NYT quotes 3.4 times as many men as women on A1

Because it was easier to find the names and email addresses/phone numbers of tenured professors?

I mean, isn't it likely as simple as that?

Sure, you could track down the cafeteria worker, but that takes time and resources you probably don't have.

When I worked at City Hall for Giuliani, my girlfriend was in charge if his special events, and her sister ran Gracie Mansion, the official residence of the Mayor. They knew him as well as anyone. They saw him in his private moments, and knew his dirt. Not one reporter ever contacted them. Ever. And, a couple of people wrote extensive biographies of him, and the entire press corp was trying to track down the state of his marriage, and the relationship he had with his top press aid.

 

When covering the presidential election?

At the New York Times?

 

Path of least resistance?

 

Absolutely. But I'm not sure that's a valid excuse.

 

Would there be a great interest in finding out what the cafeteria workers thought about Obama? Would anyone even think to go that route other than the "let's find some womyn!" question? The Times followed a pretty well-used hierarchy of talking to the more important people. That technique certainly can be criticized, but if there had been one woman among tenured faculty, neither the Slate writer nor anybody else would care one whit about what any of the others would think.

You'd be quoting a woman for the sole purpose of quoting a woman. Which is not at all what diversity is supposed to be about (though it does often become that).

 

Right. So maybe the real problem is that the Times sucks at the teet of officialdom and credentials, and gender is merely the proxy.

 

And that would just be a new hat on an old Times problem.

But without knowing what kind of stories we were dealing with in the study, it'd be hard to say. But news, at least the hard news of the day, tends to involve men by a ratio far greater than 3.4:1.

 

I'd love to track this through time. What was the ratio in 1910? What was the ratio in 1920? What was it in 1950 compared to 1965 compared to 2005 compared to, eventually, 2030?

 

I am all for anything that looks at the way newspapers referred to women in the first half of the 20th century. Those studies crack me up every time. All those newspapers featured great gals, and check out the gams!

 

In the Times, men are individuals who are quoted to represent countries, corporations, academics, and citizens; women are quoted to represent other women.

The criticism of the Times is so silly.

Why, look at this profile of WaPo Publisher Katharine Weymouth:

Katharine Weymouth Takes Charge at the Washington Post http://nyti.ms/1cAQzxa

Great job by the folks in the Times Business section.

 

That's a valid point. We'll try to ramp up the personal attacks. You ass.

 

Good grief.