Buying blog commentary: wow, I knew Above The Law sucked, but I didn’t know it was this bad.

This totally obsequious review/recommendation/whatever of some litigation services company just screams paid advertisement! paid advertisement! to me. Sure enough, there’s a little italicized disclosure at the bottom: “Disclosure: PLC is an ATL advertiser.” What’s not disclosed is whether PLC pays for extraordinarily favorable blog coverage made to look like ordinary posts (and where the advertising disclosure is hidden behind a cut tag) in addition to ordinary ads. Sure looks like it does.

I’ve expressed my disdain for ATL before, and I think it’s basically nothing but the entitled echo-chamber of a bunch of hopeless biglaw wankers. But this is ridiculous.

Share


4 Responses to “Buying blog commentary: wow, I knew Above The Law sucked, but I didn’t know it was this bad.”

  1. eric Says:

    Surely “hopeless biglaw wankers” is redundant?

  2. Paul Gowder Says:

    I was actually wondering about this. Is it redundant to say Y Xs when all Xs are Y but not all Ys are X.? All wankers are hopeless but not all hopeless people are wankers… (and the double-redundant application of those two terms to biglaw is left as an exercise for the reader)

  3. eric Says:

    Yeah, I was referring to the redundancy of biglaw and wanker, where all Xs are Zs (though not all Zs are Xs).

  4. Paul Gowder Says:

    You said it, not me. I just agree heartily. :-)

Leave a Comment