For about two years, I’ve blogged about travel for BlogHer, the women’s blogging network. I started as a volunteer writing about Europe while I was in Austria – I was bored and lonely, it seemed like a good use of my time. I tendered my resignation once, shortly after I’d returned to the US, but the landscape had shifted at BlogHer and the travel slot was open – I was excited to take it. Not long after I switched to writing about travel, BlogHer started paying their writers – a generous per post amount by the standards I’ve seen. While I’ve had random bouts of fatigue, in general, I’ve really enjoyed the gig. Not that long ago I dropped a line to the BlogHer founders thanking them for keeping me on, that’s how much I liked it. Writing about travel for BlogHer has been natural work, easy for me, and given my erratic work history, I’ve really appreciated the small but steady income stream. It’s been a great little gig.<\/p>\n
I’ve been less than delighted with other aspects of BlogHer, but only because I’m not much of a joiner. A solo flier, I don’t like crowds or group events, large social gatherings make me nervous. I was tremendously put off by the negative reporting I read by those who attended the ’06 BlogHer conference, especially the mom vs. not mom divide (and a weird insistence that it didn’t exist). But after making cyber friends with BlogHer participants through the year, I decided I to attend the BlogHer ’07 conference to see what all the fuss was about – maybe my instincts were wrong and I was missing something by not participating in person. I had an okay time and I met some terrific people, but most of what I liked about the conference happened off site when I met some imaginary friends in person. I was frustrated by the crowded sessions, disappointed in the keynote speaker (Elizabeth Edwards, who I have really liked before), and in general, I felt like there were no big takeaways. “Meh,” I thought. “Maybe I’ve been at it too long?” Ultimately I decided that the thing to do was contribute more and, with the help of a handful of swell travel bloggers, I proposed a panel for the ’08 conference.<\/p>\n
The panel was rejected, to my disappointment, though it came with a consolation prize – a request that I host some kind of informal gathering of bloggers interested in travel issues. “That could be okay,” I thought, after all, even though it’s not a panel, it could be what I made of it, so what the hell? Plus, I love San Francisco and I have wonderful friends from college in the Bay Area. Last week, I looked at the conference schedule to see what had made the cut and I was sort of pained by what I saw. I get that these things are important to many BlogHer constituents, but wow, the subject matter focus is just, well, let’s say it’s not for me. I’ve continued to try to talk myself into some kind of enthusiasm for the conference but then, I was confronted with, well, how do I explain this<\/a>?<\/p>\n ..purchase of the land called the Kaliningrad Oblast from Russia, would encourage Russian immigrants to return to Russia by means of financial enticements, and the transfer of the Israelis to the Baltic, would prevent anyone from questioning the legitimacy of this new Israeli homeland.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Briefly, if you haven’t clicked, one of the contributors to BlogHer, Dana Tuszke, posted about a book she’d read that suggested that the solution to the Middle East peace crisis was to relocate the Jews to somewhere in Russia. She provided no critical analysis for this hypothesis but does present her personal conclusions:<\/p>\n Quo Vadis, Israel is a fact-based book and at first glance was rather intimidating to me. Perhaps because of my lack of knowledge, it didn’t seem plausible to move an entire country. But, after reading the book I acquired a better understanding of the Jewish people and their history, and I can see why Nennhaus believes it may be in Israel’s best interest to be transplanted to more suitable land in eastern Europe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not surprisingly, readers went crazy. If you do bother to click on the link I provided above, you’ll see that the first response is, yup, that’s me. I received a personal note from BlogHer founder Lisa Stone thanking me for my comment and stating that she hadn’t seen the post or she’d have got to me sooner, and if I wanted to discuss it further, she’d be available. From within BlogHer, there were two responses, one thanking the community for their civility and another suggesting that readers review the author’s post. Comments run from personal attacks to lengthy history lessons. Some defend Dana’s position as naive, in a sort of “back off, she was just asking” stance, others are more conciliatory and strive for education, a few are closer to the bone. A few asked what I thought was a really important question: What’s the role and responsibility of contributors to the site? I followed up with BlogHer stating, in a spittle flaked missive, my additional concerns. I’ve received no response.<\/p>\n Bloggers like to talk about how they’re taking control of the media, but they also like to use their independence as an excuse for shoddy research. In the past month, I’ve seen the words “bloggers shouldn’t be held to the same standards as journalists” in multiple different contexts. On personal blogs, I’m happy to hand out the “get out of quality requirements free” card, after all, a personal blog is the quintessential home of one individual’s rantings. (case in point, Nerd’s Eye View). But when it comes to organizational blogs – especially those that claim to advocate for the power and value of independent media, I’m less forgiving. One of the contributors to BlogHer responded to the query about editorial controls with the statement that we didn’t need it, we weren’t mainstream media. I’d argue that we need editorial input because<\/em> we aren’t mainstream media and that if we want to be considered as serious contenders, we had better act like it. That means doing our homework, knowing who our audience is, understanding our subject matter, and writing about it conscientiously.<\/p>\n It occurs to me that I don’t know what BlogHer’s editorial policy is, not really. I’ve never really worried about it and while I have wished for more from the site in the past, this is the first time I’ve regretted that there’s no apparent editorial guidance. Don’t get me wrong – after much consideration, I concluded that I did not want to see the post pulled, after all, I am a first amendment booster. I believe the author when she says she didn’t intend to offend anyone – but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that. I do think that in this case, any editor worth their red pen would have sent the author back to the drawing board with a series of questions. “What do Jews think about this idea?” for starters.<\/p>\n I’m feeling sort of schizophrenic. On the one hand, I love writing for the BlogHer site and I’ve appreciated it as a great opportunity to write about something I love for a broad audience. On the other hand, I’ve never been all that enchanted with the other aspects of BlogHer. This hasn’t really been much of an issue until today – the site and the conference have existed in separate spaces for me. But now, I’m questioning my involvement and wondering if I’m not a terrible sell out or worse if I continue to contribute. The angry, strident sector would say yes – I won’t crosslink, the vitriolic languages is not helpful, but they’ve called for Jewish bloggers to boycott the organization and pull their ads. I’ve decided to noodle it over for a week – and I do not run BlogHer ads – I don’t meet the editorial requirements to be part of the BlogHer ad network<\/em>.<\/p>\n I like to think the founders are in a (virtual) room somewhere, maybe with a lawyer, reviewing their policies and strategizing, and that some time in the near future something will make this better. I don’t know what that would be. Maybe I’ll realize I’m overreacting and turn back to enjoying my role with BlogHer, I just don’t know. I’m standing by.<\/p>\n I hear Kaliningrad Oblast is all the rage as a conference destination.<\/p>\n Update: Sunday: BlogHer leaders have emailed the site contributors to assure us they’ll respond after the weekend and to request we don’t engage with the vitriolic commenters on the original post.<\/p>\n Update: Monday: In the comments you’ll see a link to Lisa Stone’s response to the dust up. I should also state that I have a contract that details the BlogHer terms, exactly. I haven’t cracked it since I signing it some time back. At some point I knew the guidelines in detail and I was absolutely due for a refresher. My not knowing the guidelines isn’t through some failure on BlogHer’s part to inform me, it’s because I hadn’t looked at them in a long time.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For about two years, I’ve blogged about travel for BlogHer, the women’s blogging network. I started as a volunteer writing about Europe while I was in Austria – I was bored and lonely, it seemed like a good use of my time. I tendered my resignation once, shortly after I’d returned to the US, but … <\/p>\n