Mother Jones Questions Open Source Politics June 28, 2007
New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen harangues Mother Jones, the left-leaning investigatory magazine, for its feature package titled "Politics 2.0" in which it basically asks, "Are we entering a new era of digital democracy-or just being conned by a bunch of smooth-talking geeks?"
Rosen, an open source advocate, accuses that "The Mother Jones editors had a great story about politics and the web within their grasp, but they were too busy fabricating myths they could bust up later— and so they missed it."
So, what do y'all think about Politics 2.0? How would you answer MoJo's questions like:
Blogs, social networking, and viral video are redefining where political discussion takes place. But are they just replacing the old machine bosses with a new group of bullies?
Is old media dead, or is the blogosphere just a flash in the pan?
I don't think that Politics 2.0 is dead since most of the major 2008 presidential hopefuls are courting bloggers, using video sites like YouTube, or deploying social networks on their campaign sites. In fact, it probably is growing since the mainstream media just loves covering politics on the Internet as well. However, I'm biased.
Trackbacks/Pings
Comments
I like Politics 2.0. Great concept! (sorry to be a little light)
Dear Steve:
As the editor of Mother Jones, I would ask only that you and your readers take a look at the package itself, and not just Rosen’s windy and self-promoting screed. The passage you quote in this blog post is from a press release—not the actual stories, and is taken out of context. In the actual stories (and 27 interviews with various bloggers, politicos, and digerati) we/they say there’s a lot to be excited about in terms of the political applications of 2.0 technology, and the larger philosophical promise: that old school political hacks might be forced to give up on top-down messaging. However, we also say that some in the netroots have gotten a little drunk with power, and that some of the technological applications have yet to prove that they can have a real impact on electoral politics, fun as they might be.
Lest Jay Rosen or anybody else be your gatekeeper, go here and make up your own mind:
http://www.motherjones.com/new.....erent.html
Clara,
Thanks for responding to my post about your magazine.
First, whether the questions I listed are in the magazine or from one of its press releases, Mother Jones is still asking them.
Second, I appreciate how as a leftist publication, Mother Jones decided to take on a movement that has helped the left more than the right.
Third, I still agree with Rosen’s assertion that the magazine is “too busy fabricating myths they could bust up later.” These stories brought up problems but ignored improving the situation.
While I agree that some netroots activists are certainly bullies and windbags who are stroking their egos, how do we minimize their influence?
Further, if activists on the Internet are so problematic, why do the mainstream media inflate their clout by paying so much attention to them?
Concerning the gender and racial gaps in the political on-line realm, what are ways that we can foster more diverse participation?
Where do the answers to these questions fit into your editorial calendar? If these problems are truly pressing, then it seems irresponsible to sound an alarm without spurring constructive action to correct them.
No problem, thanks for engaging in a thoughtful manner.
You say: “I still agree with Rosen’s assertion that the magazine is “too busy fabricating myths they could bust up later.” These stories brought up problems but ignored improving the situation.”
That’s kinda two different things, isn’t it? I mean despite long email exchanges with Jay and tracking him down (after he sent an email to our PR people) by email and then also making him hash it out over the phone, what he seemed in the end to expend thousands of words writing about was that we set up the poles of the debate—i.e. some people think 2.0 tech is going to transform the political landscape, others think it has yet to prove it’s more than some fun new toys—only to net out somewhere in between. And, uh, what’s so wrong with that? We let all the players speak in their own words, and published their interviews on-line. (Rosen, I might add, was called maybe a dozen times and asked to participate in this package, but
never returned a call—so what’s up with his ‘tude now? And what’s up with an NYU J-School prof not understanding the difference between a press release and reported pieces? And fisking a press release? Doth protest too much, and so forth.)
As for ignoring the solutions: As the comments threads (on various blogs, ours, Huff Post, Jay’s, etc. etc.) to this package have more than illustrated, the first step is admitting that you have a problem. Though hardly all that our 2.0 package does, this was, in part, what we were challenging the blogosphere/netroots/Web 2.0 universe to do.
Chris Raab, whom we quote at length on-line (his full interview is on our site, and his own piece on the subject will be up on motherjones.com soon), is a far more eloquent speaker on the lack of racial diversity in the blogosphere than I. I suggest that anyone who’s interested go to his blog, Afronetizen.com, and get a full-on education.
However, as a woman, I think I can speak from a personal perspective to part of the problem. And guess what? The blogosphere looks much like the rest of the media landscape.
As an editor of an investigative magazine I can only do two things. Report on the problem, and do what I can to fix it where I can. To the second, I would point out, Mother Jones is being edited by two women. As for entry points into the media/blogging universe: Our interns and fellows are PAID. Not by any stretch enough, but Monika and I (long before we took the helm of the mag) have made that a huge priority for all of the obvious diversity reasons, among others. It is a priority I wish all media organizations and blogs would spend some serious time, effort, and money engaging it. And our interns and fellows are not “get me coffee” positions. All our editors and interns blog and write for the mag and the site.
That we feel passionately about how we’re doing what we can can best be summarized by the following: It’s Friday night, and MoJoers who should be out having fun, or at least watching some bad TV, are here (granted, drinking tequila) responding to various blog posts because we believe that journalism, at its best, is not beholden to any critique, but open to any of them.
But Rosen, who criticizes us for setting up straw men only to go overboard in setting up his own (”Printing press progressives”? plz that *#&% is *tired*) is not trying to engage in a constructive critique. He’s trying to brand himself as the “old media just doesn’t get it” guy, which is, like, so 2000.
In the end, I agree that we should all spend more time and more effort addressing the real issues, and not just promoting our brand. And this, I feel safe in saying, is what Mother Jones has always prioritized.
Clara,
Thank you for responding to my concerns. I was caught off guard when you, an editor from a major publication, addressed my comments; props to you and your staff for doing this elsewhere in cyberspace concerning the on-line response to the “Politics 2.0″ package. Very few journalists acknowledge discussions on the Internet about their work.
I agree with you that the first step to solving a problem is to admit that a problem exists in the first place, but a discussion of potential fixes is also helpful. Please note that I feel that your magazine did raise some valid points. However, I would’ve liked to see some attempt to address or foster dialog on how to correct the problematic aspects of the political web. Even an allusion to the ongoing research at Mother Jones with a commitment to publishing solutions at a later date would’ve helped the package in my eyes.
It is nice to read some of your additional thoughts about these problems in your last comment. Thanks for forgoing some bad TV to share them with me.
Steve, I tried to post the following late last night, wouldn’t load, too lazy to rewrite:
Dear Steve. Why are you still up? It is almost 1 am, PCF and I take it you are in DC? Ok, so I’m all for fostering better dialogue. And I’m open to any and all suggestions. (Ongoing research is our middle name.)
So what would you suggest? I mean, for example, one could selectively poach from Bivings’ client list and say ooh, Monsanto or “Facts on Fuel” or “I’m with Fred” and make a lot of assumptions about you guys. Somebody else would see other more lefty clients and come to the opposite conclusion. Me, I go to the about us page and see Trek, BG, Royal Tennenbaums, Dazed and Confused, 100 Years of Solitude, High Fidelity, etc. and I say, well, I might not agree with some/all of them (or certainly their clients), but I bet they’re fun and interesting. (Exception made for Everybody Loves Raymond. Sorry, Anupam. We’ve all been there, but that’s some truly bad TV.) [And BTW: some of your links on that about us page are dead.]
At heart, I think better dialogue is about being willing to be open. At its worst, the blogosphere is about scoring (as opposed to making) points at the expense of actual dialogue. How to fix that? Sounds like a perfect ST:NG episode in the making.
But hey, like all sci-fi fans, I’m an eternal optimist. So what would you suggest?
Clara,
Coaxing more people from all walks of life to participate on-line is a tough challenge.
One way that I think that we can draw more into the fray is for journalists and other opinion leaders to spend some time interacting with a wide range of people on their own cyber turf. For instance, your willingness to communicate with bloggers like me on my own turf is a great start.
Also, I think that providing multiple channels for interaction is crucial. The international call in show World, Have Your Say on the BBC World Service allows listeners to communicate via text messages, VOIP, e-mail, regular phone calls, and blog comments. By providing a variety of methods to contact the show, more types of people do. For instance, the show sometimes gets a bevy of text messages from Africa since cell phones are much cheaper and reliable there than Internet connections.
Now, how do we keep things civil and productive… I would suggest that influential people engage others on-line respectfully. (Duh!) Unfortunately, not all people are courteous; some columnists at The Guardian haven’t behaved that well themselves (and they get mad about people berating them!). The Golden Rule should work, especially if influential people obey it and lead by example. However, they don’t always do this off-line either.
These are just two suggestions. I’m not smart enough to come up with all of them, but I’m willing to think further and brainstorm. Also, I think that a case study of sites that have varied communities would also reveal some interesting insights. I would suggest Gather as good site to examine since it seems to have many different types of people who use it.
I was up last night because I had just gone for a run. Yes, running after midnight is nice.
Yes, we’re an eclectic bunch here at Bivings, and our clients are varied. It is nice to know that you find evidence that we’re fun and interesting as I’m sure Mother Jones staffers are. Oh yeah, I’ll try to get the links fixed.
Mother Jones, despite the fact that it is now being edited by two female editors, still has serious diversity challenges of its own, with an all-white editorial staff. Diversity is a constant challenge, so in that regard Mother Jones seems a little like the pot calling the kettle black. But I do agree with Clara Jeffery that the blogosphere’s “We’re so great!” response to the Politics 2.0 package is self-serving, predictable and just naive–at least what I’ve seen of it.
Former MJ Intern,
Thanks for your perspective.
Hopefully, we here at The Bivings Group don’t use our blog in too much of a self-serving way.
Our current editorial staff is, in fact, not all white, nor has it been for several years. But it is not diverse as it should be. Further, among our interns and fellows I’d guesstimate that, over a year, about 1/3 are non-white.
The problem with higher up the masthead is in part due to the industry-wide internship/entry level job issue, particularly at magazines, that I was speaking of earlier. A lot of journalists of color migrate early in their careers toward TV and newspapers because those institutions are (or were) well-heeled, sometimes have special minority recruitment/advancement/retention programs, and pay better than mags in general and certainly at the entry level, where even hugely profitable magazines like Conde Nast’s pay horribly. Given all that it is worrisome that lot of those recruitment programs at the big papers and wire services have been way cut back or eliminated, as (particularly) the MSM retrenches in the face of the web. Another unintended consequence of technology.
Clara, Who on the editorial staff is not white? I agree, industry-wide and world-wide it’s easier to find white (and upper middle class) people with prestigious resumes. Mother Jones is not alone in failing to try harder, but you seemed to cast stones at the web.
Speaking of, I just read the Jay Rosen post/thread and learned that my use of “naive” fell directly into his critique–the educated tend to view critique as superior to cheerleading. It’s true, and usually a valid position, although sometimes I would agree with him, it gets ahead of itself and leads to excessive snark and high rates of depression. I guess nothing’s perfect, not even education. If Rosen weren’t a professor at NYU, I’d be able to take his desperate-to-find-something-mean-to-say post a lot more seriously.
Dear Extern:
I’m not inclined to list names here, for all the usual troll reasons (and since you’re protecting your privacy I think it is only fair of me to respect theirs. Shoot me an email if you want to hash it out). But in our current SF edit/art/production team, which is currently about dozen people, two people are not white, more if you count the webbies. That number has, over the past few years been sometimes a person or two higher, never lower.
Those numbers still suck. But, on the positive side, our current intern/fellow pool is 50% people of color, which is higher but not an total abberration from the norm. (More on why this is important above and below. And no, we don’t give people of color more admissions points, we just make an effort to reach out in all directions. Serious props here go to Liz Gettelman who’s been running the program for the last few years.)
I didn’t mean to imply that the web/blog world was worse than old media, just no better. (Again, Chris Rabb’s interview on this topic, http://www.motherjones.com/int....._rabb.html, is great reading on this subject.)
To your larger point, you’re right. I go to the National Magazine Awards every year, and it is only a slight exaggeration to say that Mark Whitaker (formerly Newsweek), George Curry (formerly Emerge) and Oprah are just about the only people of color in the room. And Oprah doesn’t even show! (Tho’ Gail does.)
Ok, so you see the dilemma. The people in that room don’t represent all the senior magazine editors in the country, but they do represent some sort of cross section. And lots of people who might be very good editors for Vogue or Vibe or Cat Fancier or Esquire or Essence might not be good editors for MoJo and visa versa. When you add in the fact that I usually have to persuade senior-level staff to move across the country, the pool gets smaller still. Now other people could become good magazine editors‹say, bloggers!‹but I’m just saying the pool is limited.
So my hope is that we can help the overall problem by running an internship program that pays people at least something (note to foundations: more funding welcome) and thereby diversify the group of people who can work for MoJo, and get the next job in journalism, whatever that may be. So the profession doesn’t stay the province of trust funders and people willing to take on a huge amount of debt. I can speak to the latter: I was an unpaid intern at (among other places) Harper’s‹and later a poorly paid editor there as well. Harper’s has 12 interns a year, and in the nine years I was immersed in the workings of that internship program, it had, I think, three interns of color. Interns often get the entry-level jobs when they open up, so you do the math on the odds of a person of color becoming an editor at Harper’s. I used to complain endlessly about this to the publisher and editor, but for them it wasn’t a priority. If the new editor of Harper’s, Roger Hodge, who’s also a former Harper’s intern, can manage to persuade publisher Rick MacArthur to change his mind on this front, it would be a great accomplishment.
Worth noting too, that we’ve just hired three former interns on as editors/reporters. Two are women and the third is a person of color.
So how you set up your feeder team does matter.
And before anyone asks, as to the LBGT issue, we’re in San Francisco, and we’re a magazine! So we usually do ok there.
Best, Clara
Interesting & rather more confrontational exchange here than I had expected to see given the initial article. I liked what I read of the MJ article. The quotes here were good:
http://www.motherjones.com/new.....tem-2.html
Go Politics 2.0! - but it isn’t without it’s challenges. Don’t have the stats on it, but still bet there are more white guys blogging about North American politics than anyone else.