|
|
July 27, 2005
PressThink, Live from the BlogHer ConferenceI will be attending the BlogHer Conference this weekend in Santa Clara, CA. I'm sure it will be quite different from the three BloggerCon events I was at in October 2003, April 2004, and November 2004.Next stop Silicon Valley. I will be attending the BlogHer Conference this weekend in Santa Clara, CA. I‘m sure it will be quite different from the three BloggerCon events I was at in October 2003, April 2004, and November 2004. The goals are to lift the visibility of women bloggers and strengthen their network. (Including an ad network.) I am going as “press,” but then everyone there will be press. So I’m going to see what happens and learn what I can. Not sure how, yet, but I plan to write about it for PressThink and the Huffington Post. More than 80 percent of the 300 or so participants are women, including all the speakers, the formidable advisory board (go here, scroll down), and the people who pulled it all together: PressThink contributor, Surfette blogger and legal journalist Lisa Stone, and her co-conspirators Elisa Camahort, and Jory Des Jardins, with Purvi Shah, and Katrin Verclas. (Here’s the feed for all the blogs of participants.) Among the sessions I am most looking forward to:
Some people I am looking forward to meeting or seeing again: Lauren Gelman and Wendy Seltzer, who were the heroes of our bloggers brief in the Apple v. Does case in California; Nancy White, whom I met when I was first starting to write online in 1997-99; Mena Trott, co-founder of Six Apart (whom I want to thank personally for the invention of Movable Type), PressThink reader and citizen journalist Lisa Williams (who does daily BlogHer round-ups, but also see dailyblogher); NYU grad Emily Gordon, author of the elegant emdashes, a blog about the New Yorker; new media wiz Amy Gahran of Contentious (see her post, “Let’s Put Press Releases Out of their Misery.”) Here’s Gahran on her ethic of blogging. I firmly believe that the point of weblogging is not merely to have your own blog, but to participate more fully in the public conversation. This means reading and commenting on other people’s blog’s – ideally at least as much as you post in your own. And she’s added a new feature on her home page: “What Amy’s been saying around the web…” I like that image: around. Plus the cookie and coffee breaks, the cocktail party after, the big dinner the night before— usually the best parts of any conference: people who have a common passion. If you’re a PressThink reader or lurker and will be at the conference, please say hello in the comments or in Santa Clara. The voices I be missing most from the mix: Rebecca Blood, diviner of the form (she’s on the BlogHer board, though); Jeneane Sessum, who at Allied “writes about Loss, Love, and Life, not necessarily in that order;” Jenny D, education blogger with the ex-newsroom mind and a threader of comments at PressThink. Probably the biggest disappointment for me is not to be hearing from Jude Nagurney Camwell, the Rational Liberal , and blogger with the big voice and great material. Chris Nolan gave some words of welcome to Kevin Drum, Mister Political Animal: “I think you’ll be very surprised to see that this is NOT a convention about ‘why it’s unfair that men run the world.’ Nor is it a ‘sisterhood-only’ event. It’s for EVERYONE.” (Drum is scheduled to be there. The backstory to the invitation is interesting.) I trust Chris, who is also a guest writer for PressThink. If BlogHer is for everyone (and I’ll buy that…) then it’s fair to count as missing from the conversation (I assume by choice, although I don’t really know) the bigger right side bloggers like Michelle Malkin, and LaShawn Barber, or Michelle Catalano of A Small Victory, or someone like Betsy Newmark, along with (my recommendation) Robin Burk, of the popular windsofchange.net and her own blog. I think it would have been interesting, too, had Ana Marie Cox (Wonkette) come. All would have stirred the pot. (I asked Renee Blodget, who is on the advisory board, whether any special efforts were made to invite the authors of some of the more popular blogs by conservative women. She reminded me that politics is only one topic in a conference with many themes, that BlogHer is officially non-partisan, and “an opportunity for all women bloggers as individuals, not an agenda.” She also said: “LaShawn Barber actually was one of our key choices and she agreed to speak. Later, she had a family conflict and had to cancel.”) The way I see it, Bloghercon is a conference of and about women writers, all of them authors of online selves, who share certain problems in common, many of which have ended up on the program. Probably the best pre-conference post I have seen is from Shelley Powers at Burningbird, When we are Needed. (Got a great one? E-mail PressThink.) It begins by asking why women are leaving the tech industry lately. It ends by questioning our trust in competition as the great filter for quality work. (And see her follow-up post.) Thus: “Some would say that we need to make women more competitive, but I don’t think that’s the answer because I don’t think we’re asking the right question. The real question is: do we women want to compete more, or do we want to get men to compete less?” See my report (July 31): Notes and Comment on BlogHer ‘05.
Posted by Jay Rosen at July 27, 2005 12:47 AM
Comments
Welcome back to Silicon Valley. Hope the conference is informative. I look forward to reading your commentary about the issues that arise. I wish I could attend. Cheers. Posted by: anorpheus at July 27, 2005 7:45 AM | Permalink Jay, I'm so glad you're joining this conversation. Posted by: Lisa Stone at July 27, 2005 12:32 PM | Permalink P.S. Don't know if you have a tradition of tagging any of your posts, but I'd love it if this one appeared on our Daily BlogHer feed. Here's the Technorati tag: Posted by: Lisa Stone at July 27, 2005 12:34 PM | Permalink Thanks, Lisa. I think I have all the tags in now. Not that I understand what difference it makes. You better check back, as I'm sure I will add to this one. Hi Jay! It will be great to see you again! I'm happy to hear you will be at Blogher - and in the session Susan and I are leading. See you soon! Posted by: Julie Leung at July 27, 2005 4:35 PM | Permalink Wish I could be there, but left Sili Valli 15 years ago, only back once since. Women wanting men to compete less is probably a better idea than asking women to compete more, but likely fruitless. It reminds me of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility. Women had, for generations, wanted men to be more sexually responsible and less promiscuous. With the pill, then legal abortion, and the push for "equality," and the acceptance of changing selves rather than changing the other -- the result was that college women are pushing to have EQUAL sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility as college men. I think this is, and has been, a big mistake. Especially for women! Parents with both boy children and girl children usually understand: boys and girls LIKE different things. Just watch a boy take a barbie ... and twist her into a gun shape and start shooting. Men are also taller than women. -- This added to remind all that such generalizations are about averages, and the more competetive women are more competitive than the less competitive guys (Carly Fiorina? She might be a good addition.) Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 28, 2005 2:04 AM | Permalink Whoa, Tom! Time to cut back on the Espresso! Posted by: Daniel Conover -- Kitsch Kop at July 28, 2005 9:01 AM | Permalink Thus: “Some would say that we need to make women more competitive, but I don’t think that’s the answer because I don’t think we’re asking the right question. The real question is: do we women want to compete more, or do we want to get men to compete less?” Why can't we just accept people as they are and not mold them into something we want them to be? Wow, I look forward to your report Jay. You are always honest, thoughtful, and you rarely fail to make a few original points. From what I remember La Shawn, was going to attend, or even lead? a panel? But later cancelled due to a scheduling conflict? Posted by: Alison Fish at July 28, 2005 3:48 PM | Permalink Good luck to the ladies who want to "get men to compete less"---competition is part of the Y chromosome. The truth is obvious---the path to success is to be what you are, not what you want to be, or what you want others to be. Posted by: kilgore trout at July 28, 2005 4:38 PM | Permalink You guys act like you never heard of the tragedy of the commons, where a fatal lack of cooperation dooms everyone to a poor result. That's all about how to get men to compete less. I think it's funny that you treat it as wooly headed, wish-it-were-so idealism. It shows how out of touch you are with the corrosive effects of conditions of hyper-competition. Your he-man realism is hilarious sometimes. So true, Jay. We all want to be women or sheep (take your pick) except we don't know where to graze or what to do (take your pick). If only we didn't have that pesky Y chromosome, we could all be the women we ought to be. (or is it wymyn?) Posted by: kilgore trout at July 28, 2005 8:05 PM | Permalink Someone is upset with her traffic ranking. Hardly seems a tragedy to me, although it is wonderfully common. Whoah. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at July 28, 2005 9:29 PM | Permalink Competition between players in sport, or companies in regards to services provided, or even reporters for a story can raise the level of achievement. Competing with ourselves can force us to beyond that which is safe -- to challenge our limits. But competition based on scarcity--whether the scarce resource is food and water, employment, land, a mate, political power, even attention and respect within this containered, linked environment--suppresses diversity and encourages mediocrity. Like bonds to like, ranks are closed, and voices are stilled. You may want to read some of those items Jay has linked before commenting, rather than after. Or instead. I've enjoyed ready your weblog for a while. I hope to see you there so that I can thank you in person. maybe another way to think about the competition question: Is competition the only way to quality? Posted by: marnie webb at July 29, 2005 12:37 AM | Permalink You're right about LaShawn, Allison; I added it to the post. Say hello in Santa Clara, Marnie. Thanks for dropping in, Shelley. Not that I didn't expect this, but here it is, from the aforementioned "Brian" at Udolpho.com: ...inevitably at these things the participants get back to snivelling about the A-list and who has a bigger traffic rank and percentages and WHY DOESN'T MY WEBLOG ABOUT DADDY ISSUES GET THE SAME TRAFFIC AS INSTAPUNDIT?!? Ignore them? If only. This whole problem is the result of the insufficiency of ignoring them. And pussywhipped white men (yes, you, Jay Rosen) who indulge this sort of acting out because they're too spineless to think much less voice the obvious objections to it are part of the problem. The way I see it, Bloghercon is a conference of and about women writers Bloggers regardless of gender work in a variety of media. Some are writers, some photographers, some videographers, some poets and some speakers. Rocketboom And of course, there are many mixed media examples of those who capture, record, and write about personal observations, events, culture, religion, self expression, politics, professions, humor, and my favorite blogging about blogging. Even this is a partial list of the types of user created content that is published using the simplicity of blog web tools. Posted by: mobile jones at July 29, 2005 4:50 AM | Permalink I agree with Lovelady---I don't see women as being oppressed or downtrodden at all. In fact, by all accounts, they are overtaking men in a number of important areas, and power to them. There were many quotes to chose from in posts leading up to Bloghercon. Why did Jay chose to highlight the quote about women having to decide between more competition for themselves, or less competition for men? Was he being deliberately provocative? Do grazing sheep resonate with him in some unknown way? I don't know why he chose that particular quote among all others. Posted by: kilgore trout at July 29, 2005 2:53 PM | Permalink Kilgore Trout, perhaps you might consider reading the post where Jay pulled the quote from? Especially when you make statements about women overtaking men in a number of important areas. I have to ask: what areas? Regardless of these other 'areas', my writing from whence came the quote you all seemed to be hung up on, was based on women in the computer and internet technologies. Women have literally been Googled out of the tech industry. Jay, as for the person Udolpho, there are any number of other people who have written in regards to your post and in comments here and who have made thoughtful statements, whether agreeing or not. Much better use of one's time to focus on them.
Yes, Jay, ignore the nawsty mawn! He has nothing thoughtful to communicate! Banish him, I say! In the part of my post that Jay couldn't be bothered to quote (I guess it wasn't mean enough), I noted that one thing was for sure: PressThink would never come remotely close to questioning the idea behind very silly (and ultimately self-stultifying) get-togethers like "BlogHer". It's self-evidently good. This is the type of bias Rosen can't see--absolutely blind as a bat to it. "Regardless of these other 'areas', my writing from whence came the quote you all seemed to be hung up on, was based on women in the computer and internet technologies. Women have literally been Googled out of the tech industry." Not only does this not make any sense whatosever -- can you think of something that sounds more incoherent than the first sentence or dumber than the last? -- but I am now going to have to leave my office to see where all my women co-workers have suddenly vanished to. No, wait, they're still in their offices too, working. Google didn't spirit them away after all. For a moment there I thought Shelley had a point. I look forward to the recap. My wife and I got in to blogging about the same time. I was a journalist in a former life; she's a good writer but not "trained" in communication. I quickly found that women bloggers outnumbered men by 4 to 1 in our circles, the women seemed more engaged, especially with each other, and much more popular. Whether that translates into critical and commercial appeal, I'm not sure. But blogs surely are a more powerful channel for women's voices. Brian is a bright boy who has figured out a lesson that should be passed along to the BlogHer conferees: One of the best tricks for "driving traffic" to your unknown site is to go on a more popular blog, say something incendiary, insult the proprietor and link to your URL, where there's even more explosive stuff. In the blogosphere, this is what we call "marketing." Posted by: Daniel Conover at July 30, 2005 10:05 AM | Permalink Hi, Jay. I've been reading your blog for year, and was pleased to see that you cited me in this posting. I hope to meet you today, since I have something I need to discuss with you. Look for the woman with the long hair and shiny blue blouse :-) Ask me about the NY Press Association. - Amy Gahran Posted by: Amy Gahran at July 30, 2005 12:26 PM | Permalink While you are at the conference, the focus should be the credibility of news in print....bloggers/journalists who know their stuff getting together to create newspapers that we will read and support...Dem.s have money too....they will read the truth and spread the word, hitting the sleepy electorate over the head with the REAL NEWS.....followed by printed blogs in lieu of letters to the editor!!! fun for all to experience life on the other side....come on now, hurry up, we need to foster this revolution putting traditional media on alert....we want REAL NEWS..... Posted by: Cynthia` at July 30, 2005 12:58 PM | Permalink Cynthia, I'm curious about what you consider REAL NEWS. Posted by: kilgore trout at July 30, 2005 1:29 PM | Permalink Shelly, Jay has "too many" links for me to follow all, so I've followed only a couple. You didn't identify the link you refered to, so I didn't follow it. Jay's comment on the Tradegy of the Commons is ... special. All alternatives involve non-voluntary FORCE, to one extent or another. Or, as in oceans, everybody following their competitive incentive to get more means all get less. Because of no property rights/ "lack of cooperation". In a sexist way, the nanny-state is often women wanting the state to force folks to do something "for their own good" -- despite individuals who disagree for themselves. (Smoking, eating, drug-use, etc.) Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at July 30, 2005 7:45 PM | Permalink Daniel, Surely you can think of something nastier to imply than that I am only posting here to get page views. In fact I get next to none from PressThink and don't care one way or the other. You seem to imagine there are a large number of people who will click a link because it says something upsetting to them. It would be nice to think that the Internet was populated by such free-thinkers but the reality is that people live in deep fear of following links past the point of bolstering mutual prejudices. Hence you cannot imagine that my criticisms of the inane BlogHer conference are even in good faith. Hence Jay quotes a footnote but not anything in the main article that challenges the ideas he's talking about here. Of course he didn't have to link to me at all, which is something you might want to browbeat him over when you have a moment. I don't maintain a weblog to enjoy the vanity press high of seeing my site listed near the top of traffic rankings. That is a neurosis that I in fact deride in the BlogHer-types who bitch and moan because SOME MAN gets more traffic than they do. Surely if you could be bothered to read what I write you would know that. Honestly, it's not very abstruse stuff. Regards, By the way, I find it bizarre this tic of making pointed criticisms in the comments without addressing them to the person being criticized: "Brian is a bright boy...", "as for the person Udolpho...", and "Not that I didn't expect this, but here it is, from the aforementioned "Brian"...[who wasn't aforementioned--that was me, Jay, actually posting a comment]". Am I supposed to feel shunned? Ignored? Unloved? Please do get a grip. If you must ignore me, do it without the neurotic gesture. |
|
Print
