Inverview with Morra Aarons: Contributing Editor of BlogHer.com

Inverview with Morra Aarons: Contributing editor of <i>BlogHer.com</i>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Mother Jones: You are in tune to the issue of the gap between men and women in the blogosphere. Fill me in on some of the issues.

Morra Aarons: It’s interesting. I think that what has happened with political bloggers is that there is an elite class of political bloggers who are on par with the pundits on the Sunday-morning talk shows. On the Democratic side, they seem to be largely male. When people think of political bloggers, they think of this group of people-the main political bloggers that we all know. You have Firedoglake and Taylor Marsh and there are some other women, but by and large it is, similar to how men get quoted in the press more than women, bloggers who are male get quoted more than female bloggers.

But then underneath it all you have this massive groundswell of women online who are blogging. They may not be classified as political bloggers. When people think of women blogging, they think of mommy bloggers, right? Every company wants to reach mommy bloggers because they influence other mommies as to what products to buy. But these women also talk and care about politics. I think it is the smart campaign that mobilizes these people and I haven’t really seen that happening yet.

MJ: You’re a contributing editor to BlogHer.com. Can you tell me more about it?

MA: It is a big collective of women bloggers. I’m a contributing editor for politics and news. It’s an online group blog. Anyone who has a blog is allowed to list her blog on it. There are thousands of blogs on it and they have a bunch of editors covering topic areas and we highlight what is best from all these women’s blogs. It’s a great online community. I really see it taking the place of the original women’s online communities like iVillage.com.

MJ: Why do you think male bloggers have dominated in the blogosphere as far as their high profile?

MA: People say it’s because men are more confident in expressing an opinion. I’ve actually heard women who I’ve talked to in BlogHer say, “We’re not sure we want to be outspoken in politics because we’re not sure we know enough.” Maybe men feel that less. I hate to feel that’s true though. I think that original political bloggers were people who were activists and they were confident. They weren’t scared to bang down doors, ruffle feathers, and piss people off. And for whatever reason I think that women have carved out their own niche in the blogs, but it hasn’t been in political activism.

MJ: Do you think that men dominate in the blogosphere more than they dominate in traditional media?

MA: It’s about on par. I recall a Ms. magazine study that said two-thirds or even three-quarters of all quotes in the media are from men.

MJ: What about the people who run blogs compared to journalists or editors?

MA: You mean people who are the pundits, who aren’t quoted?

MJ: Yes.

MA: I think it’s probably about even. In terms of personalities, a lot of the political bloggers are on par with people who you see on roundtables on cable news shows Sunday morning. I think what’s inspiring though is that the campaigns have hired a lot of women to work on their blogs. I hope that this signals a change. Edwards has hired a woman named Tracy Russo who’s really good. Hillary has a woman blogger on staff, so I think that the campaigns are hiring more women bloggers. Maybe that will signal a shift.

MJ: Do you think Web 2.0 technologies are going to benefit women, bring a larger percentage of women in?

MA: I think so. Women have been the online majority for years now. They have not been the majority that is writing on blogs. I really hope that they start mouthing off about politics because they are the women who are going to count when it comes down to crunch time in August of 2008. All the campaigns are going to be trying to reach female swing voters. These are these women-mommy bloggers are these women. They have a lot of power. I hope that the campaigns mobilize them.

MJ: Do you think this is an issue that is recognized by the blogosphere?

MA: I don’t think that the small cadre of elite political bloggers are thinking about why there aren’t more women in their ranks. I don’t blame them. I think it’s up to some women bloggers to take the lead and show their power.

 

More Interviews << >> Politics 2.0 Index

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate