Comments on Blog ignorance | Real Lawyers Have Blogs

jamie@austindefense.com (Jamie) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:09:15 -0800

I didn't really say this in my post on the same subject but I think Black's point was (humorously, and possibly truthfully) that he was an authority on nothing. And therefore he wasn't qualified to blog.

I don't think Black was objecting to people who really are authorities blogging.

You've got to admit, there's a lot of folks blogging on subjects they know next to nothing about.

And I agree that it shows in your blog posts which category you are in.

kevin@lexblog.com (Kevin OKeefe) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:43:14 -0800

Saw your post on the ferry commute in this am Jamie - reminded me that was going to blog about it after seeing King and Black diss blogs a bit.

There may be folks blogging on things they know nothing about, but frankly I don't see a lot of them. I think if you're focused on sources and subjects in your niche, you eliminate a lot of static.

jamie@austindefense.com (Jamie) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:28:22 -0800

What's Technorati's ad say? '3 million blogs, not all of them are bad?" or something like that?

No, not all of them, but then, there aren't a million authorities on everything either...

azaller@vtzlaw.com (Anthony Zaller) — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:09:14 -0800

Kevin - great post. It also makes me think about how in the "old days" (which was just a few years ago) people would automatically think everything they saw in the newspaper or on the evening news was true (if I only had a dollar for every mistake the LA Times made when reporting on legal issues). But why would we expect a news reporter to be more accurate than anyone else? A lot of people respond by saying that a report has a reputation to protect - but this just as true for every blogger that is trying to establish a credible blog.