Being Amber Rhea

Still not feeling up to writing a post of my own, and things are basically shit; but, here’s a repost from BlogHer:

If you can’t make it to BlogHer ‘08 in San Francisco this year, maybe you can join us in one of our SIX “Reach Out Tour” cities this fall? We’ll be condensing our annual event into one-day extravaganzas in Boston, DC, Nashville, Greensboro, Atlanta and New Orleans. And you can register now for any or all of them!

We’re still finalizing the various agendas, but you can expect each city’s sessions to feature fantastic speakers, relevant sessions, and a lot of local flair. Plus, we’ll have a track just for beginners (so if you know someone — your friend, sister, mother, grandmother, neighbor — who should be blogging if she just had the right tools and motivation, send her over!).

Read more about the Reach Out Tour on our official Conference Blog, or simply click on the city below to learn more about where, when, how much and how to register:

October 11 - BlogHer BOSTON

October 13 - BlogHer DC

October 16 - BlogHer NASHVILLE

October 18 - BlogHer GREENSBORO

October 21 - BlogHer ATLANTA

October 25 - BlogHer NEW ORLEANS

As of now, I’m on the fence about whether I’ll go. BlogHer ‘07 was a lot of fun, but I just haven’t decided about this Atlanta version. Not sure if I want to pay $100 to hang out with a lot of the same people I hang out with anyway. Fortunately, there’s plenty of time to decide.

There are few people inhabiting certain corners of the blogosphere in which I move who (whom?) I find to be bullies and/or “queen bee” types. To name names would certainly bring the Wrath of the Goddesses upon my head - so I’ll be willfully obtuse and arguably passive-aggressive instead. But eventually my annoyance might boil over; so consider this a forewarning.

Also, tag links aren’t working now that I’ve upgraded to WordPress 2.5.1. Boooo.

ETA: Bumped up from comments:

I realize this post was not very fair of me. *shrug* I’ve just been feeling annoyed, and I guess I felt some compulsion to put some evidence of my annoyance “out there” - even if in a way that raises questions (and eyebrows) and puts people on the defensive.

So yeah, like I said, not very fair of me. And yet I felt like I “needed” to do it. Sometimes I can be weird. :P

Seriously. What the hell, people.

On that increasingly headdesk-inducing thread - where the word “strawman” would be applicable, but I loathe that word, so I’m refraining from using it for now - I said (double blockquotes are me quoting someone else):

Feminism is about standing up for women, all women, I agree. I do struggle with standing up for a woman who as First Lady would be part of implementing anti-women policies, but gotta do it anyway. Pretty far down on my list though. Really far down. Somewhere below “check out Laura Bush’s chili recipe” and “what is Phyllis Schlafly up to these days?”

I think you’re still missing the point. I didn’t read this post as a defense of Cindy McCain, or really anything specific to her at all - she was an example, of which there are countless others. The point I got was, it’s not okay to vilify women based on some perceived stereotypical external traits that we really know jack shit about. If we talk shit about a woman for being blonde and thin, we’re no better than the assholes we call out for talking shit about a woman being the opposite.

and:

But even if we DID prove that her policies were not egalitarian, which to me is unclear at this point, it STILL doesn’t give us license to call her a Barbie or “stupid hair” or Stepford.

And this is REALLY Feminism 101. How many of us have lamented the seeming inability of men to argue with us based on our views, and not bring our looks into it? Surely we’ve all noticed that attacks on a woman’s looks are de rigeur when one disagrees with her. We need to lead by example. You can absolutely HATE a woman’s position on certain issues, hell, her entire philosophy on LIFE - but that does not give you license to attack her looks. I cannot stand Ann Coulter - I think she’s a hateful person. But you’ll never hear me making cracks about her looks. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for other self-identified progressives. (”Man Coulter,” anyone?)

and:

But what does that boil down to, dismissing? Is it dismissive to not write laudatory blog posts about CMcC? Is it ok if I simply ignore her?

Seems like you’re arguing against an argument Octo (nor anyone else on this thread) did not actually make. It’s not about whether or not you like Cindy McCain. It’s about using sexist language to refer to her (or any other woman). That’s NOT OKAY no matter who the woman is. You can hate her guts, but if you start taking jabs at her looks or calling her a cunt or what-have-you, you’ve crossed a line into unacceptable territory.

and lastly:

Calling someone a Stepford isn’t so much an insult as naming her oppression.

Nope, what it’s doing is taking away her agency, much in the same way as this bullshit.

I do not see why this is a difficult concept.

You can hate Cindy McCain, but you cannot substitute critiques of her *looks* for critiques of her *political views* and expect the argument that sexist language is unacceptable to hold a whole hell of a lot of water elsewhere.

Repost from the comments on this (excellent!) post by Octogalore…

—

Anyway. Looking at older, well-off women (“OWW”) as foreign creatures – moms, or well-off friends’ moms… sometimes, I want to say: how do you know that won’t be you? Why are you so sure these people have no relationship to you or your interests? You really never know. And you really don’t know if, in becoming… that… you’d lose your humanity, perspective, values.

THANK YOU!!!

That’s one of the things that bugs me the most about this whole theme. And it’s not just the age thing, but the “age-with-money” thing. Like, if you reach a certain age, and/or have a certain amount of money, suddenly some evil fairy touches you with their wand and you become “out of touch?”

The money thing in particular, I find quite offensive. As if it’s bad to have money. As if it’s bad to achieve monetary success. I’m sorry, but a whole lot of it reeks of jealousy and cluelessness. And I feel like I can’t say any of this very many places, because people will be like, “Oh yeah? Well, PRIVILEGE!!! You just say that because you must be rich, and you don’t know what it’s like to deal with blah blah blah…”

Oh really?

And those kinds of assumptions make me LIVID. How DARE you (general “you”) assume anything about my past, or my present for that matter, based on the fact that I don’t think having money is the worst sin ever? Having money allows one to do things to help others! Not that you can’t help others without a ton of money, but it sure doesn’t hurt! The economic leverage allows you to do some very concrete things to effect change.

I don’t come from money. AT ALL. I make a decent living in my job now, but I doubt I’ll ever shake the underlying fear/knowledge that the bottom could fall out at any time. That it’s all so tenuous. This is something that I don’t observe in my friends who grew up with a relatively more stable economic situation. They don’t get nervous dropping a few hundred dollars on, say, a new TV, if they have a few thousand in the bank and some savings to boot. Why should they?

Anyway, I’m rambling, and veering all over the place. I hope this makes sense. And aw hell, I might end up reposting it as a post on my own blog.

I’ve been pondering what it would be like - or if it’s desirable, or even possible - to take a “write as if nobody’s reading” approach to this blog. What if I actually did that? I wonder if it’s doable, because then I could potentially be compromising other people’s privacy where their lives intersect w/ mine. That’s always one of the biggest considerations w/ “life blogging” (or, “blogging,” as we old-schoolers call it) to any degree. But also, if I actually wrote some of the stuff I think, without a filter or an appropriately saccharine coating, about, say, certain happenings in certain portions of Ye Olde Blogosphere, would I be inviting exactly the drama I try to avoid in my life? Can I really expect to “talk smack” (that’s how it would look to readers, anyway) and not have people talk back?

So should I keep quiet, or at least reserve certain thoughts for my super-old-school paper journal (which I write in sporadically at best), out of a desire to minimize drama?

I really do not like drama.

From Violet Blue’s post that I’ve had pinned in Bloglines for a couple weeks. I don’t like the use of “fame whore” (as we’ve seen!) but she didn’t write that part; and the overall sentiment remains.

For every fame whore blogger — and there are those out there, we both know them — there are so many whose blogs and writing are quiet demonstrations of confidence. By being “out there” the way you are, fiercely without apologies, I’m hopeful that the generation of women after you, me, and Emily, won’t ever fall victim to that self-doubt, and will tell any guy who gets shitty with her for “oversharing” to go fuck themselves.

Now when will I be able to make the self-effacing voices in my head shut up?

I’ve had this pinned in Bloglines for a while now. I quoted from it on my Tumblr, too. I guess I kept thinking I’d come back and write more lengthy commentary, but I realize there isn’t much else I could say, other than just: I relate. So I submit now without comment, a rather lengthy excerpt from Miss Syl’s post Type cast.

One thing that’s interesting about this internet world–and the written word in general–is the perception aspect. That is, the perceptions one builds of the people one reads. Much like reading a book where you create a mental image of the character, people read a blogger’s words and filter them through their own imaginations and experience. And whether deliberately or no, a picture of what the person would be like to interact with in “real life” develops–you invent an imaginary voice for the person, an imaginary height, body type…you think you “get” how that person would move or respond or act in real life.

I suppose this response is only natural. But it’s good to remember that this imagined perception is all you, not them.

…

Assumption #3: Because I talk about sex it means I want to fuck you, or that I’m an emotion-free Fembot designed specifically for your pleasure.

This one I feel really deserves no explanation–it should be an obvious fact of life. But it is shocking to me how often men themselves are shocked by a woman who will talk about sex with frankness and openly say she enjoys it. And equally shocking to me are the assumptions some of them make based on that reality. I mean, come on fellas, is it really that rare these days? When a GUY talks to you about sex, do you assume he wants to fuck you, regardless of his orientation?

So for the record: just because I talk about sex with you doesn’t mean I want to have sex with you. It means simply that I like talking about sex as one of many topics I enjoy talking about. It doesn’t mean I am trying to turn you on, even if you do get turned on. Saying that I enjoy sex doesn’t mean I’m thinking of having it with you. Necessarily. Of course, any of those conditions may be true: in some cases I might want to fuck the guy I’m talking to, or tease him to arousal, or I might be thinking about having sex with him. But this is not the rule by a long shot.

…

End point: A blog gives you very little to go on. Even when people are totally genuine, we are all of us more than we appear in the little glimpses of ourselves we give you. I myself have been surprised multiple times when I’ve met online people in real life and something about them has completely clashed with my perception of them.

And, I will end by posing to my readers the same questions Miss Syl poses to hers (the “what do I look like” one is less relevant, since I post plenty of photos).

I’m curious: Just for fun, what image of me do/did you have in your head? What do I look like, sound like, act like, dress like? I promise to debunk all misconceptions offered with the real picture (unless you ask me not to).

And for those of you who already know me off blog a bit–or for anyone else–what misperceptions do you run into most between your writing and in-the-flesh selves?

Check out these interviews Rachel Kramer Bussel did with me, Viviane, and Twanna. They’re a precursor to an upcoming Huffington Post piece. Here’s an excerpt from my interview:

How do you see the “sexual community” where you live vs. the community you’ve found online? What do online communities offer that offline ones don’t regarding sexual openness?

It’s not always a simple matter of delineating “online” and “offline” community; the beauty of social media is that those barriers are breaking down. My online community is my offline community. Maybe not all the time, when things like geographic distance comes into play; but all these people who knew of each other thanks to the internet came together at Sex 2.0 and had a really kick-ass time in Atlanta.

But speaking of geographic barriers, online community can fill the gaps when people aren’t able to get together IRL. If you live in an isolated area, you might feel pretty cut off from others who share your sexual interests; but with access to the internet, suddenly you’re not so alone anymore.

Also, online, people may feel more comfortable talking about things that are painful or embarrassing for them to discuss face-to-face. This is a useful facet of online community regardless of what one’s offline community looks like.

He is, apparently, now a regular blogger at Feministe.

This is the first of two loosely-related posts about my thoughts on the current state of the feminist blogosphere - both in general terms, and wrt specific blogs/situations. In the past few months there have been more than a few things that have left a bad taste in my mouth, and I’ve been struggling to put my feelings into words (and also just plain did not have time for a while, as Sex 2.0 was looming on the horizon). Fortunately, Octogalore, Donna Darko, and Apostate have been kicking ass in that area.

But for now, back to Thomas at Feministe.

I don’t subscribe to the Feministe RSS feed, so I read it sporadically - most often when someone whose blog I do subscribe to links to a post there. So a few days ago I was skimming the front page of Feministe and noticing the byline “Thomas” an awful lot. I wondered why the hell a dude was suddenly the most prolific blogger on a feminist blog - and, as I read his posts, pretty much all of them made me squirm.

I mentioned before how I was thoroughly unpleased with his throwaway paragraph, peppered heavily with paternalism, about Deborah Jeane Palfrey. And then came this, which signaled the cue to end any feeling of obligation to “give him a chance” or whatever.

Super, super creepy post. The paternalism, the othering, the “white knight” feel of it all, the talk of jerking off to her hot writing and oh isn’t it awful that she was raped in the same paragraph… FAIL.

And then someone came along and thanked him for all the writing he’s been doing about sex workers! What?? So when a man posts about female sex workers on a feminist blog, it’s just the cat’s meow… never mind all the blogs of actual sex workers that are out there, and almost never linked by Feministe or other prominent feminist blogs! (Gotta keep that filter up, right? Us, them… never the twain shall meet?)

Would people be okay with a white person as the main blogger on an anti-racist site? I think not. So why is it okay in this case?

Update: This post has been sitting half-written in draft mode for almost two days, and in the meantime I commented on the Feministe thread and apparently that comment got more people talking, and Thomas has apologized and said he will think about the criticism. So, good. Here’s hoping he’s for real.

…because I’m too tired* to do anything else. Sometimes cop-outs can work, though.

• As you may have seen if you follow my Twitter updates, I got into a little fender-bender yesterday morning. To be specific, I freakin’ backed into a parked car. :P Oh well… not much damage was done to either vehicle. Mine is getting repaired Thursday, and it costs less than my insurance deductible, so no need for a claim on my part. If the other driver has an issue, my insurance will take care of it. J. put a silver lining on the situation by pointing out that my new car would inevitably get dinged up at some point anyway, so at least I’ve gone ahead and gotten it out of the way - actively!
• We’re going to court Thursday. That’s all I’m going to say right now, but I’ll say more afterward. It should certainly be interesting, one way or another.
• This is also happening on Thursday, and Rusty and I will be there. I’ll need to remember to bring my “I’m Blogging This” T-shirt with me to change into, in case we don’t have time to go home after court. Other ATL bloggers, come on out! It should be a rollicking good time, especially if Susan Capaluto (sp?) shows up. (And is it just me, or does anybody else wonder why the Equifax guy is on the panel? That seems random.)
• On Friday I’m heading to Boston (well, Cambridge) for the Women, Action & the Media conference. The keynote speakers are Helen Thomas and Haifa Zangana. I’m excited! I’ll get to meet some bloggers I’ve read for a while, and Dacia and I will be sharing a hotel room so we can be shut-ins when the socializing gets too overwhelming. And I’m looking forward to Dacia’s session on sex workers and media representation; after the past couple weeks, she should have plenty to talk about! (Not as if she didn’t already!)
• Apparently my site, like a lot of Dreamhost sites, was down for a few hours today. One of these days I’ll actually switch hosts, I swear. Anyway, this means my del.icio.us links didn’t get posted today, which annoys me, because I had some good ones. I’ll probably post them manually tomorrow, but in particular I wanted to point out that this post really resonated with me, and I might have more to say on it later.
• I cross-posted my “Why I Quit Download Squad” treatise on BlogHer.
• Be sure to register for Sex 2.0 by Friday if you want to pay $40 instead of $50! Meanwhile, I will try not to freak out too much between now and April 12.
• I swear I’ll blog about the manicure thing one day. I have lots to say, oh yes. Dacia and I are getting manis and pedis Friday night in Boston. So maybe I’ll blog about it then!

* I’m a naturally sleepy person, but the Lexapro has made me feel downright fatigued. I don’t like that one bit. So this morning I cut the pill in half, and it seemed to help a bit. Hopefully that’ll be the way to go.

I’m feeling emotionally exhausted, and I haven’t done even a tiny fraction of what Dacia, Ren, Amanda, all the BNG folks, and more have been handling with grace for the past two days. I can’t imagine the constant interviews, last-minutes radio spots with angry callers, TV crews showing up at your apartment… well, okay, I can imagine it, and the thought leaves me feeling drained!

And now, we see that the NY Times has exposed the escort previously known as Kristen.

Real smart move there, credible, authentic, trustworthy, high-and-mighty MSM.

All the news that’s fit to print, right? You fucking assholes.

Look, it’s not that I’m surprised. I’m not surprised in the least; this is what sells papers, air time, ad space… duh. And yet MSM people continue to look us in the face and declare that it’s bloggers who are unconcerned with actual discussion, presenting facts, equal time… how can they say that with a straight face?? Meanwhile this shit could actually destroy this young woman’s life. You know that, right, NY Times? But you don’t give a shit. You want to break a good story. You won’t give a second thought to this actual person whose life you have put in real danger. You’ll forget about her by next week.

And like I said, I’m not surprised. All media outlets want to break a good story… sensational is good… I get it. You don’t have to tell me. They don’t care… no shock there.

But I wish it weren’t this way. Maybe this is the nasty side of capitalism (which I generally think isn’t so bad)? Or maybe it has nothing to do with capitalism - it’s just the way media works. I’m inclined to go with the latter, but as an eternal optimist (often at my peril), I have to believe that it doesn’t have to work that way. It can change. Everything can.

Right?

Edit: Or, as Amanda succinctly put it, “Notice how there doesn’t seem to be a single ethical quibble in outing this young woman who obviously has another career in the works.”

The bad (awful, horrible, heart-wrenching) news it that on December 10, blogger and sex worker Razor Mick was stabbed six times and left for dead in a dumpster.

The good news (well, good given the situation) is that as of December 28, Razor Mick has been moved out of the ICU, and it’s looking like she’s going to make a full physical recovery.

It seems crass to remark on the closeness of this attack to the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, but the proximity of the dates did enter my mind as my stomach lurched.

Please keep Razor Mick in your thoughts, prayers, or whatever other goodwill-invoking mechanisms you prefer. Feel free to stop by her blog to leave some words of support, as her friends are passing all supportive messages along to her.

[Via Ren]

BarCamp Atlanta starts tonight, about an hour from now. Apparently we’ll be having dinner on the top level of a parking deck. Swanky!

I have no idea what to expect from BarCamp, but I’m looking forward to finding out. This will be my first hardcore, totally purist unconference (as in, no pre-planned schedule). I’ll try to do as much liveblogging (or pseudo-liveblogging) as possible and take lots of photos.

Kudos to Jeff Haynie for putting this together!

At this point, I’ve been to half a dozen social media unconferences, and at almost all of them, there has been much discussion about how/why/if PR and marketing folks should “reach out” to The Bloggers.

Should PR and marketing departments be embracing social media? Of course they should; and fortunately, a lot of them seem to be past the if and focusing on the how. But for some reason, that’s where there seems to be a major roadblock to understanding.
Read the full post »

The title of this post was going to be something like, “Maw! I’m on the TeeVee!” but Griftdrift already did that. So instead I went with basic and search engine friendly.

Grayson will be creating videos for the Huffington Post’s Off The Bus section on a regular basis, and you can see the first one here. It was recorded Tuesday night at everyone’s home away from home: Manuel’s Tavern. Her intro spiel cracks me up. And oh yeah, I give a sound bite in there, too.

(And here’s hoping for fewer old white guys enamored with the sound of their own voice in future videos!)

See also: Rusty’s interpretive Photoshopping of his sound bite from the video.

I meant to post this sooner; but, as they say, better late than pregnant. Our AC was on the fritz this weekend, which meant a lot of time spent away from home (a 95° apartment is no place for me), and a lot of sleeping once the AC was back in action.

BlogHer recap posts from people I met there:

• AAG: So Here We Are at BlogHer and Thank You, Friendly Cabbie
• Cunning Minx: Sex bloggers meetup and Yay BlogHers!
• Susan Mernit: Blogher07: Sunday morning take-aways and Blogher: Surfing the Sex and Relationship bloggers
• Viviane: Back home from Blogher and Chicago

Heh, I suppose I’m officially a “sex blogger” now?

Well, that is fine with me! (And I feel humbled to be considered of the same caliber as many of those with whom I share the label.) As Rachel so eloquently put it:

I’ve been trying really, really hard of late to check myself from having to “apologize” or downplay that, yes, I do, write about sex. It’s easy as pie (or cupcakes) to fall into the trap of seeing writing about sex as lesser: less valuable, less challenging, less worthwhile. Of seeing all writing about sex as simply exhibitionistic without any greater purpose. I do it all the time and am learning to rethink those assumptions, not just for peace of mind about what I do, but because it makes the writing that much harder if you only half believe in its worth.

My conundrum in talking about this is that I don’t believe there inherently should be a greater purpose. I’m sickened by the current way we define obscenity legally, that every other value (scientific, artistic) comes first, that “prurient” is such an epithet.

RIGHT. ON.

In other news, I’m feeling a bit worried about the ongoing situation (approaching ’saga’ territory, in the lexicon of melodramatic bloggers) of my stripper pole. On the one hand, it would be fun and possibly arousing to listen to Rusty verbally strong-arm some folks; on the other hand, I just want the damn thing to be taken care of already, so I can practice. I already feel like I’m lagging woefully behind the rest of my Level 4 class, and I know the self-doubt isn’t making things any better.

Oh well… I would write more but I’m worried a bunch of assholes are going to swoop in and tell me to stop being so selfish, don’t I know there are people starving in [exotic location]?

Oh and one other thing: Ren, Kim, Belle, AP, Octo… much love to you all; I’m still not caught up on your blogs. Just wanted to make sure you know I’m not ignoring you!

Well, we’re here - at the Navy Pier for the start of the BlogHer conference. Right now most people are doing this “speed dating” introduction thing, but Rusty and I opted out because it’s just way too damn social. I know I should probably be taking this opportunity to force Sex 2.0 MOO Cards on people, but I just can’t handle it. So, instead, I’m doing what my T-shirt says I’m doing: blogging this. The wifi here is great, the schwag bags are amazing… well, generally everything is amazing so far.

The best way to follow me today will probably be Twitter, but even with that i don’t know how many updates I’ll be posting, since my top priority will be having fun, participating, and all that good stuff.

We had breakfast with AAG, Viviane, RKB, Susan Mernit, and a few other people whose names I can’t remember. Last night we had dinner w/ Viviane, RKB, Susan, Cunning Minx (who called me “perky and adorable” - ha!), and Lisa Williams. I’ll post photos when I get a chance!

So far I think Chicago is a great city. One thing we learned: there is apparently a shuttle from the Orange Line train to Navy Pier. We did not know that, and instead spent $75 on a cab this morning. Oh well, live and learn. It was the cab driver who told us about the shuttle, actually; and he was a really nice guy, he and Rusty had a grand old time talking about sports. So it could have been much worse.

Okay, that’s all for now… off to enjoy! :)

I am so excited about our soon-to-commence trip to Chicago.

We’ll arrive tomorrow afternoon at (purportedly) 4:35 p.m., whereupon we will travel to our accomodations* at the luxurious Midway Airport Sleep Inn. We’re classy like that.

Later that night, we’ll be meeting some sexy bloggerati for dinner: namely, Viviane, Cunning Minx (whose podcast was nominated for a Podcast Award; congrats!), Rachel Kramer Bussel, and Susan Mernit.

Friday morning is the start of the BlogHer conference. We’ll be meeting Always Aroused Girl at breakfast. Even though I’m sure I’ll be doing a fair amount of wandering, these are the break-out sessions I’m interested in attending Friday:

• 10:45: Digital Exhibitionists or Chroniclers of their Time: Will Naked Bloggers Make History?
• 1:30: Privacy, Exposure, Risk: Can you maintain safer spaces online?
• 2:45: Still a toss-up between Media Training and Does the Blogosphere Need an Intolerance Intervention?
• 4:30: Don’t feel strongly about any of ‘em, so it might be a good time to wander from room to room or do some blogging.

Friday night, we’ll be having dinner with some of the same folks from Thursday’s dinner, plus a few more - possibly including (OMG FAN-GIRL) Susie Bright. (!!!)

Saturday morning, it’ll be back to the conference! I’m planning to attend these break-out sessions:

• 10:30: Women Across the World
• 1:30: Blogging: the Voice For Silenced Communities
• 2:45: Sex & Relationship Blogging Behind Closed Doors, an Off-the-Record session

Not sure what’s happening Saturday night, but I think there’s going to be some sort of sex bloggers’ happy hour.

Sunday I think we’ll probably spend a fair amount of time relaxing, and then go to the Museum of Surgical Sciences. I doubt we’ll try to pack a whole lot of activity into that day. (It’s the Sabbath, after all.)

Monday we’ll be going to the Museum of Science and Industry to see the baby chick hatchery (squee!!) and whatever else we might want to look at that’s not as cute as baby chicks. Monday night, we’re going to a Cubs game.

Then, Tuesday morning, it’s back to the ATL! There will be tons of photos, and a decent amount of blogging and podcasting, too.

Btw, the BlogHer web site just launched a redesign, and it looks great!

* Firefox spell-check does not know the word “accomodations.” Weird.

Last night’s Social Media Club meeting was certainly better than last month’s! It was a smaller group - six of us - and I feel like we started to make some progress on investigating the issues of new media vs. traditional media (including, of course, the question of whether it has to be one versus the other) - but there’s a lot still to unpack. The thing that struck me the most last night was the use of certain terminology to both disparage new media and prop up traditional media. The word in question last night was “artistic.”

A guy named Mike, whom I hadn’t met before, criticized vloggers/vidcasters by saying they aren’t professional, they aren’t trained… etc., etc., all the usual stuff… but then: “Professional videographers know how to find the art in a shot.”

So, videographers in traditional media are artists, not just amateur hacks. And that’s a good thing.

But - remember last month’s meeting? - bloggers are artists, and that’s a bad thing. Real reporters are much more serious, you see. They’re not just artistic. They’re professional.

Honestly, I am baffled by this.

“Artistic” is, at once, a compliment to certain people, and a dismissive wave of the hand to other people. Bloggers are unprofessional, irresponsible, unreliable, amateur hacks - and part of the problem is that they’re too artistic. But, vloggers/vidcasters are also unprofessional, irresponsible, unreliable, amateur hacks - and the problem is that they are not artistic enough.

I mentioned this disconnect to the meeting participants, but the discussion ended up going in a different direction, and I never heard an explanation of why artistic is sometimes good and sometimes bad in media. I wonder if people just say these things without really thinking about what they’re saying. I’m not sure, which is why I would’ve liked to discuss it further. Interestingly, Mike and a few others seemed to get very defensive when I asked the question. I don’t think I asked it in a confrontational or accusatory manner; I was honestly curious. Like I said, I think there’s a lot to unpack here. And yeah, it might get uncomfortable at times, but really, that’s part of the point.

I don’t want to just write it all off as, “Well, old media types are scared, and they say reactionary things, using whatever terminology suits at the time.” Because I really do think there’s more to it than that (although certainly, there’s quite a bit of that, too). I think it’s worth exploring in more depth.

Other quick thoughts from last night:

• Why the continued emphasis on drawing and maintaining lines between “bloggers” and “journalists?” Why is the divide so important?
• How and why do certain bloggers (e.g., Michael Arrington, Arianna Huffington) come to be known as journalists, not “just” bloggers? What is the tipping point? Why are labels important, anyway?
• I’m tired of being discussed as a third-person concept. Bloggers this, bloggers that. HELLO. I am a blogger, and I’m sitting right here. Instead of making a bunch of grandiose generalizations about bloggers, talk to me. And listen.
• Frankly I’m getting pretty tired of being verbally kicked around and talked about in dismissive ways because I’m “just a blogger.” Well, I’m a person. It’s really not cool to sit there and talk about how stupid and unimportant a large, diverse group of people is, when a bunch of them are in the room - and expect them not to notice or not to mind.
• Why do some people see “bloggers” as a monolith? Is it honest ignorance (just not knowing much about blogging), or willful ignorance? Again, why is it important to maintain this monolithic view, and the distinction of “blogger” and “not a blogger?”
• Somebody said last night, as if it were a bad thing, “We could’ve been having this conversation in a bar” - ostensibly to lament that there weren’t more people, or it wasn’t more structured, I guess. But I was thinking, “Yes, we could - and that would be awesome!” I love having conversations like that, at a bar or anywhere else - let’s just leave the egos, the stupid little power trips, the weird superiority complexes, all the rest of it, at the door.
• When managing online communities, don’t start from a place of condescension or assumed superiority. It puts people on the defensive and (rightly) pisses them off. Also, people rise to the expectations set for them.

Would write more, but gotta get going for now. Looking forward to more conversations like this - some at bars, some in conference rooms. :)

ETA: This Gaping Void cartoon makes me laugh. I thought it was somewhat relevant to, well, not really last night’s meeting in particular, but just a general type of conversation that tends to go on at social media events and unconferences.

MSM hates bloggers, ah yes, that was it.*

Promoted from comments on Griftdrift’s (ZOMG NOT HIS REAL NAME) blog, because I like quoting myself, and sometimes comments on other people’s blogs lead to even greater glibness than my own blog posts:

That NPR thing was a hoot! Some of the most ridiculous hand-wringing I’ve heard in a long time. (Well… maybe not so long, come to think of it.) THE INTERNET WILL EAT YOUR CHILDREN.

Also, I can attest that Jmac has been called “Jmac” WAY before he ever had a blog. I’m talking about back when he was playing Doom (or was it Quake?) over a dial-up modem with his nerdy high school friends.

Finally, speaking of high school… this…

That’s the way we do things in the ol’ MSM (again for the uninitiated, that’s mainstream media, bane of the blogosphere). We use our real names, too. It’s called accountability.

OMG THAT IS SOOOO FREAKING HIGH SCHOOL!! The drama! Make it stop! “We use our real names… so THERE!”

Hey, I use my real name. But I’m sure they’d find something else to make fun of about my blog. Probably all the swearing. That’s usually the next thing they go to. “You said the F-word, so you’re not CREDIBLE!”

Also, I should reiterate what Griftdrift said:

Do my readers know any more about Jim Thompson than they do me? Does somehow a proper name combined with a surname make someone more real? Lend credibility?

Okay, time for bed now, before I end up writing a post about how an animated movie about dancing penguins is a political allegory addressing the relative merits of capitalism and socialism.

* Yes, yes, I know hate is too strong of a word. But it’s late, and I think it’s funny, and besides, if I don’t use “hate,” I can’t employ the “[x] hates America” meme, of which I never tire.

See? If you wear a chicken suit and hold a politically charged sign, the mainstream media will flock to you!

Click To Play

Way to go, Shelbinator!