I Blush Crimson Red
Posted on February 26th, 2007 in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
Today’s Crimson has a story about this little ol’ blog.
Since breaking ground two winters ago, Shots in the Dark has become a motley circus, filled with its own distinct set of acts and performers with Bradley serving as ringmaster. The blog, at richardbradley.net, provides those sitting at their desks anywhere from Mather House to Manhattan with a view of machinations in Mass. Hall and an ear to whispering throughout the Yard.
Some of the descriptions of SITD include: “catty,” “chatty,” less than influential, irresponsible (that was me), “democratic” (love that one!), and “prescient.”
I would add “often wrong.”
The sage Robert Putnam says, “I think that the best part of his blog is the commentary from other readers.” I agree. While I enjoy writing a post that seems useful, what I really enjoy is reading your comments. That’s where I feel that I’m learning something, and where I feel that in a small (irresponsible, etc.) way, I have sparked some conversation. Even on those occasions where you folks make mincemeat of what I writeâI’ve usually deserved itâyou are a great community of contributors, and I thank you for it.
So welcome, new Shots in the Dark readers. And thanks to all of you who have visited over the months. I couldn’t do it without you.
14 Responses
2/26/2007 10:03 am
Congratulations Richard. This article in the Crimson is a well deserved recognition for your contribution.
The respect in which SITD is held also signals the deficient quality of regular press coverage of Harvard, including the Crimson.
There’s indeed a remarkable quality to ‘We the People’.
2/26/2007 10:04 am
Happy Birthday Shots in the Dark. May the next two years prove as provocative, insightful and amusing as the last two.
And those of you at Harvard who have enjoyed working in darkness beware, there’s much light coming from SITD. You could find yourself in the spotlight next!
2/26/2007 10:05 am
Do you know who are the most avid readers of SITD? The Deans appointed by Larry Summers. They race to the site early in the morning, their hearts pounding in fear that some of their secret machinations will have been exposed.
2/26/2007 10:08 am
So why do these Deans read SITD with more interest than the Crimson???
Perhaps because they realize the Crimson has been domesticated by the Harvard establishment. There are places at Harvard that ordinary undergraduates know they can’t go. What’s odd is that even journalists in the mainstream press appear as domesticated as the Crimson these days. Let’s hope the merger with 02138 will not end up coopting SITD.
2/26/2007 10:20 am
Richard,
Here’s a suggestion for the anniversary edition of SITD. Create an entry on the blog for each of Harvard’s schools, inviting contributors to share their perspectives on what most needs to change in each of them. This would be timely in preparation for the inauguration of the new President…
2/26/2007 10:34 am
Richard: Bully for you.
Cloak-and-dagger anonymice above: Spare us. This stuff ain’t samizdat.
Richard, any extra traffic you’re getting seems to me an opportunity to prominently correct your lemminglike c.w.-based story about John Edwards. Losing an argument that was the basis for a post titled “x screws up” warrants correction in the body of the blog.
If that doesn’t happen, then here at least again, toward the top, is the sentiment of correction.
Standing Eagle
Clarificatory postscript: As I wrote at the time, “I think this merits a correction, and a post titled “John Solomon Screws Up” to counter your “Edwards Screws Up” post, shown to be almost certainly false except insofar as it’s self-fulfilling.” (JS is the reporter who wrote the non-story about Edwards’s house; God only knows who put it on the front page of the WP.)
This was Bradley’s best defense of his initial post: “I think the question is, Can you really trust Edwards? And I’m not entirely sure that the answer is yes.” Now THAT is weak beer after the hard-liquor shot in the dark titled “Edwards Screws Up.”
There’s no shame in issuing corrections, Richard.
2/26/2007 3:30 pm
Okay, okay, I stand corrected: all this Harvard stuff seems to have gotten you somewhere — and even appears to be of some use to the Harvard community (if not the world at large). So bully for you (and SITD)!
But just remember, some of us turn to SITD (ouch that’s too close to “STD”) for the cheesecake shots, and the fun arguments about sporting events, I-bankers, rich perverts, and dead blondes. Don’t forget — you’re still a pop culture critic!
Long Live The Rabbit…
WGD
2/26/2007 6:08 pm
We met upon the level and we [will part] on the square…congratulations, Richard, and well done.
2/26/2007 10:26 pm
Thanks much…
2/26/2007 10:30 pm
100 masters students of the Graduate School of Education hand delivered today a letter to the Dean…
‘On December 7th, our colleagues in the doctoral program submitted an open letter to the administration to express their concerns about the dininishing number of Harvard Graduate School of Education faculty who study social justice, civil rights, and issues related to race and ethnicity in education. The doctoral students also voiced their concerns about the small number of senior faculty of color and offered their commitment to working with the administratioon and faculty to recruit diverse faculty. As students in a wide array of masters programs at Harvard, we would like to express our concern for the future of HGSE.”
The long shadow of Larry Summers…
2/26/2007 10:31 pm
Whence came you as a [writer] Richard Bradley…
2/26/2007 10:37 pm
You mean from under LS’ long shadow? Yeesh, I hope not.
2/26/2007 11:31 pm
Hey Richard Bradley, great two years. I’m off to New Zealand, the country I come from, tomorrow early, so will (probably) not be posting for a while, but wanted to congratulate you for what you’ve done. This has been a very good forum, and many of us are in your debt.
2/27/2007 2:28 am
Congratulations to SITD-but a note to those who belittle The Crimson: the two serve different purposes! And just because this is a blog doesn’t mean that having evidence for an argument is a bad idea.