Since its 2007 launch, I’ve been a daily reader of the Slate blog XX Factor. I was excited to learn that Hanna Rosin, whose work I almost always enjoy, would be joining Emily Bazelon and Meghan O’Rourke in heading up a spin-off website, but from the beginning I was a bit worried that they didn’t really have the content capacity to continue writing and posting things as interesting as what I found on XX Factor. I also hoped that the Slate was not going the Gawker route, turning all its subsidiaries into a churned out mass of posts, some fantastic and some markedly less so. This is not because Gawker is unreadable, or that I’m among the Jezebel-haters, but because I like the senses of community and quality that I get from Slate and XX Factor, which I feel are absent in the stockpiles of blog posts and comment discussions generated on the Gawker sites. I value the niche that io9 fills in my need for sci-fi culture news (with lady writers, no less!) but Slate meets an altogether different need.
good thing it's in beta because it needs some tweaking
I wonder whether Hanna, Emily, and Meghan anticipated the conversations they have started within various feminist and progressive and media circles? I have to assume that they had the savvy to commission such controversial essays for the first week’s posts, but I think they made a major mistake in focusing so intently on feminism and women’s issues in their first days. Most people don’t seem to be feeling the vibe of “intelligent women writers commenting on and writing about the day’s biggest issues, plus women’s content that you actually want to read!” Messaging and branding are essential to the launch of any campaign, and in this case, Double X missed the mark.
Despite my criticisms, I do like the site and its general mix of voices. Susannah Breslin drives me bonkers and she never has anything worthwhile to say. Rachel Larimore, on the other hand, is certainly not of my same stripes, but her posts are worth reading. I was thrilled to see LaToya Peterson with a guest post. Where is Dahlia Lithwick, though? She’s fantastic. The On-Ramp, a new blog on “work, life, and the recession,” is interesting and addresses current events in ways that you don’t see elsewhere on mainstream media sites. I enjoy Willa Paskin’s TV and culture pieces. In my opinion, there’s a lot to like here, so I’ve been reading the site, responding to the backlash on other sites I enjoy, and talking about it with friends (whose opinions on Double X are refreshingly all over the map). Strangely, I appear to be one of a small handful who have taken to the new site.
Emily B, Meghan O, and Hanna R
While there have been a mountain of complaints about Double X by its own readers and writers elsewhere, but no one has addressed what I see as the potential Achilles heel of the whole initiative: the editors are probably in this for the reasons they say, plus the opportunity to advance their careers, but why has Slate decided to get behind this venture? Especially in the midst of the worst existential crisis that professional media has ever faced, this is a huge risk. The reason, of course, is the money.
According to one marketing trade publication, the online “women’s content” segment is growing rapidly, and presents a fantastic source of as-yet untapped revenue. “Women’s sites, particularly those that are blog-based, present a unique opportunity to converse with a highly engaged demographic in real time,” writes Marissa Miley. Those on the other end of the conversation? Marketers and advertisers. That article wraps up:
The good news for Double X is that the space shows no sign of slowing down.
“We’ll be spending a lot more money in that space,” said Christine Peterson, VP-digital media director at Carat. “It’s just a smart way of approaching advertising for the right client.”
I don’t mean to say that the fact that this is part of a capitalist journalism and media structure should motivate us all to tune out in favor of exclusively reading niche publications that are non-profit or activist oriented with limited advertising. Not in the least. I am a proponent of maintaining a wide and varied media diet. I think it’s important to recognize, however, that at its roots, Double X is equally about making money by generating hits and readership as it is about creating a new space for women’s voices and perspectives within mainstream journalism.
The main complaints that I have seen from commenters and bloggers are that Double X is schizophrenic in its relationship to feminism, Double X is anti-feminist, Double X pretends to be feminist but is really anti-feminist, Double X should shut up about feminism already, Double X is helping to ghettoize women’s voices in media, and Double X should be more like XX Factor was. Wow, what a laundry list. If you’re a doubter or a hater, I wish you would give Double X a trial period and consider more carefully before making up your mind. Check out the pieces on the problematic construction of masculinity and Judge Sonia Sotomayor, while you’re at it. But, if you’re reading this Emily/Meghan/Hanna, get a new headline writer for the love of god! That’s my biggest beef.
