The White D.C-O-Sphere?

by: David Sirota

Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 18:12


Random thought of the day: Have you ever noticed how big a chunk of the dominant political blogosphere is a conduit to promote white people (mainly men) living in Washington, D.C. - and further, how seemingly oblivious to this situation these folks seem to be? It's actually kind of stunning.
David Sirota :: The White D.C-O-Sphere?
I just happen to peruse a site called Bloggingheads.tv - and you'll see that, barring a few exceptions, it's basically a site showing white men in D.C. debating white men in D.C. (which begs a separate question: If everyone is in D.C. why do they have to debate via the Internet - can't they just be in the same room?).

Then there was this debate about HBO's The Wire over at The American Prospect's blog - again, I think it's all white people, which is particularly notable considering The Wire is a show that is, at its core, about the diversity of urban America. I mean, at some level, it's just straight up hilarious and sad to watch a bunch of white pundits in D.C. debate a show about the hard scrabble realities of urban America - rather than, say, going out to report on those realities, or at least getting a non-white, non-D.C.-centric perspective on the show itself.

And I caught this New York Times article about a bunch of white guys in D.C. who live together and blog - the NYT apparently getting in on the act of applauding the incestuousness and homogeneousness of it all.

A while back, I had written a post about how people outside of the New York-Washington area are basically completely shut out of the media. I also realize it isn't news that minorities are shut out of the media, and specifically the political media. And, of course, there are great sites you can find different voices from.

But the examples I've pointed out in this post is undeniably a bigger trend within much of the dominant political blogosphere - and it comes from the "progressive" infrastructure that everyone is so thrilled about. Considering that, you'd think the masters of the self-described progressive world would try just a wee bit harder to break out just a little bit and use the Internet to geographically and ethnically diversify the platform. I mean, really - important stuff happens in Washington, D.C., but does the only important stuff happen in Washington, D.C.? And are only upper-crust white men available to explain to us outside-the-Beltway heathen what's going on in the nation's capital?

I'm sure some folks will show all sorts of examples that seem to prove my thesis wrong about a sizable chunk of the political blogosphere being dominated by the White D.C.-O-Sphere - but I really think the trend is undeniable. And I'm not trying to be an asshole by pointing this out. I realize I am a white guy (though not living in D.C.) - and despite that, I don't think it's helpful to ignore the issue. I think it's something for folks to reflect on, especially at a moment when the heartland - not D.C. - has become so important, and when race has become such an overtly critical issue in national politics (in my opinion, the heartland has always been important and race is always a critical issue, but only recently has this region and race become OVERTLY critical for obvious reasons).

Anyway - what do you think? Am I wrong? And if I'm not wrong, what can we do about the problem?

UPDATE: I should have mentioned this in the post, but take a look at Atrios's post today about what blogs the mainstream media most frequently reads (this is one loose definition of what I mean by dominant political blogosphere). If I'm not mistaken, it is almost all blogs written by white guys.

UPDATE II: I've read the comments from folks here and let me just respond by saying I'm sincerely sorry if perhaps I came off as a bit too negative and hurt anyone's feelings. I didn't meant to, as evidenced by the fact that I didn't write about any one particular person - namely, because I don't think this is an issue of one person. In fact, I wasn't making a value judgment on bloggers, D.C. or white people. Lots of D.C. white guy bloggers are great writers - and great progressives. But I still think the question should be considered. Some said I'm coming to this discussion late - but I don't get how that means there shouldn't be a discussion. Finally, on the question of "evidence" - I don't think there is definitive "evidence" one way or the other. Some folks have provided good evidence that, in fact, the answer to my question posed in the post is that I am wrong. My guess is that it's somewhere in between - that there are segments of the political blogosphere that are overly white-D.C.-centric, and there are segments that aren't. Maybe that's a problem - maybe not. But bottom line - I think the question is worth asking, and I really do apologize if the way I wrote the post came off as offensive - I didn't mean it to come off that way.  

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The White D.C-O-Sphere? | 52 comments
way to troll it up (0.00 / 1)
This is just an obnoxious post.
So... (4.00 / 2)
So, I guess asking questions about diversity makes one a troll? Sad.
[ Parent ]
you have to do some research first (0.00 / 0)
The standard equation -- the left-hand side does indeed look innocuous -- goes like this:

conventional wisdom + controversial topic == troll

Discussion of the fact that "there are no" minorities or women in the blogosphere has been going on for ages and ages. The fact is that you're right, trivially, that the blogs, just like most professional occupations (except perhaps professor of child psychology, according to a friend), are dominated by white men.

It is fine to ask questions, but you should try to answer them first. I haven't read through all the comments here, but the most common response -- which comes from minority and female bloggers -- is: "actually, we've been here all the time. Why aren't you reading us?"

Instead of flipping everyone out, you could have googled the question, found the old debates, read the comments, and tried to say something new, perhaps unifying, perhaps informative, perhaps cautionary, perhaps critical, but at least new. Here are some good google queries to start:

For the perennial nature of the question:
http://www.google.com/search?h...

For links to blogs:
http://www.google.com/search?h...

[ Parent ]
Sad (0.00 / 0)
is what your post is.

Yeah like none of us has ever seen a Black or Brown person in the NYT or the WaPo. Black people don't write for the NYT or the WaPo or the Chicago Tribune or any number of major newspapers. I've never seen a Black or Brown newscaster.

The mayor of DC is lily white and never gets coverage.

There never were stories all over the print and electronic media about NOLA and the poor people there.

You know the problem with writers David? It's that they often have to fabricate the things they write about.

Lately you have gone to great lengths to massage the facts and even misrepresent the known facts just to write a story with your 'trademark' bent.

You are better than that aren't you?

[ Parent ]
Hmm. (4.00 / 3)
This is just an obnoxious post.

This doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument.

[ Parent ]
A well-known fact, right? (0.00 / 0)
We all know that bloggers, tend to be white - at least the famous ones.

Less evidence regarding the "D.C.-ness" of blogging though.

That part seems a bit forced.  

But, cmon, why so grumpy here?  I'm sure, even back in BOTP, you had mentioned this once or twice.

But what I would ask David is, how is this any different from media in general?  Where is it different? Why is it different? (if at all).

I would think that political blogging would be more diverse than, say, editorships of newspapers.  Or OTHER political writing.

But it's worthwhile asking the question, as long as it's more of a survey oriented discussion, rather than a condemnation oriented discussion.

[ Parent ]
evidence (4.00 / 2)
I'm sure some folks will show all sorts of examples that seem to prove my thesis wrong about a sizable chunk of the political blogosphere being dominated by the White D.C.-O-Sphere - but I really think the trend is undeniable.

You have given no evidence to this effect whatsoever.  None.  There are local blogs, for instance, that ARE local.  There's the fact that the largest fucking political blog on the planet is written by a Latino, that huge blogs (FDL, Digby) are written by women, that Glenn Greenwald lives in Brazil, that Atrios lives in Philly - those are the top political blogs by traffic and influence, and they don't live in DC.

I find this tiresome and shallow.

Frankly (4.00 / 3)
Frankly, Matt, you seem a bit defensive - actually, more than a bit defensive. And that's strange - because this isn't aimed at anyone personally. It's to ask a question. If you disagree, great. Disagree. But I think it's undeniable that the media - and the blogosphere - is dominated by a geographically and ethnically narrow set of people. And the question is how to combat that. If simply asking about that is "obnoxious" to you - well, I think you should ask yourself why you are so threatened by the question.
[ Parent ]
I think his point (0.00 / 0)
is mainly that you should provide some evidence. You made these assertions, but without any studies or statistics to back them, and in fact, as Matt pointed out, there are numerous examples that seem to go against your thesis. Perhaps he was a bit harsh, but his point is still valid.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
"evidence" (4.00 / 2)
As I said, it's just a random sample, sure. And there is actually no definitive "evidence" either way, because no one has counted up all the major political blogs and done that research - at least as far as I know.

I think it's undeniable that a large segment of the dominant political progressive blogosphere is dominated by white men in D.C. I don't think that's a controversial statement in the least. The question is why that exists, and what - if anything - can be done about it.

What's telling is that even asking the question elicits anger and hostility. It's like a taboo subject or something. But the fact is, those examples I gave - a major progressive magazine, a major site for progressive debate - are fairly good examples, as is the stuff Atrios cites. Again, there's no definitive "evidence" either way - but it's something to think about, not scoff at the idea of thinking about.

[ Parent ]
You're not convincing (0.00 / 0)
I am inclined to believe your argument, David, but you haven't convinced me with this line of commentary.

I had a similar reaction to that New York Times article. But to the extent that you ignore the need for more rigorous evidence than the anecdotal -- and to the extent that you defensively focus on "anger and hostility" rather than the merits of the claims at issue -- your argument loses strength quickly.

[ Parent ]
reaction (4.00 / 1)
Well, I think there are two issues:

1) The reaction to asking the question - the hostility and defensiveness of that reaction by some - suggests that we shouldn't ask the question. And I think that's sad.

2) As the post says, it's just my observation, and I ask the question. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps I am right. So far, no one has shown any evidence more compelling than that which I have presented that I am wrong. And maybe that's a problem - there is no hard and fast evidence about what the "dominant" political blogosphere is and isn't. But I think its pretty much a truism that a good chunk of the political blogosphere - like a good chunk of politics, really - overrepresents white and D.C. And the question is whether that should be changed, and how?  

[ Parent ]
Not sure about the "DC-based" (0.00 / 0)
But sure, white bloggers seem to dominate.  

Again though - compared to what?  Other political writing?  What is the STANDARD you are comparing it to?  For example, I would say that the political science major tilts very white as well.  

Which is where political writing seems to come from.

[ Parent ]
David (0.00 / 0)
The reaction doesn't prove anything. If someone wrote a personal attack against Ayn Rand that had no sources to the claim, and I critiqued them for it, that wouldn't suddenly make me an egoist. His point still stands, that you didn't cite any of your claims, or back them with anything other than random observations. People choice not to try to display counter-examples (which isn't really true, as Matt, and others, actually did), wouldn't prove your case, because it is still your responsibility to back your argument with objective evidence, not anyone else's, to prove your point. Saying no one else gave examples against your case, when your own case is not grounded in anything but speculation, isn't a logically sound argument to prove your case.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
Fair enough. (0.00 / 0)
Eh, hostility is just an emotion - you guys are big boys, you'll get over it. If an argument gets strong enough, it usually earns a more serious reply.

I think diversity in all its forms is healthy for the learning brain. I have trouble transcribing that general inclination into what I think should happen in the policy realm.

(In other words, on the substance, I don't know crap in this particular area (media, diversity, etc). Yeah, I admit it.)

But I look forward to learning from a more substantive discussion!    

[ Parent ]
acting like a troll (4.00 / 2)
I take your work seriously because you back your work up with evidence.  This time, you chose to make assertions with no evidence simply ratifying your own preconceptions.  Your assertion about the political blogosphere being white and DC-centric is false.  You didn't bother to read up on this dialogue, which has been going on for years, or acknowledge basic facts, like that the largest blogs are written by non-DC citizens, and the largest one is written by a Latino.  You also didn't bother to read feminist blogs, brown blogs, polls done on the blogosphere, or anything else.

And now you are resorting to name-calling and fake claims disappointment.  I suppose it saddens you that I pointed out you have no evidence for your claims.  Well it angers me that you abuse my site to put out bullshit that is just wrong and fact-free, and then turn around and pretend like it's my fault you did it simply because you abused the platform you are writing on.

I have a Jewish mother, David, I recognize manipulative and self-serving behavior.

[ Parent ]
Uh, no (4.00 / 1)
I said these were my observations, and then asked if I was right or wrong? You resorted to name calling - frankly, typical of your response when you get defensive.

Again - read the post. It says - here's what I observed, am I right or wrong? If you think I'm wrong, great.

Oh, and just because a debate has been going on for years, doesn't mean that those not in the debate up until a point shouldn't chime in. But then, I guess that goes back to the very concept of insularity that I touch on here. That is, some people are apparently allowed to make an observation, while others aren't because its some sort of club.

[ Parent ]
Trolling is about tone, too (0.00 / 0)
An assortment of smug and self-satisfied quotations that demonstrate an intent to troll, rather than a sincere and open interest in reviewing the state of the progressive blogosphere.

"Random thought of the day: Have you ever noticed how big a chunk of the dominant political blogosphere is a conduit to promote white people (mainly men) living in Washington, D.C. - and further, how seemingly oblivious to this situation these folks seem to be? It's actually kind of stunning."

"I mean, at some level, it's just straight up hilarious and sad to watch a bunch of white pundits in D.C. debate a show about the hard scrabble realities of urban America - rather than, say, going out to report on those realities, or at least getting a non-white, non-D.C.-centric perspective on the show itself."

"But the examples I've pointed out in this post is undeniably a bigger trend within much of the dominant political blogosphere - and it comes from the "progressive" infrastructure that everyone is so thrilled about. Considering that, you'd think the masters of the self-described progressive world would try just a wee bit harder to break out just a little bit and use the Internet to geographically and ethnically diversify the platform. I mean, really - important stuff happens in Washington, D.C., but does the only important stuff happen in Washington, D.C.? And are only upper-crust white men available to explain to us outside-the-Beltway heathen what's going on in the nation's capital?"

And to top it off, there's the caveat, presumably what you mean to be the section that suggests you're just interested in opening the discussion:

"I'm sure some folks will show all sorts of examples that seem to prove my thesis wrong about a sizable chunk of the political blogosphere being dominated by the White D.C.-O-Sphere - but I really think the trend is undeniable."

As Matt has pointed out, you haven't provided any facts and are a priori dismissing any countervailing evidence even before it's presented - calling it "undeniable" despite the lack of proof for even the original point.

The point that progressive blogs, the media in general, computers, the internets, and pretty much everything else tend to be flavored with troubling elements of racial identification isn't anything new.  People recognize this, but a post like this really is just trolling.  It doesn't help us understand anything new about this problem, it doesn't suggest ways of broadening the scope, it doesn't point people to some places where they can break out from the implicit whiteness inherent in most of their internet-interactions.  

But even all of that isn't the real problem.  There isn't always a solution, and the simple recognition that this problem exists is probably worth mentioning regularly.  But it doesn't contribute anything to do it in a manner that feel like it's mostly snark and not much substance.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't seem like evidence is the problem (4.00 / 2)
Let's dial back a second here.  David's basic assertion was that "a sizable chunk of the political blogosphere [is] dominated by the White D.C.-O-Sphere," and that white men write "almost all" of the blogs mentioned in Atrios's post about which blogs the mainstream media most frequently reads.  He both provided anecdotal evidence adequate to his qualified claim, and asked whether or not his observation was valid.  (some of the responses -- e.g. sdedeo and shortfuse -- are holding him to claims he never made)

Clearly there are important blogs written outside of D.C. and by people who aren't white and male, but that doesn't negate David's point about the dominance of the white male variety of blog.  As mentioned, it's been discussed before; it's not a novel point.*  Consequently, I think it is unfair to say that his post was "fact-free" and "wrong." (he has some facts; at least the "sizable chunk" = "white" point is not wrong).

It seems that David's sin was to enter into the subject late in the game, without doing all of his homework.  The subtext of this response is that David should not comment on it unless he has a new angle on the situation.  That this is an old topic; case closed.  I understand the feeling -- it's the frustration of "What are we supposed to do about it?"  But it doesn't hurt to ask the question; the question by itself does not discredit the good work of progressive blogs like openleft.  Surely its a good reminder that a progressive community needs to be inclusive and reach all 50 states.

On the other side of the ledger, this blog has made an admirable effort to link to and discuss issues of importance to women and people of color, by women and people of color.  And David didn't help his cause by starting the post with negative insinuation ("conduit to promote", "seemingly oblivious").  But David should not be penalized for raising the issue, and it's not going to go away by not raising it. That attitude seems misplaced.  

* This is from a washington post article last august on this very topic:

Stoller half-jokingly says that the netroots community is full of "white liberal men," then quickly points out that Moulitsas is part Latino. (The other half is Greek.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

[ Parent ]
What can be done to increase diversity in the NHL? (0.00 / 0)
David,

If you're going to get on the tired old "just a bunch of white guys" high horse then you need to lay out who is being excluded and how.  

Who are the non-white guy bloggers that are being excluded? Give examples.  How is it exactly that they are being excluded and how can they actively be more included.  

I read a fair amount of what you write and I haven't seen you making  any great effort to drawn from a more diverse slice of the blogosphere.

The reasons for the whiteness and DC-entricness are pretty of obvious.  

The crux of the issue is that you are referring to a section of the blogosphere - the politcal junkie section - that has a readership that is mostly white, mostly male and mostly affluent and a subject matter - the central political issues of the day - where the expertise and the story is centered in New York and Washington DC.  Part of the "problem" is the interests of the readership.  One "solution" would be for the readership to change their interests.   Maybe people who are interested in the Foster Oberweis race or FISA should read blogs written by bloggers from the streets of Baltimore instead  of Working Assets and Huffington Post.

An internet connection is the only barrier to entry to blogging and the ability to write/edit readable, insightful, cogent incisive posts that are of interest to political junkies is the only barrier to entry to being a heavy hitter blogger.  

The demographics just are what they are and I think I'm not  alone as a white guy in being always on the look out for a fresh perspective and practice a little secret affirmative action in wanting great blogging from bloggers who aren't white guys who bust out of their box with a little Ethiopian food in Adams Morgan.  

It would be great if the Boston Bruin's could recruit more Dominican goaltenders but I just don't see how to make that happen.

That said, counter examples to your argument are legion and the more I think about it my experience of the political junkie blogosphere is not all that DCentric at all:

MyDD has had Jill Tubman blogging often.  Among the last 6 bloggingheads on bloggingheads.tv were Glenn Loury and Reihan Salam.  The last one I watched was Megan McArdle & John McWhorter.

The Swing State Project, MyDD and dKos all are major blogs that blog regularly about local races all over the country and link to local blogs for a larger audience.

Non DC based major bloggers: Markos - Oakland, David Neiwert- Seattle, Juan Cole - Michigan, Chris Bowers - Philly, Rick Perstein - Chicago, Digby - Santa Monica, Atrios - Philly, Glenn Reynolds - Knoxville, Ed Morrissey - Minnesota, Hugh Hewitt - Orange, California, John Hindraker Apple Valley, Minnesota, Scott Johnson St. Paul, Kevin Drum - Irvine, CA and the crew at Crooked Timber is from all over the US and the world.

DKos is teaming with viewpoints and perspectives from all over the place.

Local blogs have active local audiences, but will never build national followings because they are, you know local.

There are many many blogs written by non-white, non DC, (often unMale) bloggers with large robust readership.  They just aren't written for political junkies.

So it's on you.  I realize that my counter examples are mostly white.  But I think the reasons for that are pretty clear.  Point me to the blogs that aren't getting the readership they deserve and I'll gladly check them out.

I don't think that anyone is threatened by your question.  Don't give yourself so much credit.  (Oh no! David Sirota has called me out on being white!)  Myself, more annoyed that this ended up on the frontpage taking up valuble space in my rss reader.

Instead of "random thought of the day" you should have said lazy thought of the day.  Because pointing out that the people that have the time, education, computer savvy and inclination to participate in the political junkie blogsphere are white is not that frickin' interesting.  

[ Parent ]
It's simple (4.00 / 1)
People who love politics enough to blog about it tend to go to DC either for school or for a career.

The people who can afford to move to DC are at least middle class.

Most of the people who are middle/upper class are white.

Therefore, most of the people who blog about politics are white.

But, of course, there are exceptions. There's this one little blog I read that's run by some latino fellow, I think.

Philly (0.00 / 0)
Funny this would be posted today. It has only been this past week I've noticed how many bloggers seem to be from Philly.

Of course, some of my favorite bloggers, like Matt Y. and Ezra, moved to D.C. because they got jobs at major (well, major enough) magazines based there.

Thought it was a mystery for years, we now Know Digby is a woman from California.  Marcos, of course, is a Latino (not sure how he self identifies, though) from Berkley.

Come to think of it, I'm having a hard time coming up with and DC based blogger who isn't in DC due to a specific job at a magazine.  I'm sure there must be some.

Exactly (0.00 / 0)
I don't want to defend the white-maleness of the pundit class, online or off. That said, the reason they are all in DC is because they all move there so they can be pundits. Not only that, Matt Y. and Ezra at least both seem keenly aware of the notable lack of diversity.

The American Prospect also seems to try to do a pretty good job of keeping a gender balance, at least compared to other political publications. Can't say the same for the Atlantic, though. Both could up the number of non-white commentators quite a bit, I think.

Obviously, though, I too long for the day when our pundits and commentators can be a diverse group of white men not based in DC, like David Sirota.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Snark (0.00 / 0)
Funny yes, but snark. Haha, Dav-idd's whi--iiite. LOL
oK davids white, look Sam, if they are mostly, almost all white (god I hate the word) european-american, writing blogs here, then how does it discussed at all, pasty skinned one, unless some european-american does the writing?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
I didn't mean to diminish the problem (4.00 / 2)
I think have a more diverse pundit class will be a wonderful thing. The idea that it matters whether they live in DC (it kind of makes sense that if you're going to have an office for your magazine, it would be there, right?) and the accusation that "they" are oblivious to it is not fair.

Non-snarky ideas for maintaining a diverse progressive infrastructure would include making a major push for the Low Power Community Radio Act. Color of Change and Black Agenda Report as well as lots of media reform groups are pushing for it as a way to open up talk radio to more People of Color and women. Feministing.com had a post up today about The Op-Ed Project, a project to get more women onto Op-Ed pages. One of the BlogPAC progressive infrastructure grant went to Black Agenda Report, which is a cool multimedia resource. There are probably dozens of interesting projects and policy changes along these lines.

They should be sought out, promoted, funded, and the whole topic deserves further discussion. But it did rub me the wrong way that when David Sirota suddenly recognized a problem that has been discussed fairly thoroughly on this blog in the past, he immediately put down a whole bunch of other people who aren't really responsible for it with a not very coherent semi-personal attack.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
"semi-personal attack" (0.00 / 0)
Where? What are you talking about?

Again, I think this shows that there are a lot of taboos out there. The anger and defensiveness to even asking the question is quite telling.

As I said, I'm a white guy, and I think it's important to ask these questions. If that makes me hypocritical because I'm white and notice a lack of diversity, then I guess I'm a hypocrite. But I think these are important questions.

[ Parent ]
Tahk you David (0.00 / 0)
Great Post, its not an academic paper, you have supplied "no evidence" that is true but the truth of the post isnt deniable. In a society that is fast becoming far less than 90% european-american and far less than 90% male, it is a diagnostic that the punditocracy, the blogosphere, the legislatures, the newspapers, the televisions and the wealth are accumulated in a few hands that are 90% male and european-american.  It isnt a shock, look around, take pictures of the last YearlyKos.

Does this mean I'm not going to read these words anymore? NO way I love these blogs!! Should we drive Kennedy from office cause his ancestors fled oppression in europe -no most certainly not. Should we open doors? You bloody bet. Does that mean supporting affirmative action, it certainly does, can we support those shut out for far too long you bet.

Can we focus education not on personal scores but collective action -I hope so.

If this makes you uncomfortable, and somebody tell me why this is a troll, well so much the better.

We can do better, a whole lot better. Even Gerry knows that. I am sure sick of "they have always been a friend to our struggle" speeches. And I'm looking forward to hearing speeches encouraging coalition, from the outside the beltway, wall street axis.

I want the country led by a coalition of blind, gay, wheelchair using, tall, chineese, blonde and hispanic bloggers who have just discovered how much fun defending their rights is.

I am so sick of the word white when referring to the probable birth of someones ancestors. That aint gonna chnage soon, but you heard it here again. european american, latino american but white? Omfg that is soooo 50's!

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

David, you're right. (4.00 / 6)
And Matt, you're only technically right. Yes, you can name some exceptions but not only are most influential progressive blogs written by white guys who live close by the NY-Philly-DC Metroliner tracks, they're also mostly people with either graduate or undergraduate degrees from the Ivy League. My biggest concern with the progressive blogosphere is the lack of economic and class diversity.

You and I had a conversation at Take Back America a few years ago when I noted the lack of diversity on the blogging panel - I said of the two ethnic-minority bloggers on the panel, one had an MBA and the other a PhD.

You responded, "Yeah, but that's not true - I only have an undergraduate degree!"

I said, "That's true, Matt, but it's from Harvard." You didn't seem to understand my point.

Let's look at the bloggers you mention as proof of progressive diversity. Three have law degrees, one was a Hollywood producer, one was largely thought to be a white male until rather recently, and my famous Philadelphia blogging colleague Atrios has a doctorate in economics from Brown. I enjoy and respect them all, but we do see a common thread here, don't we? I don't think swapping one set of media elites for another will help progressives.

I know you've worked to bring some degree of inclusion, Matt, (as has Chris Bowers) and I applaud that work. But the progressive blogosphere is still a relatively narrow demographic, and it tends to draw and validate similar readers.

Just today, I had a commenter who was an Obama supporter denigrating Clinton supporters as working class and "uneducated." (You know, like me.)

The implication was clear. It was as if those voters were somehow beneath her, simply because they were less credentialed. That's a very dangerous attitude for the Democratic party, and it's one we can't afford to cultivate by . A concerted effort to bring more diverse voices into the discussion might help.

 

Exactly (4.00 / 2)
Exactly - asking these questions isn't to denigrate those who are doing right by the progressive movement whether they are white and/or in D.C. And it certainly isn't to denigrate the folks who are trying to address the situation. But what's stunning is that people get defensive when you even ASK the question. I think we have to get by that. As I said, I'm a white guy - no two ways to hide it. I'm not being a hypocrite by saying yes, I'm a white guy, and yes I think there might be a really big problem here of a lack of diversity dominating a large chunk of the progressive side of a medium that could be much more diverse.  
[ Parent ]
Wait (0.00 / 0)
So having prestigious degrees from prestigious schools is now a problem? I don't really get this at all. Matt and Chris, and for that matter, most of the people you are referencing about are not exactly rich, and many got to college through smarts alone, not from some rich family that paid their way into the school. Hell, Markos went to Northern Illinois and then Boston Univ., not exactly Ivy League schools, and he is arguably the most influential, or at least well known, blogger on the net.

Besides, even if they were all Ivy Leaguers, is that really a problem? Going to an Ivy League school doesn't make you suddenly some rich elitist who doesn't understand others, especially since they have number private scholarship programs that allow less well-off individuals attend. A gap here, if it  did exist, to which it really doesn't seem, wouldn't suddenly make this an elitist, rich dominated blogosphere. Being educated doesn't automatically make you an egoist.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008

[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
the fact that I was able to go to law school after arriving in this country with nothing as war refugees somehow negates my "economic and class diversity"?

And the fact that people didn't know Digby is a woman means that we can discount her?

Everyone brings their own experiences to the table, and we are much the richer for it. The fact that I had to step over a recently shot dead body while living in a country turned against itself in civil war is worth something, believe it or not.

p.s. And yes, that Obama supporter you cite is an idiot. They exist.  

[ Parent ]
Fantastic (0.00 / 0)
This was a great thought provoking post which was very enjoyable.  I am fairly new to all of this blogging, I read but rarely post. (Is that called trolling?)

One thing that I question, and I sense David questions as well is what it means to be "progresive" - and the buttons he pressed were seemingly enlightening.  It is like we create a checklist and you have to measure-up on every account, so when someone questions the diversity of the blog it violates rule #n of the progressive checklist. The response of course is that everybody is up in arms and defends what is happening because it is not part of their "progressive" society but it is reality.    

I think he's onto something (0.00 / 0)
Geographically speaking, I don't agree. I refer you to Matt's point about how people are blogging from all over the place. There are progressive bloggers in Iraq, the prairies, the mountains, the urban centers, the suburbs and yes, D.C., but I don't think it's abnormal to have a large amount of bloggers in D.C. because that's the political capital of the strongest nation on Earth. It seems to make sense to me. There are a lot of DC blogs but many outside of DC that David doesn't seem to pay attention to.

I like to read JJP and Too Sense and Kai Cheng's blog Zuky, when I can and looking back at their archives, I see that there were times when progressive bloggers of color and progressive white bloggers clashed over issues of discrimination and race, and now there don't seem to be very many mentions of one another excepting some of examples Matt mentioned. It's not blogosphere apartheid to be sure, but there seems more to be a pattern of non-communication between the progressive blogosphere of color and the rest of the progressive blogosphere. (Not to say either is less important than the other in any way)

Go Local (0.00 / 0)
Speaking as a white, male, DC resident who is taxed without representation one antidote to the alleged white "DC-o-sphere" is to get involved in local politics.  DC may not have a vote in the House or Senate but we sure do count in the Dem Delegate Selection process. We need lawyers & money, the guns are bought in Virginia.  What we really need is involvement.

Democrats in DC are a VERY diverse group.  DC politics is a huge time sucker, there are way too many meetings, there is little to no money to be made and no good deed ever goes unpunished but it's a great way to be involved in a diverse, progressive community.

 

Yes and no (0.00 / 0)
As the other comments say: Yes, there's a reason for this (not necessarily an insidious one). No, it's not a great situation.

I would love to see a more concerted effort in the Netroots to make space for other racial and gender backgrounds. And as a Southerner, other regional perspectives would be great, too.

Maybe we could start with one "Equal Opportunity Post" front-paged on openleft each week ;)

No, I do not weep at the world — I am too busy sharpening my oyster knife.
    Zora Neale Hurston

Two Points (0.00 / 0)
1. Anecdote is not evidence.

2. Two of David's anecdotes, the NYT Sunday Style Section feature (what next: SNL as evidence?) and WireTAP are, um, the same people--the same basic circle/salon: Yglesias (who's Hispanic), Spencer Ackerman, Ezra Klein and etc.

Meh (0.00 / 0)
It's true that a lot of bloggers discussed in the more MSM outlets: Marshall, Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Andrew Sullivan, etc. are based out of DC, but I wouldn't put them at the forefront of the blogosphere.  To me, they're village bloggers who work at village magazines based in DC.  So while Sunday Styles did a feature on the Yglesias-Klein-Ackerman sort of nexus, they really didn't do their homework.  Whether it's this site out of Philly, Talk Left out of Colorado, or Kos out of California, influential progressive blogs abound throughout the country.
pls debate in same room.... (0.00 / 0)
For two bloggers who live in the same city to debate via the internet just serves to perpetuate the stereotype and make said bloggers seem even more socially inept than the average blogger is assumed to be :P

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
also about The Wire... (0.00 / 0)
you are especially right. That debate also drove me crazy. That show becoming popular also drove me crazy, because I loved it so much.

What killed me about the debate is how all the questions and issues they wondered about were totally white and seemingly small pieces of the story that most friends of mine who love the show could care less about. I'm also a white urban 20-something, but not from D.C., from a much more "colorful" background. What me and my friends see and wonder and talk about when we watch the show is COMPLETELY different than what these guys would discuss.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

Ha ha (4.00 / 1)
Funny, I've always marveled at how under-represented D.C. is in the political blogosphere.

It's dwarfed by California and Philly. In no particular order, of the big national blogs:

dKos -- Cali, and Latino
Huffington Post -- Cali, and woman
TPM -- NYC
Atrios -- Philly
AmericaBlog -- DC and Paris, and gay
FDL -- WV and VA (though Jane flits around all over the country), and women
Greenwald -- Brazil
Digby -- Cali, and woman
MyDD -- Cali and VA (though Jerome is transient)
Booman -- Philly
Balloon-Juice -- West Virginia
Open Left -- Philly and DC
Talk Left -- Denver, and woman, Florida and Latino
Tom Tomorrow -- Connecticut
Feministing -- NYC, and woman
Juan Cole -- Michigan

And so on. There's actually very little blogosphere in DC, and what little there is comes from people who consult or have consulted in the DC political world. I don't know of any locals or people who have settled down in that town for good that blog.

And that doesn't even include the local blogosphere which are much bigger than anything national -- and there's little of that in DC.  

Damn (0.00 / 0)
That pretty much ends the discussion.

Former Edwards Supporter, Obama Supporter since January 30, 2008
[ Parent ]
I See Me (0.00 / 0)
As someone who (a) participates in BloggingHeads.tv, (b) participates in the TAP Wire dialogue, and (c) was featured in the New York Times article Sirota mentions, I feel like it might be worth noting that I have a Latino background (though, admittedly, my skin is quite pale).

Meanwhile, obviously, a lot of people interested in politics wind up moving to DC since, you know, the federal government is located here. Most of the biggest blogs are based elsewhere, but a much larger proportion of DCers are politically active -- including being active in blogging pursuits -- than is true in other cities because, again, it's the capital city of the country. But I'd be happy to move someplace else (I feel like I'd like the Pacific Northwest) -- it's just that, like most people in DC, I moved here because I got a job that was located here.  

good point (0.00 / 0)
Matt:

I think that's a good point about lots of folks moving to DC where jobs are and where the focus is on politics. And let me say, the post isn't about criticizing those doing the writing. Hell, I read your site everyday - you are a great writer. The point is to ask the question of whether there is a general lack of diversity in parts of the dominant political blogosphere? And the point is whether the institutions that do the hiring/promoting are actually factoring that question into decisions?

Again, considering diversity doesn't diminish those who are currently participating. I'm a white guy who will continue writing and reporting - I don't think asking those questions diminishes me either (and from the sound of your comment, you didn't take what I wrote as a personal attack, which is good).


[ Parent ]
yea well... (0.00 / 0)
you guys still aren't getting the same stuff out of The Wire as the rest of us. Just looking at your discussion between the 2nd to last and last episodes, all the questions you guys ask are so damn arbitrary

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.
[ Parent ]
And where did you go to school, Matt? (0.00 / 0)
Didn't you go to Dalton and Harvard?

I'm not saying your Latino background isn't of any value - but you didn't grow up in the barrio, either. And as I said, my point is the dearth of economic and class diversity in the progressive blogosphere.

But it's okay, you guys have already proved my point by distorting or ignoring what I said. Thanks for trying, David.

[ Parent ]
Arrogance (0.00 / 0)
I see it as a sign of sad arrogance that when you ask the question "Anyway - what do you think? Am I wrong?" and some of the smartest people in the blogosphere pile on and say "You're wrong." you take it as a sign that you're right.  Or where you pre-convinced of your rightness and the question was just a rhetorical device (which you've been using to parry once the melee started)?
Um (0.00 / 0)
Um, I meant it as a question: "Am I wrong?" And just because the powers that be in the blogosphere say I'm wrong, doesn't mean I am. It was a question - an honest question. That's all - read into it what you want, but what you read into it is all in your head.
[ Parent ]
But you haven't engaged (0.00 / 0)
the responses.  You've merely parried.  I haven't seen you acknowledge a criticism as valid or find anything that's been said here to deepen and develop your understanding of the situation.  You've been fighting a rearguard action to defend the shallowness of your initial observation all day.  

There have been a lot of interesting things said throughout this thread and you're essentially still responding to Matt's original comment.

Obviously, being in a minority opinion doesn't make you wrong, but for myself, when people I respect and trust disagree with me I have to wonder if I'm wrong, and usually their insights either convince me of that or help me evolve a deeper more nuanced position than the one I started with.

You've just responded with this: "I think you should ask yourself why you are so threatened by the question." I think you're reading what you want into it but the idea that people are threatened by the question is all in your head.

Because raising the point that political blogosphere is DCentric is just plain wrong (as has been thoroughly established) and pointing that it is mostly white is too obvious to be threatening.  

[ Parent ]
Um... (0.00 / 0)
Um...please look at the update posted last night, and, for instance, the comment in response to Matt Yglesias.

All due respect - it's helpful when people make comments having read the whole post they are commenting on.

[ Parent ]
I made a point of making sure (0.00 / 0)
that I had read all your responses before commenting and I think my point still stands.  All you've responded to is the fact that politically minded people move to DC and underscored the fact that you weren't trying to insult white bloggers.  

On this issues of why there is a lack of diversity in the blogosphere and what can be done about it - nothing.  I think Matt's initial comment made you defensive, gave you tunnel vision and what could have been a wide ranging robust discussion folded into making sure people understood that you weren't attacking white bloggers.

I think my point up thread that the blogosphere is a more diverse than you gave it credit for and that it is also like asking what can be done about bringing diversity to the NHL are both valid.  I never thought you were insulting white bloggers in the first place.  So your subsequent comments and updates to that point seemed beside the point.

I apologize for a combative tone.  It seems to be the default style of comment section writing and I don't think it always serves well even as it's hard to avoid.  

So I ask because I'm a reader of David Sirota the columnist, (dial back the defensive posture): What is your take away from this discussion.  Has your thinking changed since you first posted.  And I mean your thinking, not necessarily your position.  Your take away that relates to your initial observation and question _  "Boy I hit a nerve" doesn't count.

[ Parent ]
Good question (0.00 / 0)
My take away is that it is an issue to consider, but perhaps not a huge problem - and a problem that exists not because anyone wants it to exist, but for various predictable reasons.
[ Parent ]
Cheers (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
The White D.C-O-Sphere? | 52 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox