Remember CDs? I don’t think I have bought one since 2001, and now that I have an iPhone, iPod, iTunes, there’s no need to ever buy a CD again. One could argue there’s not much need to buy music either, since I spend more time listening online to Pandora or Blip.fm anyways.
So what will happen to books? I wonder if the publishing industry will meet the same fate as the music industry. I still buy printed books — but many people I know have switched over to the Kindle, and Kindle readers buy two to three times as many books as book readers. Or they’re just ditching books altogether and getting their reading from blogs and online magazines and news sites.
Working on the LWM social media team has been interesting because we’re essentially trying to use social media to promote and sell more copies of a print book, which is an interesting concept when you think about it. It’s harder to get people’s attention for a book when people are too busy to read any more and prefer to get their news and information in 30-second bits rather than long-form reporting and writing. And we’re trying to use social media, the very thing that’s contributing to the decline of longer-form writing and journalism, to do that.
So my question is: what will happen to books? Do you still buy books? Will actual hard copy books go the way of the CD?
I’ve been working for the past few weeks with a great team that includes my friends Leslie Bradshaw and Erica Anderson, working on digital PR and online media efforts for this exciting book which takes a look at how the media covered Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Michelle Obama, and the roles of women in politics, media, and business today. And as anyone who knows me, or has read this blog, can tell you, this is a topic that I’m very passionate about.
When you look back at the 2008 election, there’s no denying that Hillary, Sarah, and Michelle all faced the tremendous barrier of sexism from the media and the American public during the 2008 election. Despite the fact that women are now told they can do anything they want, it seems that after the 2008 election, America is still afraid of powerful women.
A snippet of what the book is about:
“Leslie Sanchez is taking the assumptions and myths about women in politics and turning them on their heads. YOU’VE COME A LONG WAY, MAYBE (Palgrave Macmillan; October 2009) tackles hard-hitting questions like: Can women handle the stress and confrontation of life in the political limelight? Why are women judged in terms of factors like fashion and approachability? How did the media manage to boil down three complex women into the ditz, the bitch, and the darling of Election ’08? D.C.-based Leslie Sanchez lives in the hotbed of high level politics, and can answer these questions with unparalleled authority, experience, sass, and candor.”
Leslie Sanchez is a prominent Republican strategist and pundit. I’m not a Republican, but am helping to promote her book because I believe in its message so deeply: the message that women have come so far, yet still have so far to go; and that more women need to take more prominent roles in America’s political leadership in order for things to change. That message is true no matter what side of the aisle you’re on or what party you belong to — and I fully believe that fighting for gender equality in American politics and media is something whose importance transcends polarizing, partisan politics.
So that’s why, although I’m not a Republican, I’m proud to support this book. And I think Leslie Sanchez may be just what the Republican Party needs more of in order to cast off its tired reputation as the party of old white men.
If you’re interested in learning more about the book or our efforts, we’re all over social media:
http://www.twitter.com/LongWayMaybe (use the hashtag #LWM when asking “have we made progress?” on your tweets about women in biz, media, politics, etc.)
You may have noticed that I (and hopefully by now you’ve noticed lots of people!) changed my Twitter avatar today to the following:
I’ve gotten a couple questions asking, “Why?” So I wanted to throw up a quick post answering that question. Fortunately my friend Tanya already did:
I wanted to tell you about something I’m working on with some of my girlfriends – we’re mobilizing on twitter and elsewhere – and some are coming to DC – to make sure parity in cost is included in all the healthcare reform work.
Tomorrow Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) is chairing a hearing begins at 10:30am in Dirksen SD-430. Women have been called to testify about their experiences with insurance companies and discrimination. But you know who else is showing up? Karen Ignani, spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans. So if you’re in the area and can come – please express your freedom of assembly and come to the hearing.
My day job beckons, but if you can spare your twitter profile pic, please feel free to use the one in this post – with thanks to the National Women’s Law Center and Rad Campaign.
If you’re unfamiliar with the problem gender inequality in our healthcare system, see my last post for more info.
In the meantime, like Tanya said — my day job beckons, but if you have a sec please feel free to change your Twitter profile pic as well! It may be small, but mobilizing online can be powerful — so I hope you’ll participate!
Apparently, health insurance companies decided that.
There’s definitely a lot of noise in the healthcare debate, but this is an issue that deserves our attention and shouldn’t be ignored. Women’s health issues are distinctly different from men, and one startling issue that has come to light as a result of the current ongoing debate on healthcare reform is that women are getting the shaft from health insurance companies in more ways than one.
Having had a pregnancy is considered a “pre-existing condition” for which insurers can deny women coverage.
Only 14 states require insurers to cover maternity care.
Bring a young unmarried woman is perhaps even more dangerous. According to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand:
under our current system a 25 year-old woman pays up to 45 percent more for the same or identical coverage [than her male counterpart.] And yet, some of the most essential services required by women are not covered by many insurance plans…[services] such as childbearing, pap smears and mammograms.
When did this become okay with us? And why? Why are we okay with making it harder for women to get access to affordable quality healthcare?
Insurance companies have decided that factors that are totally out womens’ control — like being beaten up by a spouse or getting pregnant or even the simple fact that they MAY get pregnant in the distant future — are reasons that women are too risky for them to insure. Women are charged up to 48% more than men in the individual market.
What gives me hope, though, is that this issue is getting a lot of attention. Last week it was in my face constantly — and I consider that a good thing. Activists and elected officials alike are both taking action:
Last week, Nancy-Ann DeParle, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform asked a question on LinkedIn: “What is the biggest healthcare problem in your state?” — she’s already received over 840 answers and is planning to include some of the most insightful ones in a soon to be released White House webcast on healthcare. At first glance, there’s already been several answers raising the issue of women’s access to health insurance.
Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic Women’s Working Group also hosted a press conference last week calling attention to the difficulties women have in obtaining problem access to health care.
Eight women Senators have been speaking out on the issue of gender disparity in our health care system. The video, if you haven’t seen it yet, is worth watching — it made me proud of the women we have elected to the Senate, who reminded listeners across the country that being a woman should never be considered a pre-existing medical condition.
I just hope their message gets through the heads of the right people.
I know a lot of women my age who won’t admit it in public, but don’t really know what’s going on with healthcare reform. And there’s nothig wrong with that — the healthcare debate is filled with Beltway jargon and partisan politics which completely detracts from the actual issues at hand. That’s why I’m excited about my latest piece at Lemondrop, which focuses on breaking down the healthcare reform debate in more understandable terms.
I may not be qualified to write authoritatively on it — I mean really, I’m no healthcare expert either. But maybe that’s what we need — more normal people talking about the healthcare debate and spreading the dialogue beyond the realm of just the policy wonks, experts, activists, and others who do this for a living.
If you have a minute, feel free to head on over to Lemondrop and check it out.
A couple weeks ago I had the chance to join Adriel Hampton, Jim Gilliam, and Alan Silberberg on Gov2.0 Radio to talk about CongressCamp, an unconference I participated in here in DC in early September which focused on issues of how citizens can better engage with Congress using online / social media tools. CongressCamp attendees were a good mix of citizens and Congressional staffers, who helped us better understand the challenges Congressional offices run into while trying to use online tools to manage constituent communications.
If you’re interested in CongressCamp, our radio talk should provide a great recap of some of the interesting issues that came up as a result of the 2-day unconference. An audio recording of the show is available here.
An exchange between myself and my roommate tonight (she works in publishing).
Roommate: I just heard Patrick Swayze died today. I can’t believe it!
Me: I can’t believe it either. I heard about it the instant the story broke on Twitter. I don’t even need to read the news anymore because the second it happens, everyone starts talking about it.
Roommate: See from a publishing standpoint, that’s terrible! I don’t even use Twitter.
Me: Where did you hear the news?
Roommate: NPR.
Me: Oh, that’s good.
Roommate: Well, that was actually only because someone posted it on Facebook.
…
Kind of makes you wonder…what is going to happen to the news? Where will it be in five years? Will it just become secondary to social media?
Sarah Palin is not governor of Alaska anymore, she’s not a VP candidate anymore, no one even knows WHAT she is really doing these days and yet the woman. is. everywhere.
She supposedly resigned to get out of the limelight and get her life together, yet she’s continuing to push her healthcare agenda to anyone who will listen, through a variety of channels.
Tonight she penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Her Twitter account has been inactive since she resigned, but that’s okay — she’s all about Facebook now. She responds to major stories via Facebook notes. Like this one, penned in response to the controversy over the Associated Press releasing the photo of the dying Marine.
Really, it’s kind of fascinating to see how she is using Facebook notes as a primary communication channel. Who needs a blog when you can do that? Really, who even needs to place op-eds in the WSJ when you can write a Facebook note that will be read by roughly 860,000 fans?
She, like everyone else, can publish her thoughts instantly through a blog or Facebook note. But because she is Sarah Palin, she has rare and coveted access to the Wall Street Journal to publish her ideas there if she so desires — but does she really need it? Why wait for a paper to publish her thoughts when she can do it herself on Facebook, instantly, and with full control over her message?
One of my favorite things to do on Sunday mornings is make coffee and plop in front of the TV for the Sunday show lineup: Meet The Press, This Week, Face the Nation, maybe even Fox News if I was feeling brave. It’s something I’ve been doing since I was a kid, since my dad always had the Sunday shows on when I was little.
But lately I can’t help but notice how disappointing some of our Sunday show programming has become. A study from Media Matters for America shows that on average, Sunday show guests are 80% male. The study was done in 2007, but really: how much has changed since then?
Yesterday, of the five major Sunday morning shows (Chris Matthews, Fox News Sunday, This Week, Face the Nation, and Meet the Press), there were a total of twenty-three guests.
Out of those twenty-three guests, how many were women?
So women still made up about 17% of yesterday’s guests on Sunday talk shows. (Also, coincidentally, women make up 17% of Congress….that’s for another post some day).
The more startling thing is that many of yesterday’s Sunday show panels were talking about the current hot topic around the nation: healthcare. Healthcare is an extremely important women’s issue — so why are there so few women being included in the conversation? Not that it is any less important to include women in conversations on, say, foreign policy and war, but with healthcare in particular there really is absolutely no excuse to leave women out of the conversation when you consider how much importance this issue has to women around the country, and how high the stakes are.
17% is abysmal. And it shows that almost nothing has changed since 2005, when the Media Matters study was conducted. The networks are still airing the same types of guests — and when they do seek out diversity, they have the same “token” women or token people of color (Juan Williams, for example, accounted for 99 of the 126 Sunday show appearances by an African-American in the Media Matters study).
So the question now is: what will it take to see real change out the networks, who have been doing the same thing for years?
Last week, progressive activists Tracy Viselli, Jim Gilliam, Gina Cooper, and Jon Pincus launched TweetProgress.us, a directory of progressives on Twitter with the goal of helping progressives better organize online.
Also last week, Republicans launched a new Republicans-only social networking site, Republicanville, with the goal of helping Republicans better connect and organize online.
Which tool will achieve its stated goals of helping its community better organize themselves online, connect with each other, and use Twitter for activism and organizing? Obviously I’m biased in which one I want to see succeed.
TweetProgress already has had 3,000 Twitter users sign up, including Al Gore, Rachel Maddow, and Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, among others. Conservatives on Twitter have long been organizing through use of the #tcot hashtag, which even progressives admit has given conservatives the upper hand when it comes to organizing via Twitter.
Republicanville, on the other hand, claims to be a social network “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Founded by Republicans Stryker Lampe and Charles A. Jense, the website states that their “fundamentals are based on fiscal conservatism with the ideals of smaller government, low taxes, stronger defense and capitalism. We welcome all types of Republicans + Independents & Libertarians.” It seems similar to Facebook — albums, profiles, groups, blogs, and in addition: a Republican job board. I haven’t seen enough coverage of it yet to find out more about what their goals are, or how many people have joined since their launch. It also begs the question: does the internet really need another social networking site?
I will definitely be paying attention to see how these two new tools fare over the next few weeks and how they will affect both sides’ ability to organize online.
I will definitely be paying attention to see how these two new tools fare over the next few weeks and how they will affect both sides’ ability to organize online.
