Tripp Fenderson has a great post on blogging in Richmond:
Over the last year, the community has evolved from a simple collection of bloggers and pundits to something more.
There’s greater interaction with one another. Posts on one site often reference posts on others. People are beginning to regularly comment on one another’s posts. A loose network is forming and it’s growing, thanks in no small part to Ross Catrow and his site, RVABlogs.
According to Ross, the site’s intent is “to create traffic for local bloggers, expose bloggers to new blogs, and expose non-bloggers to blogging.”
He’s done just that.
I agree. RVABlogs is a great resource for info on all things Richmond. When I worked in DC there was a nice collection of area blogs through the now defunct
DC Metro Blogmap (which allowed you to see blogs in a Metro stop area by mousing over the stop) and now
DC Bloggers but both ultimately acted more as a blogroll and less as an aggregator of information like RVABlogs is. (Admittedly, the DC blog round-ups started before RSS feeds were all the rage.) RVABlogs goes a long way to developing a sense of community among Richmond bloggers and allows us to share in ways that might not otherwise happen. It’s also a great way to read a bunch of blogs you might not otherwise ever find.
All that said, there’s a lot of meat to the above post about Richmond blogs and their potential relationship with the mainstream media and it’s all well worth reading, but I’m going to jump to the end and fiddle with some posted questions.
Should there be a relationship (loose or formal) between traditional publishers and the community?
I think that a relationship would be in the best interest of all involved, if anything just a basic meet and greet to put faces and names together between the MSM and the bloggers in the area. An active, feeding one another information relationship should exist in the same way it does now, by reading one another’s work.
Should media companies work to actively share news and information with this community?
I think blogs provide a great opportunity to flesh out a story more than one might be able to in a column or print or thirty second byte on television. The MSM might be better served by creating its own blogs (which it has in some cases) to delve a bit more into the stories. I also think that the next question is a good way to do this too…
Should media companies acknowledge the online publishers who bring important stories about the community to the table (or who scoop the story)?
Yes and no. I can understand the MSM’s hesitancy to acknowledge another source for a story because you then drive your potential market to only seek the info at that source. But blogs provide a great place to get more details out and should be utilized for that purpose. If
SaveRichmond and
River City Rapids are covering the “hole in the ground” more thruoughly than anyone else, then the Times Dispatch would do well to send their readers that way, even if the coverage does have an slant and at times take the TD to task for its coverage or lack thereof.
I think what you may see more of in the future is the MSM turning to blogs as starting points, something that’s already happening in many ways. Such as the “Macaca” story for George Allen last year, a story that starts on the blog and gains traction shows to the MSM that there is a potential audience for this and they pick up on that. It might do the media well to meet some of these bloggers who are doing this work and helping provide (and in some cases create) a story for them. It’d also be nice, from a blogger’s point of view, to meet these people who write the stories we bloggers run off or pick apart at times. More often that not, media related blog content is fed by stories from the MSM. While blogs add to the story, someone’s got to start them. And if any meet and greet were to involve free food then it’s DEFINATELY a great idea.
UPDATE: F.T. Rea has some thoughts up here.