I have loved, recently, further pondering what solutions in action look like.

As challenging as my move from journalism to academia and, then, the non-profit sector was, one thing I found eye-opening about it was the transition from the role of observer to what is more often termed a “doer.” While, as I wrote more than five years ago now, I still feel strongly that it will be important for the complementary functions the journalistic, educational, and non-profit sectors – problem-discovery, problem-solution, and solution-funding – to remain distinct, I can certainly understand where the desire to conflate them originates.

Particularly with regard to the journalism world, which is uniquely insulated from journalistic coverage, it has felt important to help articulate a silenced problem rather than endlessly staring at it in recent years. But it feels right now, in my currently independent role and out of necessity to participate in the pursuit of a way forward both for myself and for others.

On Anointing

If it is true some form of carnivorousness – or, destructive, rather than constructive, relationship -results anytime a person or organization steps out of what religious people may term their inward calling or anointing, it is arguable there should be transparency and accountability in properly labeling just what role a particular individual or organization is filling at a given time.

This is as our rightful roles complement one another so beautifully and, where carnivorousness will always try to disentangle responsibility from privilege and attempt a bait-and-switch wherever possible, mentorship modulates rights and duties in tandem.

On Changes

I do believe the unannounced transition of many journalism corporations to activism is wrong, but if a stock market-turbocharged media bloc, seemingly motivated more by the increasingly mechanized consolidation of power than the nuanced performance of their jobs, is to replace journalism permanently, could we at least change its pronouns?