Individual and Group Blawgers Debate Merits of Individual and Group Blawgs
Does the utility, entertainment value or thought-provoking quotient of a legal blog necessarily depend on whether it has a single author or is a group effort? As with everything else, people are entitled to their opinions. And some law blogger heavyweights apparently have some such opinions.
Last week, Professor Stephen Bainbridge, reacting to the news that Professor Larry Ribstein has joined Truth on the Market, expressed his preference for single-author blogs:
They tend to be more coherent. They have a real voice rather than a cacophony of noises. I feel a greater degree of personal connection to a sole-authored blog than to a group. The quality of group blogs tends to be uneven. And so on.
Today, Professor David Zaring, one of the authors at The Conglomerate, sings the praises of group blogs, mostly his own:
I think our particular group blog diversifies your reading risk quite nicely. You get meaty posts on a variety of issues from distinctive voices, we still have a coherent raison d'etre, and you're not in thrall to one voice that may eventually start banging on about something that you don't find very interesting.
I'm not sure where Legal Blog Watch fits in on the spectrum, but I think we have a different mission than most blawgs. Because we try to bring you a tasting menu of what's going on in the world of legal blogging, the issues should be diverse. But because there are only two of us, and we post daily, we also strive to maintain consistent quality and should avoid the perception that we are simply a forum for multiple people's stream of consciousness ramblings.
As I've said since I started this gig, if you have thoughts on how we can do things better, the suggestion box is always open: e-mail email@example.com.
Posted by Eric Lipman on May 24, 2010 at 01:36 PM | Permalink
| Comments (3)