tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6279241844677447368.post4396916724899669068..comments2024-01-23T18:04:35.144+01:00Comments on Spreading The Jam (moved to www.dovjacobs.com): Some thoughts on the Legal Blogging debate: looking at the shooter, not the gun...Dov Jacobshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14088064995374954241noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6279241844677447368.post-79871843265322039442011-01-07T19:45:30.932+01:002011-01-07T19:45:30.932+01:00Hi Dov,
Thank you for the kind words, both here a...Hi Dov,<br /><br />Thank you for the kind words, both here and in your comment on my blog.<br /><br />I think that the idea that blogging is a threat for peer-reviewed journals is absurd, and of the reactionary sort that had people claim that the radio was the death of the newspaper, or that television was the death of the radio. Journals and blogging are two different media that serve different purposes, and have each different strengths and weaknesses.<br /><br />Regarding the quality of the debates that can be found on blogs, I entirely agree with your points, and in particular that we should be looking at the blogger, not the concept of blogging.<br /><br />Blogging, as an emanation of the Internet, is far more 'democratic', or at least 'accessible' than classic journals. With that comes the risk that certain individuals try to pass off as "experts" in a certain domain and blog about it even though they are far from knowledgeable.<br /><br />But there is a form of "market force" that counters the negative aspects of blogging. Quality blogs, such as EJIL: Talk!, Opinio Juris, Lawfare or others, will have a following, whereas lower-standards blogs will not. <br /><br />After all, no one forces anyone to read all the legal blogs out there.<br /><br />Legal scholars can sleep soundly. And hopefully, start blogging.Xavier Rauscherhttp://internationaljurist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com