Wow. I thought my last question would be a stumper. But reader Lauren Finzer correctly labeled Lucy Bernholz as the author of the post that spurred me to launch Tactical Philanthropy. For the historians out there, the post that led me to Lucy’s question about what to blog about back in the “old days” of philanthropy blogging, was this one by Phil Cubeta that captured the lifeless nature of the early philanthropy blogosphere (late 2005):
Where did all the Giving Blogs Go?
Where are they, all the giving blogs? was once the question. Now we have a more interesting question: Why do those who start blogs on philanthropy either say next to nothing (as if posts were reviewed by an immediate superior or run by an internal censor) or fall silent? “What should we talk about?” asks Lucy Berholz, and then falls silent. Philanthropybeat “is an online journal that covers the institutional philanthropy and private foundations,” but has no posts as far as I can tell. I wish Lenore Ealy could get a team of conservative thinkers, like Bill Schambra and Amy Kass to blog with her. At a recent conference, Amy told me, about a particular point, “You are completely wrong.” And she was right. How can we get that conversational spirit, of heated disagreement, with respect for truth, going in our staid field as we await the talking points from Headquarters? I mean, if you can’t blog in your own name without permission get a pseud and speak in parables. Over at Wealth Bondage they always have an opening for a well-bred Professional. If you want to make a Fool of yourself with impunity, I am sure Candidia can put you to work blogging for hire as a public service. You would think that blogs being “voluntary action in a public space” would be a natural fit with those interested in promoting civil society and citizen engagement. Instead, mostly silence. I should probably take the hint myself and write about, say, spaniels.
The links in that post will take you back to the Jurassic age of philanthropy blogs.
OK, Question #5: “I once asked if philanthropy was over the hill, or passed its peak (although I used a different phrase). Why did I suggest this might be true and what did it have to do with the show Happy Days?”
Ground rules and prize information are here.
You asked if philanthropy had ?jumped the shark?, based on Fonzi doing a water-skiing jump over a shark on Happy Days; that episode was seen as the turning point after which the show went downhill. You were prompted to ask the question thanks to a philanthropy-themed reality TV show.