It’s now happened a few times in the past few weeks, where I question a post from some newcomer to the blawgosphere and they get upset about it. The problem is that my reaction to their post is less than adoring. From their position, less than adoring means I have cruelly maligned their intellect and family. I’ve hurt their feelings and they let me know it.
I feel badly about hurting their feelings. I really do. Not so badly that I would take back my post, but badly that they fail to see it as part of the conversation, and instead see it as an attack. This happened again today, when I posted about Rachel Humphrey Fleet’s post. I didn’t realize it, but this was her first post. I only saw it because Venkat sent it to me. He thought it was worth a good laugh. I did too.
But I didn’t “attack” it because it was low-hanging fruit. Rather, I saw it as another nail in the coffin of professionalism. Fleet thought she was being cute by likening social media to writing appellate briefs. Apparently, she’s unaware of work/life balance, the goal of which is to finish whatever work is on the table in time for a long lunch, and seizing upon any idea, no matter how ridiculous, to crank out product in such a way that it won’t interfere with the truly important things in life, like going to lawyer marketing conferences.
Here’s a bit of information that Rachel likely didn’t get at Avvocating, the conference where she learned about the joys of social media. There was supposed to be an additional panel, comprised of Mark Bennett, Brian Tannebaum, Jonathon Stein and me. This would have been the description of the presentation:
I feel badly about hurting their feelings. I really do. Not so badly that I would take back my post, but badly that they fail to see it as part of the conversation, and instead see it as an attack. This happened again today, when I posted about Rachel Humphrey Fleet’s post. I didn’t realize it, but this was her first post. I only saw it because Venkat sent it to me. He thought it was worth a good laugh. I did too.
But I didn’t “attack” it because it was low-hanging fruit. Rather, I saw it as another nail in the coffin of professionalism. Fleet thought she was being cute by likening social media to writing appellate briefs. Apparently, she’s unaware of work/life balance, the goal of which is to finish whatever work is on the table in time for a long lunch, and seizing upon any idea, no matter how ridiculous, to crank out product in such a way that it won’t interfere with the truly important things in life, like going to lawyer marketing conferences.
Here’s a bit of information that Rachel likely didn’t get at Avvocating, the conference where she learned about the joys of social media. There was supposed to be an additional panel, comprised of Mark Bennett, Brian Tannebaum, Jonathon Stein and me. This would have been the description of the presentation:
4 Angry Lawyers
Join 4 tech-savvy lawyers as they expose the ugly, unethical and immoral underbelly of online marketing and social media. We’ll hand over the mike to courtroom brawler, Jonathan Stein, inveterate curmudgeon Scott Greenfield, self-proclaimed-guru-hater Brian Tannebaum and online-scam cop Mark Bennett. Hear these guys sound off on misinformed SEO consultants, astroturfing, blog aggregators, Twitter abusers, vendors who overcharge for blogs and more. . . .
But it never happened because Avvo was too cheap to fly us out there, and there was no chance we were paying our own way to be part of Avvo’s conference, like the people who want to sell marketing to lawyers are willing to do. The idea died.
We would have been the antidote to the cheerleaders, gurus and techno-lovers who inspire new blawgers to sign up and sign on. We would have told you something that no one else was going to tell you. The truth.
The choir is busy singing the praises of blawging and social media. Create a blawg and find happiness and success, goes the refrain. Write well and they will come. No one talks about the dark side.
We would have talked about the dark side. The blawgosphere is a tough place, where your peers may read your ideas and tell you that they are ugly. Butt ugly. That’s the way the place has operated since its doors opened, and it still functions that way today.
Write something and someone may disagree with you, and do so publicly on their blawg. Promote yourself and someone may knock you off your marketing pedestal and make you look like a fool. Or worse. None of the cheerleaders mention that there is no guarantee that you will find love or adoration online. None mention that you may well find yourself the butt of a thousand eyeballs if your well-written blawg post is not well-received.
Fleet, still trying to be cute, responded by informing me that she “welcomes civil disagreement.” This, of course, demonstrates both the typical narcissistic vision as well as a basic misapprehension of how discourse works. Does she think that opprobrium is subject to approval? Does she think that she gets to dictate the rules? Of course not. She’s trying to defend her honor, feeling blind-sided by criticism when she thought she would be welcomed, even embraced, by the brotherhood of marketing lawyers, as long as she was “authentic”. By the way, I use Fleet only as an example, not because she’s done anything particularly heinous, but because she’s quite typical. There are many far worse.
I’ve done a lot of negative opining about newcomers to the blawgosphere lately, as there has been an awful lot being published by newcomers that demands and deserves scrutiny. And there are plenty of newcomers to the blawgosphere, as it becomes a more mainstream marketing method for those who are tired of their silent telephone. I get it. I understand why you’re here. But I didn’t promise to leave you alone to promote yourself unmolested. Whoever sold you on the idea but neglected to define “conversation” is responsible. Maybe you’re responsible. Maybe you’re thoughts would be best kept rattling around inside your head rather than oozing out of your keyboard onto a public blawg.
Over the requisite lager, I bemoaned the state of affairs last night with Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Blog. Eric’s been fighting this battle on his end as well, with particular emphasis on the scummy things that Findlaw is doing to market lawyers, particularly the creation of fake blogs. He summed up the problem, as well as the solution, in three words: Don’t post crap.
Not as terse as the Turk, here’s my version of fair warning to all new blawgers who have been sold on the idea that the blawgosphere is just a huge marketing opportunity for lawyers, where they can post any bit of nonsense they please with impunity, and be warmly embraced by the Lawyer Marketing Mutual Protection Society (LMMPS).
We would have been the antidote to the cheerleaders, gurus and techno-lovers who inspire new blawgers to sign up and sign on. We would have told you something that no one else was going to tell you. The truth.
The choir is busy singing the praises of blawging and social media. Create a blawg and find happiness and success, goes the refrain. Write well and they will come. No one talks about the dark side.
We would have talked about the dark side. The blawgosphere is a tough place, where your peers may read your ideas and tell you that they are ugly. Butt ugly. That’s the way the place has operated since its doors opened, and it still functions that way today.
Write something and someone may disagree with you, and do so publicly on their blawg. Promote yourself and someone may knock you off your marketing pedestal and make you look like a fool. Or worse. None of the cheerleaders mention that there is no guarantee that you will find love or adoration online. None mention that you may well find yourself the butt of a thousand eyeballs if your well-written blawg post is not well-received.
Fleet, still trying to be cute, responded by informing me that she “welcomes civil disagreement.” This, of course, demonstrates both the typical narcissistic vision as well as a basic misapprehension of how discourse works. Does she think that opprobrium is subject to approval? Does she think that she gets to dictate the rules? Of course not. She’s trying to defend her honor, feeling blind-sided by criticism when she thought she would be welcomed, even embraced, by the brotherhood of marketing lawyers, as long as she was “authentic”. By the way, I use Fleet only as an example, not because she’s done anything particularly heinous, but because she’s quite typical. There are many far worse.
I’ve done a lot of negative opining about newcomers to the blawgosphere lately, as there has been an awful lot being published by newcomers that demands and deserves scrutiny. And there are plenty of newcomers to the blawgosphere, as it becomes a more mainstream marketing method for those who are tired of their silent telephone. I get it. I understand why you’re here. But I didn’t promise to leave you alone to promote yourself unmolested. Whoever sold you on the idea but neglected to define “conversation” is responsible. Maybe you’re responsible. Maybe you’re thoughts would be best kept rattling around inside your head rather than oozing out of your keyboard onto a public blawg.
Over the requisite lager, I bemoaned the state of affairs last night with Eric Turkewitz of New York Personal Injury Blog. Eric’s been fighting this battle on his end as well, with particular emphasis on the scummy things that Findlaw is doing to market lawyers, particularly the creation of fake blogs. He summed up the problem, as well as the solution, in three words: Don’t post crap.
Not as terse as the Turk, here’s my version of fair warning to all new blawgers who have been sold on the idea that the blawgosphere is just a huge marketing opportunity for lawyers, where they can post any bit of nonsense they please with impunity, and be warmly embraced by the Lawyer Marketing Mutual Protection Society (LMMPS).
Welcome to the blawgosphere. It’s a great place to put your ideas out to the public and have a conversation. But like all conversations, there’s a chance that another party to it will disagree with you. That’s how discourse work.Now you know. No more whining about it, please.
The blawgosphere is not a good place to expect that your carefully crafted marketing scheme will be warmly accepted without scrutiny. No one else owes you the ability to promote yourself. If your ideas or conduct can’t withstand scrutiny, or you can’t deal with dispute or disagreement, then you may not find the blawgosphere suitable for your purposes. No one will ask for your permission or approval before challenging you. You are not special, no matter what your mother said.
Every public utterance is on display in the blawgosphere, to the general public as well as your peers. There’s always a possibility that someone will think poorly of what you think or produce or how you behave. If so, you should expect it to be the subject of a post. This is not, as some call it, shaming or public humiliation, but normal, peer reviewed scrutiny. It is not, however, free-ride marketing and self-promotion. The social media gurus lied to you.
That’s the nature of the blawgosphere. Get used to it or get out.
I had both my feelings cauterized before I started blogging.
Both?
I’m bummed I wasn’t picked as one of the angry lawyers.
I can be angry. Really, I can. (Please excuse that thumping tail behind me.)
I’m so bummed. Is that inconsistant with being angry? I’m confused.
More to the point — and I will get to a point at some point in this comment — will all future social media shindigs print out your post and give it to the attendees with the requisite “watch your ass” warning when it comes to posting crap?
Great post. I continue to be a fan of this blog, although I really think the name should be changed to “Get Off My Lawn!”
You “continue”? Was there an independent intervening event that I’m unaware of? And get off my lawn.
You’re absolutely right. I would have liked to have known I was stepping into an existing fight.
I started working on the blog long before Avvo as an outlet for some light informal writing. Had your “4 Angry Lawyers” panel been a reality, I would have kept it low-key, only for myself and my lawyer friends and clients.
You seem to want to keep posting about me, and I have too much work to do, as well as a child to raise and a house to run, to be distracted by this anymore. I’ve deleted my blog; now leave me alone.
I’m sorry that you deleted your blog. That’s not the answer for you or the blawgosphere. Running away never solves anything. You may well have the knowledge and ability to contribute a great deal to the blawgosphere, and perhaps you will give it another try with a focus on substance the next time around.
Not running away; just walking away. Thanks.
Way to go, Scott.
You know, that “4 Angry Lawyers” thing sounds like a great concept for a group blog. The message is still meaningful, and it sounds like what you guys are doing anyway. Doing it all together in one place might be a lot of fun.
The blogosphere as a virtual neighborhood. When new people move in, they rarely understand neighborhood folkways. Kindly neighbors help ease newcomers into the life of the community.
When my husband and I moved into our new house six years ago, our neighbors to the north brought flowers to welcome us. They later hipped us to a recent improvement project – planting trees in the treeless parkways. They were telling us that our neighbors cared about the “look” of the hood & were willing to invest their own money on City land to keep it looking nice.
We cooperate here to obtain permit-only parking because we’re bounded north/south by restaurants and nightclubs. We watch each others’ houses at vacation-time, take in the mail, and feed the cats. If one of us has parked on the wrong side of the street on street-cleaner morning, we call to warn of an impending and very expensive ticket that will surely be issued.
If any more of these modest houses are replaced with McMansions, we may organize to obtain historic-neighborhood protection.
I am not afraid to disagree with my neighbors and have had a rather vigorous debate on politics with the strongly opinionated Israeli businessman who lives with his family two doors down. I don’t personally like the taste that level of conflict leaves in my mouth – a level at which I fail to keep my temper. So I make amends in an effort to rebuild trust and neighborliness. Even, or most particularly, when I think I’ve been “right.”
I just don’t think Scott or Mark or Brian would walk up to the new neighbor’s front door, pound on it and harrang her about, say, the camper she’s parked on the street in front of her new home, or the way her three-year old plays naked in the sprinklers in the front yard – assuming that such behavior offended any of them.
I think the 4 Angry Lawyers would be gracious neighbors and find a way to have a chat about parking the camper in the driveway rather than on the street if it were an eyesore. I don’t think they’d shout or rant even if the new neighbor decided to print up a newsletter and distribute it around town. I believe Scott, Brian, Jonathan and Mark would lead with kindness.
So here’s my question. Why not do the same in the blogosphere as you would in your own brick and mortar neighborhood?
That was a fascinating story. I’ve got one too. When I moved into my home, I went to my neighbors to introduce myself and tell them about my plans for changes. I asked them what they thought. The reason I did was that I was the new person and they were already there, living happily and bothering no one. If anybody was going to cause a disruption, it would be me, the new guy. I owed it to the people who were living there happily not to come into their lives and make it unpleasant. We had the most wonderful relations with our neighbors ever since. They always appreciated the fact that I didn’t come into the neighborhood and make their lives uneasy or unpleasant.
Some people are conflct averse. They aren’t built for disagreement, and thus do whatever they can to avoid it. They compromise. They rationalize. They excuse. They overlook. That’s what suits them.
Mark, Brian and I have welcomed a great many new people to the neighborhood, and we’ve come to have quite a wonderful neighborhood around here. Occasionally, a neighbor moves in who wants to cause problems without regard for anyone else. Some would have the neighborhood compromise to avoid conflict. Others aren’t so inclined. If you keep compromising, then there’s little left to save. Some people realize this beforehand. Others don’t realize it until it’s too late.
Isn’t it great how neighbors can tell stories over the fence?
True. Neighborliness is a two-way street. Still, were I taking your deposition, Scott, I’d have the court reporter read the question back because your story, though illuminating, is non-responsive.
Well, the neighborhood thing really isn’t a very good analogy, because with blogs, many newcomers don’t even realize it is a neighborhood.
When someone disagrees with a point that has been made, I can see how some folks feel blindsided.
They simply had no idea. And it is very easy to see how mere disagreement, or constructive criticism, can be taken personally.
I suspect that those of us that have been snarled and sneered at by opposing counsel (or judges) for a couple of decades may have developed a thicker skin for disagreement than the newbie that grew up on Facebook where everyone is a friend.
I thought we were just neighbors telling stories. Did you think it was a deposition?
Everybody has their own sensibilities. Some are more sensitive. Others less. We can either spend out time walking on eggshells, trying not to offend anyone, or just do what we do and realize that you can’t please everyone.
I asked a question. You didn’t answer it. I said “were I” which is the subjunctive case.
I was wrong. You guys WOULD pound on your new neighbor’s door and rant and rave and insult her (in front of all the other neighbors now standing on the street to watch the bitch slap) instead of greeting her with a warm embrace and helping her with the neighborhood folkways. My mistake.
Of course I answered. What I didn’t do is bite on the set up.
But because I am a neighborly sort of fellow, I’ll be more clear. While I can’t speak for Mark or Brian, I agree with you completely, though graciousness is relative. I try to suit my comments to the situation, as I see it. Of course, others may see it differently, but then I could hardly suit my comments to someone else’s perception of the appropriate degree of grace. Not only would that inauthentic, but dishonest.
I’ve seen very nice constructive criticism perceived as if its’ the most vicious ad hominem attack. And I’ve seen vicious attacks perceived as a difference of opinion. It’s all about sensibilities. That’s what makes each of us special. And you, Ms. Pynchon, are very special.
Don’t beat up on Turk. You’re being very mean now, and he’s a very sensitive fellow.
Scott – If you think that shouldn’t upset a person of ordinary sensibilities, you’ve been protected by the virtuality of your discourse for too long. I just can’t see you walking up to another human being face to face and saying such things. I highly doubt that you do because I see your photograph and it does not look like you’ve been involved in many fist fights.
Why do I care? I care for the same reason you care. This is a community. And I hate to see people run out of the community by a band of sneering Middle School bullies.
I read your blog. I respect your work. I think you’re a good guy. I think you’re better than this.
And unfortunately, you missed a critical point about the comment you refer to. That wasn’t the content or tone of the post, but an means of dealing with the reaction. See how nice the post was, and yet it was perceived as if it was a vicious ad hominemn attack. Thus the comment, which was a vicious ad hominem attack, for the purpose of juxtaposition.
Almost Socratic in method. I guess you didn’t like the Socratic method? In any event, it was to make a point that subtly failed to make. It may well have been a bit more forceful than some would like, but I don’t think it could be called unclear.
Whatever.
I feel as if I’ve disappointed you by not wholeheartedly agreeing. I’m sorry, neighbor. See you at the pot luck dinner.
I’ll bring the hot apple pie.
I’ll bring the hot apple pie.
Aha! You knew Scott was allergic to apples….
Ms. Pynchon you are gravely mistaken. I have known Scott for almost two decades. You wrote that “I just can’t see you walking up to another human being face to face and saying such things.” I can state with utter confidence that Scott can and does behave in person exactly as he does on this blog… there is no odd sensitive little man behind the screen. What you see is what there is… there is no screen. Its hot in the kitchen. Welcome to Oz.
So true. As Danny says, I am what I am.