A couple of threads overnight started me thinking about this.
Larry Kart posted a bit from the Chicago Tribune here
http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...st&p=733062
And Jim Sangrey followed it up with a new thread here
http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...c=38415&hl=
There's a huge difference in what "local" means between these papers, of course, but they're still geographically focused.
So, yes, there's a good deal of unintentional humour in this kind of journalism. And, as Jim pointed out, a lot of love, too. What strikes me most about this kind of journalism is that it's very focused on the real concerns that people have - more than the national papers do, these connect very intimately with people's quality of life. I got a good illustration of that when we moved here a couple of years ago. The local paper (can't recall the name, it's free and I read it when I go to the cafe) was campaigning about the fact that the county council had demolished the public toilets (which were admitted to have been in a bad state) several months before , but hadn't replaced them. A few months later, the council put up new toilets in a different location (and so could have put the new ones in before demolishing the old ones). Victory!
Not a big issue? No. But it's people's quality of life that is enhanced so it's important.
And I wondered whether a locally based blog could have the same impact. There isn't a local blog for Tonyrefail, though there is a forum - here's a recent thread about the local shops' Christmas decorations (about the only thing of interest lately) http://www.tonyrefail.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=927 - But I guess there are a few around.
What is your experience of the effectiveness of local papers v blogs?
MG