About that front page story dedicated to lady bloggers, Dateline: BlogHer Conference? Turns out 1,200 words talking about the glass ceiling in blogging does not please the opressed! "According to some ticked critics of the Times, a lack of respect for female bloggers was etched into Jesella's piece itself," blogs Rebecca Traister onSalon. So what, you might not wonder, got their panties tangled up in a USB cord? For starters, that the article was published in the Times' Styles section.
Among Feministe blogger PhysioProf's complaints was that the story was published in the Styles section, the section of the paper reserved for trend pieces, drink recipes, society photos and wedding announcements. In other words, the girl part of the paper.
PhysioProf also called out Jesella for her clichéd lede (about BlogHer attendees taking over the men's rooms in the conference hotel), her reportorial focus on details that were female (there were lactation and changing rooms), superficial (women applying blush and eye shadow) and ridiculous (self-helpy affirmations posted in the bathroom stalls like "You are perfect"). She was also angry about Jesella's decision to draw attention to the emotional, sometimes weepy panels that took place during the gathering, and the piece's description of how the conference had "moved on" from last year's Kathy Sierra-inspired focus on how women are treated on the Internet, to discussions of how bloggers can increase their influence, reputation and profit.
Over at the popular feminist blog Jezebel, Megan Carpentier pointed out the disparity between the Times' coverage of BlogHer and Netroots Nation, the gathering of political bloggers that was held, quite unfortunately, on the same weekend as BlogHer.
"Was a panel discussion on the use of profanity in political blogging [a Times story that ran about Netroots] of more pressing importance to Times readers than Michelle Obama's first blog post or the aforementioned discussion of how to get taken seriously as a woman political blogger?" Carpentier wondered, in reference to two brief references in Jesella's piece. "Or is the Times just trying to prove the point of the BlogHer founders and users — that women just don't get taken quite as seriously as men?"
Well, there is the part about writer Kara Jesella even getting the BlogHer piece in the paper; she's on staff in the Styles section, so it makes sense the article would appear there.
And then there's the whole matter about BlogHer being a conference for women and about women.
Editorial Director
If more bloggers practiced real shoe-leather journalism and stood up, went outside and away from their precious computers and actually interviewed, did research, obtained quotes, retrieved actual, real documentation, attended evnets life, talked to people live, gathered more interviews, conducted more research, obtained more documentation–you know, basic journalism–maybe they wouldn't be so childishly defensive and whiny all the time. Practice journalism, and you'll be taken seriously as a journalist.
Er…the Style section isn't the "lady part" of the paper.
Unless you're saying that's the only place where pieces involving mostly females should go…?
I agree with the premise that Style is the home section of that writer. Still, the journalist who wrote the article could have been published outside of the section, given the subject matter - if she'd shown some gumption and covered the more technical or business minded aspects, she could even have made her article relevant.
Instead, it's just another puff piece on how those imperfect mannequins for the latest product marketing are so adorably trying to matter to the rest of the world.
Yeesh.