Relying on the theoretical frameworks of media system dependency (MSD; Ball-Rokeach,
1985, 1998) and communication infrastructure
(CIT; Ball-Rokeach, Kim and Matei, 2001;
Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006; Jung, Qiu and Kim, 2001), both distinctively ecological
approaches, this paper aims, first of all, to highlight and illustrate the
advantages of studying communication ecologies - i.e., the web of interpersonal
and media (new and old/mainstream and geo-ethnic) connections that people
construct in the course of everyday life. In this regard, we join other researchers
who stress the added value of examining media in context, so as to be able
to assess their relative importance (Altheide, 1997;
Atkin, Bradley and Thomas, 1991;
Dorr and Kunkel, 1990; Engelberg, Flora and Nass, 1995; Hermand, Mullet and Rompteaux, 1999;
Perse, Ferguson and McLeod, 1994; Sacco, 1995; Snyder and Rouse,
1995; Trumbo, 1998).
Our second goal is to provide a multiethnic communication map to guide the
efforts of researchers and practitioners who seek the most effective ways
to communicate with a range of ethnically diverse populations. Drawing upon
the Metamorphosis Project studies of communication technology and community
(Ball-Rokeach, 1998; Ball-Rokeach,
Kim and Matei, 2001; Jung, Qiu and Kim, 2001;
Kim and Ball-Rokeach, in press; Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006; Kim, Jung and Ball-Rokeach, 2002; Loges and Jung, 2001; Matei and Ball-Rokeach, 2001; Matei and Ball-Rokeach, 2002; Matei and Ball-Rokeach, 2003; Matei, Ball-Rokeach and Qiu, 2001; Matei, Ball-Rokeach, Wilson, Gibbs, Gutierrez-Hoyt, 2001),
we pull together data from the study of 11 geo-ethnic groups (i.e., an ethnic
population that resides within a specific geographic area/community) in the
Greater Los Angeles area. We present findings that illustrate how the same
ethnic group living in different communication action contexts (i.e., residential
communities) constructs different communication ecologies.
Communication Ecology: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?
We conceive of people developing their own communication systems or ecologies
whereby they establish connections to other people and to media for purposes
of attaining everyday life goals (Ball-Rokeach,
1985). The importance of any particular communication connection is relative
to the importance of all other available and appropriate options (e.g., Flanagin
and Metzger, 2001). People usually connect to more than one communication
option to achieve any particular goal; that is, they operate in context of
the best choices available. We view people's communication ecologies as dynamically
responsive to the particular goal or goals at issue. For example, we would
expect to find different ecologies when the goal is to understand events in
one's community from the ecologies generated by the goal of figuring out what
to do for relaxation and entertainment (Ball-Rokeach,
1998; Wilkin, 2005).
Media System Dependency Relations: Different Goals, Different Media Ecologies
The link between goal-attainment and media connectedness is elaborated in
Ball-Rokeach's media system dependency (MSD) theory (Ball-Rokeach,
1985, 1998). The theory suggests that individuals
rely on different media to various degrees in order to accomplish particular
goals of understanding, orientation, play, and health (Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach and Grube, 1984;
Ball-Rokeach, 1998; Loges,
1994) . Understanding goals, which are the focus
of this paper, include making sense of one's internal world (self-understanding)
and making sense of what is happening in one's social environment, the external
world (social-understanding) (Ball-Rokeach, 1998,
p. 20). Analytically, capturing how media connectedness and communication
ecologies vary across the three types of goals is critical for researchers
and practitioners alike. More specific goals, such as figuring out what options
you have for childcare in your neighborhood, mobilizing your neighbors to
create a neighborhood watch group, or organizing a neighborhood block party,
could be considered understanding, orientation, and play goals respectively.
To accomplish these goals, individuals are likely to rely on different media
forms more than others, yet rarely on one alone. Moreover, for major communication
campaigns (e.g., those launched by the National Institutes of Health or the
Centers for Disease Control) to succeed, being able to identify the types
of goals sought a priori is crucial. Successfully reaching at-risk
populations to provide information about a new and more dangerous strain of
HIV, for example, would require knowing what the communication ecology for
understanding is for those individuals, while persuading these same people
to adopt certain health behaviors would necessitate having a map of the media
connections these individuals construct in pursuing action and interaction
orientation goals (see Wilkin and Ball-Rokeach,
Communication Infrastructure Theory: Media Ecologies and Community Context
Communication infrastructure (CIT) theory goes beyond MSD theory in a number
of ways, at least two of which are relevant for the current paper. It is,
first of all, more inclusive of communication modalities, incorporating new
and old media, mainstream, local, and ethnic media, interpersonal communication
channels, as well as the communication outreach of community-based organizations.
Secondly, CIT articulates and allows for the study of the dynamic relationship
between the communication action context (CAC) and the neighborhood storytelling
network (STN). The idea of a CAC captures the multi-dimensional community
landscape where personal and social environments become integrated and in
which communication takes place (Ball-Rokeach,
2003; Jung, 2003; Jung and Ball-Rokeach,
2004; Matsaganis, in press).
The Storytelling Network
The STN is created through a storytelling process in which residents, community
organizations, and local/ethnic (i.e., geo-ethnic) media work with each other
to construct a vision and a reality of their neighborhoods as places where
they belong and engage shared concerns. "The vitality and durability of this
network of storytellers can be strengthened or weakened by the nature of the
neighborhood's communication environment" (Ball-Rokeach,
2003, p. 1). Neighborhood storytelling is broadly defined as any kind
of communicative action that addresses the residents, their communities and
that relates to their lives in those communities (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). CIT distinguishes
between three levels of storytelling agents, from micro, to meso, to macro,
differentiated based on their primary storytelling referent and their imagined
audience. At the macro level, the mass media tell stories about the city,
the nation, and the world at large. Their imagined audience is the population
of the city, the state or the region. At the meso level, one finds two key
agents: (a) geo-ethnic media and (b) community organizations. Geo-ethnic media
refer to those media that either target specific geographical areas and/or
specific populations (such as new immigrant minorities) (Kim, Jung and Ball-Rokeach, 2006). Meso-level
storytellers are focused on specific residential communities. Finally, micro-level
storytellers include residents in their networks of family, friends, and neighbors.
CIT focuses primarily on meso- and micro-level storytellers.
Strong ties between storytellers across levels indicate an integrated storytelling
network, which in turn is associated with higher levels of civic engagement
(collective efficacy, neighborhood belonging, and civic participation) (Kim,
2003; Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006).
The role of geo-ethnic (i.e., local and ethnically targeted) media, as meso-level
storytellers, in this network is critical (e.g., Kim
and Jung, 2002; 2003). Their presence alone,
however, is not a guarantee for the emergence of a strong community. Lin (2004; see also Lin and Song, 2006)
showed that local and ethnically targeted newspapers in communities with lower
levels of civic engagement were less likely to tell stories about their community
and more apt to print stories about the home country of newer immigrants.
That said, the impact of stories told in geo-ethnic media depend upon the
relative importance of those media to community members with regard to achieving
specific goals. In communities of predominantly new immigrants where the geo-ethnic
media are pre-occupied with stories developing thousands of miles away in
the home country, it is conceivable, for instance, that these media may serve
goals of self-understanding (e.g., negotiating a new identity across borders),
while failing to serve social-understanding (e.g., staying on top of what
is happening in the newfound country and community).
In addition to our conceptual orientation, the breadth of our coverage of
communication connections was influenced by the practical realities of studying
many ethnic groups who live in residential communities where geo-ethnic media
abound. A theme in the larger Metamorphosis Project's inquiry is whether the
geo-ethnic media of today are serving the same roles attributed to the immigrant
media of the 1920s (Park, 1922; see also Lin, 2004). These
media are also a critical part of a neighborhood storytelling network when
they imagine an area as a community and, thereby, contribute to community
building (see Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001;
Kim et al., 2002).
We also consider the array of interpersonal communication connections - family,
friends, service providers, experts - as key components of individual communication
ecologies. In recent studies residents indicated that they rely heavily on
these connections for certain types of goals. For example, Wilkin (2005)
and Wilkin and Ball-Rokeach (2006)
report that Latinos in Los Angeles identify interpersonal communication networks
and local and ethnically targeted television as their top two channels they
go to for health information.
Finally, we investigate Internet connections. Flanigan and Metzger (2001)
suggest that the Internet can act as an interpersonal channel - through the
use of electronic mail, instant messaging, and chat rooms - or as a mass-mediated
channel used for information retrieval and information-giving. The Internet
can also act as a meso-level storyteller, for example, in old immigrant areas
(Matei and Ball-Rokeach, 2003) where community
media are online and community forums available for discussions. As such,
the Internet has drawn the attention of many communication researchers and
campaign designers for its potential to reach diverse audiences through multiple
levels of influence. However, the Internet may not be the best way to reach
certain high-risk ethnic groups (Cheong and
Wilkin, 2005; Cheong, Wilkin
and Ball-Rokeach, 2004; Wilkin, 2005; Wilkin and Ball-Rokeach, 2006). It is important
to regard the relative importance of the Internet within the larger communication
ecology rather than its technological potential when choosing the best approach
to reaching an audience.
The Communication Action Context
The neighborhood storytelling network is situated within a communication
action context (CAC) and the construction of communication ecologies is impacted
by the particular communication environment individuals live in. In this case,
the CAC refers to all of the features of people's residential environments
(cultural, social, economic, physical, etc.) that affect the availability
of different communication connections and the ease of access to them. For
example, having an Internet connection in the home is a privileged environment
compared to having Internet access at a community technology center located
miles away in an unsafe area where most of the people there do not speak your
language (Hayden and Ball-Rokeach, in press; Morino, 2001).
It is in the CAC that geo-ethnicity is most concretely defined as a structural
characteristic of communities. Prior research has indicated that there are
significant differences between individuals of the same ethnic background
that reside in different neighborhoods and between people of different ethnicities
living in the same residential community with regard to Internet connectedness
(Kim et al., 2006). Similar differences have
been reported for civic engagement, collective efficacy, and belonging (see,
for instance, Kim, 2003; Kim
and Ball-Rokeach, 2006). Our goal in this study is to investigate whether
or not and to what extent a similar "geo-ethnic effect" applies to the construction
of communication ecologies for particular goals (i.e., social understanding).
Advantages of Employing a Communication Ecologies Approach
The search for communication ecologies has a number of advantages over the
more typical examination of the uses of a media form in isolation from other
media and from interpersonal connections. Appropriate utilization of the most
important communication connection to reach people maximizes the likelihood
of effectiveness. For example, if members of a target population have established
practices of preferring one media form as the most important way that they
get health information, they are more likely to systematically process intervention
or campaign information that is obtained via that channel. An additional advantage
is that you learn which medium is number two; that is, knowing the relative
importance in a communication ecology gives you more information for a cost-benefit
analysis of alternatives. For example, if mainstream television is first choice,
and ethnically targeted radio is second choice, then one may opt for the less
expensive, albeit second option to reach an audience.
In addition to the above-mentioned practical advantages, there are many ways
in which knowing a person's, group's, or community's communication ecologies
inform social, cultural, and political inquiry. For example, contemporary
efforts to understand the cultural positioning of new immigrant groups - assimilation,
isolation, hybridization, etc. - have a window into the process by examining
the relative importance of mainstream, ethnic, and interpersonal communication
in their communication ecologies, especially as observed over time. Similarly,
knowledge of communication ecologies informs efforts to understand the communicative
dynamics of strong and weak community. At the most simple level, if the predominant
media that residents connect to are mainstream media that do not tell stories
about "their neighborhoods" or ethnically targeted media that only tell stories
about the "home country," then community is not likely to be strong unless
residents connect intensely with each other and with community organizations
with regard to neighborhood concerns (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Kim, 2003).
A map of our geo-ethnic study areas is presented in Figure 1. As indicated, our
research design is consciously geo-ethnic in that we identify major residential
areas in Los Angeles County that contain large and/or historically significant
representations of the largest ethnic populations in the County (see Matei,
Ball-Rokeach, Wilson et al., 2001 for details). In doing so, we assume
that ethnicity and the characteristics of the geographic community interact
to produce geo-ethnic variations. In other words, different ethnic groups
living in the same area are likely to differ and members of the same ethnic
group living in different areas are likely to differ in at least some important
While many methods are deployed in the larger Metamorphosis Project - telephone
surveys, focus groups, phone interviews with geo-ethnic media producers, on-site
interviews with community organizations, socio-spatial mapping, content analysis,
and case studies - the findings reported in this paper are drawn solely from
the telephone survey. In Table
1, we profile the geo-ethnic groups we study and the number of households
studied for each group.
The telephone survey, conducted between 1998 and 2002, was administered to
respondents selected by random digit dialing (first adult contacted) by a
well-respected commercial survey research organization. Members of the research
team closely monitored the process. The 40-47 minute survey was administered
in the language preferred by the respondent (Armenian, Cantonese, English,
Korean, Mandarin, and Spanish) . It was introduced as a survey of residents' feelings toward
their community .
Up to eight callbacks were made. Calculated in the most conservative manner
the average response rate was 31%, while the average cooperation rate was
63%. Given the nature of our geo-ethnic urban new and old immigrant samples,
it is hard to find comparable response rates in the literature, but our rates
compare favorably with those of national surveys conducted by major research
organizations (Curtin, Presser and Singer, 2005; Groves, Presser and Dipko, 2004; Keeter, Kohut, Groves and Presser, 2000). Area population
characteristics compare well with those of their respective samples, the primary
differences being modest sample over-representations of females and higher
socio-economic status groups (see Metamorphosis Technical Report at www.metamorph.org).
For the purpose of this paper, we are exploring the communication connections
made to attain the understanding goal. The question asked to measure the relative
importance of communication options to achieve social understanding goals
was: Thinking about all the different ways of communicating and getting information
- using television, radio, newspapers, books, magazines, movies, the Internet,
taking with other people, or any other way, what are the two most important
ways for you to stay on top of what's happening in your community? 
The interviewer classified responses into the following categories:
- Talking with other people/telephone
- Books and Magazines
- Television/Cable TV/Satellite TV
- Leaflets and Folders
When the response included radio, television, or newspapers, the interviewer
followed up by asking whether each was "mainstream English language" or "targeted
to [their] ethnic group or [their] community." 
Our strategy in presenting the research findings is to identify what we regard
as the most significant findings from the point of view of how they may inform
practitioners and community activists who seek to reach these target groups
for campaign or intervention purposes. Multiethnic communication maps observed
when the goal is to stay on top of events in the community (understanding)
have particular relevance for practitioners seeking to reach target communities
with respect to opportunities (e.g., services or mobilization efforts), threats
(e.g., closure of medical facilities or environmental hazards), or emerging
community issues (e.g., safe streets or playgrounds).
The relative importance of nine communication options as ranked by 11 geo-ethnic
groups are presented in Table 2. Rankings are determined
by the percentage of group members who selected a communication option as
one of the top two ways that they go about understanding their community .
We present the full table so that readers can inspect it in as much detail
as they wish. To simplify our discussion of the major findings, we generated
Table 3 where we examine
only the top four ranked communication options for each group. We do not combine
groups into larger ethnic/racial categories – Hispanic, Asian, etc. –
because in our geo-ethnic approach, the ideal is to treat each community as
its own case. Thus, we expected to find variations within customary ethnic/racial
categories, variations that matter when it comes to designing a communication
We discuss the findings presented in Table
3 by first examining variations in the most preferred modes of communication
for understanding the community and then by examining variations within customary
ethnic/racial categories. Of the 11 groups compared in Table 3, four are what we
call old immigrant groups or groups where most of the members are third generation
or longer residents of the United States: Anglos in Glendale, the Westside,
and South Pasadena and African American residents of Greater Crenshaw. The
remaining seven are largely first and second generation or new immigrants.
The Relative Importance of Geo-Ethnic and Mainstream Media
Given the unusually large representation of new immigrant groups, it may
not be surprising to find that geo-ethnic media are prominent among the top
two communication options selected for staying on top of what is happening
in the community. Geo-ethnic media constitute at least two of the top four
media options selected by five new immigrant groups (Korean origin/Koreatown,
Chinese origin/Greater Monterey Park, Mexican origin/East LA, Mexican origin/Southeast,
and Central American origin/Pico Union). The first or most-frequently selected
choice among these groups and also among Armenians in Glendale is one or another
geo-ethnic media. It is perhaps more surprising to find that geo-ethnic media
are among the four most-frequently selected options in all of the old immigrant
areas. These vary from television for Westside Anglos to newspapers targeted
to Anglo and other residents of South Pasadena and Glendale, and to African
Americans in Greater Crenshaw.
A mainstream media form is the most frequently selected communication option
in one new immigrant group (31% of Hispanics in Glendale). Mainstream media
are also tied for first place with geo-ethnic media among Armenian residents
of Glendale (30%). Three of the four old immigrant groups select a mainstream
media as their first choice, ranging from 38% for Glendale Anglos to 46% for
African Americans in Greater Crenshaw to a substantial 62% for Anglos on the
Which Geo-Ethnic Media?
In addition to the importance of geo-ethnic media relative to mainstream
media, there are substantial differences in which geo-ethnic media are most
frequently selected as one of the two most important ways people stay on top
of their community. Looking again at Table
3, eight of the 11 groups include geo-ethnic TV as one of the four most-frequently
selected options, eight include geo-ethnic newspapers, and three include geo-ethnic
radio. Most of the geo-ethnic TV stations are cable stations targeted to new
immigrant groups where much or all of the programming is in a native language
(Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese, Spanish, Armenian). The one exception concerns
the 12% of Westside Anglos who select public or community television as one
of the top two ways in which they stay on top of what is happening in their
community. Some of these communities have local cable stations that broadcast
community events, local sports competitions, and community advertisements.
The ethnic media in Los Angeles tend to have local news programs in addition
to international news programs, making them a good option for community awareness.
The newspaper is selected as one of the four most-frequently selected communication
options for eight populations, three old immigrant groups (33% Anglos in South
Pasadena, 29% Anglos in Glendale, and 19% African Americans in Greater Crenshaw)
and five new immigrant groups (59% Koreans in Koreatown, 45% in Chinese Greater
Monterey Park, 25% Hispanics in Southeast Los Angeles, 23% Hispanics in Pico
Union, and 13% Armenians in Glendale). These newspapers vary greatly from
"freebies" to tabloids to sophisticated daily publications. From a census
we conducted of such newspapers, there are more of them in new than in old
immigrant areas (Lin and Song, 2006). Many of the dailies targeted to
new immigrant groups are affiliated with corporate publications in the home
country. Finally, geo-ethnic radio is one of the four most-frequently selected
communication options in three of the 11 areas, all of them new immigrant
areas – Koreatown (28%), Greater Monterey Park (21%), and East LA (25%).
Again, there are numerous radio stations in the Los Angeles area that are
targeted to new immigrant communities and that are frequently in the native
language. Indeed, the two highest ranked radio stations in the Los Angeles
area are Spanish-language stations (Boyle, 2006).
Which Mainstream Media? 
Television is by far and away the most prominent mainstream media form. All
11 groups of new and old immigrants place it as one of the four most important
ways that they stay on top of events in their community. There is no general
pattern of greater or lesser importance depending on the status of being an
old or new immigrant. While pervasive, mainstream television is generally
ranked lower than geo-ethnic TV or geo-ethnic newspapers. Mainstream television
is ranked number one in only two groups – Hispanics in Glendale and African
Americans in Greater Crenshaw; it is tied for first with geo-ethnic television
among Armenians in Glendale. In Los Angeles, each of the mainstream television
networks includes extensive local news coverage (in some cases accounting
for more than 3 hours of coverage a day), which may contribute to the importance
of this medium for community understanding.
Mainstream newspapers appear in the top four ranks in 5 of the 11 groups.
Four of the five are the old immigrant groups that are joined by Hispanics
in Glendale. Only Anglos in Glendale and on the Westside rank the mainstream
newspaper number one. The major mainstream newspaper in Los Angeles County
is the Los Angeles Times. This newspaper underwent an important change
in the fall of 2000 (Los Angeles Times, September 14,
2000) when the decision was made to drop geographic section inserts that
addressed specific residential areas. Moreover, the Metro section was renamed
as the California section reflecting a general withdrawal from covering "city"
and "neighborhood" news. These changes suggest that the mainstream newspaper
in Los Angeles has devalued the role of storyteller of the geo-ethnic communities
of Los Angeles.
Mainstream radio does not appear in the top four ranks of communication options
for understanding the community. Very few Los Angeles radio stations self-identify
as "neighborhood" or "local" storytellers (Hardyk,
Loges and Ball-Rokeach, 2005). The consolidation of the radio industry
ownership most likely has something to do with the fact that only a small
percentage of old and new immigrant groups select mainstream radio as a way
to understand their communities (ranges from 10% for Westside Anglos to 2%
for Koreans in Koreatown and Armenians in Glendale). Relatively speaking,
geo-ethnic radio is more prominent than mainstream radio for staying on top
of what is happening in the community. Finally, books and magazines are not
a big player when it comes to understanding the community. The percent identifying
them as one of their top two ways of staying on top of the community is highest
among Anglos in South Pasadena, but this amounts to only 8% of these residents.
Enter Interpersonal Communication
It may come as a surprise that even in Los Angeles interpersonal communication
remains an important way that residents understand what is happening in their
communities. Interpersonal communication is ranked as one of the top two primary
resources for community understanding in five of the 11 communities and it
is ranked fourth or higher in nine of the 11 communities. Neighbors, family,
and friends talking with one another about what is happening in the community
- storytelling neighborhood - is not a fleeting vestige of the cultures that
immigrants bring to their new urban environments. Rather, interpersonal communication
is one of the most frequently selected communication options in all of the
old immigrant study areas - it is first among the Anglos of South Pasadena
(51%), second among the African Americans of Greater Crenshaw (40%) and Glendale
Anglos (32%), and third among Anglos on the Westside (37%).
The Internet in Understanding Community
As shown in Table 3, the Internet does
not rank in the top four most important ways to stay on top of what is happening
in the community in any area. However, in Table 2, we see that the
Internet is the sixth most-frequently selected option in Glendale study samples
- 14% of Hispanics, 13% of Anglos, and 11% of Armenians. A major consideration
in interpreting the findings with regard to the importance of the Internet
is the recency of data collection. Diffusion of both Internet connections
and establishment of community content sites has been rapid in our data collection
period from 1998 to 2002. Data from the Glendale samples were collected in
2001 and this may account for what appears to be an area effect. On the other
hand, only 7% of the Mexican origin residents of the Southeast area and 6%
of Pico Union Central Americans selected the Internet as one of the top ways
that they stay on top of their communities and these data were collected in
2002. The percent of each study sample that has access to any Internet connection
(work, or home, or cafe, etc.) is presented in Figure 2. The geo-ethnic
differences in Internet connection rates are reflective of work on the digital
divide (Cheong, in press; Cheong and Wilkin, 2005; Jung, Ball-Rokeach, Kim and Matei, in
press). Our study areas with lower SES tend to have lower Internet connection
rates then the higher SES communities.
At this point in time, even some old immigrant communities with relatively
high rates of Internet connection prefer other ways of staying on top of affairs
in their communities. As communities become more Internet savvy, we anticipate
seeing a rise in its importance as a community storyteller. In a 2005 survey
of African Americans in Greater Crenshaw, we saw the percentage of residents
identifying Internet for the understanding goal rise to 21% (as compared to
only 5% in 1998). This rise in Internet preference did not adversely affect
connections to other communication channels – interpersonal, mainstream
television, and mainstream television continue to be the most important channels
in this area. The Internet takes the #4 ranking with only a marginal percentage
over geo-ethnic newspapers, which still maintained almost 20% of the population
identifying the medium. In addition, we expect we will see increases in the
importance of the Internet as a community storyteller as generations growing
up with newer technologies grow older. Anecdotal evidence suggested that Internet
sites such as MySpace contributed to high youth turnout at the 2005
immigration rallies in downtown Los Angeles.
The Ideal Is To Customize To Geo-Ethnic Community Profiles
Our conventional ethnic group categories ignore important historical and
cultural differences (e.g., between Mexicans and Central Americans, between
Mexicans from different States and between Central Americans from different
countries, and so on). For these reasons, it is desirable to determine the
geo-ethnically specific communication profiles of target communities or, at
least, to avoid the assumption that all Hispanics, or Asians, or Anglos, etc.
share the same communication profile. With the data presented in Tables 2 and 3, we are able to observe
geo-ethnic variations among conventionally defined Hispanic, Asian, and Anglo
Major Differences and Similarities Between Groups
Among and Between Hispanic Groups
Television is the preferred media form of communication for understanding
the community among the four Hispanic groups, but which television? As shown
in Table 2, geo-ethnic television
is more frequently selected than mainstream television in three of the four
groups. For Hispanics in Glendale, however, there is a slight preference for
mainstream TV over geo-ethnic TV (31% and 27%, respectively). Indeed, the
communication profile of Hispanics in Glendale suggests a larger presence
of mainstream media when it comes to staying on top of what is happening in
their community – both mainstream TV and newspapers are among the four most-frequently
chosen communication options.
A combination of factors may account for the greater importance of mainstream
media among Glendale Hispanics compared to Hispanics in the other three study
areas (East Los Angeles, Southeast, and Pico Union). These include a higher
level of income and education and a higher level of inter-group conflict in
the Glendale study area. For example, the public schools are attended largely
by Hispanics and Armenians and these two groups have had a recent history
of tension in the Glendale area. These factors may increase the perceived
importance of connecting to mainstream media to survey or stay on top of events
in the community from sources that span ethnic divides.
Geo-ethnic radio appears in the top four ranks of the most-frequently selected
communication options for understanding the community among Hispanics in East
Los Angeles (25%), but not among Hispanics in Southeast and Pico Union where
it is ranked fifth (17% and 15% respectively) or Hispanics in Glendale where
it is ranked seventh (5%). As previously noted, there are many radio stations
targeted to Hispanics that can be received in the Los Angeles County area.
It appears that the Glendale Hispanic sample's stronger connections to mainstream
media accounts for the major variation here. Interpersonal communication appears
as a frequently selected option in all four Hispanic study samples, and it
is selected by as many as one-third of the Central Americans in the Pico Union
sample. Finally, the Internet does not appear in the top four ranks of any
of the Hispanic study samples.
Among and Between Anglo Groups
There are basic similarities in the communication options that are included
in the top four choices of Westside and South Pasadena Anglos, but there are
also some notable differences. Both select one type of geo-ethnic media –
the Westsiders select public/community television as one of the top ways that
they stay on top of community events (12%) while South Pasadenans select newspapers
targeted to their community (19%). The greater implication of community-targeted
newspapers in South Pasadena may be why they are less likely than Westside
Anglos to select mainstream newspapers (27% vs. 62%, respectively). Interpersonal
communication is the number one choice of South Pasadena Anglos (51%) while
it is third choice among Westside Anglos (37%). The Westside Anglos are more
TV inclined - mainstream television is ranked second with 42% selecting it
plus the 12% that select public/community TV. South Pasadena Anglos are more
newspaper inclined - 33% selecting community newspapers and 32% selecting
mainstream newspapers. There are important historical and contemporary differences
between the Westside and the South Pasadena study areas and study samples,
despite their SES similarities (see Table
1). Of these, we suggest that the presence of a daily community newspaper
historically targeted to Anglo residents in the Pasadena/South Pasadena area,
and the incorporation of South Pasadena as a city that has a self-identified
investment in being a "good community" are among the more important ways of
understanding the Westside/South Pasadena differences that we have reported.
Specifically, South Pasadena Anglos have, and Westside Anglos at the time
of this study did not have, a major daily geo-ethnic newspaper targeted to
them and their community. In previous research, we established that South
Pasadena Anglos have a higher level of belonging (feelings and behavior) than
the Westside Anglos (Ball-Rokeach et
al., 2001) and this is consistent with their greater preference for interpersonal
Among and Between Asian Groups
The Korean origin study sample in Koreatown and the Chinese origins study
sample (China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) in Greater Monterey Park/Alhambra are
distinctive for their similarities. Of their four most-frequently selected
communication options for staying on top of what is happening in their communities,
three are geo-ethnic media. Of these, newspapers targeted to their communities
are most important - 59% in Koreatown and 45% in Greater Monterey Park - followed
by geo-ethnic television - 37% in Koreatown and 42% in Greater Monterey Park
- and geo-ethnic radio is the fourth most-frequently selected option (28%
in Koreatown and 21% in Greater Monterey Park). Mainstream television is ranked
third in both Koreatown (31%) and Greater Monterey Park (24%). Overall, these
two study groups share a traditional media-centeredness when it comes to staying
on top of their communities. Interpersonal communication is selected by only
16% in both study samples (see Table 2), and the Internet
is selected by 5% in Koreatown and 16% in Greater Monterey Park.
There are a number of findings that we cannot explain with the data we have
in hand. We would need another study where we ask the different geo-ethnic
communities why they prefer one communication modality to another, and we
would need a content analysis of the storytelling referents in media programming.
For example, we do not know why geo-ethnic radio is a more preferred option
among East L.A. Hispanics than it is among Hispanics in the Southeast area
and Pico Union. We could speculate that geo-ethnic radio content is directed
more to people from Mexico (East L.A. and the Southeast) than people from
Central America (Pico Union) which allies with the historical presence of
Mexican people in Los Angeles. This might account for the lower priority of
geo-ethnic radio in Pico Union, but it does not account for the lower priority
in the Southeast. We could also argue that East L.A. is a more visible and
older community on the Los Angeles scene than the Southeast area, such that
East L.A. receives more coverage than the Southeast. However, we would need
a content analysis of geo-ethnic radio and additional data from the respondents
in these three communities to go beyond this kind of speculation.
Similarly, we cannot be confident in an interpretation of the similarities
between the Korean and ethnic Chinese samples in their top four communication
choices for understanding their community. We know that both groups come from
literate and print-oriented cultures, which may account for the substantial
percents selecting geo-ethnic newspapers. We can surmise that the dominance
of geo-ethnic media (newspapers, television, and radio) reflects the desire
to stay on top of events in the home country and, perhaps, a linguistic preference.
We know from content analyses of Korean and ethnic Chinese newspapers, that
the majority of stories concern the home country (Lin
and Song, 2006). We also know that all of these geo-ethnic media are widely
available in the Los Angeles area and that may not be the case in smaller
cities or towns. One aspect of our inability to confidently interpret these
findings is that we cannot be sure if these respondents interpreted community
to mean their residential community or the community of their country of origin.
Thus, we can make informed speculations, but future research would be necessary
to make data-based interpretations.
Another limitation is that our data were collected over a four-year period
in which communication technology continued to develop and change rapidly.
With our current data, it is impossible to determine how much the diffusion
of the Internet and digital technologies into these communities may have influenced
the communication ecologies. However, we believe that communication ecologies
are relatively stable, but also change. The rate of change is a question for
future research. The blending of new and old media is an ecological trend
that is surely going to affect things, but this will take time to show up.
Our point is that we should monitor the ecologies, not a specific medium or
interpersonal discussion in isolation. The peculiar roles of geo-ethnic media
and interpersonal communication are not likely to change. More likely is for
geo-ethnic media and interpersonal communication to become a blended form
(e.g., strong Internet and new technology forms of interpersonal communication
will increase in presence as younger people move along in the lifecycle).
We find that taking an ecological approach to studying communication connections
can provide insight into the best ways to reach a target audience. No "one
size fits all" approach can be used to reach the vastly diverse populations
in a city like Los Angeles. Our findings can help identify the communication
options for Los Angeles communities that should be used to maximize reach
and effectiveness when the intervention, education, commercial, or service
objective aligns with people's everyday efforts to stay on top of what is
happening in their community (e.g., disseminating knowledge of available services,
increasing resource utilization, or encouraging patronage of local businesses).
Campaigns conducted through the mainstream media can be costly and as with
the Internet are likely to miss some target groups. Overall, a combination
of media (geo-ethnic and sometimes mainstream) with interpersonal channels
is the key to reaching groups living in Los Angeles.
We encourage others to conduct similar research, as it will afford them the
same kind of textured guides produced by taking an ecological approach of
the kind we have illustrated. The process we demonstrated involves identifying
geo-ethnic communities of interest and conducting surveys in the preferred
language of the respondents. The survey should include questions designed
to have respondents identify the communication connections that are most
important for reaching the goal - understanding, orientation, or play
- that aligns with the intervention goals. Respondents are allowed to identify
any form of communication - ranging from interpersonal to mediated, mainstream
to geo-ethnic media, and old to new forms of communication technology. Estimates
can then be made about the relative importance of each form of communication
in relation to other communication options.
We live in a media-saturated world and understanding the relative importance
of communication channels for specific goals can be imperative when trying
to increase the cost-effectiveness of messages.
* This manuscript has been developed
within the broader context of the research project, Metamorphosis: Transforming
the Ties that Bind, conducted under the auspices of the Communication Technology
and Community Program at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University
of Southern California. The project is supported and funded by the First Five
Los Angeles County Proposition 10 Commission and the Annenberg Center for
 For purposes of flow and considerations of length,
we examine only one of the major types of media system dependency relations
- understanding - and leave comparisons of how understanding ecologies differ
from those constructed to obtain orientation, play, and health goals to a
 Sample selection was a complicated process of
overlaying census tracks, zip codes, and prefixes (none of which overlap each
other that well) to maximize the theoretical hit rate, that is the likelihood
we would reach the desired ethnicity in the desired geographic space.
 Despite our efforts to direct people's attention
to their geographic communities or neighborhoods in our introduction of the
survey and in repeated mentions of such in the various questions asked in
the survey, we assume that there were still variations in what the word "community"
meant to our diverse study groups. It probably makes a difference when most
residents share the same ethnicity compared to cases where multiple ethnic
groups share the same geographic space. Our ways of labeling an area had considerable
overlap with the respondents' ways of identifying where they live (Metamorphosis
Project Technical Report, metamorph.org). Nonetheless, we cannot know how
often respondents interpreted the question to refer only to their ethnic group
in an area, or, even, to their ethnic group, generally.
 In the Glendale, Pico Union, and Southeast L.A.
surveys the question asked "what are the most important ways" and did not
specify that we were looking for the two most important.
 The "geo-ethnic media" response option varies
across areas so that it reflects the media targeting the ethnic groups in
the areas. In ethnic groups that do not generally have English as a first
language, the question is asked to reflect the media in the native language
(e.g., Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Cantonese, Armenian) and in the predominantly
English-speaking ethnic groups, public access and community media are the
 In the areas in which we specified that we were
looking for the two most important we tended to get two responses and
the mean number of responses are as follows: East L.A. Hispanics (M
= 1.8), Westside Anglos (M = 1.9), South Pasadena Anglos (M
= 1.8), Greater Koreatown Koreans (M = 1.9), Crenshaw African Americans
(M = 1.9), and Chinese in Greater Monterey Park (M = 1.9). When
given the opportunity to list as many as they wanted, respondents tended to
provide only one response, but due to the range of options some participants provide, the
average number of responses for each area are as follows: Pico Union Hispanics
(M = 1.6), Southeast Hispanics (M = 1.7), Glendale Hispanics
(M = 1.5), Glendale Armenians (M = 1.3), and Glendale Anglos
(M = 1.7).
 We acknowledge that the term "mainstream" connotes
a dominant cultural consensus that has questionable applicability in Los Angeles,
where the largest ethnic group is Hispanic. Lacking a better term, we use
mainstream media to communicate corporate English language media targeted
largely to old immigrant groups.
Altheide, D. L. (1997). Media
participation in everyday life. Leisure Sciences, 19(1), 17-30.
D. J., Bradley, S. G. and Thomas, F. B. (1991). The home ecology of children's
television viewing: Parental mediation and the new video environment. Journal
of Communication, 41(3), 40-52.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1985). The
origins of individual media system dependency: A sociological framework. Communication
Research, 12(4), 485-510.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1998). A theory of media power and a theory of media
use: Different stories, questions, and ways of thinking. Mass Communication
and Society, 1(1/2), 5-40.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2003).Report
to the Carnegie Mellon Foundation, University of Southern California.
Los Angeles, CA.
S. J., Kim, Y. C. and Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths
to belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28(4),
S. J., Rokeach, M. and Grube, J. W. (1984). The Great American Values
Test: Influencing behavior and belief through television. New York: Free
Boyle, M. (2006). Univision's one-two
L.A. summer punch. Radio and Records.Com. Retrieved online (10/29/06): http://www.radioandrecords.com/radiomonitor/news/business/top_news/article_display.jsp?
Cheong, P. H. (in press). Health
communication resources for uninsured and insured Hispanics. Health Communication.
Cheong, P. H. and
Wilkin, H. A. (2005). Digital divide(s) among Hispanic immigrants and
implications for health information seeking. In Allen, M. and Convalso,
M. (Eds.) Internet Research Annual, Vol. 2 (pp. 175-188). New
York: Peter Lang Publishers.
P. H., Wilkin, H. A. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2004). Diagnosing the communication
infrastructure in order to reach target audiences: A case study of Hispanic
communities in Los Angeles. In P. Whitten and D. Cook (Eds.), Understanding
health communications technologies: A case study approach (pp. 101-110),
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publications.
R., Presser, S. and Singer, E. (2005). Changes in telephone survey non-response
over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(1), 87-98.
Dorr, A. and Kunkel, D.
(1990). Children and the media environment: change and constancy amid
change. Communication Research, 17(1), 5-25.
M., Flora, J. A. and Nass, C. I. (1995). Aids knowledge: Effects of channel
involvement and interpersonal communication. Health Communication, 7(2),
J. and Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet use in the contemporary media environment.
Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153-181.
R. M., Presser, S. and Dipko, S. (2004). The role of topic interest in survey
participation decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2-31.
B., Loges, B. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2005). Radio as a Successful Local
Storyteller in Los Angeles: A Case Study of KKBT and KPCC. Journal of Radio
Studies, 12(1), 156-181.
C. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (in press). Maintaining the digital hub: Locating
the community technology center in a communication infrastructure. New
Media and Society.
D., Mullet, E. and Rompteaux, L. (1999). Societal risk perception among
children, adolescents, adults, and elderly people. Journal of Adult Development,
Jung, J.-Y. (2003). Internet connectedness
and its social origins: An ecological approach to communication media and
social inequality. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2004, May). From media systems dependency
theory to a communication infrastructure approach. Paper presented to
the International Communication Association Conference. New Orleans, LA: May
J.-Y., Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Kim, Y.-C. and Matei, S. A. (in press). ICTs
and communities in the 21st Century. An invited and peer reviewed chapter
for C. Ciborra, R. Mansell, D. Quah and R. Silverstone (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of information and communication technologies. Oxford University
Jung, J.-Y., Qiu, J. L.
and Kim, Y. C. (2001). Internet connectedness and inequality: Beyond the
"divide". Communication Research, 28(4), 507-535.
Keeter, S., Kohut, A., Groves,
R. M. and Presser, S. (2000, January). Consequences of reducing nonresponse
in a national telephone survey. Retrieved online 7/1/2000 from: http://mason.gmu.edu/~skeeter/nonresponse.zip
Kim, Y. C. (2003). Storytelling community:
Communication Infrastructure and Neighborhood Engagement in urban places.
Unpublished dissertation. University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
and Ball-Rokeach, S. J.. (in press). Neighborhood storytelling resources
and civic engagement: A multilevel approach. Human Communication Research.
Kim, Y.-C and
Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006). Civic engagement from a communication infrastructure
perspective. Communication Theory, 16(2), 173-197.
Kim, Y. C. and Jung, J.-Y. (2002).
Geo-ethnicity and civic engagement: From a communication infrastructure
perspective. Paper presented to the American Sociological Association
Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL: August 16-19, 2002.
Kim, Y. C. and Jung, J.-Y. (2003).
‘Geo-ethnicity' and neighborhood engagement: A communication infrastructure
perspective. Top Four Student Paper. Political Communication Division.
Paper presented to the International Communication Association Conference.
San Diego, CA: May 23-27, 2003.
C., Jung, J.-Y. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2002). Ethnicity, place, and
communication technology: Geo-ethnic effect on multi-dimensional Internet
connectedness in urban communities. Paper presented at the International
Communication Association Conference, Seoul, Korea.
Jung, J.-Y. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006). Geo-ethnicity and neighborhood
engagement: A communication infrastructure perspective. Political Communication,
Lin, W.-Y. (2004). Communication and
Community Building: The Role of Ethnic Media in the Chinese Immigrant Community
in Los Angeles. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
Lin, W.-Y. and Song, H. (2006).
Geo-ethnic storytelling: An examination of ethnic media content in
contemporary immigrant communities. Journalism, 7(3), 362
Los Angeles Times (September 14,
2000). L.A. Times to end publication of Our Times sections. Business section,
page 1. Available through the Los Angeles Times online archives at www.latimes.com.
Loges, W. E. (1994). Canaries in the
coal mine: Perceptions of threat and media system dependency relations. Communication
Research, 21(1), 5-23.
Loges, W. E. and Jung, J.-Y.
(2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age.
Communication Research, 28(4), 536-542.
and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2001). Real and virtual social ties: Connections
in the everyday lives of seven ethnic neighborhoods. American Behavioral
Scientist, 45(3), 550-563.
and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2002). Belonging across geographic and Internet
spaces: Ethnic area variations. In B. Wellman and C. Haythornthwaite (eds.).
The Internet in everyday life (pp. 404-430). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2003). The Internet in the communication infrastructure
of urban residential communities: meso or macro-linkage? Journal of Communication,
S., Ball-Rokeach, S. J. and Qiu, J. L. (2001). Fear and misperception
of Los Angeles urban space: A spatial-statistical study of communication-shaped
mental maps. Communication Research, 28(4), 429-463.
Matei, S., Ball-Rokeach, S.J.,
Wilson, M., Gibbs, J. and Gutierrez-Hoyt, E. (2001). Metamorphosis:
A field research methodology for studying communication technology and community.
Electronic Journal of Communication, 11(2) [on-line] http://www.cios.org/getfile/matei_V11n201
Matsaganis, M. D. (in
press). "Neighborhood effects" and the invisible "motor"
of community change. In Gumpert, G., Drucker, S. and G. Burd (Eds.), Urban
Communication. Hampton Press.
Morino, I. (2001). From access
to outcomes: Raising the aspirations for technology initiatives in low-income
communities: Reston, VA: The Morino Institute.
Park, R. E. (1922). The immigrant
press and its Control. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers.
E. M., Ferguson, D. A. and McLeod, D. M. (1994). Cultivation in the newer
media environment. Communication research, 21(1), 79-104.
Sacco, V. F. (1995). Media constructions
of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
Snyder, L. B. and Rouse,
R. A. (1995). The media can have more than an impersonal impact: The case
of AIDS risk perceptions and behavior. Health Communication, 7(2),
Trumbo, C. (1998). Communication
channel and risk information: A cost-utility model. Science Communication,
Wilkin, H. A. (2005). Diagnosing
communication connections: reaching underserved communities through existing
communication ecologies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of Southern California, Los Angeles.
H. A. and Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006). Reaching at risk groups: The importance
of health storytelling in Los Angeles Latino media. Journalism: Theory,
Practice, 7(3), 299-320.
Copyright 2007 Communication Institute for
Online Scholarship, Inc.
This file may not
be publicly distributed or reproduced without written permission of the Communication
Institute for Online Scholarship,
P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam
Jct., NY 12150 USA (phone: 518-887-2443).