28 Dec Abandoned Blogs
I tend to agree with Roger’s sober assessment of the value of blogging — if we can till a small patch of otherwise unplowed soil, that’s something accomplished, but we shouldn’t assume much more value than that. One sign that the blogging phenomenon may have peaked is the number of abandoned blogs one comes across these days — blogs that are still up, but on which nothing’s been posted for months. And I’m not talking about personal blogs (among which there must be millions), but ones by professionals aimed at professional audiences, many of which started with great stuff (law-related examples here, here, and here). There’s something a little saddening about these sites, like a nice house that’s gone vacant or a favorite restaurant that is closed “for renovations.” (A related development: individuals who sign up as contributors to group blogs and then never make even a single post, as in Larry Summers’ non-participation in TNR’s Open University.)
I suppose they remain available for revival or adoption, but otherwise I guess they’d be less saddening if they included a exit line – something along the lines of, this was fun (or not fun) while it lasted, but now it’s over. Bainbridge’s conversion is a riff on this, and here’s another site that recently pulled the plug in a forthright way. In the meantime, the number of abandoned blogs shows at least that the medium is still a fluid and unstable one.
UPDATE: Interesting thoughts from Orin Kerr and Doug Berman, as well as this post on the growth of the Law Professors Blog Network, in addition to the comments below. Along Orin’s lines, I wonder if the natural equilibrium won’t be at some lower level than it is today, as lawprofs who consider joining the fray see the bodies lining this part of the information highway (all by way of making more clear that it does involve real work, even if it doesn’t look that way). I’m glad to see that the post prompted one blogger very much to return to hers.
I tend to agree with Eugene Volokh here: Some blogs are very valuable; most are not. In this sense, blogs are just like every other medium. Are law blogs (“blawgs”) valuable? Again, some are; most aren’t. (In about the same proportion as law-review articles, I suspect.) I find it odd that in describing the possible value of blawgs, Roger mentioned only their potential to create communities or to act as a clipping service. I would have thought that the best, most important reason to blog about law is that legal questions actually affect what happens in the world — Executive branch and judicial opinions, for instance, limit and/or expand the range of policies that the President and other legal actors may employ — and, if a blog is good at what it does, perhaps it can have an impact on various actors making legal decisions (e.g., judges, clerks, members of Congress and their staffs, OLC lawyers, litigators). Blawgs can also provide critical information to the mainstream press, which can then know where to focus investigative energies. Those have been our aims at Balkinization, anyway, especially with our posts on torture, detention, Executive power, etc. Jack Balkin’s talk a few weeks… Read more »
Marty,
I agree that blogs at their best can add the kind of value you describe here. But Balkinization is exceptional in that respect. I wouldn’t pretend that we have that kind of impact at Opinio Juris, but I don’t think we have that kind of ambition, either. Maybe we’re more oriented towards the kind of community-building that Roger’s talking about, among those with an interest in international law (with an eye to American IL academics in particular). In that respect we may have some utility, which will implicate substance as well as other community interests and information.
As for the nature of blogs relative to other media, there is one difference relevant to my post: the incredibly low barriers to entry. We’re seeing so many abandoned blogs because it’s so easy to set up a blog in the first place.
The pay’s also not very good, so unlike the columnist who gets bored churning out twice-a-week musings, we’re not doing it to put food on the table. If you don’t get some other satisfaction, it doesn’t make much sense to keep at it.
I don’t disagree, Peter, but why couldn’t this blog have that sort of impact? Some of the very most important questions in Hamdan, for instance, were (i) whether Common Article 3 applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda; (ii) what a “regularly constituted court” is under Common Article 3; (iii) whether the laws of war impose obligations for tribunals beyond those in CA3; (iv) whether and to what extent courts should defer to executive treaty interpretation; etc. This blog or something like it surely could have (i) focused the mainstream press, the public and the legal academy on identifying these questions and explaining why the case turned on them; and (ii) provided valuable information and arguments to the Court and clerks. (Much of what the Justices wrote on these questions was not in the briefs, or was difficult to find there because of the volume of submissions.) Similarly, even after Hamdan and the MCA, there are slews of important questions that will affect the next set of cases, not the least of which is how the laws of war define which civilians (and other “nonbattlefield” persons) may, and may not, be militarily detained for the duration of a conflict. Similarly,… Read more »
For what it’s worth, my personal experience leads me to agree with Marty (…and Eugene). There are an enormous number of blogs, but I find myself regularly reading at best a handful (unless a post directs me to a blog I don’t routinely read) in my areas of interest: philosophy, religion, and law. Coming up with a list of favorites was a winnowing process that took some time, but that list now serves as a self-binding mechanism: it helps limit the time I spend at the computer. The idea of blogs as a critical conduit to mainstream media likewise strikes me as important. I do think I’ve learned an awful lot from some of the better blogs (like Balkinization, and yes, Opinio Juris) and for that I’m very grateful.
Perhaps blogs facilitate the creation of a sense of community among some, but I’m rather sceptical on that score: at best they reassure me that others ‘out there’ share some core convictions and beliefs with me (maybe that meets someone’s criteria for what minimally counts as a community), but any sort of community worth the name I can’t imagine being a product (or by-product) of the blogosphere.
Peter,
Interesting post. Putting aside the value question (my answer: timely provocation), I wonder whether the number of abandoned blogs is a good proxy for “enthusiasm” (or faddishness, or popularity, or whatever the blog-academic-metric is). Restaurants fail all the time: that doesn’t mean that eating out is passe.
That said, it seems unlikely that law professors (the audience and participants I care about) will continue to blog at high numbers for much longer if (a) institutions don’t commit to reward the activity; or (b) it doesn’t pay. Since I think both of these possibilities are long-shots (and the first possibly normatively undesirable) I too see a downward trend in total bloggers. That doesn’t mean that the ones left will die on the vine, just that the gold rush time is at a conclusion.
Dave, Nicely put — the gold-rush days are ending. Advantage to the first movers (the Instapundits and Volokhs) and, now, to those who really put some work into panning. To what end? Even if blogging doesn’t help the tenure and merit files much (or fatten many wallets), one has to assume that quality blogging enhances reputation in a way that complements reputation established through traditional scholarship. But I think it only works that way where someone blogs on a regular basis (episodic stuff just doesn’t stick), and that requires a serious commitment – hence again the high rate of receivership. As for Patrick’s comment (and Roger’s original post), maybe I should rethink the community-building aspect. My logic: if there’s a site that everyone in a putative community is looking at with some regularity, doesn’t that build community, at least in some marginal way (in the way a local newspaper will), to the extent it reinforces a common knowledge set? Finally, for Marty, I think there are be times when we can step up to the plate and add our instant analysis in a way that facilitates broader public understanding of an IL issue, through some sort of trickle up dynamic.… Read more »
The correct term is ghost blog, Peter!
Seriously though, there isn’t any reason why Opinio Juris couldn’t have a large impact with the public. Even with your “smaller ambitions,” OJ probably has more of an impact than you even know. I’ve stolen a case or two from this blog that’s become relevant to me and I can’t believe I’m the only one who has.
Though I second Marty’s comment of discussion about post-Medellin litigation, just out of my own personal interest in cases involving the death penalty and international law, there’s no reason why you couldn’t even have a larger impact on issues beyond the hot topics of the day.
One need only look at your colleague’s work on Moldova to recognize that there is a large amount of soil that remains relatively untilled (to steal the metaphor) involving human rights and international law that could have a tremendous impact on people’s lives, by simply raising the public’s awareness.
I noticed this thread just after posting about “Blogs on the History of Everything” over at the Legal History Blog — noting an update &expansion of history blogs listed at Cliopatria (a well-known history blog). So I am wondering whether the issue of the utility of blogs is field specific. Or perhaps it is a matter of what a blog is expected to accomplish. The best history blogs (IMHO) make arguments, ideas and resources in a particular field of history accesssible to a much broader range of scholars/readers than tends to happen without them. And it provides a way of keeping new methodologies &ideas in the mix within a subfield (i.e. keeping legal historians aware of developments in transnational history in the rest of the academy). The many, many blog links I checked were active. So history blogging seems to be alive and well.
Rumors of the demise of Law and Letters, while not unwarranted, are premature. I admit I have not blogged consistently for the last two months. But it was always with the good faith intention of returning to a regular schedule that I warned my readers of the current paucity of postings. However, just because one door is kind of creeping shut doesn’t mean that another one doesn’t open. Blog forums are more open access, and do not possess the same rigid gatekeepers as do other media. If we complain about the dearth of female blawggers, we must note there increasing presence as guest blawggers on male-dominated fora such as Prawfsblawg or Concurring Opinions. Indeed, while Law and Letters is struggling to figure out whether its future shall be as personal or professional blawg, I have continued to post on the group blog MoneyLaw (http://money-law.blogspot.com). Belle Lettre lives on, but she has a couple of places where she hangs her hat. So don’t pronounce her dead just yet. Perhaps the writing on the wall indicates the slow demise of personal soap boxes in favor of easier to maintain group efforts. While I am all in favor of the former, I admit… Read more »
Sorry about LawCulture– you’re right, some of us bit off more than we could chew! I’d have posted a “Bye-bye, thanks for all the comments” note, but, wouldn’t you know it, when i tried I found that my Technorati account had lapsed when my credit card expired and then I was going to restore it but I forgot the account password anyway and… and… well… yeah, bye bye. But I am glad you and Marty and others are still blogging!
Rosa
I blog mostly for fun, and I keep doing it for that reason.
All this talk of “gold-rush days” and blog empires and strategic advantages and such is, for me at least, quite beside the point. But I recognize that on this score I’m in a tiny minority among lawprof bloggers.