Response From New York Times Editor

OK, one more post on the NYT piece, and I move on. Promise.

I didn’t realize when I wrote mine I was way behind the 8-ball and piling on, as I don’t blog-hop or tweet much from conferences, and am at SXSW IA.

And I don’t normally post angry. Except when I do. Upon further reflection, I question the Times ‘ judgement in headline and graphic choice at least as much as the writer’s.

So I sent an email directly to the editor of the Style section, Stuart Emmrich. I’ll spare you the gories of yet another Lindsay rant, since you’ve read one long snarky one by me this week.

Basically, I hit the same points as my post yesterday, with the addition of an analogy: if a guy went to a Star Trek convention with pocket protectors and broken glasses on, then wrote an article mocking those 40-year old virgin nerd losers, It would still feel like an abuse of gaining access and confidence.

But I would think it was funny.

It’s never a laugh when you’re the clown getting dunked.

The author clearly disclosed her status as on assignment, so my feelings on the “one of us” behavior reported by attendees could be just that: my feelings. It’s not my style, but I see where it’s a hard line to walk.

Mr. Emmrich was kind enough to take the time to read and reply, which I share here with his permission.

Dear Ms. Maines:

You and I obviously read two different stories. I would separate the piece from the headline — not written by the author and perhaps ill-judged — and give the piece a fairer and more dispassionate read. Sincerely, Stuart Emmrich

Hmmm. Ill judged- I concur.

Fairer and more dispassionate: I tried. I still don’t get it.

But, he has a point. We did read two different pieces. My reply to that:

Thank you for your reply. I’m sure we did. Since, as a white male executive, sexist throwback jargon may not trip your alarm bells the way it would someone in my shoes, who struggles against the devaluing jargon of “mommy blogger” quite frequently.

Again, thank you for your time. Possibly I’m not objective, but maintain this could have told a stronger story. Snark is easier.

And the author of the piece, Jennifer Mendelsohn, wrote a rebuttal on her blog responding to the backlash in the blog community.

If THAT were what had run in the Times, we would not be having this conversation. Jennifer professes a love and respect for blogs and bloggers that doesn’t come through from the tone of the Times piece. But I give her major props for getting in and engaging in the conversation.

I see the difficulty of her position in writing this piece. I really do. To maintain credibility as a journalist while covering a tribe you’re a card carrying member of is no easy task. What I wish could have happened was to come in closer to get the shot, instead of going long lens.

Something like:

“We’re all at the bus stop every morning, breath fogging the air, talking about Lost. I’m spacing out, thinking about a blog post I’m working on. One mom mentions seeing a Lost spoiler on Twitter- “Oh, you’re on Twitter too?” I say, and she says, “Yeah, growing traffic for my blog.”

Ahhh. Traffic. She speaks my language. We’re the dual life moms- we have an everyday life where you see us in the carpool line- and our online presence where we post what we wrote in our head while IN the carpool line.

And, though invisible to much of mainstream media, advertisers and corporate America sure take notice…(followed by her statistics, etc.-leading into conference coverage.

Etc., etc., you get it. Maybe Monday morning quarterbacking, I know. But Features are written in the first person voice quite frequently. It could have worked.

I see the desire for distance out of wanting to maintain the appearance of professional objectivity. I just don’t think the editorial choice served the piece well.

And, I brush my hands, pull up my big girl pants, and go back to editing my book proposal that I promised will be in my agent’s hands in two days.

I guess that’s all we can do- keep doing what we’re doing, running that race that is balancing the choices of where our time and attention go. And know that those we engage with in our online life are worth far more to each other then an outside lens can capture.

That will be more than enough.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Yet Another Rant on the New York Times Mommy Blogger Thing (mizzinformation.com)