In a moment of weakness, I decided to check out what was happening at  Kevin O’Keefe’s LinkeIn Legal blogging Group.  What I found was  Brian Tannebaum’s marketing purgatory.  Aside from Kevin, and few marketers whose names were familiar, there wasn’t a person there who I had ever heard of or read about, but they were all pretending to be “thought leaders.”

I ran out of the room screaming.

But Kevin has a post at  Real Lawyers Have Blogs about a question posed by Mike Danko of the Aviation Law Monitor about how to deal with negative comments.

My policy has been to publish all relevant and reasonably civil comments, however negative, for the sake of allowing a real dialogue to develop. Lately, however, I’ve been getting so many negative comments that I wonder whether publishing them is counter productive.

Publish, or don’t? And if you publish, what’s the best way to handle them? Respond to them all? Or let them just hang out there?

Just so you know, Danko’s blog has some excellent stuff, particularly given the recent crashes at air shows that have again raised the specter of whether it’s worth the price of admission to watch old planes cruise 500 miles an hour 50 feet over the ground when someone may end up dead by the end of the show.  The aviation niche may not grab everyone’s attention otherwise, but who doesn’t appreciate a good crash?

Kevin offered this advice:

This is a tough situation that I am sure many bloggers encounter.   Sometimes the Internet feels like the town forum and op ed pieces of old where we plaintiff’s lawyers were labeled the cause of so many wrongs – suing without merit, asking defendants and juries to pay unjust awards, and eliminating products and medical services from the market place. 

Taking pot shots in comments on the net is not easy. Nothing worthwhile is. I say take them, respond in kindness. If not for you, do it for for those injured and killed through the negligence and lack of care of others.

While deeply inspirational, it doesn’t really address the issue, given that neither the plaintiffs nor the defense owns righteousness.  Rather, Danko’s question strikes at a more important point about blogging, and one that is almost always ignored by those engaged in the business of selling social media to unsuspecting lawyers. 

When you put your opinion in writing and hold it out publicly as something worth considering, you subject yourself to scrutiny. 

That means that someone is going to read what you write and think you’re wrong.  Or worse. And it’s quite possible that most of the people who read what you write will think you’re wrong. Or worse.  The sales pitch is always about becoming a “thought leader,” as if posting some mind-numbingly stupid tripe on the internet magically puts you on a pedestal, with adoring fans throwing flowers at your feet.  Get real.

The problem  with the response Danko got from the insular peanut gallery of lawyers and marketers who hang around in a support group is that there’s no one to tell them the truth.  Even Kevin’s admonition, that there are evil people on the other side who will beat up plaintiff’s lawyers, while true, is misleading.  There are perfectly wonderful people who completely disagree, and sometimes with extremely good reason.

But the complaint is often about the manner in which disagreement happens, the “negativity.”  This is the delicate teacup argument, that  a blawger can invite disagreement but that it shouldn’t hurt his feelings.  That’s not how scrutiny works. We don’t control what others think or write.  If it’s over the top, we can delete it. If it’s insanely stupid, we can delete it.  If it call us ugly and we can’t stand the heat, we can delete it.

But then, there’s no discussion if you only allow comments that have the tone and timber that please us and suit our sensibilities.

Spokane Attorney Stephen Graham responded along the same lines.

That is a lot of negativity out there, but I would definitely approve comments like those. they are a little nasty and personal but they are still on topic. I think a lot of lawyers would really appreciate that level of reader engagement. Search engines love all that content.

Graham was doing so well until that last line about search engines.  This is a reminder why talking amongst yourselves is a dangerous thing, even if it has the benefit of keeping issues within the loving embrace of a little LinkedIn community of like minded lawyers and marketers.  Aside from the smarm, Graham’s right, and more importantly, gone down a different path than Kevin, despite the “along the same lines” reference.

Negative comments, even a bit nasty and personal, are precisely what real engagement is about.  It tells a blawger that he’s said something that matters, he’s taken a stand.  This distinguishes him from most on the internet, who are scared to death to say something lest someone not adore him.  Search engines love that too, cheerleaders writing happy stuff about each other. 

Danko’s concern about negativity is misguided.  It’s just part of the joys of blawging, the wonders of having an opinion on a subject of interest to others that generates sufficient thought that readers are moved to write something.  This isn’t a flaw, but a feature.  He’s made others think, and there’s nothing a blawger can do that’s more important than that.

If Danko wants something to worry about, try this.  Write something about a subject that matters and have no one care.  If that happens, then he’s got something to worry about.

In the meantime, the fact that readers are sufficiently concerned to go to the trouble of writing anything, whether negative or positive, tells you that your opinion is worthy of scrutiny, worthy of their time to tell you how ugly and stupid you are.  If that’s too much negativity for you, then the blawgosphere isn’t for you.

And did I mention that Mike Danko writes some good stuff?  So toughen up and tell your negative commenters to blow it out their ears.  That’s the blawgosphere at its finest.