Port Magazine heralded the “New Golden Age” of print publishing by featuring six male editors on its cover. Lots of folks took issue, including Alyssa Rosenberg, who wrote: “The choice of those particular six white men, most of whom represent legacy publications (GQ, the New York Times Magazine), suggests that Port has an amazingly conservative understanding of what constitutes the new golden age.”
Proof? Mark Armstrong at Longreads compiled a list of 21 Examples of ‘Serious Journalism’ from Women’s Magazines and Websites that includes some great stories.
But Amanda Hess fires back on Slate this morning, with an attempt to measure story investment (and risk?) as a means of measuring import. Here, she argues, women’s magazines don’t measure up.
It’s important to recognize stories by, for, and about women, and to celebrate the magazines that are dedicated to publishing them. From the annual ASMEs to the cover of Port, that doesn’t happen often enough. But the women’s magazine problem is not just a perception issue. “Serious journalism” defies definition, but a publication’s investment in storytelling—the time, money, and pages it devotes to narrative—is measurable. I’m not privy to the budget breakdowns of these magazines, but it’s not difficult to discern the editorial investment in a story just by reading it. And even the pieces that have been heralded this week as “the very best” of women’s magazines could invest a lot more.
What I’m wondering is whether quote-unquote serious female writers even pitch to quote-unquote women’s magazines?
Leave a comment