the ch!cktionary

    25 Mar 2010

    WAM! It Yourself 2010: Leveraging Social Media For Social Change

    Tune in to my Twitter (@lenachen) for live coverage from tonight’s WAM! It Yourself event in Boston or refresh this page for ongoing commentary. Can’t make it? Women, Action, and Media (@womenactmedia) is hosting events nationwide in Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, New York City, and San Antonio!

    Ashley Haight, WAM! program associate, kicks off the event by with an introduction about the prevalence of social media. Among the statistics she cites: 

    • If Facebook were a country, it would be the 4th largest in the world!
    • 1 out of 8 couples wedded last year met via social media.
    • To which @themaykazine responded: “I’m in the ratio that found out her ex cheated via Friendster.” Well, then!

    First panelist is Nilagia McCoy, membership outreach coordinator at @cctvcambridge, and new media consultant for @CSFTweets. Nilagia says, “Social media is like any kind of PR; you need a strategy. Just because it’s free doesn’t mean you should throw anything out there.” She gives examples of successful social media strategies, such as a @cctvcambridge blog series on architectural eyesores. She also gives the audience a sneak peek of the @CSFTweets blog which will launch next week with MIT bloggers.

    She also recommends using @SocialOomph to increase your social media productivity and to schedule Tweets. Compelling content is important as well. Instead of just promoting your own brand, you should engage with and promote or retweet other content that might interest your constituents. Also think about authenticity. The not-yet-launched @CSFTweets blog will feature posts from actual scientists.

    By using MeetUp.com, Robbie Samuels’ (@robbiesamuels) organization, Socializing for Justice (@SoJust), was able to build support and membership. With little funding and no history, they were able to launch the organization with 50 people in a room. Now they boast 1300 members online and have held over 70 events through three years.

    Nilagia says integration is key. Facebook pages should be promoted on Twitter and vice versa. Put usernames and links on print publicity. Robbie says that his Twitter is linked to his Gchat, LinkedIn, and Facebook status messages.

    Amanda Johnston (@alhena) from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD, @GLADLaw) talks about how the firm can use Twitter to retweet and promote related causes that they may support but not directly work with. It’s short and quick. They can avoid lengthy vetting processes since GLAD takes a long time to carefully craft communication. If they want to get something covered by the Huffington Post, then they are already following the writers.

    As Amanda notes, Twitter allows you to participate in events that you can’t physically be at. (You betcha, check out my #wam2010 hashtag!) The panel used a live example by pulling up my hashtag featuring a gazillion tweets from tonight. An audience member asks, “But isn’t that annoying to followers?” In other words, how much tweeting is too much and what kind of Twitter etiquette is there? Robbie says live-blogging events (like me) is one thing, but posting 20 links at once is another. (We all have that Facebook friend who kicks off everyone else’s status updates with their own barrage.) Robbie says live tweeting creates interesting dynamics when you are a speaker with people tuning in via the “back channel” of social media. They might not be part of the physical audience but can chime into discussions using Twitter to submit questions.

    Audience question: how does social media translate to actual action? Robbie suggests using Event Brite (@EventBrite) to organize events, let people know guest lists ahead of time, allow people to follow each other ahead of time, etc. Robbie has used online tools to organize city-wide postering among members of different organizations who collaborate to promote each other’s events. Nilagia says list-servs, which are very simple, have been the most effective way to publicize events among communities of color. Robbie also talks about importance of using offline etiquette online — it’s just as important because even more people see what you do!

    23 Mar 2010

    This week, Women, Action, and the Media is presenting a series of nationwide events in Boston, Chicago, D.C., Los Angeles, New York City, and San Antonio in lieu of the annual WAM! conference, which will resume next year. From happy hours to screenings to full-blown conferences, WAM! It Yourself features incredibly eclectic programming and great opportunities to network with media professionals, non-profit leaders, organizers, and activists. If you care about fighting for gender justice in the media and creating a more inclusive feminism, then you’ll love what we do.

    Tonight, the Boston team hosted a film screening at MIT. The second part of our Boston series takes place on Thursday. Panelists from Queer Women of Color and Friends (QWOC+ Boston), Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Cambridge Community TV, and Socializing for Justice will be speaking on how to leverage social media for social change. If you recently graduated, are interested in breaking into non-profit work, or want to hone PR skills, this is a great opportunity  for skill-building, networking, and organizing. I’ll be in attendance, so let me know if you plan on coming!

    Some of the WAM! events in other cities require a fee, but I cannot emphasize enough how accommodating the organization is, even in this time of transition. No one is turned away due to lack of funds. Just email my colleague Ashley to request a fee waiver. (I was the beneficiary of a waiver myself for WAM! 2009, which I attended for a teensy fraction of the cost.)

    Other questions? Ask me here.

    HIGHLIGHTS FROM WAM! IT YOURSELF 2010

    Boston: Leveraging Social Media To Create Social Change
    co-sponsored by the Simmons Institute for Leadership and Change
    Thursday, March 25, 7-9 p.m.
    Simmons College (300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115)

    New York: WAM! It Yourself Mini-Conference
    featuring panelists from The Daily Beast, The Nation, HuffPo, RH Reality Check, Women’s Media Center, Women in News and Media, and more!
    Saturday, March 27, 10 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
    Hive 55 (55 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004)
    Limited space! You must register here for this event (admission fee: $12).

    Los Angeles: WAM! It Yourself Mini-Conference
    featuring a screening of A Single Woman and discussions on feminist activism, video blogging, and media depictions of sex work!
    Thursday, March 25, 2-9 p.m.
    Santa Monica College, Bundy Campus, Bundy 123 (3171 South Bundy Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90066)

    Also check out event pages for Chicago, D.C., San Antonio, and the rest of the New York and Los Angeles events!

    9 Oct 2009

    Contribute Toward The Next Great Women’s Organization

    As someone who’s rather skeptical of how charitable donations are spent, I’ve only ever given money to a few organizations, including the ACLU and GLSEN. I’m adding another group to my list this week, and I hope some of you will consider it a worthy cause as well.

    The Women, Action, & the Media Conference, also known as WAM! (exclamation mark officially included), is splitting off from the Center for New Words to become an independent national organization. CNW is a prominent feminist non-profit in Cambridge whose programming reflects the diverse groups the organization tries to represent: women of color, disabled women, queer women, poor women, and basically any women outside the American mainstream who has a hard time getting her voice heard. Run by Jaclyn Friedman, who co-wrote Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape with Jessica Valenti, WAM! has been CNW’s most visible event for years and has brought to Cambridge activists, journalists, non-profit leaders, and educators from all over the country and the world. If you’re unfamiliar with the conference, I was at the most recent one and blogged from the panels I attended.

    WAM! isn’t some insidery networking event that only pays lip service to feminism. Instead, its attendees are a diverse group of like-minded media makers and shakers who are passionate about women’s rights and social justice. Conference programming helps young activists find starting points from which to start their own careers, offers practical advice to those want to balance their passion for feminism with financial realities, and trains representatives of organizations without the means to pay for exorbitant PR services. Contrary to some critics who called last year’s WAM! not inclusive enough, I found the other attendees extremely warm and friendly and the organization as accommodating as you could expect a small non-profit to be (my registration fee, for example, was waived by more than 50 percent). Last year’s attendees included representatives from Feministing, Bitch Magazine, Babble.com, Feministe, BlogHer, AlterNet, Our Bodies Ourselves, and a busload of awesomely radical Smith students.

    So what will it take to get WAM! off the ground as an independent organization? Less than a year’s worth of Harvard tuition. Below is an email written by Jaclyn Friedman, who puts it better than I could:

    So far, nearly 75 of you have together contributed $8,636 to help make the new WAM! a reality. And whether you’ve given $3 or $3,000, you’re now a part of a growing movement that will settle for nothing less than complete gender justice in media.

    But there are thousands more of you who haven’t given yet - and time’s running out. We need to raise $30,000 by October 20, and it’s going to take every one of us to get there.

    As Jessica Valenti, founder of Feministing and author of The Purity Myth, rightly says, a gift to WAM! is a gift to yourself, and to all of us:

    The WAM conference has been an incredible resource (and source of inspiration!) for women media makers and consumers for years.  Under the leadership of the inimitable Jaclyn Friedman, I know that WAM will continue to grow, and further social justice, equality and progressiveness in the media.  WAM has given so much to women in the media and beyond for so long: now is the time for us to give back.  A donation to WAM is a donation to the future of women in the media, and really a gift to ourselves.

    Maybe you don’t think you can give enough to make a difference? Think again. Colleen Flannery’s income hovers around the poverty level. Here’s what she told us about why she donated $3 to WAM!:

    • Because I still get into conversations in which women say, “I mean, I’m the furthest thing from a feminist, but…”
    • Because I have a collection of political cartoons featuring Hillary running for president as a desperate harpy in caked-on makeup.
    • Because yesterday someone said to me, “There’s nothing wrong with a woman who knows she’s a woman.”
    • Because people still scold me for jogging at night.
    • Because in my home state of Florida lesbian couples are legally considered unfit to adopt children. Thanks, Anita Bryant!
    • Because Cosmo-feminism isn’t my definition of feminism.
    • Because there were girls in line at the Tucker Max premier.
    • Because conversations desperately need to happen between women of all races, ethnicities, income brackets, nationalities, gender expressions and sexual preferences.
    • Because my emotional life, sex life, work life, and family relationships depend on my ability to rethink femininity.
    • Because the need to find new words and new forums to express an ever-broadening definition of femininity has never been more urgent.
    • Because if we each donate $3, that’s a lot.

    In the next two years, we can launch thriving local WAM! chapters in major cities across the country, which will foster on the grassroots level the kind of cutting-edge thought and action WAM! already inspires nationally. We can build an engaged online WAM! community through monthly webinars on timely topics, a brand-new WAM! website designed to foster action, and of course, our ever-flourishing listserv. And we can ensure that the next WAM! conference — now planned for Chicago in March 2011 — is the largest and most influential yet, creating an unstoppable force for gender justice that will change the media landscape for good.

    I’m not exactly swimming in cash at the moment, so my donation will be in the modest two-digits. But as Jacklyn says, any donation, no matter how small, is significant for an organization of this size, and hopefully, it will be just the first step in getting more people involved. Please reblog, Tweet, Facebook, and email out the news about WAM! As motivation, I’ll be giving out prizes later this week to some of the readers who publicize or donate to the campaign (Just take a screenshot as proof for now — more details to come.)

    Keep on fighting the good fight!

    30 Mar 2009

    WAM! Saturday Lunch Caucuses. I’m extremely curious about what the “Argyle Enthusiasts” discussed.

    WAM! Saturday Lunch Caucuses. I’m extremely curious about what the “Argyle Enthusiasts” discussed.

    29 Mar 2009

    Class & Inclusivity at WAM!

    Renee Martin at GlobalComment questions whether WAM! is truly inclusive, considering the cost of attendance. She says that the registration fee (as well as accommodations, travel, and food) makes it unaffordable for many women:

    “Some women have been able to achieve free entrance by volunteering. but what does this say about equality? Money is more valued than the equal participation of women across class lines. Lest we forget - poor women have always had to serve at the beck and call of women of privilege.

    A woman choosing to travel from Australia will spend 2000 thousand dollars in transportation fees alone before attending a single session. Meanwhile, there are many women active in Asian countries trying to improve the lives of women and yet the cost of participating in this conference ensures that much of their voices will not be heard. The same is true for women in Europe and Africa.

    If you are a mother as I am, daycare for your children is a priority. Even arranging childcare can be a nightmare for a parent for work, never mind to take a weekend to raise consciousness. Finding extra money to pay for a weekend of daycare can also be an issue. Not every mother can depend on leaving her children with their father, or count on family and friends to pick up the slack.

    These sorts of conferences have historically been attended by women of class privilege, who are able to negotiate their personal responsibilities. How many women of class privilege are rushing off to speak about oppression while leaving their children in the care of a woman of colour domestic helper? The irony of this often escapes many feminists; while they rail against the sins of patriarchy how many are complicit in the exploitation of other women?”


    Martin suggests that WAM! could have live-streamed the conference (like The State Of The Black Union did) or divided it into satellite locations across the U.S. so that more women could have participated. I myself noted very few women of color in attendance. Though there were plenty of younger and college-aged women (including a group of ten that made it down from Smith), those under 30 were probably in the minority.

    However, I wonder how realistic it is to expect the Center for New Words to lower registration fees or to live-stream the conference. From what I know about CNW, it’s a small non-profit with a modest staff. There weren’t a ton of volunteers present, and the only videos being made at the panels were shot by independent and local media. I don’t know if WAM! presenters had their airfare and accommodations comped by CNW, but one of the Friday keynote speakers flew in from Africa, and her monthly salary is what I make in two days, so either CNW or some other organization had to offer financial assistance. Granted, CNW has a fantastic presence in Boston, but WAM! had ten times less volunteers than any Harvard undergraduate conference I’ve been to. Judging from the lack of Harvard students and even MIT kids in attendance (and there were no faculty in the distributed contact list or program either), I’m guessing that CNW suffers from a lack of local support. Thus, it operates on an extremely limited budget and relies heavily on its small contingency of volunteers (which is why it probably waived registration for anyone who volunteered five hours or more).

    At the closing lunch, Jaclyn of CNW also informed us that MIT’s women studies department has sponsored WAM! for the past five years by offering conference space and multimedia assistance at no cost. The conference is moving to Chicago next year, the first time it’ll be held outside of Boston in its six years of existence. Considering the budget limitations, satellite locations may not be a reasonable expectation.

    I myself wouldn’t have been able to afford the conference without a scholarship, which CNW gives out based on financial need. This was the form I received when I applied:

    “In order to make this conference accessible to as many people as possible, we are offering a limited amount of scholarship funding to defray registration costs. Because these funds are limited, we are distributing them solely based on financial need. If you would like to apply for scholarship, please complete the form below. Scholarship applications will be considered on a first-come, first-served rolling basis. Should you have any questions about the application or the scholarship process, or if you would like to request a payment plan, please contact me at [redacted].”

    The form asks for monthly income, household expenses, and additional expenses (which I assume includes childcare). I applied the day pre-registration closed, about a week before the conference, and the student fee of $55 (the early rate) was reduced to $20 for me. For the record, I make $1,200 each month after taxes and I half-expected for my fee to be fully waived (because seriously, $14,400 a year is not a living). The fact that I had to pay $20 didn’t make me resentful since I took away much more than $20 worth from the conference, but it did make me think that there were plenty of other women — of all ages and backgrounds — who probably applied for and received scholarships as well. CNW also encourages ride- and room-sharing and set up a message board so that WAM! attendees could defray other costs.

    I don’t know if I agree with Martin’s assertion that there’s a lack of consciousness about class divides within the feminist movement, nor do I think that the recession is the only reason why class is being spoken about more today. Perhaps I come from a different perspective, since I grew up during the third-wave which is decidedly more attuned to issues of class, race, and sexuality. There’s no question that plenty of groups were left out by the activism of the 60s and 70s, most of which addressed concerns of middle-class, white women. However, it’s not as if issues relevant to women of color, queer women, working class women, etc. only became more prominent post-recession; these were concerns borne out of disenchantment with second-wave feminism and they were simmering long before the obliteration of Wall St.

    I found WAM! to be very inclusive, which is in line with CNW’s commitment to “those of us whose voices are often silenced or ignored, including women of color, poor and working class women, women with disabilities, lesbians, bisexual women, genderqueers, and transpeople.” There were panels that specifically addressed activism for and media representation of women of color, queer women, and poor women. The Friday keynote, which featured journalists from Iraq, Colombia, and Zimbabwe, also represented some of the global perspectives that Martin says are often forgotten.

    As a woman of color who comes from a lower middle class family, I completely understand where Martin is coming from. It’s frustrating to feel marginalized within an already marginalized group. However, I don’t think WAM! is deserving of this particular criticism, since CNW clearly tried to make it as accessible as possible. (And besides, how many conferences of this scale offer scholarships? BlogHer, which can afford it far more than CNW, certainly doesn’t.) Hopefully, by holding next year’s conference in Chicago (again, with the support of a local univeristy), WAM! will be able to reach women that previously couldn’t attend. I’m pretty sure I’ll be making less, not more, by then (since I’ll be finishing senior year), but I’m going to try to scrounge up the airfare.

    29 Mar 2009

    WAM! 2009: “Make Money From Your Writing: How To Negotiate Money and Rights With Editors”

    Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

    From the program: You’re a freelancer who knows how to write, but to get published you need to know how to pitch ideas, negotiate fees and rights, adn deal with the editorial process. This panel of seasoned feminist freelancers, all National Writers Union activits, will share their strategies and professional experiences. Bring your own questions for the Q&A and take away some great hand-outs to help you communicate with editors.

    Speakers:
    E. Jeanne Harnois, A&E writer with background in finance.
    Sue Katz, blogger, wordsmith and rebel over four decades and three continents.
    Shirley Moskow, journalist/author, former newspaper editor, National Writers Union contract advisor

    Jeanne Harnois says, “Value your work, and get paid. [Editors] might tell you ‘You’re going to get to have a byline. That’s really cool,’ But ‘cool’ doesn’t pay the rent.”

    “Don’t be discouraged if you have no clips,” she says In that particular case, you may want to take an assignment for which you don’t get paid, but after you get that, you can go to the next level and the next level and the next level. Editors may tell you they don’t have money in the budget to pay you. Whatever they tell you, it’s often not true. There’s a triangle relationship in journalism that’s really important. There’s the writer (you), the idea, and the editor. The story cannot come together without all three things.”

    Harnois emphasizes the importance of marketing. “You are as much a commodity as the stories as you write. You need to create an image for yourself,” she says. “Google yourself. Whatever you want to be, a travel writer, a social justice writer, a feminist writer, you need to craft that image and sell it. If you meet an editor, the first thing they’re going to do is Google you. You have to be really careful where you are. If you have a Facebook page, look at what’s out there and visible to everybody. Party photos probably shouldn’t be on that. Maybe pre-party photos but not the post-party photos. Use Facebook as a networking tool. When you meet editors, friend them on Facebook.”

    Sue Katz considers herself a “revolutionary”. She was involved in social movements, on the more militant side, and wrote for radical publications. One of the phrases she coined that became a battlecry in the movement was “Girls Say Yes To Boys Who Say No” (this was before her feminist days). She was also part of a group called the Stick It In The Wall Motherfucker Collective. She talks about writing for Alternet, in the digital age, and having her writing go viral off other websites like Truth Out, which republished her work without permission.

    “My blog is the only place where I can write whatever I want to write. I started it because my book agent was trying to sell a book I was trying to write about alternative sexualities for people over 50, like ppl into kink. Not missionary. Alternative. Most book editors are young and just a few years out of college. Publishers would much prefer someone a couple years out of college who can’t demand the kind of salary as someone more experienced. It’s a bottomline issue for them. For most book publishers, it’s about the bottomline, not literature. When those editors hear about alternative sexualities, they go ‘OH NO! My mother, handcuffs, I can’t bear it.’” Katz didn’t sell her book on alternative sexualities through her blog, but she ended up selling Thanks But No Thanks: The Voter’s Guide To Sarah Palin, the only feminist book on Sarah Palin. She wrote it in 28 days and nights, with three weeks to go before the elections.

    Shirley Moskow says, “I don’t write for free, except for one publications because it’s being done by one person in the [National Writers Union]. I am adamant about getting paid. I think when you create a piece of work, you have certain rights. I don’t think it’s fair for people on the Internet to pick up your work and say, ‘Well, it’s just out there.’ When you walk by a fruit stand, you don’t just pick up an apple, because it’s there and easy to do.”

    You can register your work on Copyright.gov. First North American serial rights mean that when you sell a piece to a magazine like Good Housekeeping, and they ask if this is the first time it’s being published, what you’re really selling is first North American serial rights. If you send it to Canada, you can sell Canadian rights. You can sell first rights in Great Britain, Italy, so on. Magazines today are often asking for all rights, because they don’t know what media is going to be invented and they don’t know how they may be able to use it. Up until the current recession, it was possible to negotiate for more fees if a publisher wanted electronic rights or all rights. If rights are non-exclusive, they have the right to do whatever they want with the piece, but you can do that too.

    Make sure you have a contact to protect you. If a publisher doesn’t send a contract, write up a letter of agreement and send it to them (this will work as a contract). Email records can also be considered contracts. The things you discuss in a phone call or email with an editor are the things that go into a letter of agreemnt. It’s important to be able to substantiate whta you’ve done. Terms of agreemnt: whether you’re being paid on publication or acceptance (when they receive it). Most publishers pay on publication but if you can, try to get the latter. First of all, publishers are going out of business, and second, they can hold onto stories for a very long time.

    Never sign an indemnification clause that claims the writer is responsible for any lawsuits or libel that arises. Publishers have insurance for these circumstances. If you can’t get away without signing it, add a phrase “to the best of the writer’s ability”. Work for hire is something someone commissions you to do. You have no rights. A work transfers copyright from creator to buyer. Buyer becomes owner of the work. Time-limited rights is agreeing to not sell piece to another publisher for a certain amount of time. Digital Copyright Act (1988) - If you sell your work to a website and your work is republished elsewhere without your permission, you are not in violation of your copyright. Internet service providers are expected to remove materials that constitute copyright infringement.

    Audience member discusses having a piece she did for BUST reprinted on someone’s blog and altered without her permission. Someone else in the audience advises that she start a personal website, and when writing for print-only publications (like BUST), to post her stories immediately to the web so that her website is the first search result if someone goes online to find it.

    28 Mar 2009

    WAM! 2009: Workshop & Breakout Session Recaps

    Couldn’t make it to Cambridge? Experience the conference through the bloggers who attended. You can check out other transcripts and summaries of WAM! workshops, keynotes, and breakout sessions on these websites:

    • Pre-Conference Workshop: PR: Getting Your Work Out There [WIMN’s Voices]
    • Pre-Conference Workshop: Women & the Dynamics of Digital Social Capital: Making the Tools Work for You [Susan Mernit]
    • Keynote Speech: Cynthia Lopez, Vice President of P.O.V. [Kerri Kanelos & WIMN’s Voices]
    • Making Girl Media Makers: The Whys and Hows of Youth Media [New America Media]
    • Women’s Voices & New Media Policy [New America Media]
    • In/Out Of Focus, Broadcasting A Feminist Lens: Gender, Non-Conformity and the Media [Susan Mernit & Feministe]
    • Feminist Blogging: From Journalism to Activism in Election Years and Beyond [The Lady Finger]
    • Catalyzing Cultural Change with Social Media: Fad or Feminist-Fix? [WILPF & The Word Warrior]
    • Queer Teen Filmmakers: Eradicating Homophobia Across The U.S. Reel by Real [Kerri Kanelos]
    • Lessons from the Ethnic and Community Media: Identification, Representation, and Dealing with “Difference” [Hyphen]
    • The Other Glass Ceiling: We had a woman candidate, but where are the women in the political media? [Feministe]
    • Women & the Economic Crisis: Getting Beyond the Corporate Media Narrative [WIMN’s Voices]
    • Pulling the Plug on Rape Culture One WorTumblrd at a Time: Using Accuracy to Undermine Dangerous Attitudes and Injustice [Feministe]
    • Get Opinionated: Write and Publish Persuasive Op-Eds for a National Audience [The Lady Finger]
    • Rapid Response Journalism: How Social Media Tools Can Enhance Your Work [Susan Mernit & Deanna Zandt]

    The full list of attendees who are live-blogging WAM! 2009:

    Let me know if I’ve missed your recap on my list!

    28 Mar 2009

    WAM! 2009: “New Administration, New World Order: The Top Five Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights Stories You’ll Want To Track - And How”

    Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

    From the program: Looking at the five to ten top reproductive health stories to watch under President Obama, we’ll prepare bloggers, advocates, and journalists to cover them, offering a clear synthesis of what legal and policy issues are coming up next, discussing how the nuts and bolts of how to track and report on these stories, and exploring how the feminist blogosphere can elevate and drive coverage of these issues. We’ll look at policy issues from a comprehensive, justice-focused framework and discuss punchy, disarming ways to counter misinformation from the anti-choice movement. This session is an opportunity to brainstorm collaboration between policy/advocacy organizations, jouranlists and the blogosphere.

    Speakers:
    Emily Douglas, content editor, RH Reality Check
    Dana Goldstein, staff writer, The American Prospect
    Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, deputy director, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
    Kiki Zeldes, web manager and editor, Our Bodies Ourselves

    “[The web resources under the old administration] makes it seem like there’s nothing you can do but be abstinent. And the second one, which is much more accurate, says we have an incredible tool [condoms] that can help prevent you from getting these diseases if you use them correctly. It’s a very different message of empowerment and that you have a choice, that you can protect yosuelf. I was really struck by the subtle ways info can be distorted. They’re not blatant lies, but it’s how information is affected. I was really delighted to see a change happen.” -Kiki Zeldes

    Zeldes calls for more transparency about where funding for drug trials come from and how that affects the results, since pharmaceutical companies can influence research methods. Douglas says that it seems that while the FDA tried to delay approval of Plan B, the approval process for Gardasil moved along quite speedily, perhaps a result of pharmaceutical companies lobbying for it. Zeldes says the hormones involved in Plan B have been around forever, have been tested and researched, and have demonstrated long-term efficacy. Even in the FDA, there wasn’t anyone who said this isn’t effective. They were trying to limit it to certain populations and stall it. It took political pressure to force them to move on it. Although Our Bodies Ourselves haven’t taken a stance on the the long-term safety of the HPV vaccine, they are against mandates.

    Studies conducted by drugs companies are three to five times more likely to give a positive result for the product being studied. They are not required to publish the information they come up with. With more money coming from government, it takes out a huge conflict of interest.

    Gonzales-Rojas speaks of a woman who was pulled over while pregnant, arrested for being an illegal immigrant, and separated from her newborn after childbirth (during which she had handcuffs on). Her organization, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, approaches feminist issues from a human rights framework. She thinks Obama is committed to overhauling healthcare, signaled a lot of support for immigration reform. Latina Institute is working at the intersection of immigrant rights, reproductive freedoms, and feminism.

    Dana Goldstein said that including reproductive health in sliding scale (based on income) healthcare plan would probably face opposition from Republicans. For conservatives, adoption is only discussed and encouraged as an alternative to abortion. Mayor Bloomberg was promoting circumcision as a HIV preventative among gay, black populations in New York. In reality, studies suggesting that circumcision is an effective way to prevent HIV were done in Africa promoting heterosexual population. Circumcision in adult men actually causes increased risk to women.

    Goldstein says that Nebraska has a safe haven law that allows parents to leave their newborns if they couldn’t afford to take care of them. Poor families or families without health insurance began to leave older, teenage children with developmental disabilities. Goldstein suspected that anti-abortion groups were behind safe haven laws and was correct.

    Audience member mentions that women seem to be the receptacles of all the responsibility and all the burden of contraception.

    28 Mar 2009

    WAM! 2009: “Get Inside The Minds Of Editors”

    Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

    From the program: Fewer than 20 percent of the op-eds published in newspapers nationwide are authored by women. Help us dig behind the myths and get the real story on what’s happening on the op-ed pages. This interactive workshop will bring together a panel of editorial/op-ed page editors (the insiders) and op-ed contributers (the outsiders) to talk about “what’s keeping women’s voices on the outside” … and off the editorial pages. The session will look at strategies for increasing the number of commentaries that are submitted by women, maximizing your potential for getting published (without compromising your position), and how to avoidt he pitfalls of being pigeonholed. In addition, we will touch on how to establish yourself as a “go to” writer so editors come to you to solicit pieces. The session will also identify strategies for partnering with newspapers to pressure the editors from the otuside to change the status quo on the op-ed pages.

    Speakers:
    Denise E. Zeck, executive director, American Forum and the National Women’s Editorial Forum
    Martha Burk, founder of National Council of WOmen’s Organizations (NWCO), op-ed author
    Marjorie Pritchard, op-ed page editor, The Boston Globe

    “Help another woman everyday. That’s how women get ahead in news organizations and everywhere else.” -Martha Burk

    “I think people need to get hooked on op-eds. Women need to get hooked on writing op-eds. Even if they’re not writing them now, someday they’ll be in a position where they should be weighing in on public discourse about these issues.” -Denise Zeck

    Zeck also says feminist pieces about topics like sex education get filtered into spam sometimes, due to the language. It occasionally makes sense to followup with an editor through call.

    Zeck advises that writers hook op-eds to a timely issue, says that sometimes op-eds  (often regional ones) break stories because no one is covering the same issues. Reporters follow up on op-eds as basis for full length stories.

    Marjorie Pritchard reviews 700 op-ed submissions a week. Pritchard of The Boston Globe says the paper stopped running syndicated columns to make space for 13 freelance op-eds/week. She suggests that writers try to get published in smaller papers that often struggle to attract submissions.

    Zeck also says articles get picked up by conservative publications, because of the dearth of op-eds being submitted to smaller papers.

    “Editors like to hear from young people. They don’t hear these perspectives.” -Denise Burk, who discussed a young woman who got an op-ed about the police chief’s abuses published in The Chicago Sun Times.

    Burk says that you can plan ahead of time which op-eds you’ll be submitting so that your quick submission offers a better chance of being published. “We don’t have a crystal ball, but we can predict some of the things that are going to come up.”

    Pritchard says to always submit an already written op-ed, rather than pitching one, because of the time sensitivity.

    Even though op-eds don’t pay, Burk says they have other advantages, such as media exposure and allowing writers to do on-air commentary on their areas of expertise.

    Have an op-ed you need help distributing? Send it to forum@mediaforum.org.

    28 Mar 2009

    WAM! 2009: “How To Work In The Mainstream Media—And Why You Want To”

    Follow my Twitter for live quotes and ongoing commentary from the WAM! panels.

    From the program: There are plenty of good reasons to work in the mainstream media: you can get your ideas out to a wide audience; you can establish a name for yourself; and you might just be able to make a living (or at least finance some of your less well-paid writing). This panel will explore the different reasons why women might want to work in the MSM and how they can get a foot in the door. We’ll debunk some stereotypes — like the one that says the MSM is adverse to stories about feminism - and we’ll talk about our experiences trying to get stories about “women’s issues” publishd. This session is geared towars anyone who would like to write for the MSM, though it will probably be particularly helpful for those who already have a background in journalism.

    Speakers:
    Ada Calhoun, editor-in-chief of Babble.com and freelance writer
    Lynn Harris, award-winning journalist for Glamour, The New York Times, and other publications
    Kara Jesella, writer and editor for The New York Times and other publications
    Rebecca Traister, senior writer at Salon.com and author of forthcoming book on women and 2008 election

    “[Salon publishes] really long pieces, pieces any consultant will tell you is too long for the web. Even though it’s a medium that’s celebrated for being easy and in-and out, online journalism is actually a medium that lends itself to length.” -Rebecca Traister

    “A lot of times people ask, how can i follow up with editors without being annoying? And my answer usually is, ‘Don’t be annoying.’” -Lynn Harris

    “You’re not going to only write about things you care about. The problem with going down that road is thinking of your work as only some sort of art. It’s work. The problem with thinking of it as some sort of art is that it enables people to pay you less for it. When you’re a journalist, you’re running a business. Other people in other businesses do things they don’t like and it’s somehow okay, but when you think of your work as artistry, then that allows people to pay you less.” -Lynn Harris

    “Work really hard to make an impression on people. If you’re making coffee, make really good coffee.”-Rebecca Traister

    “I remember the day I had to come out as a feminist [at The New York Times Style section]. They were working on a story about fat politics. And I had to say, well, no you’re kind of getting it wrong and I actually know about these things. After that, more people came to me because I somehow became the feminist expert. There is a lot more space [in mainstream media] now.” -Kara Jesella

    “[Salon gets] a lot of submissions, and a lot of them are for Slate. I think the same thing happens to Slate.” -Rebecca Traister

    “Talk to women’s magazines about their website, because I swear to god, they just figured out the Internet last week.” -Lynn Harris

    “There were lots of ways to get feminist messages into makeup copy. The thing I found most problematic was not actually the words, but the pictures. The stories I often thought were extremely feminist, though a little consumerist as well, but there were still the pictures. There’s a photo of Beyonce and most girls are never going to look like that and it will make them feel bad. It was something I struggled with a lot.” -Kara Jesella

    Ada Calhoun, Babble.com EIC, says the future is online magazines with a “lean, mean model of small staff, mostly freelance.”

    “I have been in prochoice marches with other beauty editors. There are feminists within the mainstream media.” -Kara Jesella

    “Taking my GQ money funded my super feminist articles at Salon. Doing those articles lets you afford to do the articles you care about.” -Lynn Harris on the financial reality of working for glossy mags

    “People think you’re a writer so they’re like, ‘Oh, do you go to the park and have ideas? Do you journal?’” -Lynn Harris, Glamour contributing editor

    Columnist Rebecca Traister says she created her own feminist beat at Salon. She references Ariel Levy doing the same thing at NY Mag.

    ss_blog_claim=2e43b69a85ddf3d9e1b2923415211607