Why Does Vanity Fair Hate the Women of Twitter?
|
Jan 6 2010, 12:01 PM
The article, America's Tweethearts (ugh), profiles six
high profile entrepreneurial women (Felicia Day, Julia Roy, Sarah Evans, Stefanie Michaels, Sarah Austin, and Amy Jo Martin) on Twitter and rather than aiming the spotlight at their achievements, it instead paints them as attention
seeking, pom pom wielding, phone sex operators for the internet.
An excerpt:
"It so happens that they are nice girls--the Internet's equivalent
of a telephone chat line staffed by a bunch of cheerleaders"
I...what? I'm sorry, did Vanity Fair just refer to six successful women who have worked very, very hard to achieve success as "a bunch of cheerleaders who chat" WTF VF?
Why is mainstream media incapable of taking the internet seriously? Here, let me answer my own question like a total jerk: BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID. They are afraid of the big, bad internet and its lightning fast communication devices. They are afraid of dropping their precious media megaphone into the web stream and losing control of the news boat they are piloting down the information river much like I just lost control of that metaphor.
By dumb-ing down the ladies (or "girls" as they are repeatedly referred to) of this post, Vanity Fair marginalizes the success of the internet (and women, too obvs) and this makes them feel safe in their little ivory towers of archaic journalism. Never mind the fact that Felicia Day wrote, created, acted, produced in one of the most successful online projects of all time. Never mind that she re-invented and legitimized web television. NEVER MIND. What is important is her "elfin" good looks and her ability (like all these women) to hashtag such important events as "Twilight or Tiger’s mistresses".
Anyone who pays attention to Felicia's tweets knows she would never hashtag a tweet with Twilight unless it were to say this. And while I don't know the other women personally, I seriously doubt that references to Tiger's mistresses make up the majority of their stream. THESE ARE SERIOUS REAL WOMEN VANITY FAIR. They are not blow up dolls or advertising shills. They are people of value. People who are breaking down barriers-not as internet cheerleader phone sex operators but as women using their brain pans to carve out a deserved piece of the American Dream.
Did I mention the article was written by a woman? Well, it was. I wonder what her thought process was with this? I really do.
The article, America's Tweethearts (ugh), profiles six high profile entrepreneurial women (Felicia Day, Julia Roy, Sarah Evans, Stefanie Michaels, Sarah Austin, and Amy Jo Martin) on Twitter and rather than aiming the spotlight at their achievements, it instead paints them as attention seeking, pom pom wielding, phone sex operators for the internet.
An excerpt:
"It so happens that they are nice girls--the Internet's equivalent
of a telephone chat line staffed by a bunch of cheerleaders"
I...what? I'm sorry, did Vanity Fair just refer to six successful women who have worked very, very hard to achieve success as "a bunch of cheerleaders who chat" WTF VF?
Why is mainstream media incapable of taking the internet seriously? Here, let me answer my own question like a total jerk: BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID. They are afraid of the big, bad internet and its lightning fast communication devices. They are afraid of dropping their precious media megaphone into the web stream and losing control of the news boat they are piloting down the information river much like I just lost control of that metaphor.
By dumb-ing down the ladies (or "girls" as they are repeatedly referred to) of this post, Vanity Fair marginalizes the success of the internet (and women, too obvs) and this makes them feel safe in their little ivory towers of archaic journalism. Never mind the fact that Felicia Day wrote, created, acted, produced in one of the most successful online projects of all time. Never mind that she re-invented and legitimized web television. NEVER MIND. What is important is her "elfin" good looks and her ability (like all these women) to hashtag such important events as "Twilight or Tiger’s mistresses".
Anyone who pays attention to Felicia's tweets knows she would never hashtag a tweet with Twilight unless it were to say this. And while I don't know the other women personally, I seriously doubt that references to Tiger's mistresses make up the majority of their stream. THESE ARE SERIOUS REAL WOMEN VANITY FAIR. They are not blow up dolls or advertising shills. They are people of value. People who are breaking down barriers-not as internet cheerleader phone sex operators but as women using their brain pans to carve out a deserved piece of the American Dream.
Did I mention the article was written by a woman? Well, it was. I wonder what her thought process was with this? I really do.
Comments
Sign in to comment with your TypePad, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Yahoo or OpenID.