{"id":4791,"date":"2004-04-17T20:34:27","date_gmt":"2004-04-18T00:34:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/04\/17\/making-sausage-and-lawblogs\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:52","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:52","slug":"making-sausage-and-lawblogs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/04\/17\/making-sausage-and-lawblogs\/","title":{"rendered":"making sausage and lawBlogs"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Hey law students, I just learned<\/A> from the weblog of Andrew Sinclair<\/A> (a 3L at Boston University Law School), that lexBlog<\/A> is looking for volunteer interns<\/U>.  An April 13 discussion board posting<\/A> by Kevin O’Keefe asks: “Have other paying employment and looking for ways to enhance resume or to work towards part-time employment?”  And replies: “Doing virtual volunteer work for new Internet company in the business of helping lawyers help people could be the answer.”  <\/FONT><\/P>
\n

LexBlog interns would be:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n


\n

“helping publish content to blogs and in effect creating online magazines\/broadcast channels for leading lawyers around the country.”<\/FONT><\/P><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\"mouse  I know using volunteer interns is not inconsistent with creating high-quality content, but it does shed a different light on the lexBlog claim<\/A> that “All content is regularly revised, updated and improved by a staff of lawyer-editors, to make sure that it’s the best it can be.<\/FONT>“<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

I’m not sure why, but this week-long angsting over the implications of lexBlog’s services  reminds me of the cliche<\/A> about making laws and sausage.   Like Peter Merholz, who coined<\/A> the word by cruelly butchering “weblog”, I continue<\/A> to believe that “blog” sounds far too much like the reaction one might have to watching sausage being made.  Now, “lawBlog” is giving me agita, too.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n