I try to keep the things I post on here at least somewhat relevant and relatable to what I consider my audience (here’s lookin at you half-dozen people who read this, including my mother).
So I’ll admit upfront that the blog entry “Their So-Called Journalism, or What I Saw at the Women’s Mags” by freelance science journalist Hillary Rosner might only be interesting to myself, as both a feminist and a journo-hopeful.
But if you read women’s magazines (here’s lookin at you housemates who don’t read this anyway…and yeah, so I read them sometimes too, OKAY) or even vaguely care about what goes on behind the scenes of media and its affect on our cultural perceptions, it’s a good read.
The more disturbing points include:
- An editor giving permission to “invent characters” if the real things weren’t juicy enough,
- Scientific quotes altered “for clarity” but without fact-checking,
- Quote-feeding sources,
- Picking and choosing stories based on headshots of the women profiled, not on the content of the stories themselves
Roser writes, “As a freelance journalist, my reputation for professional integrity is paramount; take it away, and I’m just some girl with a laptop who likes to ask questions.”