Friday, September 02, 2005

Job Posting - New York Times

Amber links to an op-ed that ran in The New York Times (italicized for emphasis, not because it's a proper name) by superblawger Blachman on why you should be able to blog and stay employed. Amber rips it apart and I have to agree. It's just not that good a piece. She's accused in her comments of being jealous, which she denies and since I know her fairly well, I know she's not jealous.

I, however, am of course jealous. Well, just envious of anyone who manages to turn law school into a money-making venture - I mean, not in the practicing lawyer kinda way - this guy has a book deal.

Make sure you read the comments that go along with the post.

As far as the piece goes - Blachman breaks no new ground. His thesis? Blogs add a lot to the common good - how else will you learn about your would-be places of employment? Bosses shouldn't bust bloggers.


Though Blachman does at least acknowledge the threat of broadcasting sensitive company information, he seems to have escaped picking up the increased liability sensitivity the rest of us 1, 2, 3, and yes, even 4Ls develop within the first three minutes of Torts class. I pride myself on having resisted most of the mindf*cking effects of law school - but even I get it.

As a matter of fact, I'm currently procrastinating on helping an entity develop a blogging policy. I love my blog more than nearly anything - and anyone - in the world, but I'm not blind to employers' needs and fears. And yeah, you have the right to free speech. And the right to remain unemployed. Balance as you will, try to use some judgment, and don't cheapen civil liberties by confusing them with your childish need to just tell it like it is.

But I absolutely want a book deal and an NYT gig. Maybe getting fired would do it. Blachman didn't get fired, but says he could have, and somehow that gives him the necessary credentials to talk about the dangers of getting sacked. From what he's said, his employers never even hauled him in to press the issue. So how he's qualified to discuss that scary situation is unknown.

No comments: