Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
May
28
You know, I mentioned this article earlier this week because I was, frankly, pissed off at the New York Times for giving so much space to yet another blogger who feeds into the stereotype of blogs and bloggers being so attention-starved. Uck.
[Mini-update: Professor Kim tells us that the New York Times paid Gould $15,000 for that article?? Okay - I should have been a lot meaner in this post - a lot.]
[2nd mini-update: Susan Mernit writes about it here. And Megan's Minute posts about it here.]
Now, in the New York Observer, Emily Gould, formerly of Gawker.com and the author of the NYT Magazine piece, sounds as though she is pulling a Miley Cyrus.
Mr. Marzorati [editor-in-chief of the NYT Magazine] said his instructions [for photographing a cover of Gould] were “to try to convey this sort of intimacy and dreaminess and sort of intimate detachment—if that’s a meaningful oxymoron—that is in the piece. They worked that out together.”
And this is how an image of Ms. Gould, poured upside-down onto a rumpled bed wearing a camisole, no bra and a come-hither look, landed on New Yorkers’ laptops and brunch tables over Memorial Day weekend. The writer was involved in winnowing the photos to a dozen, Ms. Carucci said. Still, “when I saw the cover, I was shocked,” Ms. Gould said on the phone from Bryant Park on May 27. Did she feel a tad exploited? Ms. Gould paused. “Yeah, I really don’t want to talk about it.”
She referred Off the Record to an online Q&A she gave for the Times Web site, in which she describes the photos as “vaguely cheesecakey.” “I am starting to wish the Magazine had chosen to illustrate the piece some other way, though,” she wrote.
You have got to be kidding me.
Sigh. Okay – getting control of myself.
In the online interview, she says things like,
Q: Here is a question for Emily: Is the tenor of the posted comments going to change what you write about, or are you going to dismiss the opinions of hundreds of N.Y.T. readers and keep on with that blog of yours? Has this been a wakeup call for you that nobody cares about any of this? I certainly don’t. I couldn’t even bear to finish reading your blog (yes, it is a blog, not an article). Do you know how many people would have liked this kind of space and exposure? Shame on you for wasting the opportunity. You had better do something with this exposure worthwhile or you will have to answer to all the talented people who didn’t get the nod. But I won’t put my money on it. How’s that for “mean”? You aren’t the only one who can pull it off. (Go to Comment)
A: It is hard for me to dismiss the opinions of hundreds of N.Y.T. readers, not to mention the thousands of people who have posted negative comments elsewhere. Let me take this opportunity to try to figure out exactly what it is about me and what I’ve written here that’s inspiring such virulent hatred. The easy answer is, as you’ve said, that I am answering to “all the talented people who didn’t get the nod,” who “would have liked this kind of space and exposure.”
But maybe there’s something more complex going on than “haters are jealous.” This is just a theory, but I wonder sometimes about the way blogging has democratized and devalued writing, which used to be the exclusive province of professional writers. Now that anyone with five free minutes can start a blog, it’s unclear who gets to call himself a “writer.” Weirdly, it’s bloggers who seem the most heavily invested in policing the border between “real” writing and “bloggy” writing — it’s funny to me how many blogs dismissed my essay by calling it a really long blog post.
Wow – if that doesn’t sound like something straight out of the “ME” decade. And typical of the, you know, stereotype of the, you know, blogger always looking for attention.
Please, Emily, do us a favor and think:
No one should be hating you. I don’t. You did what you did – I wouldn’t have, but whatever. If you feel that the magazine exploited you, well, you have to think about how you make decisions and whether you might, you know, want to change that process.
I’m angry at the magazine and so should anyone else who thought that your piece was weird, being in the magazine. It’s the fact that the magazine could choose from more than 110 million blogs and/or bloggers, and they chose you and your story, neither of which do justice to the best of the blogs.
That’s my disappointment: that the MSM continues to refuse to select representative sets of people and product that do anything other than sell an already pre-packaged image they think people want to see more of, as opposed to shedding some good, positive light on so much that’s out there that you have to really hunt for to find, when it’s as worthy if not more worthy of so much ink.
For example, Beth Kanter. Why didn’t the NYT chose her and all the amazing stuff she’s done? If that’s not worth the cover of the NYT mag, truly, what is? They gave her a quick mention here and, although I don’t know Beth personally, I know of her work and social media mavenness. And her blog.
Or, why not a montage of stories about female writers who blog, or female bloggers who write?
Why not the BlogHer founders whom the NYT Tech section featured a little over a year ago, and all the wild and crazy and different stuff in that community? How about a follow-up on them and their impact? They got Barack Obama to sit down with them for goodness sakes.
Sigh.
How about some of the 400 or more political bloggers who are women? And don’t blog “just” about “women’s issues”?
Whatever. It’s the NYT. I wrote them my thoughts.
Now, Emily, get over it and make better choices next time, if you are so mortified about this choice.
Update: and another thing, bloggers of color. How about some space for them? I know I mean that when I refer to 400 political bloggers who are women, but I want it stated – where are the stories on the bloggers of color, men, women, whomever?
Gawd. The MSM is driving me nuts.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:40 pm May 28th, 2008 in Blogging, Business, Culture, Gender, Marketing, Media, Social Issues, Women, Writing
Comments
14 Responses to “Emily Gould, blogger on NYT cover, may feel exploited but she’s no Miley”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Hi Jill,
Yep, we are clearly vibing with each other across the miles. I think it reflects just how myopic the New York Times can be. It’s as if they thought this young woman could be their very own Carrie Bradshaw. Let somebody else figure out why Johnny and Jenny can’t read, why their parents got stuck with a subprime mortgage at the same time, and why everybody’s over an oil barrel these days. We’re too busy worrying about whether Em will make it with the new bf, how the bff feels, and what’s next in shoewear now that Manolo’s are oh, so, 2004. As I said before, gag me.
I am really angry, I mean, really angry,.
First, you know, the NYT – they are what they are – we can write them etc. but the impact is easily deflected.
Second, this woman – Gould – she is 26 – what is with her/us/culture that she’s decided this was all okay? What messages are being sent, received and also deflected? Do we have any responsibility for it?
And couple this with the WaPo yesterday saying that they can’t get women on the oped pages – but the NYT will pay $15,000 for what Gould wrote!?!?!
SERIOUSLY. Ok – now I am really irate.
And then, did you see the WaPo oped today aby Ruth Marcus about how the glass ceiling is our own fault?
Ok – I’m having a crisis here. lol
We do and do and do – and this.
Taking a breath.
Ok – now – what else do we do??
And – I apologize – really sincerely. I realized the no WOC or POC in the NYT blog attention and even when I went through a few that could have been subjects, I didn’t include POC right away – and I should have. I’m working on that.
But that must make you even more gaggy.
Kim – did you get that BlogHer Hero thing yet???
Hi Jill,
Why isn’t the New York Times writing about women bloggers of substance? I’ll give you three words: They’re not sexy. At least according to the New York Times.
The old Grey Lady is trying to be “hip” and “with it” and “down with the “Y” or “Z” generation”…or whoever the Emily Gould generation is.
I spent an hour reading that article and came away thinking, is that it?
Now after hearing about that $15,000 payout, I might have to go back and rethink my post as well!
Megan
Hi Megan,
Thanks for visiting and leaving a comment.
I am being told that $15K is actually somewhat low for the NYT magazine but regardless, it’s a content complaint – as you point out.
I do like the magazine, often, and they do frequently do stories about things we know nothing about.
But I really cannot see how there is a single new thing in that piece. And it’s not like the NYT mag is a literary journal.
But I hear you about the not sexy. It would be if they made it that way – that is, if people associated the excitement, risk, adventure, newness, daringness, edginess of so much else that goes on in the blogs with stories about the other things that go on in the blogs.
But nope.
Ok – here it comes: where were the women making the editorial decision? Did you notice in that New York Observer piece – they talk about the editors involved – they are all men.
Jill:
This is going to sound like one of those guys who run around in camo looking for black helicopters — but consider how often Ohio bloggers have observed that MSM (especially major MSM like the NYT) _want_ to make bloggers look silly, because they see bloggers as such a threat to them. Bloggers are daily gaining credibility with the public. We are a threat, not only to them, but to the neat, tidy, undemocratic, elite-driven society they want to foist upon us. It is in insult to everyone’s intelligence, but so far, they have been getting away with it.
Obviously, Emily advanced their agenda very nicely.
I may not be able to feel your pain, but I certainly can _imagine_ it. Oh, and don’t worry, I am too out of shape (among other things) to be one of those guys who run around in camo looking for black
helicopters
Harold
Hey, if the black helicopter is going after those NYT editors, more power to ya!
You are right – you make a very good point. Thanks for commenting.
Hi Jill. I have to agree with Harold…The MSM has no desire to take bloggers (especially women bloggers) seriously. So this article is promoting their agenda.
But, it still makes me mad as hell too.
Catherine.
Jill:
Believe it or not, I hadn’t read the article in NYM until this morning when the LA Times wrote an article about it in the Calendar section. I was thrilled they were writing about a woman blogger until I went online and read the article. I’ll admit, I read through the long 10 pages and then even went so far as to Google for more information. But really, at the end of the day, it made me angry. Okay. She wrote what she wrote. She did what she did. No biggie. But, feel sorry for her? Jesus H. That’s like feeling sorry for celebrities when the paparazzi is standing outside their kid’s school ready to take a picture. Hey, you got what you wanted.
Hi Catherine – I can just imagine, knowing how much time you put into compiling the list of women political bloggers. It’s infuriating – it also makes them look SO lazy. They deserve their demise if this is what they are going to offer up.
Why isn’t their opinion and/or knowledge of what we want adjusting? I know that even the BlogHer survey showed that a huge portion of women do still read for fashion, lifestyle etc. But it’s the NYT Magazine – come on.
LOL – I’m finding my inner disruption personality and how.
Thanks for the shout out .. but I’m much more honored to be mentioned here on your blog than MSM ..:-)
Jill,
I think Harold has a point. It isn’t that the article was so offensive. It was boring, vapid and egocentric, but harmless, I guess. It’s just so damned odd that the NYT chose to elevate it to the position of real journalism. I mean, when I think of all of the bloggers writing really groundbreaking, interesting stuff that MATTERS, I’m left wondering why a venerable news organization would choose to promote one of the least compelling forms of blogging.
Nothing about Gould squares with the sharp women I read in the blogosphere (and I include you in that group). But she does square with the MSM steretype of bloggers as navel-gazing, attention-craving light weights.
Tami, first – thank you – that is a real compiment and if readers haven’t been reading Tami’s blog, well, you just don’t know (so go read her blog!)
And second, you are right – the choice to elevate the story, you and Harold and others, and I guess I didn’t articulate it too well, but also, I agree, is the real failing and harm in this situation. I don’t mean to take it out on Emily – I should apologize for that, but let me ask – are we saying then that it IS too much to expect that she might have turned down the story? Is that unreasonable? (That’s a sincere thinking out loud – because, well, $15K for a freelancer is still $15K).
For example, it’s one thing for me, when people are looking around for Ohio political blogs and ask me if I’m interested in something – with no money involved – to say, yeah, fine but I’m REALLY not the best for Ohio politics for certain reasons, please contact so and so.
But if it’s the NYT, would it be a lot harder?
I would like to think that, for me, it wouldn’t be, but I have financial security that others don’t or may not have – so I can SAY that I would turn it down, but would I? And should I?
Hmmm.
I still want to get to how we get those darn editors to make better, different more breaking with the norm choices.
How do we do that? Do we have to sacrifice that freelance fee and exposure, no pun intended?
I don’t know – what do you think??
Jill:
You may not be in a good position to alter the _national_ perception of women bloggers, but you are in an _excellent_ position to alter _Ohio’s_ perception! I know of the run-ins you have had with the _Plain Dealer_, but other newspapers that have not struggled as much with political blogging might be open to articles that would treat women more fairly. To name the two with which I am familiar: _The Canton Repository_, which was an early-adopter to Web technology for a smaller city newspaper; and the _Columbus Dispatch_, which has political blogs, but which are maintained only by staff writers. You could also check with Pho and Lisa Renée on their take about the _Blade_ and the _Beacon Journal_.
This is an application of one of my cardinal principles: The first step to independence is to begin thinking like an independent nation. You might not be able to change America’s perceptions, but you can change Ohio’s.
Harold
Wow, Harold what a great comment to help start off the week! Thank you.
Joe Hallett at the Dispatch actually has had a change of heart around blogs but I haven’t been reading too much of his work lately unless it comes up in an alert or something – I’m not reading too much of ANYTHING right now unless it comes up special! The Repository also comes in a lot of my “alerts” but I will keep an eye out.
I agree with you that people one at a time can make a change. There’s a great book called Swimmy by Leo Leoni and it has a great picture of how one fish that is different from all the others ends up being the “eye” of the entire group. I’ll have to try and find it and post it – it’s a great image to match your words. Thanks.