Shaun Groves
UPDATE September 23, 2013: I was able to speak with the blogger mentioned in this post by phone on September 20, 2013. She was gracious and taught me much. I asked if she thought I portrayed her post and its comments accurately and she did. I offered to make any changes she wanted to this post and she offered none. She is in ongoing conversation with the non-profit mentioned here and plans to write more as that conversation unfolds. She has recently taken a job leading blog marketing trips for another non-profit.
My generation is angry. Still.
Long after Nirvana and Pearl Jam broke up we’ve continued to carry their angst in our veins. We tend to be more skeptical, cynical, and negative than the generation before us. And we so admire this about ourselves that we’ve ruined honesty in the process.
A blogger recently took a trip with a non-profit – similar to the kinds of trips I lead for Compassion International. For a week she told her readers about the wonderful work this organization was doing (and it is wonderful) and asked her audience to give their money in support of it.
Then she returned home and dropped a bomb. She wrote quite negatively about aspects of the organization’s work and about some of the people carrying it out. (I’m not naming the blogger because I don’t want to send her criticism more eyeballs. I’m not naming the non-profit because I think they’ve been harmed enough.)
What troubled me most were the words of her commenters. Many applauded her “honesty”.
One reader said, “I am often skeptical of these ‘blogger takes a trip to see NGO work in developing country’ series because it seems like people always come back glowing, with only positive things to say and a lot of pictures of ‘happy but poor’ children.”
And then once again lauded her for being “honest.”
So let me see if I understand this right: Positivity is always cause for skepticism. Negativity is always honest. But…
I’ve taken 52 bloggers overseas to see the ministry of Compassion International for themselves. Every one of them has come back “glowing” with only positive things to say and lots of pictures of impoverished but happy children. Are they liars? Many many bloggers have had the same positive experience traveling with the unnamed non-profit before the unnamed blogger did. And I believe they’ve all been honest as well.
Negativity isn’t always honest. Positivity isn’t always dishonest. Cynicism makes us think so.
And also…a baby pig! Wook at ‘im!
Stop being so angsty. Careful what you clap for.
Kelli says:
That picture. Is awesome.
And good words.
Amy says:
Given my post today was angsty (and honest) I’m taking this to heart. Also, that wittle piggy wiggy is adorable and made me smile 🙂
Nate says:
What is the purpose of this post?
Is it to throw stones at a blogger you don’t even mention by name so that your readers can read her post and decide for herself it is angry and duplicitous?
Is it to laud the work of compassion as opposed to the work of the other unnamed non-profit?
Or is it the point out how kind and not angry the 52 bloggers you have taken on trips?
Is it to say that people who have questions about non-profits handling millions of dollars are bad people?
Or is it to call her a liar?
I’m confused, can you clarify the point of your post?
Also, from my experience if you have taken 52 people to multiple projects in multiple countries dealing with the issues of extreme poverty and child sponsorship and not one of those people has come back with any questions or doubts it says more about the people you are taking and the surface level things you are showing them. It has been my experience that the more you learn about poverty alleviation in those countries the more questions you find can’t be answered simply and easily.
Before I get crushed, let me state that my family sponsors a child through Compassion and the other not to be named nonprofit and I love the work of both even if they both need to answer some difficult questions about they way that they work.
Shaun Groves says:
Nate, did you not see the pig?
Seriously, I thought the point was clear but I’m thankful for your questions. They exposed the lack of clarity in the end.
So I’ve added a word here and there to make it clearer that I am not against this non-profit (In fact, I don’t know if the allegations against them are true) and I’m not calling the blogger a liar either (I think she believes what she’s saying is true. I also believe that if she didn’t, she should have voiced her concerns while on the trip and given the organization a fair chance to explain themselves right then and there. Perhaps a simple misunderstanding could have been resolved before going public with words that harm the organization’s hard-won integrity. I sought to treat the blogger with as much respect as well – I reached out to her privately, by the way, yesterday morning our of fear that I may be misunderstanding her or her commenters, seeking better understanding of a few things she said so that I could be informed before writing this post. I gave her a chance to explain herself. She has not replied.)
Also, questions are not negative. I encourage them.
Lastly, I think the overall point of my post is clear: Negativity isn’t always honest. Positivity isn’t always dishonest. Cynicism makes us think so. Be more discerning than that.
Clearer?
lizzzzy says:
“I also believe she should have voiced her concerns while on the trip and given the organization a fair chance to explain themselves right then and there.”
That. That RIGHT there is what did not sit with me while reading her post. I enjoy the freshness of her blog, but as someone who works in communication, I know there is often the spin that goes on with companies and PR. “Can we find someone who will talk positively about ___? Can we talk to them before we put them on camera?” I despise the spin, but I also know it as the world where I work… and to be honest, anyone in PR knows you *need* to vet the story-tellers to get a sense of what they will say will be comprehensible, accurate and in this event, compelling.
Hindsight being 20/20, I would have rather read about her asking the interpreter clarifying questions, or informing the interpreter that she understood the speaker/s. [Then again, the organization was the one who invited her on the trip… fully knowing her stance on short-term mission trips… so is it a buyer-beware scenario?]
And of course, if she didn’t talk to the interpreter and ask those questions, the appropriate follow-up would have been to talk to the organization before she posted her blog… to talk to them and get THEIR side. Now it seems as if her candidness and honesty is a way to sensationalise her trip + get page views.
Jamie says:
Hey Shaun.
I called you this morning to respond to your email, and left you a text. Would have loved to talk.
~jamie
Shaun Groves says:
So sorry I missed that! We’ll talk soon. As a trip leader I’m eager to learn from this situation. And I promise that if there’s anything I’ve misunderstood or gotten wrong in this post I will own it, call attention to it and correct as needed.
Sheila Warner says:
Nate: I read the post by the unnamed blogger about the unnamed organization. I did not find it to be offensive in the least. I think Shaun is over-reacting, myself. It was a thoughtful critique of the organization.
Shaun Groves says:
I don’t think anyone has called it “offensive” here. Again, my reaction is to the comments on the post, which the blogger agrees with me “celebrate negativity” and, I think, some of the commenters are more skeptical of positive reviews and more prone to think a negative review is honest. That’s the primary thrust of this post: “Negativity isn’t always honest. Positivity isn’t always dishonest. Cynicism makes us think so.”
Kris says:
heh. A good word and fabulous pic.
Loved this line, “careful what you clap for”
Indeed.
Thomas says:
What are you doing there Shaun? Are you inspecting your future breakfast bacon?
Shaun Groves says:
Yummy.
Nate says:
Shaun,
Thanks for answering my questions. I was a little surprised when I thought your only reaction was did you see the pig? I think your edited post is much better and I definitely think the tone changed dramatically when you deleted loaded words… I agree with your point that we need to be careful not to run wild with cynicism but we also need to be willing to be thoughtful and graceful when we encounter people who ask legitimate questions about great organizations – no one gets it right all the time and sometimes an outsiders criticism can be the catalyst for improvement in even the best of organizations.
Thanks for answering my question. Appreciate the thoughtful response and the edits.
Keep up the good work.
Shaun Groves says:
THanks, Nate. I’ve learn a lot from outside criticism. But thankfully that criticism has been given in private. I think hers should have been and then, and only then, should she have reported her concerns publicly…along with organization’s response. That would be fair.
I encourage our bloggers to ask questions. And boy do they! And they and I both don’t always get answers we love or fully understand. Because poverty is so complicated. Those questions are positive, constructive. Public accusation almost always is not.
Thanks for making me a better writer today, Nate.
Nate says:
Shaun,
So she called you and texted you but you didn’t see them before posting this?
That paints this post (particularly the first draft of it) in a much different light doesn’t it?
Isn’t a large part of your criticism of her post due to the fact that she didn’t speak with them privately and give them a chance to respond before putting them on blast on the internet?
Didn’t you just do the same thing to her?
Nate
Shaun Groves says:
No, i don’t think what I wrote and what she wrote are comparable…nor does she. Because I was unable to connect with her before publishing this post there is much I did not say. I did not, for instance say she was wrong. I would have no way of knowing that without speaking with her.
Had a great illuminating conversation with her by phone this afternoon. So glad I did. When I asked her if she would like me to change anything at all about this post she asked me not to. She says it is accurate. And she agrees that her commenters, not her, “celebrate negativity.” She and I are in total agreement.
The focus of my post was the words of her commenters. A description of what she has written merely gave context. She understands this as well and does not feel that I painted her inaccurately or in a bad light.
Mary @ Giving Up on Perfect says:
Well, baby pigs for the win, for sure! 🙂 (Can I clap for that?)
Seriously, though, I really appreciate your encouragement to be careful what we clap for. I’m often guilty of “clapping” for things in the short-term only to realize after more thought that oops, maybe that wasn’t so awesome after all. Great food for thought, especially in our lightning fast information/social media society (that’s made up of angsty folks who miss Pearl Jam).
You know…you should slap that phrase onto a pretty picture in a cute font. Maybe with a baby pig. It’d get pinned all over the place! 😉
Emily says:
I appreciate this, Shaun. I think this is a powerful message that has far broader reach than simply as a response to the post in question. Especially in a culture that places such high value on authenticity, which often (though in all fairness, certainly not always) seems to equal negativity.
And also…what a cute baby pig!!
Kit says:
Great post and great comments! Definitely a thought provoking issue that I’ve been learning about from some good examples God has put in my life right now. And I laughed out loud at the sudden switch to the cute pig picture. That’s what I’m loving learning lately– life can be fun, even though there is cynicism and disagreements and questions to discuss. We can also share joy together in the midst of it all 🙂
Matthew (FzxGkJssFrk) says:
LOL. Love it. The pig slayed me.
Sheila Warner says:
I read that blogger’s post, and the organization was not hurt by what was said. The critiques were points well taken, I thought, and in the end, the blogger still recommends the organization. It wasn’t that the positive was not honest in and of itself; it was that other, harder aspects of the ongoing work in that country were not shown. The author did not believe it was a balanced view, that’s all.
Shaun Groves says:
In her post the blogger voiced two concerns and made one accusation. The concerns won’t hurt the organization at all – they are admittedly and obviously subjective.
The accusation, on the other hand, whether true or not (and how would I know?) I believe has hurt the organization.
I see your point, Shelia about the need for a balanced view. I take no issue with that. I’ve only taken issue with the mindset of some of her commenters who, in her words “celebrate negativity.” These commenters have clearly stated that they are skeptical of all-positive reviews, doubting their honesty, while believing this blogger is being honest because her review is not all positive. I have not and will not publicly discuss whether or not she in fact is being honest – I have no way of knowing – but instead I take issue with the presupposition that negative or mixed reviews are more likely to be honest than all-positive ones.
Does clear anything up?
Leigh says:
I come rely agree Shaun. I think taking such a hard trip for anyone will create unknown feelings. But if you’re going there knowing it’s all about Gods love and helping those who have less than you then the negative things,(if any), would not be what you should be focusing on. I know that Compassion trips are focused on what real life is like in the other country, why they need our help and the real feelings that blogger had during the time there.
There will always be negative nellies and its a shame.
Nate says:
Shaun,
Can I contact you somewhere other than in the comments section of this blog? Would like to ask you a question without posting it for all to see. You have my email, look forward to hearing from you.
Nate
Shaun Groves says:
Absolutely. I’d like that. I’m traveling today so I may not be able to respond quickly. Shaun at shaungroves dot com