I’m not even sure what that question means. Is the New York Times “stagnant”? Over on Balkinization, there’s plenty of new material to write about every day . . . and if we had the time, we’d do so. I leave it to others to judge whether our content remains relevant and/or worth reading. Similarly with respect to SCOTUSblog.
If the question instead is whether more lawprofs are beginning to blog, I don’t know why a poll of readers is the proper way to ascertain the answer to that question. This much is certain — there is plenty of material out there (cases, events in the political branches, legal scholarship) that could justify and support a lot more worthwhile blogging. Whether a good number of folks bother to do so is, of course, another question. But I think that every year, we can expect to see valuable new blogs such as Mike Dorf’s — why not?
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 6:39 pm
And even if there are not new blogs, I’m perfectly content with (in no particular order) Balkinization, Opinio Juris, Concurring Opinions, Prawfsblawg, Feminist Law Professors, Crimprof Blog, Legal Theory Blog, PropertyProf Blawg, IntLawGrrls, SCOTUSblog, Workplace Prof Blog, Medical Humanities Blog, Legal Profession Blog, Legal Ethics Forum, and Jurisdynamics. Indeed, it’s hard some days to keep up with all the interesting, provocative and valuable material one finds at these blogs (and that’s leaving out the other, especially philosophy, blogs I try to regularly read).
No stagnation whatsoever from this reader’s perspective.
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 6:39 pm
And even if there are not new blogs, I’m perfectly content with (in no particular order) Balkinization, Opinio Juris, Concurring Opinions, Prawfsblawg, Feminist Law Professors, Crimprof Blog, Legal Theory Blog, PropertyProf Blawg, IntLawGrrls, SCOTUSblog, Workplace Prof Blog, Medical Humanities Blog, Legal Profession Blog, Legal Ethics Forum, and Jurisdynamics. Indeed, it’s hard some days to keep up with all the interesting, provocative and valuable material one finds at these blogs (and that’s leaving out the other, especially philosophy, blogs I try to regularly read).
No stagnation whatsoever from this reader’s perspective.
I think the question can only be understood in context of the post below. “Stagnant” in that we aren’t building deep communities, aren’t changing our basic formats or introducing many new voices, and haven’t managed (yet) to connect to institutional cultures. I think that Balkinization and Scotusblog are worth reading. I read them daily. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t think about reinventing ourselves a bit.
We’ll answer the # of law profs question with our forthcoming census. The question this poll is getting at is whether our readers think that it is time for a new direction in how they read/experience/interact with the thing we call law blogging. (The current vote suggest that many people think that navel-gazing itself is getting old!)
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 9:57 pm
“Building deep communities”—That’s a tad too ambitious and unrealistic, don’t you think? I think we should be pleased if we can form thin and tenuous communities in the blogosphere. I certainly don’t think law blogs will ever build “deep communities” (perhaps support them, but never build them).
“Changing our basic formats”—If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
“introducing many new voices”—I find new voices all the time in the aforementioned blogs. Look, enough with the capitalist consumer model: we don’t need the constant novelty and titillation to keep our attention.
How do you assess connection to institutional cultures?
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 9:57 pm
“Building deep communities”—That’s a tad too ambitious and unrealistic, don’t you think? I think we should be pleased if we can form thin and tenuous communities in the blogosphere. I certainly don’t think law blogs will ever build “deep communities” (perhaps support them, but never build them).
“Changing our basic formats”—If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
“introducing many new voices”—I find new voices all the time in the aforementioned blogs. Look, enough with the capitalist consumer model: we don’t need the constant novelty and titillation to keep our attention.
How do you assess connection to institutional cultures?
Matt Bodie - July 10, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Just a small point, but that iPod nano ad is fairly annoying. Either that, or I’m reaaaallly lucky!
I’m not a blawger per se, as the blog project I’m involved in is intentionally interdisciplinary in scope and content, but I echo Patrick’s points that I don’t see anything wrong with the “traditional” blawging formats. Quite the contrary; I return to CoOp, Volokh, Prawfs, etc., several times a day.
I do wish we had more voices contributing to MH Blog, but (a) that takes time, and we haven’t even been up a full year; (b) many people have little to no idea what the medical humanities are all about; and, I suspect, most importantly (c) lots of people prefer reading and only occasionally commenting on blogs than contributing themselves.
July 10, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Posted in: Blogging
Print This Post
Responses (8)
Marty Lederman - July 10, 2007 at 5:37 pm
I’m not even sure what that question means. Is the New York Times “stagnant”? Over on Balkinization, there’s plenty of new material to write about every day . . . and if we had the time, we’d do so. I leave it to others to judge whether our content remains relevant and/or worth reading. Similarly with respect to SCOTUSblog.
If the question instead is whether more lawprofs are beginning to blog, I don’t know why a poll of readers is the proper way to ascertain the answer to that question. This much is certain — there is plenty of material out there (cases, events in the political branches, legal scholarship) that could justify and support a lot more worthwhile blogging. Whether a good number of folks bother to do so is, of course, another question. But I think that every year, we can expect to see valuable new blogs such as Mike Dorf’s — why not?
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 6:39 pm
And even if there are not new blogs, I’m perfectly content with (in no particular order) Balkinization, Opinio Juris, Concurring Opinions, Prawfsblawg, Feminist Law Professors, Crimprof Blog, Legal Theory Blog, PropertyProf Blawg, IntLawGrrls, SCOTUSblog, Workplace Prof Blog, Medical Humanities Blog, Legal Profession Blog, Legal Ethics Forum, and Jurisdynamics. Indeed, it’s hard some days to keep up with all the interesting, provocative and valuable material one finds at these blogs (and that’s leaving out the other, especially philosophy, blogs I try to regularly read).
No stagnation whatsoever from this reader’s perspective.
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 6:39 pm
And even if there are not new blogs, I’m perfectly content with (in no particular order) Balkinization, Opinio Juris, Concurring Opinions, Prawfsblawg, Feminist Law Professors, Crimprof Blog, Legal Theory Blog, PropertyProf Blawg, IntLawGrrls, SCOTUSblog, Workplace Prof Blog, Medical Humanities Blog, Legal Profession Blog, Legal Ethics Forum, and Jurisdynamics. Indeed, it’s hard some days to keep up with all the interesting, provocative and valuable material one finds at these blogs (and that’s leaving out the other, especially philosophy, blogs I try to regularly read).
No stagnation whatsoever from this reader’s perspective.
Dave Hoffman - July 10, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Marty,
I think the question can only be understood in context of the post below. “Stagnant” in that we aren’t building deep communities, aren’t changing our basic formats or introducing many new voices, and haven’t managed (yet) to connect to institutional cultures. I think that Balkinization and Scotusblog are worth reading. I read them daily. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t think about reinventing ourselves a bit.
We’ll answer the # of law profs question with our forthcoming census. The question this poll is getting at is whether our readers think that it is time for a new direction in how they read/experience/interact with the thing we call law blogging. (The current vote suggest that many people think that navel-gazing itself is getting old!)
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 9:57 pm
“Building deep communities”—That’s a tad too ambitious and unrealistic, don’t you think? I think we should be pleased if we can form thin and tenuous communities in the blogosphere. I certainly don’t think law blogs will ever build “deep communities” (perhaps support them, but never build them).
“Changing our basic formats”—If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
“introducing many new voices”—I find new voices all the time in the aforementioned blogs. Look, enough with the capitalist consumer model: we don’t need the constant novelty and titillation to keep our attention.
How do you assess connection to institutional cultures?
Patrick S. O'Donnell - July 10, 2007 at 9:57 pm
“Building deep communities”—That’s a tad too ambitious and unrealistic, don’t you think? I think we should be pleased if we can form thin and tenuous communities in the blogosphere. I certainly don’t think law blogs will ever build “deep communities” (perhaps support them, but never build them).
“Changing our basic formats”—If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
“introducing many new voices”—I find new voices all the time in the aforementioned blogs. Look, enough with the capitalist consumer model: we don’t need the constant novelty and titillation to keep our attention.
How do you assess connection to institutional cultures?
Matt Bodie - July 10, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Just a small point, but that iPod nano ad is fairly annoying. Either that, or I’m reaaaallly lucky!
Daniel Goldberg - July 10, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I’m not a blawger per se, as the blog project I’m involved in is intentionally interdisciplinary in scope and content, but I echo Patrick’s points that I don’t see anything wrong with the “traditional” blawging formats. Quite the contrary; I return to CoOp, Volokh, Prawfs, etc., several times a day.
I do wish we had more voices contributing to MH Blog, but (a) that takes time, and we haven’t even been up a full year; (b) many people have little to no idea what the medical humanities are all about; and, I suspect, most importantly (c) lots of people prefer reading and only occasionally commenting on blogs than contributing themselves.
Leave a Reply