On Saturday, I posted about the New York Times and their coverage that same evening of the BlogHer 08 Conference in their online Fashion & Style section (The Sunday Styles section in the print version). I was particularly upset about where the paper placed the story and the overall tone of the article. I also wrote a brief letter to the editor that day that expressed my thoughts on the topic. You can read my post and my letter to the editor right here.
Yesterday, I got a phone call and an email from a New York Times editor in response to my letter, asking simply if I would please call her. So I did, about an hour later.
The contact is an editor for the Thursday and Sunday editions of the Times’ Styles section (known as the Fashion & Style section on the online version). She said she was contacting me because she wanted me to consider revising the letter I had written to the editor because they couldn’t publish it as it was. (She also mentioned that she had read my post and several others expressing similar criticism for the story and its placement).
So, naturally, I asked why. She said that my letter specifically criticized the placement of the story, which it did. But she went on to explain that the Times’ sections operate somewhat autonomously, and when one section gets a good story, they would never “give it away” to another section. She said that the section in which a story was placed was not something they “controlled”, but that it was based on which section editor got the story or whom the reporter chose to pitch.
Effectively, she told me that they wouldn’t publish my letter if it talked about the placement of the story since the section placement wasn’t “something [they] could respond to” and was something they “don’t have an answer for”. Instead, she suggested that if I framed my letter to focus instead on tone and content of the story itself, I could resubmit it to her directly for publication consideration.
What?
There’s a couple of big lessons to be learned here about proper outreach to your community, and how not to engage with bloggers.
Mistake #1
First of all, a letter to the editor is intended as an expression of opinion by the readership of a paper. A publication could reasonably edit a letter for length, but suggesting that content and intent of a letter be revised and resubmitted for the purposes of making it easier or more palatable to the paper isn’t reasonable (or ethical, in my view).
In this case, the Times didn’t want to publish my criticism of the editorial judgment because they would have then had to explain how and why stories get placed in specific sections. They also might have had to defend the content of their Style section and justify why it was a suitable place for the BlogHer story after all. So they’ve made my letter to the editor about what it does (or doesn’t do) for them, instead of about engaging and including the voice of their readers.
Lesson: When engage in dialogue with your community, you lose credibility and respect when you try to censor or influence that conversation just because you don’t like what’s being said.
Mistake #2
In our follow up correspondence after the phone call, the editor asked that, should I choose to blog again on this topic, I not reveal her name because she’s “not a higher-up in the section” and would “rather not be seen as speaking on behalf of the section in print.” However, her phone call to me was from her desk at the Times, and her email to me was from her New York Times email account. In both cases, she was clearly presenting herself as a representative of the paper whose duties, per her email to me, “include [responding] to letter writers.”
They say in journalism that nothing is ever truly off the record. The Times, however, via this editor, is asking to be exactly that.
Lesson: If you’re going to be a part of the conversation, be transparent. Own your viewpoint and speak as yourself. Otherwise, your community questions your motives and you lose their trust.
So what should they have done?
Here’s my take:
• Either chosen to publish my letter as it was, or chosen not to publish it as is their prerogative (after all, publication isn’t guaranteed). But never should their response have been to try and convince me to amend my opinion because they didn’t have a suitable response.
• Commented on my post. The editor mentioned that she’d read my blog post about it, and that gave her and the Times the perfect opportunity to engage in the conversation and contribute their perspective.
• Respected my stance rather than trying to influence it. They didn’t have to agree with me. But trying to get me to revise my letter to the editor or suggest how I should treat future blog posts tells me that they’d rather control the message than have a discussion.
Let me be clear that I think the Times, in theory, made the right move by reaching out to someone who is clearly speaking up about them, and to them. Engagement is much better than ignoring. But the question becomes what does more damage: Not responding at all, or responding and trying to influence a letter writer or blogger to amend their content?
I think the piece itself and the editor’s response to my letter underscores the lack of respect that the Times has for bloggers, their readers, and their influence within the larger media community. The overall tone of the exchange with the editor, while courteous and friendly on the surface, leads me to think that the Times not only wants to unduly influence the conversation, but that they might be taking this ill-advised approach with other bloggers, too.
This whole situation highlights an archaic and potentially damaging system that papers like the Times are using to determine where their stories run. I think they ought to be rethinking this for the sake of integrity.
So what do you think? How would you have reacted to such a request? Do you think the New York Times handled this correctly? If not, what should they have done differently and what are the lessons to be learned?
Amber Naslund (@ambercadabra on Twitter) is a communications and business strategist and the Director of Community for 
Tamsen McMahon (@tamadear on Twitter) is a communications and branding strategist who consults, writes, and speaks in service of helping people and organizations make change happen. She’s the Director of Digital and Strategic Initiatives at 
{ 68 comments }
← Previous Comments
"Once you decide that blogging is your business, you then work to brand yourself, and that is when you now have an agenda. Randomly reviewing blogs is not only an agenda, but egotistical and arrogant… which you happen to be guilty of."
LOL! Sorry, but I'm changing the channel back. Plenty of us make 'blogging' our 'business'. And plenty of us know what blogging can, and cannot do for other businesses. Some don't.
"I missed where bloggers as a GROUP were ignored. They were in fact featured. I also missed the part where the GROUP was talked down to."
Sticking a group of business bloggers in the fashion and style section based on gender, is a sign of condescension, and ignorance. Bet they also thought that probably less than 1% of Blog Her attendees have a blog-related business.
"As for them heeding her advice, the NYT Editor did indeed reply to a properly formatted request, as opposed to a submission to the Op-Ed Letters to the Editor section. In fact, he went into quite a bit of detail to educate the masses as to both how the article ended up in that section, and what the section actually contains.
I think, she needs to heed her own advice:
Engagement is much better than ignoring."
Speaking of which, why didn't the NYT editor, the same one that told Amber she read this blog, bother to reply and engage us here?
Any ideas?
"As for the NYT trying to influence bloggers… did they give bloggers a $500 gift card to their new line of home furnishings the same way that JCPenney did for 20 members of BlogHer? Is the NYT really wrong for placing them in the Style & Fashion section as you claim?"
And Saturn also let Blog Her attendees drive their cars before, so going by your logic above, shouldn't that suggest that this article should have run in the automotive section?
"It seems Amanda is guilty of the very thing she accuses the NYT of doing… it's something she doesn't have an answer for."
Quite fitting that you make this comment, and in the same breath forget the name of the person you are attempting to comment on.
"On a final note, regarding Social Media, I don't think anyone says its a fad or that it isn't going somewhere. The truth is, it is going into the future… but at some point the truth that content is not king and presentation matters will reveal itself. Being on Blogspot is not a sign of being serious about what your doing. It is a sign of a glorified hobbyist."
LMAO! Sorry but try as I might, I can't take anyone seriously that punctuates their 'stance' by attempting to insult someone based on their blogging platform.
But that zinger does put me back in the lead for Dr Pepper showers on the laptop
LOL! Sorry, but I’m changing the channel back. Plenty of us make ‘blogging’ our ‘business’. And plenty of us know what blogging can, and cannot do for other businesses. Some don’t.
It is true, there are plenty out there, but very very few who can deliver the actual goods.
Sticking a group of business bloggers in the fashion and style section based on gender, is a sign of condescension, and ignorance. Bet they also thought that probably less than 1% of Blog Her attendees have a blog-related business.
The problem is that the BlogHer bloggers are not business bloggers. In fact, they are a variety of genres with the only common denominator being their gender. The fact they are trying to turn their blogs INTO a business does not make them qualify for the business section.
Speaking of which, why didn’t the NYT editor, the same one that told Amber she read this blog, bother to reply and engage us here?
Any ideas?
I already pointed out the NYT Editor for the Style section providing an answer that was sent to him as opposed to the Opinions Editor, but since there is no information given about this “phantom Editor”, I cannot hypothesis the reason other than this is a very small blip on a very large radar.
And Saturn also let Blog Her attendees drive their cars before, so going by your logic above, shouldn’t that suggest that this article should have run in the automotive section?
Really? I thought it was a Chevy Tahoe. Actually it would depend on the focus of the Automotive section, which usually focuses on pricing, features, and the automotive industry. It does not focus on personal experiences with a car, but the unopinionated facts of the vehicle.
Quite fitting that you make this comment, and in the same breath forget the name of the person you are attempting to comment on.
Which was done unintentionally, and for that I do apologize, but it does go to prove my point about who Amber actually chose to address her letter to. The wrong person.
LMAO! Sorry but try as I might, I can’t take anyone seriously that punctuates their ’stance’ by attempting to insult someone based on their blogging platform.
But that zinger does put me back in the lead for Dr Pepper showers on the laptop
Another point proven. For so called professionals to think that all blogging platforms are created equally is a huge disservice to their purported “clients” by feeding their delusions of grandeur. As mentioned previously, there are plenty of people out there who make “blogging” their “business”, so you need to differentiate yourself from the others to be successful. Being on Blogspot does not do that at all. Seriously.
I truly hope you have a killer service plan for that laptop.
LOL! Sorry, but I’m changing the channel back. Plenty of us make ‘blogging’ our ‘business’. And plenty of us know what blogging can, and cannot do for other businesses. Some don’t.
It is true, there are plenty out there, but very very few who can deliver the actual goods.
Sticking a group of business bloggers in the fashion and style section based on gender, is a sign of condescension, and ignorance. Bet they also thought that probably less than 1% of Blog Her attendees have a blog-related business.
The problem is that the BlogHer bloggers are not business bloggers. In fact, they are a variety of genres with the only common denominator being their gender. The fact they are trying to turn their blogs INTO a business does not make them qualify for the business section.
Speaking of which, why didn’t the NYT editor, the same one that told Amber she read this blog, bother to reply and engage us here?
Any ideas?
I already pointed out the NYT Editor for the Style section providing an answer that was sent to him as opposed to the Opinions Editor, but since there is no information given about this “phantom Editor”, I cannot hypothesis the reason other than this is a very small blip on a very large radar.
And Saturn also let Blog Her attendees drive their cars before, so going by your logic above, shouldn’t that suggest that this article should have run in the automotive section?
Really? I thought it was a Chevy Tahoe. Actually it would depend on the focus of the Automotive section, which usually focuses on pricing, features, and the automotive industry. It does not focus on personal experiences with a car, but the unopinionated facts of the vehicle.
Quite fitting that you make this comment, and in the same breath forget the name of the person you are attempting to comment on.
Which was done unintentionally, and for that I do apologize, but it does go to prove my point about who Amber actually chose to address her letter to. The wrong person.
LMAO! Sorry but try as I might, I can’t take anyone seriously that punctuates their ’stance’ by attempting to insult someone based on their blogging platform.
But that zinger does put me back in the lead for Dr Pepper showers on the laptop
Another point proven. For so called professionals to think that all blogging platforms are created equally is a huge disservice to their purported “clients” by feeding their delusions of grandeur. As mentioned previously, there are plenty of people out there who make “blogging” their “business”, so you need to differentiate yourself from the others to be successful. Being on Blogspot does not do that at all. Seriously.
I truly hope you have a killer service plan for that laptop.
LOL! Sorry, but I’m changing the channel back. Plenty of us make ‘blogging’ our ‘business’. And plenty of us know what blogging can, and cannot do for other businesses. Some don’t.
It is true, there are plenty out there, but very very few who can deliver the actual goods.
Sticking a group of business bloggers in the fashion and style section based on gender, is a sign of condescension, and ignorance. Bet they also thought that probably less than 1% of Blog Her attendees have a blog-related business.
The problem is that the BlogHer bloggers are not business bloggers. In fact, they are a variety of genres with the only common denominator being their gender. The fact they are trying to turn their blogs INTO a business does not make them qualify for the business section.
Speaking of which, why didn’t the NYT editor, the same one that told Amber she read this blog, bother to reply and engage us here?
Any ideas?
I already pointed out the NYT Editor for the Style section providing an answer that was sent to him as opposed to the Opinions Editor, but since there is no information given about this “phantom Editor”, I cannot hypothesis the reason other than this is a very small blip on a very large radar.
And Saturn also let Blog Her attendees drive their cars before, so going by your logic above, shouldn’t that suggest that this article should have run in the automotive section?
Really? I thought it was a Chevy Tahoe. Actually it would depend on the focus of the Automotive section, which usually focuses on pricing, features, and the automotive industry. It does not focus on personal experiences with a car, but the unopinionated facts of the vehicle.
Quite fitting that you make this comment, and in the same breath forget the name of the person you are attempting to comment on.
Which was done unintentionally, and for that I do apologize, but it does go to prove my point about who Amber actually chose to address her letter to. The wrong person.
LMAO! Sorry but try as I might, I can’t take anyone seriously that punctuates their ’stance’ by attempting to insult someone based on their blogging platform.
But that zinger does put me back in the lead for Dr Pepper showers on the laptop
Another point proven. For so called professionals to think that all blogging platforms are created equally is a huge disservice to their purported “clients” by feeding their delusions of grandeur. As mentioned previously, there are plenty of people out there who make “blogging” their “business”, so you need to differentiate yourself from the others to be successful. Being on Blogspot does not do that at all. Seriously.
I truly hope you have a killer service plan for that laptop.
LOL! Sorry, but I’m changing the channel back. Plenty of us make ‘blogging’ our ‘business’. And plenty of us know what blogging can, and cannot do for other businesses. Some don’t.
It is true, there are plenty out there, but very very few who can deliver the actual goods.
Sticking a group of business bloggers in the fashion and style section based on gender, is a sign of condescension, and ignorance. Bet they also thought that probably less than 1% of Blog Her attendees have a blog-related business.
The problem is that the BlogHer bloggers are not business bloggers. In fact, they are a variety of genres with the only common denominator being their gender. The fact they are trying to turn their blogs INTO a business does not make them qualify for the business section.
Speaking of which, why didn’t the NYT editor, the same one that told Amber she read this blog, bother to reply and engage us here?
Any ideas?
I already pointed out the NYT Editor for the Style section providing an answer that was sent to him as opposed to the Opinions Editor, but since there is no information given about this “phantom Editor”, I cannot hypothesis the reason other than this is a very small blip on a very large radar.
And Saturn also let Blog Her attendees drive their cars before, so going by your logic above, shouldn’t that suggest that this article should have run in the automotive section?
Really? I thought it was a Chevy Tahoe. Actually it would depend on the focus of the Automotive section, which usually focuses on pricing, features, and the automotive industry. It does not focus on personal experiences with a car, but the unopinionated facts of the vehicle.
Quite fitting that you make this comment, and in the same breath forget the name of the person you are attempting to comment on.
Which was done unintentionally, and for that I do apologize, but it does go to prove my point about who Amber actually chose to address her letter to. The wrong person.
LMAO! Sorry but try as I might, I can’t take anyone seriously that punctuates their ’stance’ by attempting to insult someone based on their blogging platform.
But that zinger does put me back in the lead for Dr Pepper showers on the laptop
Another point proven. For so called professionals to think that all blogging platforms are created equally is a huge disservice to their purported “clients” by feeding their delusions of grandeur. As mentioned previously, there are plenty of people out there who make “blogging” their “business”, so you need to differentiate yourself from the others to be successful. Being on Blogspot does not do that at all. Seriously.
I truly hope you have a killer service plan for that laptop.
LOL! Sorry, but I’m changing the channel back. Plenty of us make ‘blogging’ our ‘business’. And plenty of us know what blogging can, and cannot do for other businesses. Some don’t.
It is true, there are plenty out there, but very very few who can deliver the actual goods.
Sticking a group of business bloggers in the fashion and style section based on gender, is a sign of condescension, and ignorance. Bet they also thought that probably less than 1% of Blog Her attendees have a blog-related business.
The problem is that the BlogHer bloggers are not business bloggers. In fact, they are a variety of genres with the only common denominator being their gender. The fact they are trying to turn their blogs INTO a business does not make them qualify for the business section.
Speaking of which, why didn’t the NYT editor, the same one that told Amber she read this blog, bother to reply and engage us here?
Any ideas?
I already pointed out the NYT Editor for the Style section providing an answer that was sent to him as opposed to the Opinions Editor, but since there is no information given about this “phantom Editor”, I cannot hypothesis the reason other than this is a very small blip on a very large radar.
And Saturn also let Blog Her attendees drive their cars before, so going by your logic above, shouldn’t that suggest that this article should have run in the automotive section?
Really? I thought it was a Chevy Tahoe. Actually it would depend on the focus of the Automotive section, which usually focuses on pricing, features, and the automotive industry. It does not focus on personal experiences with a car, but the unopinionated facts of the vehicle.
Quite fitting that you make this comment, and in the same breath forget the name of the person you are attempting to comment on.
Which was done unintentionally, and for that I do apologize, but it does go to prove my point about who Amber actually chose to address her letter to. The wrong person.
LMAO! Sorry but try as I might, I can’t take anyone seriously that punctuates their ’stance’ by attempting to insult someone based on their blogging platform.
But that zinger does put me back in the lead for Dr Pepper showers on the laptop
Another point proven. For so called professionals to think that all blogging platforms are created equally is a huge disservice to their purported “clients” by feeding their delusions of grandeur. As mentioned previously, there are plenty of people out there who make “blogging” their “business”, so you need to differentiate yourself from the others to be successful. Being on Blogspot does not do that at all. Seriously.
I truly hope you have a killer service plan for that laptop.
“It is true, there are plenty out there, but very very few who can deliver the actual goods.”
Agreed again.
“The problem is that the BlogHer bloggers are not business bloggers. In fact, they are a variety of genres with the only common denominator being their gender. The fact they are trying to turn their blogs INTO a business does not make them qualify for the business section.”
And the fact that they have ovaries doesn’t qualify them for the Fashion and Style section.
BTW I believe you claimed earlier that ‘probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business’. I think I heard about a dozen people on Twitter say they were ay BlogHer, or at a BlogHer-related event. I can only think of one person from that dozen that did NOT have their own business, Jeremiah Owyang. The rest were all women with successful social media/blogging-related businesses, or they get the majority of their business from their social media strategies.
“I already pointed out the NYT Editor for the Style section providing an answer that was sent to him as opposed to the Opinions Editor, but since there is no information given about this “phantom Editor”, I cannot hypothesis the reason other than this is a very small blip on a very large radar.”
Must not have been too small, else why would the NYT editor be reading Amber’s first post? Sounds like she took it pretty seriously.
Also sounds like she wasn’t interested in discussing and engaging with the blog’s readers, but wanted to attempt to have a more ‘controlled’ conversation with Amber via email. No biggie there, as many companies would do the same.
But on the flipside, many other companies see a chance to engage a blog’s readers as an opportunity to be looked forward to.
Seems the NYT isn’t among that list, at least based on this.
“Really? I thought it was a Chevy Tahoe. Actually it would depend on the focus of the Automotive section, which usually focuses on pricing, features, and the automotive industry. It does not focus on personal experiences with a car, but the unopinionated facts of the vehicle.”
No it was a Saturn. Maybe the NYT article didn’t mention it?
And BTW, my point was, trying to justify putting several thousand bloggers in a bucket because 20 got a JC Penny gift card is just as bad as trying to put them in another bucket cause some got to drive a Saturn.
Mass generalizations, blind assumptions and stereotypes are not a good thing, and intellectual shortcuts that we should all strive to avoid whenever possible.
“Another point proven. For so called professionals to think that all blogging platforms are created equally is a huge disservice to their purported “clients” by feeding their delusions of grandeur.”
LOL! And people that want to be taken seriously for their debating ’skills’, usually don’t throw out broad assumptions and generations like they are candy. It’s always better to say ‘I don’t know’ than make assumptions, especially when it comes to people.
Seriously.
BTW if you want to continue this, please email me as we’re going in circles and Amber and her readers are no doubt being bored to death by this.
And the fact that they have ovaries doesn’t qualify them for the Fashion and Style section.
You’re absolutely right, and the fact male bloggers don’t have ovaries shouldn’t exclude them from the Fashion and Style section. Oh wait, it doesn’t. Why was there no outcry about an article on a male blogger appearing in the section? Because no one overreacted to an imaginary slight.
BTW I believe you claimed earlier that ‘probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business’. I think I heard about a dozen people on Twitter say they were ay BlogHer, or at a BlogHer-related event. I can only think of one person from that dozen that did NOT have their own business, Jeremiah Owyang. The rest were all women with successful social media/blogging-related businesses, or they get the majority of their business from their social media strategies.
I specifically said, “their blog a successful business”, not “blog-related”. Success is not being able to just pay for your hosting. It’s paying for your mortgage too. If you only got a dozen tweets about being at BlogHer, I suggest you expand your network.
Must not have been too small, else why would the NYT editor be reading Amber’s first post? Sounds like she took it pretty seriously.
Actually it sounds like she was doing her job, looking for viable letters for the Op-Ed page.
And BTW, my point was, trying to justify putting several thousand bloggers in a bucket because 20 got a JC Penny gift card is just as bad as trying to put them in another bucket cause some got to drive a Saturn.
Mass generalizations, blind assumptions and stereotypes are not a good thing, and intellectual shortcuts that we should all strive to avoid whenever possible.
If the shoe fits…
LOL! And people that want to be taken seriously for their debating ’skills’, usually don’t throw out broad assumptions and generations like they are candy. It’s always better to say ‘I don’t know’ than make assumptions, especially when it comes to people.
Seriously.
BTW if you want to continue this, please email me as we’re going in circles and Amber and her readers are no doubt being bored to death by this.
Praytell what assumption do you think I have made? The statements I have made I have been able to back up with links, and I have seen nothing of the sort from your side of the argument.
Finally, at 30+ comments (which is three times the average number for this blog), if Amber and her readers are truly bored by this conversation, then they should be smart enough to know they can always click the little red X in the corner or move on to another post.
I can understand though why you would want to take this to e-mail. Afterall…
Also sounds like she wasn’t interested in discussing and engaging with the blog’s readers, but wanted to attempt to have a more ‘controlled’ conversation with Amber via email. No biggie there, as many companies would do the same.
But on the flipside, many other companies see a chance to engage a blog’s readers as an opportunity to be looked forward to.
I am more than willing to engage the blog’s readers and blog author (who has so grasciously continued to ignore me), but now you obviously want to place me into more of a “controlled” conversation.
It’s all good though Mack. While it is obvious we will not agree on the multi-tude of topics touched upon, I can honestly walk away knowing that at least ONE of you practices what you preach.
So for that, I thank you. If sometime in the future you decide to move on up off of Blooger and become serious about this type of thing, I’d be more than happy to help you out on the tech end.
Have a good one.
And the fact that they have ovaries doesn’t qualify them for the Fashion and Style section.
You’re absolutely right, and the fact male bloggers don’t have ovaries shouldn’t exclude them from the Fashion and Style section. Oh wait, it doesn’t. Why was there no outcry about an article on a male blogger appearing in the section? Because no one overreacted to an imaginary slight.
BTW I believe you claimed earlier that ‘probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business’. I think I heard about a dozen people on Twitter say they were ay BlogHer, or at a BlogHer-related event. I can only think of one person from that dozen that did NOT have their own business, Jeremiah Owyang. The rest were all women with successful social media/blogging-related businesses, or they get the majority of their business from their social media strategies.
I specifically said, “their blog a successful business”, not “blog-related”. Success is not being able to just pay for your hosting. It’s paying for your mortgage too. If you only got a dozen tweets about being at BlogHer, I suggest you expand your network.
Must not have been too small, else why would the NYT editor be reading Amber’s first post? Sounds like she took it pretty seriously.
Actually it sounds like she was doing her job, looking for viable letters for the Op-Ed page.
And BTW, my point was, trying to justify putting several thousand bloggers in a bucket because 20 got a JC Penny gift card is just as bad as trying to put them in another bucket cause some got to drive a Saturn.
Mass generalizations, blind assumptions and stereotypes are not a good thing, and intellectual shortcuts that we should all strive to avoid whenever possible.
If the shoe fits…
LOL! And people that want to be taken seriously for their debating ’skills’, usually don’t throw out broad assumptions and generations like they are candy. It’s always better to say ‘I don’t know’ than make assumptions, especially when it comes to people.
Seriously.
BTW if you want to continue this, please email me as we’re going in circles and Amber and her readers are no doubt being bored to death by this.
Praytell what assumption do you think I have made? The statements I have made I have been able to back up with links, and I have seen nothing of the sort from your side of the argument.
Finally, at 30+ comments (which is three times the average number for this blog), if Amber and her readers are truly bored by this conversation, then they should be smart enough to know they can always click the little red X in the corner or move on to another post.
I can understand though why you would want to take this to e-mail. Afterall…
Also sounds like she wasn’t interested in discussing and engaging with the blog’s readers, but wanted to attempt to have a more ‘controlled’ conversation with Amber via email. No biggie there, as many companies would do the same.
But on the flipside, many other companies see a chance to engage a blog’s readers as an opportunity to be looked forward to.
I am more than willing to engage the blog’s readers and blog author (who has so grasciously continued to ignore me), but now you obviously want to place me into more of a “controlled” conversation.
It’s all good though Mack. While it is obvious we will not agree on the multi-tude of topics touched upon, I can honestly walk away knowing that at least ONE of you practices what you preach.
So for that, I thank you. If sometime in the future you decide to move on up off of Blooger and become serious about this type of thing, I’d be more than happy to help you out on the tech end.
Have a good one.
And the fact that they have ovaries doesn’t qualify them for the Fashion and Style section.
You’re absolutely right, and the fact male bloggers don’t have ovaries shouldn’t exclude them from the Fashion and Style section. Oh wait, it doesn’t. Why was there no outcry about an article on a male blogger appearing in the section? Because no one overreacted to an imaginary slight.
BTW I believe you claimed earlier that ‘probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business’. I think I heard about a dozen people on Twitter say they were ay BlogHer, or at a BlogHer-related event. I can only think of one person from that dozen that did NOT have their own business, Jeremiah Owyang. The rest were all women with successful social media/blogging-related businesses, or they get the majority of their business from their social media strategies.
I specifically said, “their blog a successful business”, not “blog-related”. Success is not being able to just pay for your hosting. It’s paying for your mortgage too. If you only got a dozen tweets about being at BlogHer, I suggest you expand your network.
Must not have been too small, else why would the NYT editor be reading Amber’s first post? Sounds like she took it pretty seriously.
Actually it sounds like she was doing her job, looking for viable letters for the Op-Ed page.
And BTW, my point was, trying to justify putting several thousand bloggers in a bucket because 20 got a JC Penny gift card is just as bad as trying to put them in another bucket cause some got to drive a Saturn.
Mass generalizations, blind assumptions and stereotypes are not a good thing, and intellectual shortcuts that we should all strive to avoid whenever possible.
If the shoe fits…
LOL! And people that want to be taken seriously for their debating ’skills’, usually don’t throw out broad assumptions and generations like they are candy. It’s always better to say ‘I don’t know’ than make assumptions, especially when it comes to people.
Seriously.
BTW if you want to continue this, please email me as we’re going in circles and Amber and her readers are no doubt being bored to death by this.
Praytell what assumption do you think I have made? The statements I have made I have been able to back up with links, and I have seen nothing of the sort from your side of the argument.
Finally, at 30+ comments (which is three times the average number for this blog), if Amber and her readers are truly bored by this conversation, then they should be smart enough to know they can always click the little red X in the corner or move on to another post.
I can understand though why you would want to take this to e-mail. Afterall…
Also sounds like she wasn’t interested in discussing and engaging with the blog’s readers, but wanted to attempt to have a more ‘controlled’ conversation with Amber via email. No biggie there, as many companies would do the same.
But on the flipside, many other companies see a chance to engage a blog’s readers as an opportunity to be looked forward to.
I am more than willing to engage the blog’s readers and blog author (who has so grasciously continued to ignore me), but now you obviously want to place me into more of a “controlled” conversation.
It’s all good though Mack. While it is obvious we will not agree on the multi-tude of topics touched upon, I can honestly walk away knowing that at least ONE of you practices what you preach.
So for that, I thank you. If sometime in the future you decide to move on up off of Blooger and become serious about this type of thing, I’d be more than happy to help you out on the tech end.
Have a good one.
And the fact that they have ovaries doesn’t qualify them for the Fashion and Style section.
You’re absolutely right, and the fact male bloggers don’t have ovaries shouldn’t exclude them from the Fashion and Style section. Oh wait, it doesn’t. Why was there no outcry about an article on a male blogger appearing in the section? Because no one overreacted to an imaginary slight.
BTW I believe you claimed earlier that ‘probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business’. I think I heard about a dozen people on Twitter say they were ay BlogHer, or at a BlogHer-related event. I can only think of one person from that dozen that did NOT have their own business, Jeremiah Owyang. The rest were all women with successful social media/blogging-related businesses, or they get the majority of their business from their social media strategies.
I specifically said, “their blog a successful business”, not “blog-related”. Success is not being able to just pay for your hosting. It’s paying for your mortgage too. If you only got a dozen tweets about being at BlogHer, I suggest you expand your network.
Must not have been too small, else why would the NYT editor be reading Amber’s first post? Sounds like she took it pretty seriously.
Actually it sounds like she was doing her job, looking for viable letters for the Op-Ed page.
And BTW, my point was, trying to justify putting several thousand bloggers in a bucket because 20 got a JC Penny gift card is just as bad as trying to put them in another bucket cause some got to drive a Saturn.
Mass generalizations, blind assumptions and stereotypes are not a good thing, and intellectual shortcuts that we should all strive to avoid whenever possible.
If the shoe fits…
LOL! And people that want to be taken seriously for their debating ’skills’, usually don’t throw out broad assumptions and generations like they are candy. It’s always better to say ‘I don’t know’ than make assumptions, especially when it comes to people.
Seriously.
BTW if you want to continue this, please email me as we’re going in circles and Amber and her readers are no doubt being bored to death by this.
Praytell what assumption do you think I have made? The statements I have made I have been able to back up with links, and I have seen nothing of the sort from your side of the argument.
Finally, at 30+ comments (which is three times the average number for this blog), if Amber and her readers are truly bored by this conversation, then they should be smart enough to know they can always click the little red X in the corner or move on to another post.
I can understand though why you would want to take this to e-mail. Afterall…
Also sounds like she wasn’t interested in discussing and engaging with the blog’s readers, but wanted to attempt to have a more ‘controlled’ conversation with Amber via email. No biggie there, as many companies would do the same.
But on the flipside, many other companies see a chance to engage a blog’s readers as an opportunity to be looked forward to.
I am more than willing to engage the blog’s readers and blog author (who has so grasciously continued to ignore me), but now you obviously want to place me into more of a “controlled” conversation.
It’s all good though Mack. While it is obvious we will not agree on the multi-tude of topics touched upon, I can honestly walk away knowing that at least ONE of you practices what you preach.
So for that, I thank you. If sometime in the future you decide to move on up off of Blooger and become serious about this type of thing, I’d be more than happy to help you out on the tech end.
Have a good one.
And the fact that they have ovaries doesn’t qualify them for the Fashion and Style section.
You’re absolutely right, and the fact male bloggers don’t have ovaries shouldn’t exclude them from the Fashion and Style section. Oh wait, it doesn’t. Why was there no outcry about an article on a male blogger appearing in the section? Because no one overreacted to an imaginary slight.
BTW I believe you claimed earlier that ‘probability less than 1% of the BlogHer members can consider their blog a successful business’. I think I heard about a dozen people on Twitter say they were ay BlogHer, or at a BlogHer-related event. I can only think of one person from that dozen that did NOT have their own business, Jeremiah Owyang. The rest were all women with successful social media/blogging-related businesses, or they get the majority of their business from their social media strategies.
I specifically said, “their blog a successful business”, not “blog-related”. Success is not being able to just pay for your hosting. It’s paying for your mortgage too. If you only got a dozen tweets about being at BlogHer, I suggest you expand your network.
Must not have been too small, else why would the NYT editor be reading Amber’s first post? Sounds like she took it pretty seriously.
Actually it sounds like she was doing her job, looking for viable letters for the Op-Ed page.
And BTW, my point was, trying to justify putting several thousand bloggers in a bucket because 20 got a JC Penny gift card is just as bad as trying to put them in another bucket cause some got to drive a Saturn.
Mass generalizations, blind assumptions and stereotypes are not a good thing, and intellectual shortcuts that we should all strive to avoid whenever possible.
If the shoe fits…
LOL! And people that want to be taken seriously for their debating ’skills’, usually don’t throw out broad assumptions and generations like they are candy. It’s always better to say ‘I don’t know’ than make assumptions, especially when it comes to people.
Seriously.
BTW if you want to continue this, please email me as we’re going in circles and Amber and her readers are no doubt being bored to death by this.
Praytell what assumption do you think I have made? The statements I have made I have been able to back up with links, and I have seen nothing of the sort from your side of the argument.
Finally, at 30+ comments (which is three times the average number for this blog), if Amber and her readers are truly bored by this conversation, then they should be smart enough to know they can always click the little red X in the corner or move on to another post.
I can understand though why you would want to take this to e-mail. Afterall…
Also sounds like she wasn’t interested in discussing and engaging with the blog’s readers, but wanted to attempt to have a more ‘controlled’ conversation with Amber via email. No biggie there, as many companies would do the same.
But on the flipside, many other companies see a chance to engage a blog’s readers as an opportunity to be looked forward to.
I am more than willing to engage the blog’s readers and blog author (who has so grasciously continued to ignore me), but now you obviously want to place me into more of a “controlled” conversation.
It’s all good though Mack. While it is obvious we will not agree on the multi-tude of topics touched upon, I can honestly walk away knowing that at least ONE of you practices what you preach.
So for that, I thank you. If sometime in the future you decide to move on up off of Blooger and become serious about this type of thing, I’d be more than happy to help you out on the tech end.
Have a good one.
Please, texasbrian. I'm not ignoring you, nor anyone else for that matter.
I understand what you're trying to explain, I just disagree with you.
Yes, I think the Times made an error placing the article where they did, and that was the point of my original letter. What followed, then, was that I didn't think that just because something "was the way it was" meant that it wasn't open to criticism or questioning. Just saying "that's how things work" isn't an explanation.
I won't indulge an argument as silly as debating the platform people use for blogging being an indication of their expertise. I understand that different platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, but I'm much more focused on the topic at hand than what blog software someone is using. Bloggers from all over the web are participating in the conversation, and I for one wish not to discount them simply because of how they select their technology. Many brilliant minds that I admire have made waves with far less.
I saw and appreciated the comments on the Pop + Politics blog. I'm still saying that I'm not disputing the facts of how the story got placed where it did; the editor I spoke to explained that to me well and I'll stipulate to that being the way things are done there. But asking me not to criticize it just because it's that way is counterproductive. And yes, censorship is a dramatic word. Maybe stifling opinion is a better way to say it.
I'm sorry you don't feel like I've adequately responded to your points, but they're the same ones I've been responding to all along, and it doesn't change my opinion. And several others have managed to make incredibly valid, salient, and thought provoking points without being insulting in the process.
The editor shared with me several stories that have appeared in the same section, in hopes that I would understand that the Style section isn't frivolous. And perhaps the content isn't meant to be frivolous at all, and that's a good thing. But my response to her was then that perhaps the name of the section itself was a misnomer. Actually, several stories she sent me – one about behavioral disorders in children, one about race issues in the workplace, and one about cyberbullying – I think could have the same criticism attached; they're parked in the wrong spot.
We talked about how semantics can be a powerful influence, and in this case I think they're doing themselves a disservice to have a section called "Fashion & Style" and then populate it with more serious content. It's misleading, and I think can undermine even the Times' best intentions. I'm not alone, here. We don't have to agree about this. But what I've been chewing on is that I think my issue here may be less about "women = fashion = blogging isn't serious", but that there's a disconnect in the way papers like the times are determining how and where to place their stories, because in my mind, several other articles have fallen victim to similar misdirected placement.
I think we're going to continue seeing a lot of debate about the transition and adaptation of media practices all over, and I'm looking forward to listening and learning as well as contributing to the discussion.
This is getting more and more interesting
@ Amber… that wasn’t me… I think you were meaning to address New Your City’s Watchdog, whom I have a new respect for. And I have to say, the more you write, the more I see your perspective. You are a great writer, and the more time passes and the more the arguments get aired out and explained, the more sense you make. I still don’t see the point of printing your letter after you’ve had your questions answered, but I digress.
@ Mack. You amuse me. I think your only purpose here now is to rattle cages. Your job is to be an evangelist for blogs to promote businesses? That’s nice. You believe that businesses need blogs. Great. And you think the NYT erred by not falling over Amber because she has a blog. Fine.
You think that They NYT is a business, and therefore should respond the way every other business does. But the NYT is not the Acme Widget Company, desperately looking for publicity. Yet, you lump it in with every other business. And in the next breath, you spout this wisdom:
“Mass generalizations, blind assumptions and stereotypes are not a good thing, and intellectual shortcuts that we should all strive to avoid whenever possible.”
Then your rhetoric really starts to get creepy. I call blatant sexism in this comment:
“And the fact that they have ovaries doesn’t qualify them for the Fashion and Style section.”
You know, the Fashion and Style section isn’t called the Women’s Section. It covers trends; it covers “style” in all forms, and your use of the term “social media” tells the journalist that the content is at least somewhat “social” in nature — not exactly A1 breaking news. Unless you can prove it, to say the story ran in the Style section solely because it was female-focused is pretty much defamatory on its face.
That brings me back to yesterday’s point about bloggers who think they are journalists because they have a keyboard. With a blog comes responsibility and liability. That means being careful of things like libel, defamation and reckless disregard for the truth. I’ve seen lots of accusations thrown around about the NYT in the past few days without check. If the NYT did any of that, you can bet someone would sue. Are the bloggers still on even footing?
@texasbrian ACK. You're absolutely right. I meant to reference @New York City's Watchdog. My apologies to you both for the mixup.
I have to say that I don't see sexism in Mack's comment any more than I see sexism in Tricia's comment about bloggers needing a penis to be taken seriously. Gender bias is a passionate and highly subjective issue, and I think the main point is that – on the surface – parking the story in the Fashion & Style section makes it *easier* to assume gender bias simply because of the stereotypes that already exist.
And I am not by any means arguing about "equal footing", whatever that means. But I'm certainly not going to kowtow to the Times – or any other media outlet for that matter – just because they have a storied history and don't "need" the publicity. I'm really talking about basic respect. I respect the Times, I respect what they do, I respect the industry of communications in all its forms. I don't always have to love what they do or how they do it. And I personally think that, on *this* particular occasion, they threw their weight around with me for the wrong reasons. Do I expect that they're going to literally stop the presses and change their processes because of me? Maybe not. But I do think there was a different way to handle this on their part. I liked someone elses suggestion of offering other avenues for discourse. That encourages conversation, instead of stifling it.
"It covers trends; it covers "style" in all forms, and your use of the term "social media" tells the journalist that the content is at least somewhat "social" in nature — not exactly A1 breaking news."
I happen to think that social media is a crappy term, because it does just what you said – makes people assume the meat of it is frivolous. And unfortunately I didn't name it, so I have to live with it. But the reality is, whatever you call it, the practices that social media entails – community building, breaking down communication barriers, encouraging more open dialogue between companies and customers (the list goes on) – and how they're changing business are indeed breaking news. It's not about the tools, it's about how the overall dialogue is shifting.
You raise a very important point about integrity that I think has merit. I'll be the first to admit that there are bloggers out there that never bother to do any research, aren't aware of the world around them, and don't like being told any different. Mack isn't one of them, and neither am I. The reverse works too: just because I'm a blogger doesn't mean that I should get tossed into the pile with the others who use this type of platform in all the wrong ways.
I'm not all knowing, I'm not infallible. Neither is traditional media, just because some of them are big and established. I am, however, proud to be part of a community of professionals (yes, professionals) like Mack, Laura, Jennifer, Teeg, Michael, Deb, John, elizs, thePuck, amie, Connie, Beth, Judy, Erika, Lightfinger, templestark, NYCWatchdog and you who care enough about the issues at hand to raise a voice and "rattle cages". With all due respect, you and NYC's Watchdog are doing your fair share of cage rattling too. Mack is every bit as entitled to respond as you are, and I value his input.
That's what social media is about. And why I'm content to have opinions on both sides, because otherwise we're each stuck in our own little hole.
“Your job is to be an evangelist for blogs to promote businesses? That’s nice. You believe that businesses need blogs.”
To be clear, I don’t believe this at all. Many businesses should NOT be blogging, and many can’t even if they want to. When I speak to companies, I make this point every time.
However, I believe that all businesses should know what bloggers are saying about their business, and should make every effort to respond when they can. If a company can take the time to visit a blog and read what bloggers are writing about them, they have the time to reply.
The great thing about blogs? They aren’t an island. Ideas travel can travel at near-light speed in this space. For example, you claim that “But the NYT is not the Acme Widget Company, desperately looking for publicity.”
But it’s not about publicity, it’s about respecting bloggers as a group. And let’s recall that Dell once announced to the world that ‘we don’t respond to bloggers’. The massive backlash they received from this ONE statement from bloggers shook the company to the extent that they totally altered their approach to interacting with bloggers, and are now the poster child for using social media to engage with their customers.
Dismiss the influence of bloggers on businesses all you want.
“That brings me back to yesterday’s point about bloggers who think they are journalists because they have a keyboard.”
I never understood this point, BTW. I think this is more about how you THINK some bloggers view themselves. Again, JMO.
@ Mack:
“It’s about respecting bloggers as a group.”
vs.
“Mass generalizations … are not a good thing…”
Are we borg, or not?
Actually, I guess what sticks in my craw about the entire undercurrent of this is the idea that blogging is being treated with a self-importance by some that it hasn’t really earned yet.
Some blogs, just like some billboards, can make for great social and political change. Some e-mail blasts do the same thing, and so do some magazine ads. So do some bumper stickers.
But, just like I said the other day, print isn’t dead yet, and I get the sense from some that they feel that blogs are the next big wave and everybody had better jump on board thisverydamnedminute or perish.
And I say to that — great. When it happens — when blogs take over MSM — I’ll jump. Until then, for the majority of us, it’s vanity press amped up, and we shouldn’t let ourselves believe it for more than it us. Otherwise, we become the emperor in new clothes, 2.0.
“Actually, I guess what sticks in my craw about the entire undercurrent of this is the idea that blogging is being treated with a self-importance by some that it hasn’t really earned yet.”
In whose eyes? If blogging and social media isn’t that important, why did Michael Dell tell his employees to start using social media to embrace and engage its customers? Why did Ford just create a Director of Social Media, and give that person a 5-person team to head up the company’s SM efforts? Why is Pepsico hiring for a similar position (unless it’s been filled recently)? Why are big companies throwing all this money at something that ‘hasn’t really earned it yet’?
Is blogging the magic bullet that solves every businesses’ problems? Of course not. But it and social media IS changing the way businesses connect with, and reach their customers.
And it’s not going anywhere.
“But, just like I said the other day, print isn’t dead yet, and I get the sense from some that they feel that blogs are the next big wave and everybody had better jump on board thisverydamnedminute or perish.
And I say to that — great. When it happens — when blogs take over MSM — I’ll jump.”
Brian I hate to point out the obvious, but who in this conversation said that print is dead?
Who said that blogs are going to take over (whatever that means) MSM?
What happened is that a several people commented that the NYT and other businesses should take blogs a bit more seriously than they do and realize the influence that the group possesses.
I think what you ‘heard’ was those people saying that print is dead, and that bloggers had ‘taken over’ MSM.
And I think this is where most of the arguing is coming from, what is being said, and what is being ‘heard’ isn’t always the same.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.