Do you know Elise Andrew?
The creator of the Facebook page IFLS
IFLS and Elise Andrew are cool. This article, not so much:
The way CJR covers the internet is almost always awful; the idea that no one has been a journalism brand since Facebook is incredibly odd (seriously, TV news anchors? Watergate?); and I’m pretty sure that profile articles shouldn’t have nearly 1/3rd of the grafs be about the author.
Also, having the cover article of your magazine be a profile-by-assumption, as the author has apparently never actually spoken with the subject is weird-at-best.
Also, io9 isn’t *really* a science blog. CBS should be capitalized. That the sexism issue was basically just lampshade-ed is a huge missed opportunity. Why are their no links to the other works covering Andrews?
Also, giving an even handed treatment to some of her more illegitimate critics is a shame and claiming that one needs to be professionally connected in journalism to escape criticism is both false and entirely missing the point. Having a Reddit dedicated to criticizing you is hardly that difficult, rare, or particularly useful in grading her accuracy.
Finally, having an article about a person whose claimed mission is to promote science without actually talking to any scientists to get an idea of what they think of it is a stunningly large missed opportunity. How about asking Bill Nye or deGrasse Tyson what they think of Andrew’s methodology vs traditional science journalism. Isn’t that the whole point of even discussing this in a venue like CJR? Isn’t the whole point of journalism to do a good job of informing and educating the populace? Wouldn’t some assessment of that be useful?
*sigh* oh CJR.
