I've never viewed myself as a "scamblogger," even though I associate this blog's editorial point-of-view way more with blogs like TTR and BIDER than with Above the Law. There are many reasons why I chose to avoid such a direct path. For one, I don't feel like I have "standing" to be a true scamblogger because I have yet to graduate, much less be unemployed; my anger and what misery I carry come from a slightly different angle. Second, I've never liked the term "scamblogger," even when I was just a casual reader of these blogs last spring and summer, as I've never though law school was a "scam" even though, in retrospect, I probably should have chosen a different path with my recent life. And third, I was sort-of late to the party in terms of relaying raw anger about being screwed or even just exposing reality. Instead, if I wanted this blog to stand out and to have a purpose, I realized it needed to broaden the scope past just being pissed off at the system
So I tried - and try - to make this blog more in the vein of a rational, somewhat-objective commentary, sort-of in the same class as LSTB and similar sites. I picked the blog name with the belief that blogs like these needed to be more focused on the future, on positive solutions, on fixing problems, on pushing things like bankruptcy reform.
However, this is not to accuse "scambloggers" like Nando, JJD, or Knut of not wanting these things, nor of neglecting to promote them. If I understand things correctly, none of them nor their defunct peers chose the name "scamblogger." And I don't think any of them would seriously argue that there's a vast conspiracy among law deans, or that law school is a dead-ringer analog to three-card monte, or any of the other ridiculous straw men that get thrown around.
And on the same token, I've never found anything wrong with raw anger, whether expressed through scat metaphor, frank vulgarity, oozing sarcasm, or straight-up "I'm pissed."
Because here's the all-to-obvious rub: people react to arguments differently. Some people exhibit Spock-like rationality at all times and presenting something in an "in your face" style has no effect on them. Others simply won't get it unless you draw them a visual, and unless you convey your anger effectively, people whose view of the world is filtered through emotions will find you ineffective.
In fact, I can't think of a significant successful social movement that succeeded and was lacking either rational, intellectual discussion and populist, attention-grabbing, "in your face" imagery. The American Revolution had both. So did the Civil Rights movement and the woman's rights movement and the progressives and - heck - even the modern conservative movement.
This is not to say scamblogging has the social importance of any of those. Scamblogging isn't even a "movement," it's merely a push towards awareness (although it could certainly be part of a broader student justice movement). But if people who are running nationwide, historically-relevant political swings are okay with spreading their message through "in your face" metaphors, then I think it just might work for telling people law school ain't what it's cracked up to be, too.
Although some people may be repulsed by that approach to argumentation, it isn't like that style is the only source to find skepticism of the system. And it isn't like Nando at TTR isn't providing sources and facts to back up his harsh opinions and revolting visuals.
--------------------------------
When I first started leaving comments on these blogs and was pondering setting up a shop of my own, the first three I always read were TTR, BIDER, and Shilling Me Softly. Not to say others weren't good, but I thought those three complimented each other nicely, and so they were the names I usually told others to check out.
To her credit, Kimber Russell has done quite a bit in the last six months to bring attention to the issues of escalating tuition, increasing debt loads, lawyer oversupply, misleading advertising, etc. She worked hard shaping the New York Times article and I think the fact that she's "public" and not merely pseudonymous gave slightly more credibility to the message.
But, to cut to the chase, I was disheartened to see Kimber publish a piece explicitly divorcing herself from other "scambloggers."
I am herewith renouncing the title "scamblogger" to take up the less angry-sounding mantle of the plain old "blawger".Yeah, okay, this isn't really a new revelation - to anyone - so why make a big production of it? Why not merely change the focus of your blog? It's not like anyone really sees it as a major shift to go from "scamblogger" to "blawger" (and is THAT term supposed to get people to take one seriously?).
For some time now, it has been clear to me that for all the rhetorical power carried by the phrase "law school scam", the moniker is misleading, especially to those who have only been introduced to the notion that law school is not a guaranteed return on investment. The term "scam" is fraught with multifarious meanings, all of which are too bombastic to truly encompass what is a very complex situation.
From here on out, my mission--in addition to keeping the SMS Crew entertained and informed--will be to advocate for a meaningful reformation of the American legal education industry.How exactly is this a change? Did Kimber's previous mission not involve reforming the legal education industry? Do the "scambloggers" not want to see legal education reform? And what's this "SMS Crew" stuff? Is that really any different than a media demagogue (e.g. Rush Limbaugh) giving his legion of followers a catchy name? But I digress; she explains more in the comments:
[I]t has become increasingly apparent that as a true movement that can appeal to a wide general audience, we cannot be viewed as the online equivalent of a pitchfork-wielding, torch-bearing angry mob.First of all, as I said earlier, scamblogging isn't a "movement," it's a push for awareness, and lighting a torch lets people know you're on the lawn. But more importantly, if you don't want to be seen as part of a "pitchfork-wielding, torch-bearing" mob, the response isn't to say "I'm not part of the mob." The real response is to actually put down the torch and the pitchfork, which Kimber seems to be doing anyway. I would advise her to get a new website and redirect SMS traffic to it, but in any event people can take you seriously even if they don't take the "mob" seriously.
...[I]t is hard to create a legitimate and credible movement when one of its apparent "leaders" has become the Glenn Beck of scambloggers.
But it's not like there's even a "mob" here. Nando ain't no Glen Beck, and I fail to see how his existence threatens actual change. Are there seriously people who say "I agree with your position, but that asshole from Third Tier Drake just ruins everything?" No, of course not. That's absurd. Either people believe what you're telling them or they don't. If they tell you they can't take you seriously because a non-present third-party has an archive of fecal matter jpegs that he connects to lower-rung law schools, they weren't going to take you seriously, anyway. No one so sensitive would have the fortitude to actually affect meaningful change.
I obviously agree with Kimber's "new" focus. I've tried something similar since this blog's inception. Look at the title I chose. But at the same time, it's a bad idea to create division without a valid reason. Nando and the other "scambloggers" are going to do their thing no matter what Kimber does. She could have merely rebranded her blog and changed its focus, which she's been doing the last two months anyway. Instead, she chose to "herewith renounce" the word "scamblogger" as if it were some monumental schism, of newfound maturity breaking away from a dirty rotten past.
You almost never see Republican strategists criticizing people like Limbaugh or Beck, even if they think that such shows de-legitimize certain Republican goals. Why? Because when you're trying to get a message out, you take all the help you can get and it's poor form to turn your back. As Knut has pointed out, SMS needed blogs like TTR to gain an initial readership. And looking over the brief history of this thing, I can't imagine Kimber ever sees the New York Times without the foundation of bile.
And so it's not like the so-called "scambloggers" really work against her. Their mission - to spread awareness - is identical to hers, since awareness is a prerequisite to problem-solving. She seems to believe it's time to "quit bitching" and move to working with the people in power. People like Nando disagree.
But disagreement is no cause for denouncement. If you want people to take you seriously as a reformer, just act like a serious reformer. And for the record, I'm not sure that serious reformers call out their allies, or that they post cheap jpegs like "In Soviet Russia, Law School Enters You," or that they maintain a podcast that regularly utilizes the word "douchebag" and the phrase "WTF, ABA."
The grand point here is that there's really no sharp line between "scamblogger" and "blawger." You can call a blog that works to reform the legal education process any name you want, but it's still a blog that works to reform the legal education process. SMS will be SMS and Nando will be Nando. There's no reason to unnecessarily piss people off if you're all on the same side in trying to get the message out there. Heck, if you really care about the message - and not the person giving it - the medium should become irrelevant.
In the end, all you can control is yourself. I don't fully agree with all Nando's techniques. There's parts of other blogs that I just don't get, including SMS. But that's no reason for me to call them out and say I disagree with them and no one will take me seriously if I'm associated with them. That accomplishes nothing; actually, it's a regression. And if one really wants to make progress, purposeful regressions and meaningless schisms seems a very poor way to do it.