Posted by Orin Kerr:
Thoughts on Group Blogging:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_29-2005_06_04.shtml#1117821807
Gordon Smith offers some notable thoughts on the synergies of group
blogs over at [1]The Conglomerate. An excerpt of particular relevance
to the VC:
For me the most enjoyable group blogs (Volokh Conspiracy,
Marginal Revolution, and Crooked Timber spring to mind) are blogs
with a consistent voice. I do not intend to suggest that all of the
bloggers must hold the same views on every topic, but rather that
they are united in style (e.g., the blog doesn't have one blogger
doing all goofy posts and another writing serious tome-posts) and
issue-sympathetic (that is, they like to write about similar issues
... the blog has a theme).
Going a bit beyond Gordon's point, I think the question of viewpoint
consistency at a group blog is an interesting one. In my experience,
many readers expect it. If co-blogger A expresses a view, and
co-blogger B agrees, I think there is a tendency among at least some
readers to assume co-blogger C has that same view even if he or she
doesn't express an opinion.
If I'm right about that, it can be a downside to group-blogging. Or
at least a downside when you have views significantly different on
some issues than your co-bloggers. Like all writers, bloggers work on
establishing a voice. If how readers hear your voice is influenced by
the posts of your co-bloggers, however, then you either have to
express your disagreement with your co-bloggers on the blog, which is
no fun, or else have your own posts construed in light of the views of
your co-bloggers with whom you might strongly disagree. Either way,
the considerable benefits of group-blogging are tempered a bit by a
slight loss of control.
References
1. http://www.theconglomerate.org/2005/06/blogging_synerg.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
