To hear that new media is more diverse than the old media due to lower barriers to entry doesn’t answer the question.

Micah did say that there is a wealth shift of old – media that allows those to have a dominant presence. Which means it isn’t just about being good but that if you can spend full time hours getting paid to blog, good is inevitable. As they say practice makes perfect. That is a barrier to being recognized although entry has been lowered with the internet.

One of the things that really leapt out at me in this session is how every time somebody put issues of gender or race on the table, guys would change the subject. Business models, the future of investigative journalism, and old-new media squabbling are great topics and we can talk all day about them … however the agenda also included

Specifically talk about constructs of gender equality & how the “old boys club” may have found a new home within the political blogosphere

and it certainly seemed to me that the guys just didn’t want to go there.

Jen and Amanda both presented statistics highlighting inequities, and the closest anybody came to acknowledging them was when Micah incorrectly stated that new media was more diverse than old media. He then dismissed the idea of equality as “utopia” and “probably not what you want anyway” (or something like that). And then went back to talking about business models.

The session closed with people quoting Steven Johnson, Jeff Jarvis, and Michael Kinsley* and lauding the white male elitist dominated tech blogosphere as if it were a great example of where we should be going.

Grr. I hate that.

jon

* all guys, in case it’s not obvious, and none as far as i know with particular expertise in gender equity or diversity.