PressEthic

Salon launched a new section called Broadsheet yesterday, their “cheeky new women’s blog.” In the introduction to the new feature, the editors explained that Broadsheet was born from emails that were constantly circulating around the office about women's news tidbits that weren’t receiving much coverage in the news. I guess the stories also weren't important enough for them to actually focus on long enough to write a regular article in any of their other sections. So, the editors have decided that separatism is really they way to go (forget history lessons, let’s turn back the clock about forty years), and they will use the blog to discuss “news that puts women in the center.” It will address women’s rights, women in politics, and women’s health policies. Oh yeah and this: “We'll also have celebrity dish and possibly fashion news. And jokes. Women are funny.” We are? Gee, thanks Salon.

I first heard about Broadsheet via feministing.com, which I visit daily, because I have never trusted mainstream media to report on a broad range of women’s topics, nor do I always trust their portrayal of women and women’s issues.

While reading over the introduction, I became aware that a certain amount of humility was missing. It’s not as if Salon is pioneering a movement in any way, shape, or form. I am not one to discourage any step that is made toward having an equality of voices, coverage, and topics when it comes to women in the news. The editors write, “So here we are, carving out a new niche in our ever-evolving publication.” Ok, we get it, Salon has been going through some editorial changes lately. But what I find strange is that I never felt that Salon was missing this particular niche coverage before. There have been many thoughtful, cultural, political, etc. articles about women in the publication. It just wasn’t carved out, roped off, and splattered in pink graphics. So why start now?

A quick look at the readers' comments shows that I am not the only one who is a bit befuddled. One person pointed out that Salon couldn’t have picked a worse time to pronounce the media guilty of leaving women out. Think about who you would list as the most talked about people in the news this month: Judith Miller, Valerie Plame, and Harriet Miers are really high up there. Though there has been no defecit of coverage on these women, I think that the nature of the coverage is always worth studying (and many people have been studying it). The negative coverage on Miers, though it has mostly to do with her lack of qualifications, sometimes goes off the track into an alarmingly throw-back sexist slant. And this happens often when powerful women are being written about. It may not be right on the page, but insinuations lurk between the lines, and pretty soon a story is boiled down to something as trite as cheesy greeting cards.

Some people in the comments section accused Salon of trivializing women’s issues. I don’t really get this. Haven’t they ever heard of this brand of feminist-light? Just because a person blogs about the cultural implications of Britney’s stolen baby photos, it doesn’t mean that they don’t also support the ERA. In the words of bell hooks, feminism is for everybody. Even Salon.