You know what really gets my panties in a bunch? When people quote a commenter from a blog and attribute said quote to the blog itself. Take this article from the Twin Cities Daily Planet, "Imagine a pro-vagina world." (The article was originally featured at Minnesota Women's Press)
Reporter Shannon Drury writes that the feminist blogosphere hate women who vote for Hillary:
I realized that I wanted a woman to be the nominee much more than I thought. I wasn’t satisfied with Obama, who is not white. He’s still a guy, and I am sick of guys.Yet when I announce this, I am accused of being not only sexist but racist. No, I don’t mean me personally, mostly because I am too mousy to stand up in the public square and talk about how sick I am of men in power (though my supportive husband encourages this). I should defer to the royal “we� here, because when Gloria Steinem wrote about the subject in a widely read opinion piece in the New York Times, you better believe my heart sang.
But many women writers in the blogosphere whom I respect and admire called the essay sexist. And racist. And they said very hateful things about women like me who support Hillary Clinton, including that they are sexist and racist. One blogger on Feministing.com called it “pro-vagina selfishness.�
Except we didn't. One of our commenters did. Yet Drury builds almost her whole piece around this quote. Not that she shouldn't - so long as she's clear where it came from. But I'm betting Drury knows that the "pro-vagina selfish" sentiment has a bit less weight when you admit it's not from a blog, but from a reader.
(Note: The editor at the Twin Cities Daily Planet responded immediately to my request for a correction. Big thanks for the prompt response and action.)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What's so hard about accurate reporting?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/7377
But I'm betting Drury knows that the "pro-vagina selfish" sentiment has a bit less weight when you admit it's not from a blog, but from a reader.
Well, that's like comparing the mass of a neutrino and a gluon. C'mon, particle physicists, help me out!
Well, that's like comparing the mass of a neutrino and a gluon.
Now I have to clean the Diet Mountain Dew off my computer screen...
*Claps*
norbiz, you are the best.
No correction yet at that link.
Furious|T| --
There is a correction when I went there (the Daily Planet link, not the Women's Press link) a few hours ago and it's still there. It's in the article itself, not before or after the whole article:
[CORRECTION BY EDITOR: This phrase comes from a comment and was NOT made by a blogger on Feministing.com. See comment below from Feministing.com.]
But many women writers in the blogosphere whom I respect and admire called the essay sexist. And racist. And they said very hateful things about women like me who support Hillary Clinton, including that they are sexist and racist.
I strongly object to the author's implication that calling people out as sexist and racist is hateful. I feel like South Park logic has seeped into the liberal logic here. Remember that episode where they essentially equate the horror of using the "n word" to the horror of getting pissed at people when they use it?
Your being sexist and racist are hateful. But my calling you sexist and racist are not, at least, not necessarily. I'm only naming what I see. How I feel about you for doing things that I consider racist and sexist is going to depend on a LOT of factors. But it's rare that I hate people who are racist and sexist, because that would mean I hate pretty much everyone, and that would tire me out...
Also, not that this excuses the error in the article, but I have actually noticed a lot of people who aren't greatly acquainted with the blogosphere think "blogging" and consequently being a "blogger" just mean you read and participate at blogs, so they wouldn't really see the difference between citing a blogger and a commenter, or they wouldn't realize calling someone a blogger at a site means you're pointing specifically at the people with permanent posting privileges...I guess this is just to say that author's error as a journalist might be a failure to properly understand a forum she's analyzing, rather than a failure to fact check...