Grappling with complicated legacies

The legacy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of the nation's first birth control clinic, has been challenged by Julianne Malveaux and other political leaders in recent years for her connection to the eugenics movement.

While Sanger remains revered by Planned Parenthood, her legacy has clearly been politicized and in someways tarnished by her connection. Her view that "birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit [and] of preventing the birth of defectives" helps illustrate that Sanger's legacy is clearly complicated.

Sanger's blemished legacy acts as a premier example of an activist who made significant progress in one area, but also still held problematic views. Malveaux argues that Sanger's legacy is "crippled" by these beliefs. Yet, shouldn't Sanger still be admired for her contributions to the women's rights movement? She clearly still led the charge for reproductive freedom and helped found the organization that is now the single largest provider of abortions in the U.S.

So, how should Sanger be remembered? As a willing participant "whose embrace of the eugenics movement showed racial insensitivity" or as a maverick for women's reproductive rights? More than likely, it's somewhere in the middle.

Too often in the media, political figures are subject to polarized opinions. They're labeled as good or bad. Instead, it should be recognized that many of the important figures in U.S. and global history often had problematic ideals, quotes and positions on important issues. Malveaux hits the nail on the head with her blog, Sanger's legacy is both the embrace of racist ideologies and a fervent fight for reproductive freedom.

Is Upworthy worthy of the hype?

When I first saw the mini-doc on the final days of teenager Zach Sobiech on the UpWorthy website in the spring of 2013, I immediately thought I had stumbled upon the next great website. 

I wasn't the only one. In October 2013, the site was only 19 months old but was a top 50 website in Quantcast's rankings according to the New York Times. 

Since then, UpWorthy has amassed 10 million likes on Facebook and inspired legacy media to launch their own UpWorthy-esque blogs. 

The site was launched as hyper-selective curator.  The Washington Post quoted their blog in December 2013 stating, "Our top curators comb through hundreds of videos and graphics a week, looking for the 5-7 that they’re confident are super-shareable," Upworthy explains. "That’s not a typo: We pay people full-time to curate 5-7 things a week." 

That quote is a telling part of the story of UpWorthy. Their limitations as a site is the same as how they became so popular in the first place: their "super-sharable" nature."

The issue with UpWorthy and the many sites that have followed its general premise, is that sometimes the most important stories aren't super-sharable. A curator for UpWorthy views content by how worthy of a click an individual reader might find it. Their bloggers write in a similar fashion. As a journalist, I still find it ethically difficult to only cater my writing towards what I think will be shared.