A Typology of Legal Blogs

I've been blogging more or less since February 2005, when Mike C. invited me to join Crime and Federalism. I tried to retire, but the lure of the keyboard -- or the narcissistic gratification of seeing my words immediately in print -- overcame me. So I started this blog last October. I don't know whether this makes me an old man in the blawgosphere, but I have noticed a few things.

My roots in opinion writing reach back to a long ago stint as an editorial writer for several Connecticut newspapers, including the Hartford Courant. About eight years ago, I started writing a weekly opinion column for The Connecticut Law Tribune. Somewhere along the line, I found a voice that serves me more or less. And a style, too.

The style is not friendly. Perhaps years of pretending to speak for a newspaper -- the oldest continuously published newspaper in North America, no doubt -- made me so stand-offish. Call it the semi-prophetic style, as in this is what I think and you should think it, too. I belt out a piece and then forget about it; I am on to the next thing.

This style comes with inherent risks, such as the obvious "who gives a rat's fanny what you think?" It is better suited to sites that have the authority of expertise, such as Appellate Law & Practice or SCOTUSBlog.

There is another popular style: call it the proselytyzing style. I've noticed that quite a few legal blog writers introduce a topic, solicit comments, and then engage in a running thread or debate with readers about the topic. I suspect that is a far more satisfying experience for readers, who get the sensation of peering behind the screen as Oz types. The so-called threads are often as fun to read as the posts themselves. Simple Justice is a great example of this style.

And then there is the incestuous style. All bloggers like readers, but some pages go to extraordinary lengths to attract them, promising cross links to folks who will link to them and featuring almost daily commentary on what other bloggers are writing. I find this the least appealing style of all, although I concede that it works for others. It also has a pathology, which I once suffered from in the form of a pissing match with another blogger. My sense is that such games of king of the hill are pointless in a digital terrain -- there aren't any hills here. Currently, such a squabble seems to have depressed the spirits of The Matlock Blog. He and a fellow Texan are struggling over bragging rights to something other. Almost every post Matlock writes yields a post designed to tell readers that only one Texan has a monopoly on insight, and it ain't Matlock.

Of course, typing things is dangerous. One can mislabel or, worse, poorly label, as I may well have done here. But categories are the mind's prison; we're all confined. So I pass some of my confinement enjoying the likes of A Public Defender. Gideon's trumpet has a nice ring to it.

Prophetic, or, perhaps, in my case, pathetic, proselytyzing and incestous. A preliminary stab at a typology of legal blogs. I'd ask you what you think, but that's not my style. 

Comments

[shg]

So you're trying to tell me that the comments are more interesting than my posts? Sigh. That's sad.

S:

Not at all. I think you make an effort to include people. That is impressive and you do it well. This was merely an attempt to create ideal types. I am not saying it worked.

Norm

[Gideon]

At least you get a mention. I got nothin'! :(

G:

Arghhhh. Proof you can displease all of the people all the time. Yours is own of two blogs I check all the time, when I am not, gasp, Googling myself.

N

[Gideon]

Thanks for the kind words :) I saw that little dig about you googling yourself. I'm in no position to comment on that - I do it myself regularly (both as Gideon and my real self).

G:

Sort of a silly dig. Like commenting that so-and-so masturbates. Somethings are ubiquitous. But I was flattered he took the time to figure it out.

N