoots Nation, fellowships to multicultural fellowshop programs at foundations, etc.  As you know, we have also volunteered time and effort to teach for free in low-cost or free workshops on using digital media sponsored by Independent Arts and Media, and by The Public Media Collaborative, as well as doing small group trainings on our own with organizations.

Unfortunately, as of this date, there doesn't seem to be any money specifically on the table for Oakland from non-profit foundations that I am aware of.  When she launched Aimee Allison said she had received local funding for Oakland Seen, but I have no detailed info, you'd have to ask her,  Our funding came from out of state, from an independent organization using money they were re-granting from The Knight Foundation specifically to fund NEW projects. Because the total amount was small and we wanted to pay the writers,  we went forward with the site by working as volunteers on it.

I might add the clarification that Oakland Local is organized around issues, not nieghborhoods, and that we don't have staffs of students to write for us. We have regular people from the community who want to contribute, and while some volunteer, we pay small amounts to most of them (that is where 90% of the grant money goes).

I agree with you that the troubling thing, here, is not only who shares in the non-profit pie, but how sustainable are these models? You write: " Who is who is going to be making a living from new innovative community journalism thingies 5-10 years from now, and who isn't? And what relationship this has to who has deep roots in the community and who doesn't, and who has a history as long-time local journalists, bloggers. artists, advocates etc ?" I don't think anyone has answered this question yet.

The sad truth is that most local sites are labors of love, and not sustainable. Many people are searching for new business models to see how these local sites can make a go of it without the big ad profits of traditional news media, and the jury is still out on what works.

However, that doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity to create new models and new opportunities in Oakland. There is no reason that a group of non-profit media organizations couldn't band together, perhaps led by a group like your own, and seek to create funding opportunities to support your vision of what the web should look like and who deserves to be funded because of their tenure.

After all, I may, as you point out, have a stint in tech that gives me a keep understanding of technology and how to build web sites, but you have long-time tenure in Oakland and an organization founded in 1976 whose mission is to unite the professional media community with the public interest communities of the Bay Area. What could be better than that? It sounds like the right group to bring an effort together to seek support.

I think that Ms. Rosenberg’s comment, above, misses a key feature of the economics of OaklandLocal in particular. The biggest grant to the site is not the $17,000 from JLab, but more than a year of volunteer time from Susan Mernit, Kwan Boot, and Amy Gahran, way-below-market web development by cogmotive, and free or way-below market writing by a bunch of committed folks.  At market rates, at least $200,000 in time has been donated, maybe twice that. 

The real question is not whether the $17,000, should have been given to a long-term local journalist, because you couldn’t build a site like OaklandLocal for $17,000.  The real question is whether you want highly skilled people to quit their highly paid jobs to give something back to the community as an act of love, or would rather they stay selfish and stay away.  If you want the latter, all you have to do is attack people like that enough to assure that it is no fun.

However, I agree that even this real question is not open-and-shut.  Good intentions provide no guarantee of good effect, and maybe such gifts harm the community rather than helping it.  This is an empirical question, and I think it makes a lot of sense to keep tabs on OaklandLocal and see if it strengthens or weakens the existing community. Given that OL mainly serves to publicize the work of existing nonprofits, community groups, and independent journalists, and that one of its key purposes is to provide free web and social media training to community members and groups, there is reason to hope that the net effect is positive. But to establish that, things like determining the impact of OaklandLocal on existing community journalistic institutions, as Mernit tries to do above, is not irrelevant. It is central.

Hi Susan,

As you know, I've used Oakland Local and will continue to do so. Thanks for engaging in conversation and this is not meant as a personal attack. (I appreciate your guy standing up for you, but it's really not necessary). A few quick points: I do appreciate that OL is not primarily student-labor driven and I think that's the better model and you deserve props for that. I would say though, that it is not appropriate to assume that others in the field are *unaware* of funding opportunities out there. I think people are very aware. I think many longtime community workers are not rewarded by the funding establishment. That's not your fault, of course, but it's a reality. Blaming the victims of the somewhat screwed-up nonprofit funding complex isn't really fair nor accurate. It's no meritocracy out there.

Finally, I can't address whether "highly skilled people should quit their well-paying jobs" or not to benefit the community. That's a personal choice. But I don't think it should be presented as a bribe that requires eternal gratitude and immunity to criticism forever for their generosity. Everyone struggles and everyone gets criticized. No way out of that one. We have to be able to have an honest conversation without the "highly skilled people" taking their marbles and going home. Because the people we are trying to serve don't have that option.

Tracy, I value the discussion we're having. Andy's views are his own and he wanted to share them. I agree that there's no thank you owed for anyone's actions, and that funding is challenging, very challenging. This process has been a learning experience for me, and I've been sensitized because of it.

One thing that I find interesting is how this conversation has been centered around a couple of people and two or three websites, when in reality there are around 20 sites between SF and the East Bay that fit into the hyperlocal/nonprofit/community media model, a lot more if you extend it to the rest of the Bay Area.  Some of these are university sponsored, some are startups, some are volunteer run and some are nonprofit or VC funded. Depending on which communities you identify with, a case could be made that just about every one of these is "community minded" or "outsider."

There are a lot of spheres of influence/communities/dialogs that don't really intersect. That's a problem. Some of these communities represent longstanding residents who don't feel included in recent developments, some of these communities are super tech and business savvy with their own agendas which might or might not include those longstanding community members. Some communities just want to know how the take care of their families, take better care of their neighborhoods and find the best place to take a date on a Friday night.  And as much as I'd like to make sure all us journalists and media outlets coexist and thrive, I think we should be much more interested in making sure the community's needs are served.

But to throw my own personal biases on the table: I'm most concerned about the People of Color, low income and marginalized communities because, well, that's where I and a lot of people I care about fit in.  How do we create a media network that serves these folks? In my opinion, if we start there a lot of the other issues will fall into place.

That's one of the things Oakland Local was created to address and I think it's important that people don't just look at the trunk or they'll miss the elephant behind it. A lot of focus has been placed on OL as a news site, but that's not really what we do. Oakland Local is a media capacity builder. That means we work with individuals, bloggers, journalists, community organizations and other media outlets to create a more sustainable media environment.  That includes trainings, coaching, partnerships, lectures, consulting and facilitating community dialogs-exactly like what's happening here.  The stories on the site are just the end result of that work. 

Kwan got ur email..

a few thoughts to consider..

1- technically speaking no one owes any one anything when it comes to the Internet in this sense.. The popularity of the internet is a reflection of the need for people to hear and see themselves in an un-compromised way.. We may call this niched media..

If I like red beans I wanna go to a site that only serves red beans.. I don't want blue beans, mixed beans, green beans.. red beans only and I will accommodate other places and spaces until red beans come along..That's the nature for better or for worse is the nature of the net..

There was a time I was one of the few and only Hip Hop sites on the net.. I did my best to bring attention to folks projects and activities.. I did it for years, put hours and hours of work in and to this day have never gotten paid.. Over the years lots of Hip Hop sites have sprung up.. Many of the people started out coming to my site.

In the beginning it kind of sucked to suddenly see all those people suddenly go off to other places and literally not look back.. It sucked because for quite a few, my message boards served as gathering spots where people, met, networked and went off to do their own thing...

It sucked even though I of all people understood that at the end of the day understood that I people will go to where they see themselves best reflected..I understood that and accepted it and continue to do what I do..

What was more troubling and and this is where I can see concerns raised, is that as this Hip Hop community of websites grew, very few ever bothered to link back  to me, include me in their blog rolls etc.. Its not like I had beef or anything like that..

I could run down a list of folks who I had flown out to panels.. ran their first press releases, published their first articles, did their first reviews, gave lots of advice to  and included on my link page with a description when they were first starting out without being asked.

My motto was there is no need for competition there's plenty of room to go around, but many of my colleagues saw this space in competitive terms..words like 'exclusivity' become important  and bragging rights to alexia stats were the order of the day..very few cared to share..

Behind the scenes I seen folks bring the same petty competitive bullshit that existed in radio and the music biz to the net..I can tell you stories about how folks would talk about other sites... or get funny style 

Some folks I later found were getting investment money from big name folks who insisted on stat counts and this exclusive nature of the sites they invested funds in..so even if I was friends with folks behind the scene.. they were still being pushed to see everyone as competition..

This in my mind is not why we should be in this space.. We're here to provide a service and build community among like minded folks whether locally or nationally.

When I hear the word gentrification I think of new folks coming into a space and not building with the folks already around them..It's a displacement..Do I see that in cyberspace.. Not really..At the end of the day its on me to step up and be relevant to my audience as it is any site.. But there comes a day when someone new comes along and does something like what you do and it appeals to a segment of your audience who will go away and may not look back..

So today you have Oakland Local.. tomorrow you have can have Lakeshore Local or Broadway terrace Local or Montclair Local.. and while in principle those folks who create such sites have every right to do what they do.. It will sting and suck when you sit back and note you spent hours working on this project and people ain't checking for you the same way.. And it will suck when new folks suddenly see you as competitors and they throw up a wall up that pretty much acts like you don't or never did exist..The web in many ways is still a personal thing and we should keep this in mind..

I don't know what the business model is of Oakland Local or any of these new sites popping up.. Personally I'm happy to see them.. especially if they fill a void..It's also good to see that your building with local groups..I hope its not with that competitive.. 'me me me'  attitude that has become the hall mark of the Hip Hop world..

Community means we're fluid and we understand that no one person or org has a lock on everything and everyone..The Bayview, Block Report, Zinny, Oakland Post or Oakland Local or oakland Seen will not speak to everyone in Oakland and thats a good thing.. I think everyone mentioned brings a little something to the table..and we should encourage folks to to check out and peep these other voices..

I also think one should strive to find ways to uplift and support the locally based work that folks are doing..

Maybe its as simple as linking to all those different outlets as both a service to me as the reader and maybe as a way to note that a lot of folks held it down and did their best to vill a crucial void before you came along..

Yes, the Bayview  did and continues to play a crucial role..in giving voice to oakland.. Over the years Erik Arnold was an important gave critical voice to oakland when he was at the Eastbay Express and at urban view and now at SF weekly.. before that we Lee hildebrand, Zinny has filled a void..Greg Edmonds been around we can go on and on..

Maybe y'all should link to each other just on the strength.. and then over time find ways to support each other.. Maybe its running a story highlighting folks and their projects sending an interesting folks down the road to be interviewed by others..The possibilities are endless..

I don't know if that solves this perception of gentrification on the web.. But I do know its a good first step in building strong community..

Lastly when I worked as a radio programmer for Time Warner/AOL I sat in a room with and saw folks from Live 365, Microsoft, Yahoo and a few other 'competitors' sit down and craft up a way to establish a rating system, pony up monies to use Arbitrons name on that system and then craft a way to sell commercials and shar ad revenue.. If those forces can find a way to build so should the local folks in the town..

Hope this insight helps thanks for reading

Davey D

awesome post dave

you really put things in perspective...