June 16, 2024

When it comes to business coverage, know this: A story reporting the closure of a business rarely is the first story we write about a business.

Since SiouxFalls.Business launched more than seven years ago, if we cover a business closing, we’ve likely covered its opening and potentially mentioned it numerous other times throughout our coverage.

And yet, I generally can guarantee that when we do report a business closure we will have readers respond that they never knew the business existed.

It happened again a couple of weeks ago, and I was sympathetic to the owner, who I know used many avenues to market the business. She did traditional advertising. She had a presence on social media. She held events. The business model might have had some challenges, but her marketing efforts didn’t appear to be among them.

That said, I know from plenty of experience how difficult it is to reach people. Increasingly, though, I wonder if we’re all part of the problem.

In other words, maybe if my readers who never heard of these closed businesses were regular readers as opposed to occasional readers, it would have helped. Maybe if they visited our website or signed up for our free e-newsletter, instead of just reading our news when it happened cross their social media feed, they would have known more about what was happening in our community.

It’s on us as content creators to continue producing work that is relevant to you. But as content consumers faced with seemingly endless options, we all also need to be intentional about making time to engage with what is happening in our community. Instead, the data shows that fewer people are following local news. In 2016, 78 percent in a Pew Research Center survey said they very closely or somewhat closely followed local news. As of earlier this year, that has dropped to 66 percent, which means one in three people aren’t following it even somewhat closely.

This disengagement goes far beyond whether anything I or my media colleagues publish gets read.

Consider the voter participation in our recent municipal and primary elections, which was abysmal — historically low in some cases. To me, that means one of two things: People aren’t upset by their current leadership, but they also aren’t inspired enough by their prospective leadership enough to show up. Maybe both. Regardless, it often means election results don’t necessarily reflect the desires of a majority silenced by their own inaction.

The implications of that disengagement are concerning to contemplate. But why is it happening?

Maybe you’ve heard about the concept of “bowling alone,” coined from the title of a book written almost 25 years ago by Robert Putnam, who explored how Americans increasingly were losing a sense of community — going from bowling in leagues to bowling alone, if you will.

We can see it in our community — although as in many things, I think Sioux Falls outperforms averages. Still, though, we have service clubs looking for members, organizations in need of volunteers, churches with declining attendance and neighborhoods where people don’t gather and get to know each other.

There’s multifold danger in this kind of community disconnect, I think.

Earlier this year, I took some notes as The New York Times columnist David Brooks spoke at Augustana University’s Boe Forum and saved them because they made so much sense to me.

“Lonely people are seven times as likely to be involved in politics,” he said, while adding that although the involvement feels like community, “it’s not real community — you’re just hating the same people.”

With loneliness comes sadness, he added.
“When we become sad, we become mad. When we don’t feel seen, we lash out. We feel disenfranchised.”

Not to mention, “a lot of people make a lot of money by selling distrust,” he added.