Brick/Brick Reloaded, a big media attempt at local alt-weekly-ness, will run it’s last issue next week.

People don’t pick up newspapers to read syndicated material. You will not last long doing that. And people don’t go to flimsy, finger-staining newspapers to read reviews of movies, books or music. The national stuff is all available everywhere on the Internet. You really need big local coverage from local writers who can infuriate and delight readers, sometimes at the same time.

Media General tried to enter a market that already is served by Style Weekly and RVA Magazine on the cheap and offered nothing to distinguish itself from either.

Cleveland.com reporter Stephen Koff comes to Richmond now and then to visit family. And he  likes it, he really likes it:

Reminders of its rebel-with-refinements history abound, including the lovely Monument Avenue, a boulevard of shade trees, beautiful old homes and, in the middle of the road, towering statues memorializing Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis. The late Arthur Ashe, a Richmond son and the first black man to win at Wimbledon, is honored here, too, but his monument didn’t come without a little controversy.

Yet there is another side to Richmond that visitors often don’t see, even though they’re awfully close if they’re driving down Monument.

Richmond has a hip, urbane side.

Well, at least the Fan and Carytown areas. Some good namedropping in there, too. His passing remark on the weirdness of RVA’s “crime and homelessness”. Quick research shows the Cleveland area with more than 20,000 homeless (PDF) while Richmond had just under 1,200. So it’s not all that weird. Just awkward for it to be fairly centralized and on top of VCU.

Checking out NRO articles this morning I found an interesting disclaimer at the top of the article Planned Parenthood Matters:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This column is available exclusively through United Media. For permission to reprint or excerpt this copyrighted material, please contact Carmen Puello at cpuello@unitedmedia.com.

The article is an interesting read but I kept coming back to this disclaimer and the inherent threat of who knows what should I decide to quote any part of this article without first reaching out to United Media.  Admittedly it’s not hard to ask for permission, just e-mail and see what happens.  And for all I know Ms. Puello will say sure and just remind me of what I’m about to remind everyone else of.  But that step isn’t needed, the permission to excerpt because of the glorious rules of Fair Use. How does that apply here?  Comment and criticism:

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work–for instance, writing a book review — fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

• quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
• summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
• copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
• copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.

You don’t need permission to excerpt if you’re trying to provide context for your argument.  Just don’t cut and paste the entire article and give credit where it’s due.  Not only is this fair use but it’s Citation 101 – selectively quote your sources, cite your sources, don’t steal anything that’s not yours.

There are plenty of questions as to what constitutes fair use – whether there are limits to the number of characters or words one can reproduce before they are outright thieving.  This is especially relevant on a large scale given AP’s threat last week to take “all actions necessary” against content piracy.

On a local scale, though, there is a micro-battle brewing about fair use working the other way around.  Last week, Media General’s Richmond.com rebranded, tore down it’s old looks, threw up it’s new Richmond MySpace-esque site*, and said that part of its content would be aggregated from local blogs. So Richmond.com, as part of this new, hip, social media thing was going to be providing content not only generated by users and a paid staff but by bloggers who aren’t necessarily opting into RDC.  And making money off of it.  Which leads to the question:

The response is a little glib, but that they responded at all is to be commended.

A Twitter debate followed among some bloggers where fair use was brought up as well as folks either saying they really didn’t mind or they particularly minded because it infringed on their content rights.

One of the biggest arguments with the Richmond.com model is that there isn’t enough done to show where the meat is coming from.  It’s a matter of attribution and affiliation and that also had a flare up on a larger scale last week when AllThingsD, a site owned by Dow Jones, posted a link to Joshua Schachter’s article about URL shorteners.  Josh’s response was short and to the point:

He wasn’t impressed.

Andy Baio at Waxy.org has a good write up of the whole thing, as well as reactions and explanations.  One that stands out and hits my point home is from 43Folders‘ Merlin Mann:

Andy Baio gets to the real heart of the matter when he says “the presentation makes it very hard to distinguish between original contributions“. And that’s the key – properly attributing the work not just in name but in looks as to distinguish what is being borrowed from what is truly original content.  If you start mixing the two together, you start confusing the audience, whether purposefully and maliciously or merely out of laziness.

The other problem with Richmond.com is they’re unapologetic about it.  “For aggregated content, we share by directing traffic to your site and ads.“  That is assuming that the site RDC is redirecting to has advertising or a structure to take advantage of any traffic.

That leads to the argument of the difference between professional media and independent media.

It is one thing for blogs to use mainstream media for meat and to feed readers to an outlet that is built and structured around a for-profit model that is designed to take advantage of any traffic that comes their way.  They are ready to make the sale, push an advertisement, any number of avenues for revenue.

When mainstream media outlets do the reverse, using the content of blogs for meat, if they properly link and attribute (which is rare, even on media websites), they are feeding readers to a site that is not set up to take advantage of the traffic and thereby help the original author.  There is no structure in place to take advantage of such a referral for personal or financial gain.

Both ways the mainstream media wins.

RDC tries to win many times over.  When linking to community blogs they don’t make it easy to actually GET to the community blogs. You know, actually direct traffic to their sites and ads.

Visit RDC’s News & Views.  Just this once.  Scroll down past the advertisements and get to the actual list of News & Views.  Pick any one of those articles.  Click on it.  Guess what?  You’re not done yet!  No, you now have another page of RDC ads to scroll through, the title, the first few words, THEN there’s a link you get to click on to finally get to the community blog that provided this meat.

Whatever they can do to keep you on their site is good for them.  The appearance of meat, of community news and involvement furthers this business model.

This issue is only going to grow as more and more newspapers switch to online models to save their failing business plans.  They’re going to seek “community content” which usually equals “free content” and laugh all the way to the bank while the content providers are left working for someone and seeing no reward for their efforts.

Attribution is key.  Affiliation is key.  There has got to be something to thoroughly distinguish original content from aggregated content and not only that but reward accordingly.  If Richmond.com has three restaurant reviews written in house by paid staff but then links to ten written on EatingRichmond.com, well, who does that serve?  RDC, who can charge higher ad rates, show greater traffic and utilize other people’s content to inflate their own size?  Or EatingRichmond.com, which is run part time by a handful of people, is a blog that has no marketing team or structure to sell advertising and can at best rely upon Google Ads that pays pennies on the click?

This is not to say that most folks blog for money.  I certainly don’t.  There are very few that truly profit off of blogging.

The point is, not only do I not blog to make myself money, I certainly don’t blog to make anyone else money.

Other posts worth reading on the subject are Anil Dash’s “Fair Use For Fair People” and Jason Kottke’s “Extreme Borrowing In The Blogosphere”

*There is a whole blog post waiting to be written about the marketing thoughts behind destroying one already established brand in the effort to create a hip, “new” brand that merely provides yet another social network to an audience that has had plenty of social networks to choose from for five years now but one that also directly competes with community created and driven website like RVANews, community blogs like CHPN and others, but that’s for another day.

F.T. Rea argues that if Richmond “Baseball In The Bottom” is such a great idea and deserves public funding that you might as well put it up as a referrendum and allow the public to just fall over themselves to show their overwhelming support to throw money at another hole in the ground.  More or less.

Now, “FanGuy” and others may argue that governing by referrendum is no way to run a city and to a certain extent they’re right – when elected officials are asked to lead they better.  But considering the boondoggle that the last big public financed project has become – the oft delayed and financially really messed up Carpenter Center/Richmond CenterStage – Richmond citizens have every right to be quite concerned about the ability of their elected officials to wisely govern when it comes to taking money out of the pockets of working families.

If the idea of Baseball in the Bottom is so popular then the developers and supporters of the idea have nothing to fear.

RichmondWiki is neat.  I like the idea of creating an encyclopedia of Richmond and others being able to give their takes and bits of info they know as well.  I’m not sure how successful it’ll be in the long run of providing a good history of Richmond, but it’s already shaping up to be a nice directory of individuals, businesses and blogs in Richmond.

But maybe I’m biased.  You see, right now the entry for J’s Notes is the most popular blog on the site and the seventh most popular entry overall:

BOOYAH!

Part of that is self induced, having announced my personally created entry here on J’s Notes and also on Twitter and inviting others to not only view it but take part in telling the epic tale that is the history of J’s Notes and it’s super awesome author.  But I’m going to ignore that.

YOU LIKE ME!  Aw, shucks.  I love you, too, Richmond.  And to show my love I’m going to pass along Style Weekly’s offer to win free tickets to New Kids On The Block!  You’re welcome, Richmond.

So feel free to visit RichmondWiki and help flesh out the story of Richmond.  And J’s Notes, too.  Have at with that editing and let’s see what happens…

Richmond has a wiki!

How sad is it that I authored my own entry? *Sigh*.

But seriously, check it out for some information on all things Richmond and add feel free to add and edit entries to help flesh it all out.  It litterally is what you make of it.

F.T. Rea is on a roll in critiquing the Baseball in The Bottom proposal’s “need” for public funding:

While the VAPAF, the hybrid public/private partnership behind the ongoing renovation of the Carpenter Center (formerly the Loew’s) has run into all sorts of financial trouble and delays, three other things have happened to do with theaters in Richmond.

• Private money renovated the old Towne Theater and reopened it as The National, a live music venue.
• The Byrd Theatre, a 1927 movie palace still in operation, has been purchased by a private foundation and extensive renovations are underway.
• Movieland, a 17-screen movie theater complex has been built inside an old locomotive factory by a cinema chain. With a parking lot for 800 cars, it is about to open at 1301 N. Boulevard.

All three of those deals were done without making taxpayers unwilling partners in the ventures. They were moves the public probably would not have been willing to back. If they fail, that’s capitalism. If they succeed, hopefully, everybody wins and the risk-takers will be rewarded appropriately.

If Richmond’s next baseball stadium is to be part of a bold vision — located in a part of town many traditional baseball fans may avoid, so they will have to be replaced by new fans — then it all needs to be done without one cent of taxpayer money being on the line. Other than ordinary infrastructure help from The City, it should be done by risk-takers seeking a profit.

Let the market decide.  If Baseball in The Bottom is to be such a boon for businesses and such a profitable venture, get businesses and investors to sign on.  But don’t try to convince the public to dump more money into another hole in the ground.  This development should offer incentives to the city and its residents, not the other way around.

“Richmond, Va.’s rental vacancy rate of 23.7 percent is the worst in America…“  (h/t RDR)

F.T. Rea takes the online anonymous support for Baseball In The Bottom to task and it of course brings the same anonymous voices out of the woodwork to criticize him.  Naturally the anonymous FanGuy cites anonymous resistance to tyranny as a justification for his stance, but keeping baseball on Boulevard hardly necessitates a Richmond Tea Party.

That said, Terry is right to question the motives of the anonymous support for the stadium, especially when one blog was recently created last December and has made baseball in The Bottom the major theme of its posts.  Too often astroturf is being rolled out on the internet, attempting to create the look and feel of a grassroots movement toward something when it’s really one or two guys potentially paid by moneyed interests making it look like there is a movement.  Anyone can anonymously start a blog or four and then talk to themselves in the comments under other false names.  This happens in politics, business, heck, even restaurant reviews.

From childhood we are taught to question our sources – especially if one is working in a journalistic or academic capacity.  When those sources can not be completely vetted or properly questioned, then the merits of their arguments are thrown into doubt.

F.T. Rea and others are willing to put their names to their questions and stand by them, even opening themselves up to anonymous poo slinging.  That tells me more not just about their character but the weight of their words.

It really comes down to this: You do yourself and your cause more justice if you put your name on it.  If you don’t have the guts to put your name on something then how can anyone else take you or your points seriously?

If you can’t sign your name to your work then how seriously do you really take it and yourself?

PS – Baseball in Shockoe is a TERRIBLE idea.  Access to the area is horrendous and the development of the area is not one currently tailored to a baseball stadium.  Boulevard is THE home of baseball in Richmond, there’s plenty of room for growth and little currently existing structures or businesses that would suffer from a coninuation of the theme and efforts there.  It’s also right off an I-95 exit and you don’t have to worry about fighting through the I-64 interchange madness to get to it from the north (and it’s always easier to deal with the downtown interstate from the south anyway).

Inside Facebook has some interesting numbers on Facebook’s overall users and growth as of late.  What used to be limited to college kids has grown into someething much more and it’s interesting to see how Facebook has evolved and will continue to evolve over the next year or so as it goes through these growing pains.

But seeing this made me think to take another peek at Facebook data for Richmond users.  I do this once in a while more for personal reference than anything but I figure some other people may be interested in the data as well.  All figures come from the Facebook Ad targeting system so they aren’t 100% accurate but do represent a good snapshot for RVA’s Facebook usage.

Total Facebook Users In Virginia: 1,794,480

Facebook Users In Richmond: 193,240

Age
13-17 – 18,620
18-25 – 76,820
26-35 – 50,580
36+ – 43,320

Sex
Male – 77,690
Female – 108,520
Unidentified – 7,080

Education
In High School – 18,780
In College – 31,960

• VCU – 17,300
• University of Richmond – 2,640
• Virginia Union – 80
• Virginia State – 360

College Grad – 22,800

Relationship Status
Single – 50,800
Relationship – 33,500
Engaged – 6,140
Married – 52,300

Waldo has an interesting find off of VDOT’s website: a 1976 report “The Route of the Three Notch’d Road: A Preliminary Report”. From the Abstract:

Of the many colonial roads constructed during the eighteenth century as settlement moved across Piedmont and Southside Virginia, a few have remained virtually intact and in service as state roads over most of their length. One of the most significant of these is the Three Notch’d or Three Chopt Road, which ran from Richmond to the Valley as a main eastwest route from the 1730?s to the 1930?s, when it was superseded by U.S. Route 250.

Probably originally an Indian and game trail, various sections of which were gradually improved to the status of roads during the 1730’s as the settlers moved into the upper Piedmont. Known first as the Mountain Road, or Mountain Ridge Road, it derived its name Three Notch’d Road from a system of marks it had received by 1742 or 1743. As early as 1737 it possessed milestones or numbered trees running from west to east along its route as an aid to travellers.

Although the road appears on late eighteenth century maps, it can first be specifically located on the maps prepared by the Confederate Engineers, and these indicate it very nearly on its present course from Richmond to the Valley.

The report itself is brief but there’s a bunch of information in appendecies that make it really worth looking through.

Interesting videos of the VCU area from around 1977 as shot by late art professor Glenn Hamm

VCU Part One

VCU Part Two

John Muden has announced his intentions to run for Richmond’s 7th District seat soon to be vacated by Deloris McQuinn when she officially wins the special election for Dwight Jones’s Delegate seat.  Style Weekly has a write up as well:

Neighborhood blogger and middle school history teacher John Murden says he will run for the 7th District City Council seat if the current occupant, Delores McQuinn, wins election to the House of Delegates in January as expected.

McQuinn won the Democratic primary Dec. 6 and is running unopposed for the 70th District House of Delegates seat being vacated by Mayor-elect Dwight Jones. A special election to fill the seat will be held Jan. 6.

Murden is best known for launching the Church Hill People’s News, a neighborhood news blog.

“What makes [a run] possible is the energy and enthusiasm and positiveness of getting people to work with each other,” through the blog, he says.

Personally, I think referring to John primarily as a blogger is doing himself and his neighborhood a disservice.  Sure he blogs.  And sure he runs community websites.  But these are virtual bulletin boards that are merely a new way of bringing a community together.  That makes him a community organizer that merely uses the internet as a tool in helping bring folks together and addressing their needs.  A technocrat of sorts using his knowledge and experience to help empower folks who otherwise might not have their voices or interests heard.  Yeah, that’s the way to go.

John is a man who has given his time and effort to help bring his community together and I think he’d be a great advocate not only for the 7th District but for all of Richmond on City Council.  He’s got my support.

(h/t Tobacco Avenue for the campaign poster)

Venturing southside with the ladyfriend for some shoes and other errands, we decided Wendy’s would be awesome for my dinner and her Frosty craving.  At the drive thru we were told they were close.  Seems we missed a bit of action by about five minutes.

So I helped liveblog tonight’s Mayoral Forum with RVANews and it was a good time.  Except that I had the screwup of the evening.

In answer to a question on health care, Dwight Jones asserted that he was the only candidate that mentioned the issue on his website.  Being on a computer I figured I’d check the claim for accuracy.  The man was right, not a mention on any other candidate’s website.  Good for him.

While digging up this tidbit I figured, hell, might as well briefly rate the candidates’ websites based on strength of design since that’s my bag.  So I start checking out their sites, Jones first, Pantele second, WIlliams, then last but not least Robert Grey.

When you visit Mr. Grey’s website he has a video that starts playing right away.  And I didn’t have my volume turned down.

The room heard Mr. Grey greet me for visiting his website.

You’re welcome for that small bit of free advertising, Mr. Grey.

That said, the candidate websites by awesomeness of design of the index page in my modest opinion:

http://www.billpanteleformayor.com/ – While I don’t care for the brick background, everything’s above the fold and neatly laid out.  You have a video (which doesn’t start right away, thank you, Mr. Pantele) and the big ol’ no-nonsense buttons.  Crisp, does what an index page should, good stuff.  Below the fold I could do without the empty blue on the right (sky blue on brick?) but above the fold, solid.

http://www.robertgreyformayor.com/ – I guess I can forgive the video starting right away (though that ranks up there with midi files playing the moment I hit a page, if I want to see/hear something I’ll hit play), but Grey’s site is clean.  A little too blog layout for my liking and the “contribute” and “volunteer” buttons are too tucked away to really be effective.  Too much space is given to the banner and there’s a lot of white space where you really don’t need it.  Aside from that, the index page is brief and fairly tight, you want more you can find it and click on it but you get a straight up delivery off the bat.  He doesn’t overdo it with info and that’s good.

http://dwightjonesformayor.com/ – I like the “join”, “stay informed” and “contribute” buttons and how they sit.  But there’s too much blank around everything and the space with his face and the city scape is a prime location for a video or blurb about how he is.  Links at the way top don’t fit the design, the links in the banner are too small and easily overlooked.

http://lawrencewilliamsformayor.com/ – A straight forward HTML website that looks designed either by template or WYSIWYG editor and it hasn’t been updated since July 4th.  While it may give all the info, there’s nothing to catch you and my first thought is that it’s a placeholder site or under construction.

That’s the quick and dirty.  Check them out for yourself.  And have the volume down for Grey’s site.