Gather research on why philanthropy + local opinion journalism makes sense

Local media that seek to partner with philanthropy to reimagine local opinion journalism can turn to and get inspiration from a growing body of related research.

Here are findings to inform or help make the case for your projects:

Local opinion vs national

Keeping opinion local might slow polarization.

Removing nationally-oriented content from a local opinion section appears to limit the growth of polarization locally. Researchers conducted the experiment with a California paper, in which editors shelved national political coverage and instead only included opinion content on local issues for a few months. In tests, “politically engaged people did not feel as far apart from members of the opposing party, compared to those in a similar community whose newspaper did not change.”

Read more: “Home Style Opinion: How Local Newspapers Can Slow Polarization” (Joshua P. Darr, Matthew P. Hitt and Johanna L. Dunaway), 2021.

Letters to the editor on local issues differ in tone from nationally-oriented letters.

When people wrote about local issues in their community’s letters to the editor, the text displayed more reason and less emotion than nationally-focused letters (which were more confrontational). The researchers studied all letters received by a North Carolina metro newspaper during a three-month period. When analyzed for sentiment, “local issues evoke more reasoned, conciliatory tones, while issues beyond the local context evoke more emotional, confrontational tones, even after controlling for individual writers’ characteristics and anger as a motivation to write.”

Read more: “Parallel Public Spheres: Distance and Discourse in Letters to the Editor” (Andrew J. Perrin and Stephen Vaisey), 2008.

Interest and desire

Millennials and Gen Z want media to provide forums for community discussion.

Some 40% of Americans ages 16-40 think it’s extremely or very important for the news media to “provide forums for community discussion.” The finding is largely consistent across three age groups analyzed from the large-sample survey, with older Millennials and younger Millennials alike putting the same emphasis on community discussion (45% and 44% saying it’s extremely/very important, respectively). Just 37% say the same in Gen Z, which, again in the analysis, includes teenagers as young as 16.

Read more: “Media can engage Millennials and Gen Z in community discussion. Here is where to start.” (Media Insight Project), 2023.

Millennials and Gen Z who pay for or donate to news are more likely to value community discussion. 

In the same survey as above, Americans ages 16-40 who pay for or donate to news in some way are more likely to say it’s extremely or very important for the news media to “provide forums for community discussion.”  Out of all the functions of the press that the survey asked about, this is one of the biggest differences between those who pay or donate and those who don’t in this age group (43% to 35%).

Read more: “Media can engage Millennials and Gen Z in community discussion. Here is where to start.” (Media Insight Project), 2023.

The more people think others in their community are connecting across lines of difference, the more willing they are to do so. 

Social norms — unspoken standards for typical or desirable behavior — influence people’s behavior. Researchers asked in a survey how much Americans agree with the following statement: “People in my local community spend time with people from different backgrounds than them.” The more people agreed — the more common the behavior seemed — the more likely they were to express interest in engaging across lines of difference generally.

Read more: “Social Connection Across Difference in the US, Pilot Study” (More in Common), 2023.

One of the biggest obstacles to connecting across lines of difference is lack of opportunity.

Many Americans are open to engaging in activities across lines of difference. Obstacles persist. From the same survey as above, researchers found that “the number one reason cited by Americans who do not actively interact across racial, religious, or socioeconomic differences is lack of opportunity. Exhaustion is the top reason for lack of interaction across political divides.”

Read more: “Social Connection Across Difference in the US, Pilot Study” (More in Common), 2023.

Engagement matters

Participating in deliberation may build institutional trust. 

Researchers have observed outcomes when ordinary people deliberate about a social issue. In one study, when people had the chance to engage in a deliberative space about climate change, participants in follow-ups expressed “greater trust in science, technology, and international agreements.” The finding was more pronounced among participants whose political views tilted to the right or considered themselves neutral.

Read more: “The Impact of Public Deliberation on Climate Change Opinions Among U.S. Citizens” (Rajiv Ghimire, Nathaniel Anbar, Netra B. Chhetri), 2021.

Americans think it’s important to be involved in finding solutions to our country’s problems. 

The public thinks participating in problem-solving is something they should do. In a national survey, 8 in 10 people across partisan lines believe it is very or extremely important for citizens to be involved in finding solutions to problems facing our country. Overwhelming majorities of Republicans (82%) and Democrats (80%) shared this desire.

Read more: “The Left and Right Think They Live on Different Planets — New Data Shows They’re More Like Next-Door Neighbors” (Starts With Us and NORC), 2023.

Philanthropy’s opportunity

Many Americans think philanthropy provides a way for collaboration in solving important issues.

Most Americans think collaboration to solve issues facing the country will be driven not by elected officials but by people and organizations outside of government (60% vs. 20%). In the same survey, philanthropic organizations were one of a couple of entities seen as having a fairly positive effect on collaboration (48% positive vs. 12% negative). News media alone was about the inverse (23% positive vs. 53% negative).

Read more: “Collaboration and the Role of Philanthropy” (Walton Family Foundation, Echelon Insights, Beneson Strategy Group), 2023.

To solve problems, Americans say philanthropy should facilitate connection and help people exchange ideas.

In the same survey as above, researchers asked the American public what a philanthropic organization that wants to help foster collaboration on issues facing the country should do. They volunteered ideas resonant with the aims of opinion sections, e.g. “They could support initiatives that promote open dialogue, provide resources for community engagement, and facilitate partnerships among different stakeholders.” “Foster open and respectful communication platforms. Connect people from different ages, ideologies, socioeconomic backgrounds, education levels, etc to allow for sharing of ideas and information with a goal of creative problem solving.”

Read more: “Collaboration and the Role of Philanthropy” (Walton Family Foundation, Echelon Insights, Beneson Strategy Group), 2023.