So, after flipping through GM sites for most the day, sticking to the safe ones but venturing into Jez and Gawker a bit, I had that same unsettled feeling: I know what’s going on behind the scenes and it’s not pretty. Which makes for a slightly unpleasant internet experience. A couple of things crossed my mind, once I dismiss all the stupid stuff I’ve read that amounts to nothing more than, “OMG sexism, I recognize it because I just read the Medium article that told me it was sexism! Where is my cookie!”
- Stay away from the transparency, Gawker. It gives me bad feelz. But that is unfair and selfish.
- Am I passively supporting sexism? Should I go on a moral boycott? (I am way past the whole internet crusading thing - sure I got into it but after a while decided I don’t like people telling me how to consume why do I want to do it to others.) Well that would help about zero people and the loss of business were I representative of a good chunk of the audience (hmm, probably not but IF I were...) would actually hurt those who are most affected, so the morality angle is a bust. As it is in a lot of situations.
- I ventured into GM twitterland for the first time this year and the amount of people allowed to complain in a public venue about their public profile job is unsettling.
- Who was the (number one) media watchdog that coached us (well me, cuz I’ve read it for so long) on such matters? Jez. And the more dogmatic of its commentariat. Of whom some were posting on there today. Am I the only one concerned about my actions in relation to this? None of us are innocent bystanders. This isn’t even the first time but it’s a different perspective than the Libyan rape victim, Hugo, and photoshop bounty offers.
My conclusion is: the only thing to do in this particular instance that would actually help is to demand MORE transparency. Sucks from a reader’s perspective but we are the checks and balances, ya? (I say it - suck it, Conaboy. Sorry you lost your job tho.)
So...there. I demand more transparency, not less.