I just returned form a conference in Reno at the National Judicial College sponsored by The Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Courts and Media titled, "FYI, LOL or OMG? Technology's Impact on the Courts and Media." The first day was sort of an overview of how courts are embracing technology and how that is impacting how court's deliver messages, programs and interact with the public. Only four of us used Twitter. Most didn't know what a Twitter was, and this number included many journalists who thought blogging was generally a waste of time. By the second day, we were exploring cloud computing, mobile access to court information, and debating if information generated by courts should be free and easy to access.
I realized that although I had dropped off the bandwagon for the past year, I was still the only one in my circle who seemed to understand why a court or individual might want to blog, tweet, or just engage. Mind you, I don't believe I need to sit here every night and pontificate about somethin' or 'nother, but I do understand the feedback loop well enough to know that it's far better to listen and prompt conversation than shove it down someone's face. BTW, congrats to Peter Shaplen and Mitch Ratcliffe for their engaging opening session.
So today, I returned to work and somebody on one of my Listservs (I'm going to not mention the group because frankly I tired of being the only smart member who gets it) asked how to set up a blog, and I went ahead and explained what I was doing at LVCourtsBlog and then pointed out how they could set one up quick.
This reply, typed out with my thumbs on my Treo, led to a elitist comment about how courts should be 'objective' and because blogs were the polar opposite, we should never be engaged in 'subjective things' such as blogging.
And another comment about how my blog was just an aggregator and I should just hand-code the RSS tags. Finally the reply ended with some pointed advice about how I should be careful in using the word 'blog' because none of us working with the courts should be engaged in blogging.
Of course, I couldn't leave it alone and said that perhaps the LVCourtsBlog isn't about my personal observations about life and the judiciary, but certainly it consisted of some blogging observations, mixed in with posts about the court, and in any case I had found a fine way to illicit comments about court programs. I think I lost the fight.
Or did I? The whole purpose of the National Judicial College course was to enlighten media and judges about what is out there and how they can be used. Media were reminded that although they might never be able to directly quote a blog post, they certainly could learn much about a community or a particular lawyer. And judges were reminded that perhaps they need to come down from the ivory tower from time-to-time to actually see what people are saying about them and their decisions.
As for my colleagues who have had five national conferences in a row, when they gather as a motley crew to mostly drink, where they have argued about the benefits and distractions of Bloggers and blogging, debating such issues as "What is a Blogger," to "How to Become a Blogger," I'm positive they will never get it. I'm off to the kitchen now where I'll make another pitcher. I think I'll keep swilling down the Kool-Aid, but I refuse to share any more it with the people who refuse to try any of it before they put it down. I'll save a glass for Shaplen and Ratcliffe though because I think they will find it a good blend.
Last updated by at .
Spread the Word - Like and/or share this page, your friends will also love it and thanks for it.
