Diversity Mongers Target the Web

March 30, 2005 11:04 PM

National Review's Heather McDonald responds to columnist Steven Levy's question: Does the blogosphere have a diversity problem? "Could it be that the premise of the 'diversity' crusade is wrong—that there are not in fact hordes of unknown, competitively talented non-white-male journalists held back by prejudice? Don’t even entertain the thought. Steven Levy certainly doesn’t. 'It appears that some clubbiness is involved'—that is, that white male bloggers only link to other white male bloggers." Do we need a race-based quota for web journalism? As racial identity is often anonymous, where would we start?
posted by jenleigh (56 comments total)

Quick, everybody link to owillis!
posted by RylandDotNet at 11:25 PM on March 30, 2005

So you just talked about the lack of diversity in webloggers without linking to the buckets of e-ink that was spilled over on the WaMo. For shame.

But seriously, they hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed this over there. From the female point of view, at least.
posted by teece at 11:34 PM on March 30, 2005

Gay conservatives who are bloggers certainly seem to be held back by prejudice.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 11:43 PM on March 30, 2005

teece,
Actually, it seems like the second article from that post was the focus of most of the comments, the one about bias amongst college professors. The issue (or non-issue) of diversity in blogs was not addressed very much at all.
posted by Sangermaine at 11:46 PM on March 30, 2005

Duh MAN be keepin em down
posted by HTuttle at 11:48 PM on March 30, 2005

Yeah, I make a conscious point not to blog about race unless I absolutely have to and when I do, I get labeled as a black blogger talking about race. *Sigh*
posted by owillis at 12:02 AM on March 31, 2005

Kryptonite only goes so far against stupid.
posted by teece at 12:11 AM on March 31, 2005

'It appears that some clubbiness is involved'—that is, that white male bloggers only link to other white male bloggers.

Good grief.

What HTuttle said!
posted by uncanny hengeman at 12:33 AM on March 31, 2005

How can they tell? I can make guesses about the gender of MeFites based on username and writing style, but most of those guesses are doubtless wrong. Trying to guess what colour skin you guys have is impossible.
posted by talitha_kumi at 12:48 AM on March 31, 2005

...and I like it that way!
posted by dabitch at 12:57 AM on March 31, 2005

This is one of the most retarded things I have read all week.
posted by nightchrome at 1:08 AM on March 31, 2005

>This is one of the most retarded things I have read all week.

The post or the article, for me it's both.

>Do we need a race-based quota for web journalism?

Huh? It's a bit like saying "Do we need a race-based quota for StarFleet?"
posted by gsb at 1:52 AM on March 31, 2005

On the internet, no one knows that you're a dog.
posted by mono blanco at 1:56 AM on March 31, 2005

unknown, competitively talented non-white-male journalists held back by prejudice?

Like LaShawn Barber? Oh wait, she's held back by being a putz.

First, it is difficult to take anyone seriously who uses the word 'blogosphere.' Second, why does every blog have to be about politics?
posted by fixedgear at 3:25 AM on March 31, 2005

How can you have a quota? Does Six Apart send people round to check your skin colour?

"I'm sorry old chap, but we've got enough lightly sun-kissed this month. Please step away from the keyboard."

"We've over-ordered Preppy White Boy this quarter, so we need you to post to both LiveJournal *and* Slashdot for the next six months. For the balance."
posted by DangerIsMyMiddleName at 3:36 AM on March 31, 2005

Wait - Is the implication here that most people who blog are dorky white guys?
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:40 AM on March 31, 2005

I'll admit though, this a fantastic method of the National Review trying to excuse their own severe lack of black writers. I'll trust NR's conclusions on diversity about as much as O.J.'s investigation into the real killers.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:19 AM EST

Seconded. Some of us know the Buckley story.
posted by nofundy at 5:00 AM on March 31, 2005

This is silly. It couldn't be that prominent bloggers are more likely to be white and male and American than otherwise because white American males are statistically more likely to have computers and the leisure to blog. No, not at all.
posted by orange swan at 5:11 AM on March 31, 2005

what's the Buckley story?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:14 AM on March 31, 2005

the Revenge of Nerds' cast was mostly Caucasian, too
posted by matteo at 5:14 AM on March 31, 2005

christ. two blogospheres in succession on the front page. this blogosphere, it's turning into a real dumbassosphere.
posted by quonsar at 5:27 AM on March 31, 2005

As a level 20 Orc raider I feel almost unrepresented on this weblog.
posted by Dr_Octavius at 5:27 AM on March 31, 2005

You gotta love how the misguided "diversity" crowd would apparently like race and gender to be made a criteria in everything, for no other purpose than to show that race and gender don't matter.

Should a religion component be added to those two criteria, while we're at it?
posted by clevershark at 6:02 AM on March 31, 2005

What a profoundly fucking stupid pretending-to-be-cutesey statement.

Nice.
posted by dhoyt at 6:14 AM on March 31, 2005

First off, from reading both articles, she totally mischaracterizes Steven Levy's article, to the point of total distortion. Way to go NatRev! (And it looks like a lot of you have taken the bait).
Second, the "blogosphere" IS predominantly white male, especially at the top. And there is an incestuous circle jerk among blogs. That's why they call it the fucking blogosphere— Kos links to Atrios links to Insomnia links to Patriotboy... To pretend that there aren't factors like similar background that influence what content we most enjoy to read (and link to) is bullshit.
Third, the solution proposed in Levy's article that somehow became "quotas" by the time it got to darling Heather's: A voluntary call for bloggers to try to link to people with diverse voices (non-English speaking or minority or what-have-you). Then a bunch of you, again, took that as an easy opportunity to rally against PC.
Y'know, I like seeing alternative perspectives. I look for 'em. I realize that not everyone does. But to pretend that social forces don't have anything to do with the content of posts (like we're all somehow colorblind as soon as we step onto the net) is something that only Alan Keyes jerks off to. Just like how I prefer to look at both conservative and liberal pundits on issues, I also like to have a diversity of background and life experience in what I read. And since I am a white male, and the "blogosphere" is a clubby circle jerk, high quality voices can be hard to find. (Oh, and don't pretend that if a voice is high quality it will defacto come through, because there are thousands of great blogs out there written by all sorts that have absolutely zilch for readership).
posted by klangklangston at 6:38 AM on March 31, 2005

The National Review would make shit up in order to advance its own right-wing agenda by mocking the "lib'rul" strawman? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

Well, not that shocked. Isn't NRO the official publication of Red State College?
posted by clevershark at 6:45 AM on March 31, 2005

Back when I blogged, I just linked to people who I found interesting, and quite frankly that's the only legitamite reason to. That said there's been a few occasions where I've later learned that people who's writing I've admired were nonwhite, so choosing links based on taste will often result in diversity by default. But conciously choosing links based on race and making an ostentaious display of it is too much like making alms before men, to be seen of them. When it comes to diversity, best to pray in a closet, at least online.
posted by jonmc at 6:50 AM on March 31, 2005

To pretend that there aren't factors like similar background that influence what content we most enjoy to read (and link to) is bullshit.

Amen brotha! (or sister or african american or.... shit I just can't tell any more). I'm making a commitment this week to link only to blogs written by Malaysians as they have a voice that only my rarely visited weblog, can shine a light on.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:51 AM on March 31, 2005

this blogosphere, it's turning into a real dumbassosphere.

True, but someone's been spending an awful lot of time in the impotentrageosphere lately, q-duck.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:55 AM on March 31, 2005

OK, I read both linked essays. First of all, McDonald misrepresents Levy's article right off the top. He questions whether or not diversity can be achieved in a decentralized realm like "the blogosphere." She makes him sound far more strident and less equivocal.

That said, she makes some good points. Sadly, they are thrown in with pathetic analysis such as:
"As for minorities, the skills gap in reading and writing means that, at the moment, a lower percentage of blacks and Hispanics possess the verbal acumen to produce a cutting-edge blog."

She is far too quick to grab for the Bell Curve. Life is complicated. There are many contributing factors. If you value diverse voices, then you'll want to identify the challenges and you will try to overcome the one's you can change more readily. The "birds of a feather" factor is at once the hardest to eliminate (it seems as if we're hardwired for liking/linking people who view the world in a similar way) and also the easiest to overcome (add some links to people unlike yourself, mindfully cultivate relationships with people who you do not normally encounter).

Pointing to testing gaps is a recipe for inaction and the status quo.
posted by Cassford at 7:02 AM on March 31, 2005

Oh, of course. How stupid of me to forget, sarcastically mocking Affirmative Action is hilarious.

This isn't economic survival we're talking about here, just blogs. And while I'd never presume to speak for another race, personally I'd find being linked to because some guilt-ridden blogger wanted to have a black person in his blogroll to be patronizing and paternalistic. Not to mention, it's a bit like using non-whites as a symbol of hipness or a cheap moral prop.
posted by jonmc at 7:03 AM on March 31, 2005

Kevin: See, but it only works if the content is interesting.
Oh, wait, you were just being a douche. Nevermind.

Jon: You can't find people who are both interesting and represent ideas outside of the norm? I'm not trying to pillory you, but I think there are plenty of ways in which something can be interesting. (I'm saving my fight with you for one over music, so I'll leave your "decrying-white-people-thinking-blacks-are-hip" hobbyhorse alone.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:06 AM on March 31, 2005

Jon: You can't find people who are both interesting and represent ideas outside of the norm?

I bet a lot of non-whites out there will be delighted to know that you consider them to be "outside the norm," by default.

I'll leave your "decrying-white-people-thinking-blacks-are-hip" hobbyhorse alone

I was decrying whites using black people as props to display their hipness/open-mindedness which is a different thing entirely.

I'm going break my own rule that I just laid down and note that there a several non-white mefites who I've become cyber-freindly with and who's style and work I've admired, but I admired them before I knew a thing about their race. That's the beauty of the internet.

To pretend that there aren't factors like similar background that influence what content we most enjoy to read (and link to) is bullshit.

who's to say that people of different races can't have similar backgrounds in other ways.
posted by jonmc at 7:13 AM on March 31, 2005

Like LaShawn Barber? Oh wait, she's held back by being a putz.

Dude, she's in the Conservative, uh, Brotherhood, though.

The Conservative Brotherhood
is a group of African American writers whose politics are on the right hand side of the political spectrum. Expanding the dialog beyond traditional boundaries, they seek to contribute to a greater understanding of African Americans and America itself through advocacy and commentary.


How stupid of me to forget, sarcastically mocking Affirmative Action is hilarious.

Yes, that headline was positively brutal. Dripping with scorn for AA, obviously. Do you think Black American will recover?
posted by dhoyt at 7:14 AM on March 31, 2005

you two through playing the dozens? want to get back on topic?
posted by jonmc at 7:26 AM on March 31, 2005

Jon: In American society, caucasions are normative by nature of their numbers (roughly 75% of the population). I should hope that black people aren't offended when they realize that I regard them as only about 12% of the population. And while there are plenty of blacks who come from middle-class backgrounds, they're not the norm for the population. (One could argue that with a shrinking middle class, that economic section is no longer normative for whites either, but since the '50s that's been the normative media identity).
posted by klangklangston at 7:26 AM on March 31, 2005

jonmc, we've tussled mildly on this in the past. You assume a great deal about motivations. Certainly if a european-american seeks out bloggers of color to link to as a method for assuaging their guilt, then he or she is offensive and wrong-headed. Placing a section of your bloggroll under the heading "Black Blogs I Like" or such would be absurd and offensive. But seeking out and promoting voices that are normally overlooked or silenced is, in my opinion, a good and admirable thing -- whether that be the voices of poor irish-amercians in the projects of South Boston, Haitian immigrants in the Bronx, or senior citizens in assisted living facilities.

Sometimes I feel like I'm reading Tom Wolfe when I read you, jonmc. That's a compliment and a complaint.
posted by Cassford at 7:28 AM on March 31, 2005

Sometimes I feel like I'm reading Tom Wolfe when I read you, jonmc. That's a compliment and a complaint.

I look terrible in a white suit.

You assume a great deal about motivations.

I don't assume that everyone who's vocal about this subject has those motivations, just that I've seen enough of it to have gained a distaste for it.

But seeking out and promoting voices that are normally overlooked or silenced is, in my opinion, a good and admirable thing -- whether that be the voices of poor irish-amercians in the projects of South Boston, Haitian immigrants in the Bronx, or senior citizens in assisted living facilities.

Agreed. But what makes for great blogging is not just the diversity of veiwpoints, but the perception and talent to articulate those veiwpoints. If there's both, fantastic and more power to 'em.

klangklangston: obviously black people are a minority by numbers, but they are extremely American culturally. I'm not sure they'd enjoy being considered automatic exotica.
posted by jonmc at 7:40 AM on March 31, 2005

there is an incestuous circle jerk among blogs. That's why they call it the fucking blogosphere— Kos links to Atrios links to Insomnia links to Patriotboy...

Funny, my blogosphere doesn't look like that. I still consdier those sites peripheral newbies who have yet to prove their stamina and value.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:41 AM on March 31, 2005

Mo: Fair enough. But those are the blogs that get mentioned in the NYTimes, and that's a pretty good indicator of who's in the top level (once you can get the Grey Lady to notice, you know that you're passé).

Jon: They're American, sure, but so are exurbs and megachurches. African-American culture is not the dominant culture in America. By definition then, it is outside of the norm. It might not be terribly transgressive, taken as a whole, and 99% of America may be comfortable with seeing blacks in the media, but to argue that that black culture is mainstream takes either a severe distortion of that culture or an extreme post-modern view of what constitutes American culture.
I'd argue that Southerners in the national media are another minority (though obviously, since they're a geographic minority, they're a de facto majority in the South). But as far as national consciousness, they're too often represented as fetishized other (Foxworthy or Flannery O'Connor).
The feeling, which I seem to be getting from you, that blacks don't have a distinct culture is just as patronizing as pretending that their culture is somehow better just because it's a minority view.
posted by klangklangston at 7:55 AM on March 31, 2005

what makes for great blogging is not just the diversity of veiwpoints, but the perception and talent to articulate those veiwpoints.

True, true. My point is that often that isn't enough. I guess I just don't believe fully in the "wisdom of crowds." I don't think the cream always rises to the top. Sometimes the cream sticks to bottom, gets sick of being ignored, and gives up. I just want to drop a spoon in and stir it up.
posted by Cassford at 7:55 AM on March 31, 2005

The feeling, which I seem to be getting from you, that blacks don't have a distinct culture is just as patronizing

Sure, they have a distinct culture. I'd even argue that there's several different distinct cultures that fall under the rubric of "black culture" in America, but I'll take the liberty of assuming that a black person would enjoy being seen as an individual rather than a cultural reprentative or a museum exhibit.
posted by jonmc at 8:09 AM on March 31, 2005

As far as race is concerned, and maybe this is just me being too cut and dry, if there are more white people in the world then that should answer the question of why most blog owners are white.

But the fact that most bloggers are male is quite strange indeed, considering how much (blatant stereotype coming up) women love to chat and share. Maybe since the communication is mostly one way, meaning we can give our opinions and not hear back most of the time, blogging appeals more to men than women.
posted by JPowers at 8:34 AM on March 31, 2005

if there are more white people in the world then that should answer the question of why most blog owners are white.

By that logic, most bloggers should be Asian.
posted by jonmc at 8:36 AM on March 31, 2005

rather than a cultural reprentative or a museum exhibit.

like, for example, a past-expiration-date punk rocker from NY who always act really disaffected and, you know, contrarian about stuff?
posted by matteo at 8:43 AM on March 31, 2005

that sounds more like a description of an individual than a generic type, matteo. And, for the last time, I never was a punk. And disaffected people don't get misty watching old TV shows.
posted by jonmc at 8:46 AM on March 31, 2005

why does the snoop doggosphere carry umbrellas?
fo drizzle.

what color is the owillisphere?
lib'rul.

i'll be here all week. try the vealosphere.
posted by quonsar at 9:04 AM on March 31, 2005

If you check the stats on LiveJournal (which, although mostly shallow, does encourage a more interactive dialogue between reader and poster) you'll find that it's 67% female. It also has an easily navigable posting style and requires little to no upkeep.

Part of me really wants to think that the reason blogging (and the tone of the articles indicate political blogging) is predominated by white males is solely that they're the ones with time, resources, and a linear left brain mentality that means they can focus on something like this for the hours it takes to keep things current. Change the format and the diversity levels may indeed shift.
posted by redsparkler at 9:06 AM on March 31, 2005

that they're the ones with time, resources, and a linear left brain mentality that means they can focus on something like this for the hours it takes to keep things current.

Now "mentality," can be diagnosed by race. This is great.
posted by jonmc at 9:11 AM on March 31, 2005

*ouch*.
I do think that Western culture has more of a stranglehold on the sort of thinking I was referring to. Perhaps that's not the race card so much as the location card.
posted by redsparkler at 9:38 AM on March 31, 2005

JPowers: But the fact that most bloggers are male is quite strange indeed, considering how much (blatant stereotype coming up) women love to chat and share. Maybe since the communication is mostly one way, meaning we can give our opinions and not hear back most of the time, blogging appeals more to men than women.

According to a colleague of mine who is doing research on this topic. It's not the case that most bloggers are male.

What is happening is that the small minority (less than 5% in her estimate) of news/opinion bloggers are overwhelmingly male. And then when you start factoring in the power-law distribution which means that a handful of sites get the most attention, the results are not surprising.

I see the same thing in my chat dataset. Almost equal numbers of boys and girls(*) participate but a handful of girls dominate chat. I might as well just show you guys a boxplot (6K png.) The top 5 participants in chat are all girls, and make up about 25% of the whole corpus.

Now Susan Herring's theory on this from earlier studies of online gender are that men and women (in general) use language differently, and that women (in general) are more likely than men (in general) to deal with online confrontation by just bailing out. (Disclaimer: Just my paraphrase.)

So in some ways, the National Review piece is on to something when it points out that women (in general) tend to not want to engage in the rhetorical sparring matches that dominate news/opinion blogs. On the other hand, there is no reason why political discussion should be normed around shouting, "you're wrong!" either, so the NR piece just pushes the problem another step back. (There are quite a few other problems in the NR piece that have been throughly covered by other people in this discussion.)

* I'm working with elementary kids, so the use of "boys and girls" here is justified, and I can't reveal much beyond statistical abstracts of data.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:39 AM on March 31, 2005

Kevin: See, but it only works if the content is interesting.
Oh, wait, you were just being a douche. Nevermind.

Huh? Actually I was agreeing with you. Sorry if you missed that.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:52 AM on March 31, 2005

redsparkler: Part of me really wants to think that the reason blogging (and the tone of the articles indicate political blogging) is predominated by white males is solely that they're the ones with time, resources, and a linear left brain mentality that means they can focus on something like this for the hours it takes to keep things current. Change the format and the diversity levels may indeed shift.

Well, to start with. The whole "left brain" stuff is fairly weak. Secondly, most of the blogs I see these days are using some infrastructure framework that allows for the blogger/editor to avoid having to mess with details. I'm a computer tweaker myself, but my choice of blosxom was driven around the fact that if I have to mess with technical details on a regular basis, I wouldn't bother to write. In addition, many of the traditional "feminine crafts" are highly technical and complex in nature.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:54 AM on March 31, 2005

On the point of "technical and complex", I would venture that the end result of what you're referring to is a bit different than the personal screed of a blog. I'm not trying to shift detail oriented skills onto one gender, but I thought that the particular mindset of this one could affect the representation of minorities.

Aside from that, though, it does sound that my idea could be wrong.

But honestly, where does LiveJournal factor into this? How do they wind up with such a large percentage of female contributers?
posted by redsparkler at 10:44 AM on March 31, 2005

redsparkler: But honestly, where does LiveJournal factor into this? How do they wind up with such a large percentage of female contributers?

I suspect it is because LJ tends to focus on the personal, and offers a lot of tools for building networks based on common interest and geographic location. The personal weblogs are quite a bit more common than the news/opinion blogs, so the questions in the FPP really need to be focused at that particular subgenre.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:00 AM on March 31, 2005

Does Six Apart send people round to check your skin colour?

Please don't make fun of my job.

Second, the "blogosphere" IS predominantly white male, especially at the top. And there is an incestuous circle jerk among blogs. That's why they call it the fucking blogosphere— Kos links to Atrios links to Insomnia links to Patriotboy... To pretend that there aren't factors like similar background that influence what content we most enjoy to read (and link to) is bullshit.

Well, there's a few issues here. First, which blogosphere are you referring to? Someone on LiveJournal has a very different perception of what "the blogosphere" is than someone on, say, Yahoo 360. Each of these blogospheres has its own a-list, its own social norms, and its own trends. The *only* blogospheres dominated by white males are the mainstream political one and the technical/software sphere. Granted, they're prominent, but they're not the majority of what's out there, and they're not the majority of what gets press coverage.

So, "But those are the blogs that get mentioned in the NYTimes, and that's a pretty good indicator of who's in the top level (once you can get the Grey Lady to notice, you know that you're passé)."

False! Food bloggers, mom bloggers, hip hop or pop culture bloggers, these all get as much mainstream press coverage as political blogs do, and they get more than technology blogs do. And each of these areas is fairly diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, and other facets of identity. It's only the tech and politics folks (two of the oldest communities) where tradition, early-adopter privilege and rank misogyny combine to make a blogosphere that's not representative.
posted by anildash at 8:51 PM on March 31, 2005