Methodology: Theoretical Framework
This study draws on the theory of the social construction of reality in order to discover how journalism helps to construct community. A primary aim here is to determine how the Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service’s editor-in-chief and staff consider their individual and shared experiences in the pursuit of telling the stories of people who are working to improve their communities – stories that might not otherwise get told by mainstream media – and thus help to create a greater sense of community while also developing better journalists.
Berger and Luckmann (1966), two of the most important theorists of social construction of reality theory, argue that our everyday reality is socially constructed, that common knowledge guides our conduct in it, that we share this reality with others and that we “cannot exist in everyday life without continually interacting and communicating” with them (p. 23). Adoni and Mane (1984) wrote that “social construction of reality is a dialectical process in which human beings act both as the creators and as products of their social world” (p. 325); they added that how the media represents public opinion – for example, emphasizing certain points of view and falsely positioning them as dominant views in society – influences both an individual’s construction of subjective reality and his or her voting behavior.
Scholars have tied social construction of reality to how the news makes sense of reality. Gamson et al. (1992) remind us that media-generated images help to construct meaning about political and social issues and may even be largely unconscious on the producer’s part as well. For example, a photo opportunity creates a moment for news coverage, which in turn creates a reality for the viewers or readers who see it. Entman (1993) extended their argument by offering that media focus on four framing functions: defining problems, diagnosing causes, making moral judgments and suggesting remedies.
Schudson (2003) called attention to how journalists go about constructing community. He argued that “journalists not only report reality but create it” and that by “selecting, highlighting, framing, shading and shaping” their reporting – yes, based on real people and real events – they create impressions that readers and viewers take to be real and respond to (p. 2). Reporters’ ethical beliefs, such as objectivity and accuracy, may provide constraints – and ubiquitous, potentially manipulative sources may aid and abet – but Schudson insisted that journalism helps to construct community sentiment. The social construction of reality can prove especially challenging in a multicultural world. Garyantes (2012) wrote that social groups and personal experiences influence reporters and can be challenging when they view and report on culturally diverse communities.
This study also draws on findings by Donohue, Tichenor and Olien (1973) related to the connection between community newspapers and local audiences and as examples of the constraints under which journalists do their work. The team contended that “small community media tend to refrain from reporting social and technological controversies, concentrating instead on cohesion and consensus and publicizing after the fact” (p. 654). This literature suggests the importance of understanding how journalists’ stories symbolically construct the communities they serve. How does NNS select what stories it chooses to pursue? How does it go about constructing reality in the communities it serves, particularly while striving for professionalism in the sense of looking for and telling the truth as best as it knows it, without taking sides? Such is the tension associated with doing community journalism, even as NNS positions itself both within and against mainstream media: Do you or do you not belong to the community?
Berger and Luckmann (1966), two of the most important theorists of social construction of reality theory, argue that our everyday reality is socially constructed, that common knowledge guides our conduct in it, that we share this reality with others and that we “cannot exist in everyday life without continually interacting and communicating” with them (p. 23). Adoni and Mane (1984) wrote that “social construction of reality is a dialectical process in which human beings act both as the creators and as products of their social world” (p. 325); they added that how the media represents public opinion – for example, emphasizing certain points of view and falsely positioning them as dominant views in society – influences both an individual’s construction of subjective reality and his or her voting behavior.
Scholars have tied social construction of reality to how the news makes sense of reality. Gamson et al. (1992) remind us that media-generated images help to construct meaning about political and social issues and may even be largely unconscious on the producer’s part as well. For example, a photo opportunity creates a moment for news coverage, which in turn creates a reality for the viewers or readers who see it. Entman (1993) extended their argument by offering that media focus on four framing functions: defining problems, diagnosing causes, making moral judgments and suggesting remedies.
Schudson (2003) called attention to how journalists go about constructing community. He argued that “journalists not only report reality but create it” and that by “selecting, highlighting, framing, shading and shaping” their reporting – yes, based on real people and real events – they create impressions that readers and viewers take to be real and respond to (p. 2). Reporters’ ethical beliefs, such as objectivity and accuracy, may provide constraints – and ubiquitous, potentially manipulative sources may aid and abet – but Schudson insisted that journalism helps to construct community sentiment. The social construction of reality can prove especially challenging in a multicultural world. Garyantes (2012) wrote that social groups and personal experiences influence reporters and can be challenging when they view and report on culturally diverse communities.
This study also draws on findings by Donohue, Tichenor and Olien (1973) related to the connection between community newspapers and local audiences and as examples of the constraints under which journalists do their work. The team contended that “small community media tend to refrain from reporting social and technological controversies, concentrating instead on cohesion and consensus and publicizing after the fact” (p. 654). This literature suggests the importance of understanding how journalists’ stories symbolically construct the communities they serve. How does NNS select what stories it chooses to pursue? How does it go about constructing reality in the communities it serves, particularly while striving for professionalism in the sense of looking for and telling the truth as best as it knows it, without taking sides? Such is the tension associated with doing community journalism, even as NNS positions itself both within and against mainstream media: Do you or do you not belong to the community?