It occurred to me this morning as I wrote about science and the law, promoting Radley Balko’s extraordinary Reason post, that so many of the posts here sound like a broken record. It’s tiresome.
I wanted to highlight Radley’s post because it’s something that should be spread as far as wide as possible. And because the intersection of science and evidence, and its massive failing, is something that has long pained me. But now I’ve said it. A few times. More than a few times. And there’s little more I can add to it.
People who happen upon Simple Justice for the first time are unaware that subjects, cases, issues have been covered before. I know that people won’t, and don’t, check to see what I’ve posted in the past. Nothing exists outside of whatever is on their computer screen at that moment. So the worth of reading the blawg exists at the top of the front page or not at all to readers. But to me, new posts start to sound like old news.
I have some faint memory of things I’ve written in the past. And it gets tedious writing about another bad cop or another puppy murder. The same story, different names. Nothing changes.
I received an email from a commenter this morning asking what happened to comment he posted. While acknowledging that it’s my blawg and I can do whatever I wish with comments, he made the point that he doesn’t care to have his time waste composing a comment if I’m just going to take it down. He’s quite right. The comment I removed happened to be a link to Balko’s post, which I removed because I don’t let commenters link to other people’s posts.
But I completely understand that commenter’s point. I too have grown weary of composing posts that disappear in the vapor, only to be challenged by whoever stumbles upon Simple Justice about why I won’t do their bidding. I’m beginning to bore myself. That’s not good.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well said; sometimes I think repetition is the single biggest challenge to keeping a blog going for the long haul, a bigger challenge even than time. I now skip lots of stories I know I should post on, mostly because I’ve done something like it already and don’t have enough new to say.
Even though the comedian tells it a hundred times, for someone who’s never heard the joke before, it’s funny.
If you blog solely for your benefit, then yeah… I know how the repetition can wear on you.
Is blogging intellectual philanthropy?
For what (very little) it’s worth, I appreciate your blog. I don’t usually have time to keep up with current posts and moreso previous ones. (Not enough hours in the day. Remind me to have a word with God about this.) I like the perspective Simple Justice provides and the challenge to my own ways of thinking. Said in another way: It forces me to be more mature than I usually care to be.
Sure it’s a different focus for me when I blog… but I do start to wonder sometimes if it really matters that I post the same stories over and over again, with the only differences being the names and places associated with them just like you do.
Yet, whenever I start to think it’s tedious to post the same stories with different names and places all the time, I just remember what it was like to be one of those names who had the same old story like they do.
…and then I trudge on the best I can with nothing but the hope that it might somehow improve the situation.
I know, you’ve said you blog just for the enjoyment of it, but even in that I think you make a difference… you made a difference for me at least… hopefully that’s enough.
Well, since it is, after all, all about me, I don’t want you to bore yourself, because then I’ve either got to figure out a way to make your blogging pay enough to interest you to do it (lots of luck with that, self), or stop reading your stuff.
That said, I dunno, but seems to me that there’s always something new to say — and some refrains to be played again, and again, with variations — on the subject of truth, justice, and the American Way, and it need not be said by a guy on blue tights, which is just as well for a lot of folks, certainly including one side of the conversation.
(Don’t visualize; you’ll bruise your retinas.)
When I was blogging, I found it much more enjoyable to write about things outside of work interests. Criminal law does recycle over the same ground. It is a play where only the roles of the client and victim change. Otherwise it’s the same pettiness, lies and miscarriages of justice we put up with year in and year out. Far more relaxing for me to write about what I like instead of what I do.
Two thoughts, Scott.
> It occurred to me this morning as I wrote about science and the law, promoting Radley Balko’s extraordinary Reason post, that so many of the posts here sound like a broken record.
The most talented and passionate writers (and activists) I know have all expressed similar sentiments at some point. You’re not alone.
They keep writing about the same issues, they keep fighting the same fights, and it seems nothing changes.
It’s activist burnout. It’s really common.
Have you read Congressman John Lewis’s autobiography, Walking With the Wind? The section on his activity with the civil rights movement is both inspirational and a great antidote to burnout: it makes the case that you do the right thing and commit to change in the long haul.
> Nothing exists outside of whatever is on their computer screen at that moment.
Not necessarily true.
Do you have a good traffic stats package on your site?
I’d expect a huge amount of traffic to come from search engines (mostly Google), pointing at a range of posts–and probably sending more traffic to your older posts on subjects, cases and issues that aren’t on your front page at the moment.
I hear, and share, your frustration; I also hope I can supply a little consolation.
Blog posts are not like trial documents: You don’t have to write the whole thing every time. Next time you find yourself writing a post that you’ve written before, try writing a little less and linking to your old post instead. (“This just proves what I [a href=…]said last time[/a].”) Regular readers will already understand your views, and new readers who’ve just discovered your blog will probably appreciate some links to your earlier posts that are relevant to the topic at hand.
Thanks, Anne. You’ve got such a narrow focus, it’s got to be far harder for you to find novel issues than for me.
If I were doing this to market, I could just recycle the same stuff ad naseum. But since this is solely for my amusement, I’m not inclined to keep telling the same joke. The comedian at least gets paid each time he tells it. Whether that’s sufficient motivation is another story.
It’s good to think that I make a difference at times, though it’s ironic how often I don’t seem to be radical enough to suit people on either side of the fence. Like me, you’re internally motivated, but you have a higher calling than I do.
A little too late on the “don’t visualize” thing. My retinas are not pleased.
I do as well from time to time, but then I get a bunch of emails telling me to cut it out and get back to stuff that they want to read. Also, I’m just not that interesting a person.
You’ve got to be kidding.
Hi Shaula,
Haven’t heard from you in a while. Glad to see you’re still around, and as always, thanks for the kind words.
I’ve found that when I leave out what to me seems like the obvious or repetitious, even if I link back to it, I will get a bunch of comments arguing how I am a total moron and completely missed it. It’s become a matter of self-perservation. Of course, for regular readers, it’s not necessary, but for day trippers and n00bs, they get all crazy about it and make unwanted demands, which also makes doing this unpleasant.
Yes, it does seem repetitious at times. Much like the motions we file (and lose) get repetitious. At times it seems that our words and actions are completely futile.
Maybe they are–at this point I wouldn’t rule out that possibility. Certainly I don’t expect that judges or prosecutors or LEOs are going to magically see the error of their ways any time soon. Which is what makes your blog..and Radley’s and Bennett’s..so valuable.
I am convinced that nothing will change until enough people begin to see the system for the galloping fraud that it is. To the extent that you put that information out there for the world to see, you exemplify the highest ideals of the profession. It’s mitzvah, and I commend you for it.
Thanks, GB. Most of the time I see something specific in a post that separates it from others that are similar but not identical. I think that a few people, you, Kathleen, and Lee for example, see the nuance that distinguishes particular the post. I think that others just see it as another of the same. When I post something and it dawns on me that I’ve been there, done that, it worries me. Then I began to wonder why I’m writing about it. I also fear that I come off as just another fool preaching to the choir.
Scott,
Completely understand that you feel like the proverbial record.
If that bothers you it’s likely because you are not good activist material. You are really deeply bothered by the serious flaws in your profession, but you burn out trying to make a change. Don’t flagellate yourself though. You may not make change, but you certainly do make a difference every working day. To your clients, to those reading your blog, to those that work with you and even to those that work against you.
To be a true activist, however, you have to be like Ralph Nader or that Banshaf guy, impertinent, stubborn, driven, single-minded, shameless, lying, conniving and worse. That you don’t like to be that way is to your credit because that kind of people are utter a**holes and many of them, while starting out reasonably enough wind up doing a lot of harm. But they too often succeed because they will tirelessly repeat the same thing escalating the pitch and the volume. They don’t mind being a broken record.
Thanks Martin. I’m not activist material at all, in the sense that I don’t do this to drive an agenda, much to the chagrin of those who are activists and find my refusal to blindly and continuously push their agenda at every turn traitorous. Ironically, I’m considered fairly radical by all except radicals, who find me horribly tepid and unreliable.
As for the flagellation thing, rumors are greatly exaggerated.
“I too have grown weary…I’m beginning to bore myself. That’s not good.”
I hear your message. You can stop when it stops being fun.
For what it’s worth, I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and I’ve learned something from them, too — not that I’ve picked up any deep knowledge about ‘the law,’ but you and your colleagues give us laypersons models to use for thinking about what gets kicked around on the news, and it provides us with a set of basic concepts and vocabulary that makes it easier for us to tag along when professionals get into involved discussion.
One of the commenters above writes that you are doing a service by helping others, “see the system for the galloping fraud that it is.” Fraud, maybe — flawed, certainly. But I’ll add to that commenter’s opinion and say what really distinguishes your posts is that beyond just recapping the issue, they consider whatever’s at hand and delve into the analysis.
Consider Radley Balko’s piece on Hayne and West that you mention at the beginning of your post — it’s yet another story about the “subjects, cases, issues have been covered before” but it’s unique, and grotesque, and more fitted to the pages of particularly depressing Walker Percy novel. Radley Balko’s deep reporting on the issue turned the worked-over of science and evidence into a tragedy populated by vivid characters.
You mentioned that you, by habit, hash out the obvious and the repetitious to avoid comment-spray. As long as you’re working out the background material in your posts in full, you could draw out the persons and places in detail, and add to the analysis and deep description that shows how every dirty cop and dead dog is the same … and unique at the same time.
But I’m gonna guess that you’re not looking to ditch the handle blawger for journlawist.
“Comment-spray” and “journalawist.” Two gems in one comment. This is a big day for me.