Comments on: Is World Magazine A Muck-Raker?

By: David Murray

David Murray — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:32:00 +0000

If you’d actually read my article you might have noticed that I did acknowledge that “muckraking” can have a positive connotation. I did check modern language use dictionaries and as you might discover yourself, they also highlight the more common modern negative connotations. I polled the term last week among a number of people: result – 100% negative. All email/FB correspondence to me in past two weeks likewise all took the negative view.

By: floondi

floondi — Sun, 16 Nov 2014 23:21:00 +0000

I have never heard of “muckraking” having a negative connotation. Millennials like me were taught in history class that the muckrakers were heroic reformers around the turn of the century who exposed social abuses and corruption. You could have saved yourself the trouble of writing this post if you’d checked the word in a dictionary beforehand! The origin in Bunyan is irrelevant to the modern meaning – the word “nice” used to mean foolish, but you shouldn’t be insulted if someone calls you nice in 2014.

By: Chris Hutchinson

Chris Hutchinson — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 13:38:00 +0000

I actually think they meant the term to be a compliment; the key paragraph being the seventh one where it contrasts World with the typical evangelical “public relations” reporting. It’s true that the term historically has a negative connotation; but in our day and age of institutional 24/7 self-marketing, I think the NYT was using it as high praise. The article is very positive, even if the headline misleads, in my opinion.

By: Is World Magazine A Muck-Raker?

Is World Magazine A Muck-Raker? — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 05:06:58 +0000

[…] is Professor of Old Testament & Practical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. This article first appeared on his blog, Head Heart Hand, and is used with […]

By: Angela

Angela — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 11:39:00 +0000

I also was surprised to see World portrayed in this way. Sad that even secular media thinks we should overlook wrong to protect our own. BTW – had no idea that “muckraking” came from Pilgrim’s Progress. Very interesting.

By: David Murray

David Murray — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:40:00 +0000

Very good point Ray. What I was thinking of was a newspaper reporting on something as if the Church or non-profit had not dealt with it at all. But it wasn’t clear in my point, so I’ll amend my bullet.

By: Ray Pennings

Ray Pennings — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:16:00 +0000

Thanks Dr. Murray. I fully agree with one slight qualifier. Your third last bullet implies that if a sin has been addressed by the appropriate Christian authority, it should not be reported. I would say “depends.” Christian institutions (including the church proper but thinking here more of other Christian organizations) have an accountability to the public as well as internally to their members. If there is a scandal or impropriety that would involve the leadership of Cardus or PRTS, even one that is dealt with promptly and appropriately by these organizations, I would not consider it muck-raking for a newspaper or World magazine to report on it, expecting of course that they would report on how the institution dealt with it as well as the nature of the impropriety itself. In fact, I would expect that as part of dealing with the matter in a Christian way, the organizations would be public and transparent, not in a sensational manner, but in a way that confesses the shortcomings that led to the challenge, how forgiveness was sought and granted, and how justice and mercy was embodied in the solution that was found. Such transparency gives the gospel plausiblity.