Gideon posted, during the cocktail hour, of the demise of two top criminal law blawgs, “Corrections Sentencing closed up shop and Audacity called it quits.”  I am unable to let the irony pass unmentioned.

While others promote the expansion of the blogosphere, whether for their own purpose or the general welfare (according to what version you find more persuasive), we have existing, respected substantive blawgs turning off the lights.  Not too long about,  Crime & Federalism did the same, though neither  Mike nor  Norm could handle life without their fix.

While I can’t say for sure that there is a pervasive reason for blawgs going dark, there seems to be some common themes.  What makes it important to mention these themes is that they are in direct conflict with the claims and promotions of the ever-expanding blogosphere approach. 

Theme Number 1:  It’s hard work.  It takes time and effort to maintain a good blawg.  You need to keep on top of the legal world.  You need to keep on top of the blawgosphere.  You need to put some time and thought into what you post, why you’re posting it and whether you have anything meaningful to say about it. 

Every once in a while, a blogger burns out.  The posts start sounding a little too familiar, as the news goes around in one big circle after another, with nothing new and nothing changed.  Then why bother?  There’s a harsh reality for those people who are just discovering the issues that seem to appear in criminal law blawgs:  These are the same issues, in one permutation or another, that we have been dealing with forever.  Change is rare.  News is rare.  Everything becomes a grind after a while.

Theme Number 2:  There’s no glory in blawging. Again, promoters write about the “success” stories of becoming a big-time blogger, but such success is awfully hard to prove or quantify.  We don’t get paid for doing this (except Lat at ATL and those American Enterprise Institute shills).  Some may make a few shekels off advertising, but its lunch money.  Others say that blawgs bring in plenty of business.  Norm once wrote that he probably loses business because of blogging.  I suspect that most criminal blawgers (and certainly all public defender bloggers) never made a dime for their efforts.  It’s different in criminal law than in other areas of practice, though I have my doubts about the other areas as well.

The people who read blawgs are unlikely to think about why a bunch of people write stuff every day for their amusement and occasional enlightenment.  When the authors tire out, readers post nice comments about them, their blawgospheric eulogy. 

You pay to buy the morning paper, but the blawgosphere comes free of charge.  It’s a pretty darned good deal.  The news is newer.  The commentary is often far better.  The edge is cut sharper than anywhere else.  But it’s still a product of individual effort and personal sacrifice.  I’m not asking for sympathy at all; it’s entirely up to each individual blawger to post or not, and if it’s too much trouble, then the blawger can stop whenever he or she wants to.  There’s no social contract involved in this game.

There may well come a time when the blawgosphere begins to wear out on its own, provided that it remains a purely voluntary endeavor.  Should there be a way to monetize substantive effort, that may change the equation.  For now, there is no way to do so. 

I’m sorry to see anybody with a good blawg give up, but I understand it.  This is a tough game to keep up, and just so the readers hear it again and clearly, this is all a gift from the blawger to whoever decides to read it.  It is not, as some readers believe, something we owe you, so enjoy it if you will but try not to make this unnecessarily aggravating.  Or one morning, there will be no more blawgosphere, just a bunch of lawyer ads called “blogs”.