Letter to the Editor (and the Blogger)
This was posted in the comments below, but since it is about the blog more generally, I am promoting it to a post so that other readers will be more likely to see it and join in or respond. Let me just also say that the whole point of comment threads on blogs, or one of them, is the opportunity to immediately rebut something you disagree with in the same place it was published. So, if like this reader, you are displeased with what you read here on PO2, why wait for a formal letter to the editor? Let me have it right away.
Sir:
Recently, upon receiving a regular e-mail regarding the publication of Common Place I clicked over to the website and perused a number of the offerings. For the first time, I noticed “Lampi’s Election Notes” and “Publick Occurrences.” Being a moderate fan of all kinds of blogs, I skimmed both of these offerings (incidentally, there appears to be a linking problem: clicking on the larger, “script” link to “Lampi’s Election Notes,” leads one to Pasley’s blog).
I was intrigued to see Pasley’s blog described as one of “historical punditry.” Naturally, if one clicks through a few links, we encounter the standard legal boilerplate disclaimer on “not reflecting opinions” etc. etc. What I find most curious about this is that the blog is essentially presented as one historian’s interpretation of current events through the eyes of the academic. This, of course, is inaccurate. Dr. Pasley’s blog is politically-driven opinion. For example we are told that Cheney is the most evil v-p ever, a statement that cannot, virtually by definition, be anything other than emotional opinion. We are also treated to the story of a German citizen oppressed in prisons (it is not clear to me from Pasley’s entry if the prisons were only in Pakistan or elsewhere as well); a story it seems which is based entirely on the account of the gentleman in question and presented on an American network which does not have, shall we say, an exemplary record in providing genuine, documentary proof to its allegations against the current administration.
My concern here is that Dr. Pasley, and by default Common-Place seems to be following in an unfortunate academic trend. That is, to present political opinion, from an academic perspective thus labelling it as somehow more academic than opinion offered by non-academics. Furthermore, by offering it on a website which is devoted, for the most part, to more traditional academic subjects, the blog tends to enhance the perspective of some in our society that all academics think the same (left-wing) way and that academe is just a cover for political activism.
I am not here suggesting ending the blog (any kind of censorship tends to sicken me) nor even offer an alternative (”fair and balanced” is a measure for weighing produce not presenting opinion). But, given Common-Place’s commendable decision to run such blogs, I would suggest it would be appropriate to run a disclaimer at the top of the blog page (i.e. where it would be seen on the first click) noting that the blog is partisan political opinion by an academic thus removing the implicit non-statement being currently made that it is more objective and academic in nature.
cc: posted to Pasley blog
Sincerely,
John A. Grigg
Assistant Professor of History
University of Nebraska – Omaha
ASH 287F
jgrigg@mail.unomaha.edu
402.554.2302“Many people fail at adulthood and constantly reach backwards for the freedom and passion of adolescence. But those who achieve adulthood are the ones who create civilization,” Orson Scott Card
I think most of us are savvy enough to follow the warning to “buyer beware” when it comes to blogs. Recently Prof. Jeffrey Milyo of MU testified before a US Senate committee concerning the impact of voter ID laws on voter turnout. He had conducted and written a study concluding that such laws do not have a negative impact on voter turnout. When questioned about the source of funding for the study by Sen. Schumer of NY, Prof. Milyo was unable to immediately answer that question nor does the study (available on Prof. Milyo’s website)state the source of the funding. I find that missing information much more important than the lack of “disclaimers” on blogs.
Comment by Rosedale — April 11, 2008 @ 6:14 am
I find Professor Grigg’s argument rather pernicious, for it appears to discredit in advance any claim to expertise that is brought to bear on a political issue. If I have to disclaim my expert knowledge about a subject at issue in political debate whenever I have partisan leanings in that debate, and if every expert must do likewise, then the public is condemned to choose among opinions that are, by stipulation, mere opinions with no claim to the authority of expertise. True, partisan experts might choose to weigh in only when their expertise advantages their side, but two countervailing forces will offset the effects of such a tendency: 1) If an expert enters a political debate, he/she may be called upon by the opposition to provide that same expertise on a different issue, where the expert conclusion favors the other side; and 2) as Rosedale’s comment suggests, experts risks their peer status as experts if they allow partisanship to corrupt their arguments or conclusions.
Comment by Rod Bell — April 12, 2008 @ 2:10 pm