AUGUST WILL ALWAYS COME BEFORE DECEMBER
Journalism, for all its bells and whistles, shiny business models, is fundamentally built on honour.
None of the big offices, fancy equipment will matter, if the humans are not humane.
Humans make the system.
Where a system somehow leaves a person with no choice but to cry out online, only the humans indicted can make it right.
That I chose to point this out how and when I did, after several private efforts, is my prerogative, as Bobby Brown sang it.
You all can never escape the fact that August came well before December.
What did you all do, then?
What will you all do, NOW?
Keep elevating mediocrity and amplifying discrimination based on ageist, gendered and even racial bias within our systems?
Just as bad as choosing to keep quiet, is choosing to demonise anyone who speaks up. Sadly for you, I'm descended of sterner stuff.
I am not friends with, and do not have to be friends with anyone, to speak out, against faulty systems in my own profession.
August came before December. August will always come before December. No matter how many tweets you spin to make yourselves feel better.
Me?
More from Journalism
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?