Value Added Blawging in the Age of Twitter (Update)

Up until a few weeks ago, certain readers would send me stories from their local papers about police conduct, court decisions and general news items that they thought would interest me and end up in a post. They often did.  Lately, this has slowed down significantly, and some are now posting their news stories on twitter instead, with a short blurb like “another isolated incident” and a link.

What’s missing?  There’s no analysis, no opinion, no depth of thought or connection to the larger issues surrounding the piece.  It slips onto, and off of, the radar so quickly as to be relegated to the big pile of things that happen that gets shrugged off as just another “bad thing.”

Around the blawgosphere, I’ve noticed that many blawgers are posting about stories and decision, providing quotes or descriptions, and then moving to the next story.  What happened to the analysis?  Have blawgers decided that it’s enough to be another aggregator of news on a particular area of the law, without adding any value to their posts?  So it seems.

We already have aggregators in the blawgosphere, places we go to see what’s new in the world and to find links to new decisions and news stories.  We don’t need 50 blawgs doing the same thing.  What is disappearing is the depth of thought and experience that blawgers bring to these stories and decisions, the “value-added” part of blawging that makes a post worth reading.  If you aren’t bringing something new to the table, then why bother?

Is this another by-product of twitter, whether because it’s too easy for everybody to toss links around with any substance added, or because there’s no longer a benefit to be had by putting in the time and effort to think about news and decisions when one can “network” and “enhance one’s reputation” via the far easier route of tossing out flotsam and jetsam to a community that likely doesn’t care that much about the substance anyway, and only cares that you follow them like they follow you. 

Regardless of the impetus for this trend, it’s unhealthy for the blawgosphere.  These are good blawgers, people who have brought much to the discussion that has made us better, more thoughtful and intelligent lawyers, who are now doing as little as possible to keep up their posts without adding anything beyond the basic information.  That’s not good enough.

If you have something thoughtful to add to a story or decision, then do so.  If not, then why bother posting at all?  And if all the blawgosphere/twittersphere means to you is a link to an interesting story without any further thought, then why are you reading Simple Justice?  At 140 characters, I’m sure that twitter will more than satisfy the depths of your curiosity and interest.

Update:  Mike at Crime & Federalism has “responded” to this post by writing:


Finding the “right stuff” to blog about turned a fun hobby into a bothersome endeavor.  I used ask myself whether a post was “on topic,” or whether something was “serious” enough.  I stopped blogging for a couple of months because the blog had turned into a another job – except one for which I did not get paid.  The hour I spend on blogging is less money.  Blogging is, for me, a leisure activity.  I don’t factor opportunity costs when I go to the movie.  And I no longer factor opportunity costs when I blog.

I think Mike was just using my post as an opportunity to make his point, that he’ll post on whatever topic interests him and that its value is to him, not to please anyone else.  I assume this since Mike’s point has nothing to do with my point.  Obviously, it’s up to any blawger to post on whatever topic he chooses. Or no topic.  And Mike, despite his disavowal, finds some fascinating stuff to post about that you won’t find elsewhere, and almost invariably adds value even when he’s not trying.  It may not always be on the law, and it may not always be your cup of tea, but there’s nothing wrong with that. 

12 thoughts on “Value Added Blawging in the Age of Twitter (Update)

  1. Venkat

    The worst is when someone tweets a link to a blog post of theirs which just links to another blog post.

    I think the legal blogosphere is “slowing down” a bit. Two sites people read more frequently (How Appealing/Volokh) don’t post with nearly the same amount of regularity. Not sure what this means.

  2. SHG

    I’m seeing a lot of subtle changes.  I don’t know what they mean either, but things are most definitely changing.  And I don’t think for the better.  I think some of the people whose businesses are dependant on the blawgosphere need to pay much closer attention and start shifting their focus elsewhere. 

  3. Packratt

    Well, I don’t know about anyone else, but I do have some pressure to cover national issues, yet don’t have the time to do it in-depth. So I mix it up, offer some news briefs highlighting stories pertinent to the site, but then do in-depth pieces or original pieces that try to bring something new to the table.

    It’s a compromise, sure, I’d like to have more time to go in-depth on more incidents like I did with the Oscar Grant shooting, but I don’t have the time.

    Yet, if I don’t post as often and give readers what they’ve said they wanted as often as they want, my search ranking goes lower.

    …and as it stands right now, a fake site the local police made to siphon off my traffic is just about even with me in search ranking… which is really bad news, all things considered.

    Damned if I do, damned if I don’t I guess.

  4. Mike

    I assume this since Mike’s point has nothing to do with my point.

    We tend to talk past each other. Not sure why…..

    In a sense, I did answer your comment. In a sense, not. In the sense that I did: “Value” is subjective.

    I don’t read law-blogs that are news aggregators. If I were a news junkie, though, I might.

    One reason Instapundit is successful is because he finds stuff that interests a lot of people. Same thing with Drudge. Neither analyze anything. They just post links to stuff people are interested in.

    Not sure if that touches your point?

    Anyhow, I do wish more blogs involved lawyers blogging about their expertise. I thought Norm’s posts on the Fieger trial were as good as legal blogging gets. I like your posts about criminal law. I even like David Berstein’s posts about scientific evidence (but Zod help us when he blogs about things outside his expertise).

    That type of blogging, though, can be hard work. It takes an actual passion (which you have) to give the goods.

    Not many people have that passion. They just think they’re going to start a blog, and the phone will start ringing.

    A “good” blog, at least using myself as a references, takes a solid hour a day. How many people are willing to put that hour in?

    My advice to people who ask whether they should start a blog: Do you feel compelled to write? If not, then don’t even think about starting a blog.

  5. Packratt

    One hour?

    Damn, you people must be speed writers… It takes me about 2-4 hours to do the research on and write my “NewsWatch” pieces (what Scott would call news aggregations) and at least 5-6 hours to do any in-depth articles or original posts, if not days-worth of time when I’m dealing with a user-submitted exclusive story.

    …and even with all that work I don’t consider the final product anything close to a good blog or worthy of the subject matter I’m trying to cover.

    …but I do the best I can.

  6. SHG

    It’s interesting to see who reacted to this post.  I suspect that the reason we talk past each other is that we bring very different experiences to the table, and you tend to take my posts and squeeze them into your paradigm, no matter how well they fit.  With a post like this, which can be stretched in various directions, you’ve taken it as a challenge to the “value” of posting whatever they choose. 

    Your reading stretches my post a bit out of shape, but it’s your reading and I know how possessive you can be about your right to see things the way you see things.  If anything, it’s my fault for not making my post sufficiently clear that it couldn’t be stretched your way. Still, I think the post was sufficiently clear that it’s not directed at those who have deliberately chosen to be aggregators, or tumbleoggers, a word I’ve just learned from Skelly, or those who have always filled that niche. 

    I’m posting about a different crowd, regular bloggers whose blawgs contributed to the conversation of the practical blawgosphere, but stopped commenting and now just seem to put up stuff to take up space.  Even if you want to read an aggregator blawg, you don’t want to read ten of them with the same old stuff.  Others, whose purpose may be a bit jaded by their marketing hopes, have given up the value and are now just coasting, going through the motions.  This is the trend I see, and it reflects a view that the blawgosphere isn’t worth their time anymore.  If they don’t feel like doing it anymore, then quit. 

    As I’ve said many times, I blawg for the fun of it.  Like Norm (or like it used to be for Norm), it’s my therapy.  If it became work, I would stop in a heartbeat. 

  7. SHG

    How many times do I have to tell you that you do great work?  You do great work, and you need to know it’s appreciated.

  8. Mike

    I’m posting about a different crowd, regular bloggers whose blawgs contributed to the conversation of the practical blawgosphere, but stopped commenting and now just seem to put up stuff to take up space

    Ah, I see. Now that I think about it…. I only read about 5 or 6 legal blogs these days. Now I see why. I just moved away as there was less relevant content. I didn’t really notice *why* I had stopped reading.

  9. Venkat

    “One reason Instapundit is successful is because he finds stuff that interests a lot of people. Same thing with Drudge. Neither analyze anything. They just post links to stuff people are interested in.”

    What’s odd is that if you scroll through Instapundit’s archives his early posts were quite substantive and generally lengthy. I think he just realized it’s difficult to sustain it at that level. That’s a familiar pattern that many bloggers go through I think. (He also found a formula that works much better.)

    Your advice is good blogging for profit – at least in the legal arena – is tough. You gotta do it if you enjoy the writing and dialogue with others.

  10. Deborah Spanic

    As usual, very thoughtful post and subsequent discussion, Scott. This is one of the things I struggle about with Twitter as well, and it was refreshing to see my thoughts expressed so clearly in your post.

  11. Eric B. Johnson

    This is right on. Twitter and other social media sites are fun, but just having a group of lawyers aggregate on the web and ‘140’ to each other has questionable value. On one site 90% of the tweets are lauding the presence of the site itself and are a “come on” to other similarly positioned pros to join in. Once everyone is “in” (if that ever occurs) will the format promote a valuable interchange and if something of value is floated, even theoretically, every 750 tweets or so will anyone notice? Will the time be well spent?

Comments are closed.