4/19/2012: The issue of the net social social value of this blog has come up in the comments. While not even an economist would argue that the revealed preferences of our readers and commenters means it must be positive, there is an argument from history, and from authority – no less an authority than former (US) President Theodore Roosevelt. From wikipedia:
After President Theodore Roosevelt took office in 1901, he began to manage the press corps and to do so he elevated his press secretary to cabinet status and initiated press conferences. The muckraking journalists who emerged around 1900, like the muckraking Lincoln Steffens, were not as easy for Roosevelt to manage as the objective journalists, and the President gave Steffens access to the White House and interviews to steer stories his way.[15][16]
While he may never have used the term himself, the origin of the “muckraker” is attributed to President Theodore Roosevelt, who, during a speech delivered on April 14, 1906, and on the occasion of dedicating the U.S. House of Representatives office building, drew on a character from John Bunyan’s 1678 classic, Pilgrim’s Progress, saying:
“… you may recall the description of the Man with the Muck-rake, the man who could look no way but downward with the muck-rake in his hands; Who was offered a celestial crown for his muck-rake, but who would neither look up nor regard the crown he was offered, but continued to rake to himself the filth of the floor.”[17]While cautioning about possible pitfalls of keeping one’s attention ever trained downward, “on the muck,” Roosevelt emphasized the social benefit of investigative muckraking reporting, saying:
There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.The muckrakers themselves proudly adopted the label.[18]
The term eventually came to be used in reference to investigative journalists[citation needed] who reported about and exposed issues such as crime, fraud, waste, public health and safety, graft, illegal financial practices. A muckraker’s reporting may span businesses and government.
Dog
“The issue of the net social social value of this blog has come up in the comments.”
Fuck That Noise (and I realized I just used up
my allotment).
This entire blog, while a good service in providing a safe forum for various few points, has been blown complete our of proportion.
Ifs a friggin’ blog; it’s a collection of text and rants and sincere statements and argument and opinion and ego (massive in my case), and proclamation and sometimes convergence of open.
If I were a historian I might say this is akin to greek city state public discussion, only with less intelligence behind it.
UOmatters itself, sometimes wants to elevate this blog to a pedestal level, which I believe is the origin of this particular muckracking defense. You don’t need to do this.
Some commentators suggest you are vile, evil, toxic slime. Again, that’s just noise. The fact that the admin things that this blog is a threat is comical beyond all measure.
In this dog’s view – your dealing with a mostly immature community that is both reactive and inflammatory and is easily threatened. It’s very hard to be proactive and candid in an insecure environment – believe me- I can’t even believe that my personal profile of simultaneously pissing everyone off when a candid and somewhat informed opinion is offered, still allowed me to get tenure (and now, of course, I manifest my own ego in this forum …).
The point is that the UO has never, in my experience, been an environment which is conducive to fair, honest, brutal and constructive criticism dialogue (others may chime in and tell me that I am full of shit and this is just my problem).
The incredible value of your forum is that it exists, its read, it activates opinion and because of that, ITmatters. There is no reason for UOmatters to search for validation – the validation is clearly there in the comments and issues that you raise.
Your dealing with primarily the academic community here – that community loves to pronounce judgement as we tend to be very authoritative in our views. Asking whether or not there is a net social good, while like produce a lot of academic windbag commentary on yes its good, not its evil.
Again, I refer back to my allotment statement.
In my view, this blog has raised the intellectual dialog of this campus to an all time high. Our Rasion d’etre these days may be to tear down and ridicule the various farm animals in this forum, but at least there is a dialogue. As we faculty collectively mature, given this forum, the dialogue will become less rant based, and more focused. Give it time – but never question the value of this instrument. You implemented it, other’s didn’t.
This is not about muckraking, the defense of muckraking, or the polarization that this forum might illuminate.
As I said “Fuck that Noise” (it’s in quotes so its allowable to repeat. Please keep providing a forum for discussion and please keep bringing up the issues that need to be discussed.
Thank you for your service.
Thanks for this Dog – but this is the last time you get 2 f-words. Next time try to work in a shit instead.
Muckraking is great! I assume most of us readers of this blog understand the value (and limitations) of this form of social activity.
The next question is how to turn people and energy gathered by this blog into a positive and rational force affecting university’s future?
Well ESPN has certainly raked up some much on the Ducks football team. Chip Kelly says his hands are tied, he can only test if there is suspicion. What about the carload of players w Cliff Harris who told the State trooper they had no more weed on them. they smoked it all. Well do you think that might have been a valid juncture of suspicion?
No. Forget ethics– it’s all about winning the games, and selling the product/merchandising.
In other news the 4/18 guest editorial in the RG was excellent in stating how hypocritical the U of O is not maintaining neutrality.
Merciless severity is only warranted when absolute truth is possible, according to TR. I do not believe in absolute truth, but I do believe that open and respectful dialogue leads to the closest approximation of it.
the Calico Cat who lives in Wonderland notes the following and writes with an especially toothy grin:
There is a bit of belly-button watching in this UOMatters post. I suspect it may be rooted in pressure from JH; frankly JH ought to be thankful for the role UOMatters plays in promoting a more responsive faculty and administration.
Admittedly there are occasional rants and some profanity, but on the whole I find the dialog to be constructive and far above the usual ‘crap’ [apologies to Dog] that one hears in department meetings.
It never ceases to amaze me that educated, thoughtful academics, as we all are, can come to such dramatically different understandings of the problems we face and the solutions to be implemented. But as Dog points out, public discussion of important issues was not pretty in the Greek city state nor is it any better on the banks of the Willamette. But the alternative, that we go forward as placid sheep managed by enligthened shepherds and the drove gods [oops, I meant ‘dogs’] is not an improvement.
And it never ceases to amaze me how secretive the UO administration can be. Sometimes the admin reminds be of a Stalinist propaganda ministry trying fruitlessly to manage the news and direct its constituents.
As I have noted before, in the best of all possible worlds we would not need UOMatters and would not have to endure its focus on the muck we have to rake through, but frankly life in Wunderland is fascinating to behold.
Dog again
Sorry for the numerous typos in my dog stream of consciousness earlier post – once the words scroll out of this window thingie I am typing in, they also scroll out of dog’s memories. The basic point, reinforced by the Cat from Wunderland, is that the current conditions of the UO are so _____________________ (dog gives a readers choice there) that the existence of UOmatters is necessary. That should be obvious to any academic. The “slime factor” is determined by how we treat this forum. UOmatters is simply giving us a channel to talk to teach other.
The Effects of Questions on Authenticity and Net Social Worth of Blogs
In early 2012, a series of case studies were performed on a random set of blogs. The primary question for this research focused on the “Net Social Worth” (NSW) of each blog in respect to its readers, its author or authors and the society within which each blog was written. There is no real way to measure such a thing outside of asking a series of yes/no questions that ultimately led the researchers in this study to conclude that the entire project was a complete waste of time and money. Due to this conclusion, the administration has secured additional funds to run another series of studies so that the findings of the initial research can be tested against the preconceived notions about the NSW of any blog. In response, the research team will include the NSW of the administration in the second round of studies.
UPDATE: The administration has informed the research team that the funding which had been secured for a second round of studies no longer exists due to the hiring of a new Vice Provost.
Sorry, I was really going to give it a better try but I need another cup of coffee in order to work up enough satire to address the stupidity of asking about the net value(s) (pun intended) of this blog or any other blog. The sad fact is that Academia, which I include myself a member of, is full of people with no real-world experience (a tired cliche, I know) and a general lack of brain development when it comes to interacting with others. Tie in the generally fragile ego and inflated sense of self-worth…and I’m not surprised that someone would ask such a stupid question about a blog. The ONLY reason I could see the question posed is if it’s merely a lame attempt to try and shine a negative light on the blog in an attempt to discredit it. In either case, it’s a waste of our time. Keep doing what you do. The conversation is generally a good one, important issues and questions are raised, and the U of O is in dire need of taking a hard look at itself if it ever wants to crawl out of the hole that previous administrations and a general lack of desire to change anything (other than wheeling and dealing with your friends in the admin).