A Note on My Methodological Approach to Blogging

Having only recently begun this blog, I feel compelled to discuss my reasons for founding and writing in it. After all, with millions of blogs, news sources, and other sites available to readers (at least while net neutrality still exists), I am probably not alone in wondering what original content I have to offer.

More...
In considering this question, I looked at blogs I admire, such as those by Paul Krugman and the guys at FiveThirtyEight, and what I saw were clear and consistent methodological approaches to the topics they cover. Paul Krugman brings the perspective of a Nobel prize winning economist to important cultural, political, and policy issues of today; FiveThirtyEight applies the skills of sports statistician fanatic Nate Silver to election polling/vote counting and other political topics. As such, what both blogs have in common is that the writers have particular skills and knowledge that they can combine with readily available information to produce unique and valuable perspectives on timely issues.

So the question then becomes, since I am writing to an assumed audience that does not consist of my friends and family, what particular skills and knowledge do I have to offer? This is a question I have been spending some time considering as I ponder new directions to take in my writing, filmmaking, and immediate career path. Whether or not I obtain an academic position in the near term, I want to bring to bear the skills and knowledge I have obtained from my academic training to whatever I choose to do.

The value of humanities training tends to be widely underrated and undervalued, primarily due to its lack of reliance on quantitative analysis and empiricism (the traits most highly valued of the sciences and, to a lesser degree, the social sciences). But, of course, what the humanities do offer are methodologies for studying qualitative data and intangibles such as "media," "culture," and "texts."

Perhaps the most important, fundamental value I have internalized from my academic training is to never rely on what others have to say about a given "thing" (i.e., a film, a book, a speech, or a criminal complaint). If I am interested in a topic, I wanted to go to the source (or "primary text") to find out details that others may not find to be significant as well as to learn more about the original context.

An obsession with primary texts. From Shakespeare to Darwin to Freud to the 78-page Rod Blagojevich criminal complaint to SEC filings to the Pope's speech denouncing gender theory (and transgenders and homosexuals) in the original Italian, and so on. That is what I have to offer.

I can't promise to get everything or even get everything right, but hopefully it will be interesting and useful to someone.