Only about 15 minutes after posting The Bully Line did it dawn on me that I had omitted an entire aspect of the discussion that also needed to be aired. When I opened up shop here at Simple Justice, I wandered around the blawgosphere to get the lay of the land. I learned the ropes. I learned the rules. I understood that when I put my opinions on the page, chances were good that someone would come along and start shooting at me. Perhaps it would be small caliber, or maybe nuclear, but it was open season.
I knew the risk. I took the risk. I had no cause to complain.
Jamison Koehler argues for a different view. Before getting there, I want to note that I’ve read through Jamison’s blog, and I like it and him. His perspective is more theoretical than practical. No one has challenged his conduct or ethics, and his role in this discussion isn’t generated by defending how he blawgs, but rather what he thinks about the way the blawgosphere works.
The problem is that Jamison Koehler is new to the blawgosphere. His blog, though the content is pretty good, appears to be a marketing blog, lacking a name and heavy enough on self-promotion in the sidebar to keep him off the blogroll. I can’t speak to what gave rise to his decision to blog, but it would appear from the outside that he’s joined the blawgosphere based upon the omnipresent voice of marketers telling lawyers that it’s the “thing to do” to promote one’s legal services.
But that gives rise to the next question: Does the new kid on the block get to jump into the blawgosphere and expect us to change the rules?
The blawgosphere is changing in that many newcomers have significantly different motivations than those of us who came here merely a few years ago. We came to write and exchange ideas. The new guys come to market. It’s understandable, given the vast industry of marketers telling lawyers it’s the thing to do, but then what happened to learning the lay of the land before jumping in? I guess they took the marketers at their word, and never considered that they might be less than completely forthright.
The point is that the blawgosphere was here before the marketing crowd came along and figured out a way to scam lawyers into using it as a pure marketing vehicle. You came to us, not the other way around. Having done so, you don’t get to demand that the blawgosphere reform its evil ways to accommodate your carefully crafted marketing schemes. The rest of us aren’t here to make you look good, or even to leave you alone. Speak out all you want, but expect others to talk back.
The rules of the game were here for anyone to see before you set up shop. Don’t complain now that you don’t like the rules, or that your marketing guru neglected to mention that it wasn’t going to be a free ride to fame and fortune. Welcome to the blawgosphere, and watch out.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well said.
Here’s something Jamison Koehler ought to consider: Filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard famously said that the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. If you don’t like the abrasive culture of the blogosphere, then start a better culture. Keep writing your own blog and show us how it should be done.
Scott:
I bet you thought I hadn’t seen this post while I was posting comments on the earlier thread. And you’re right. I hadn’t.
I’ve been following your blog for a while. I like your ideas. I like your political slant. And I like the voice behind those ideas. So I have to ask: Did you really want to engage in this type of ad hominem attack?
I can see where the ad hominem attacks are necessary to preserve the integrity of the legal profession on the Internet. That’s what we’ve been arguing about over the last day or so. But an ad hominem attack on a presumptuous upstart like myself? It’s not like you are ever at a loss for a substantive thing to say. And those arguments stand on their own merits. So why the personal attack?
Years ago, I worked as a senior official with a federal agency in town. (Those of you who warn about the big, bad blawgosphere have apparently never worked for the federal government.) There was one guy on the staff who, for whatever reason, absolutely hated me. Every once and a while he would fire off an “all-office” email in which he would list my many failings. I never responded to any of the emails. And I was always very friendly to him whenever I ran into him in the hall.
Years later, after I had left the agency, I ran into him on the street and he apologized for all the emails he had sent. I thanked him for his apology and that was that. What I never told him was how much I appreciated the poison pen emails he sent. They evoked a tremendous amount of support for me in the office that I had theretofore not realized I had.
I’ll try to keep that in mind when I think of your entry. Or I’ll do what my father used to do whenever somebody cut him off in traffic: he would give the other driver a mental demerit.
Consider yourself mental demerited.
Best, Jamison Koehler
This isn’t even close to an ad hominem attack, and frankly, I may have overestimated you if this is how you perceive it. This is a very real consideration, Jamison. You’ve been in the blawgosphere all of 12 minutes, and you’re busy telling people who have been dealing with an assortment of problems that you’ve yet to experience how to change all the rules.
This is a very real problem, and your failure to recognize it as such, and instead hide behind calling it an ad hominem attack, gives me serious pause.
I don’t see how you took the post to be an ad hominem attack. Sure he was critical of your blog, but he was downright nice about it. He didn’t say you were a bad person.
You’re too sensitive.
Wow!
So…Some guy wants people to change the rules for HIM. When told that blogging has been around for a while, and to stick around and learn the culture…He takes offense at the “personal attack.”
Phenomenal. Unfortunately, I could have scripted it, since the same folks who expect everyone to change the rules for them are the same ones who are just completely outraged at any legitimate criticism.
Narcissists, despite viewing themselves as special, are actually cliches. Completely predictable and totally unoriginal.
Whoa Jamison, now you’ve done it. If you think Scott and Mark are a little, er, prickly, you’re really going to love Mike.
I can’t speak to what gave rise to his decision to blog, but it would appear from the outside that he’s joined the blawgosphere based upon the omnipresent voice of marketers telling lawyers that it’s the “thing to do” to promote one’s legal services.
Just looking at the actual content, and not the surrounding stuff, I’m guessing he is blogging because he had some extra time and likes to write.
As to the marketing aspect, that problem will arise whenever the website (pure advertising) and blog (news and commentary) are joined in one site.
On reading his stuff, I didn’t get the same sense of his motiviation that you did.
That’s why I said I thought the content was pretty good, but I’m not inclined to search for excuses to cover the flagrant marketing aspect. It’s a total package, whether that’s how it was intended it or he wouldn’t spring for a separate website. But then, we’re guessing at motivation. If you’re right, then I would hope Jamison will remove the overt marketing aspect (now that he’s aware of how it might be perceived) and limit his blog to news and commentary.
We are all giving too much time and credence to this person who has paper thin skin apparently.
I like Jamison’s stuff, and find him to be a thoughtful and credible guy (aside from his misguided ambivalence on this subject). So perhaps my using him to make a larger point placed too much emphasis on Jamison rather than on newbie blawgers. Don’t think too harshly of him. I bet he’s going to make some significant contributions to the blawgosphere.