I'm not calling her a whore, I'm just saying, she has a lot of men to her house

Brainstorming session! Everyone think of a word used to describe a woman - where the word has no male counterpart!

OK there is

Slut
Skank
Whore
and

DOYENNE.

Which brings me to journalism pet peeve #3. Use of the word "doyenne" to describe well-connected women in Washington. (Alternatively -- well-connected men in Washington are just called 'power brokers.')

While the original definition of doyenne (at least online) implies some amount of respect owed --

A woman who is the eldest or senior member of a group or profession.
In journalism, it is invariably used in the context of a condescending profile of a 30-60 year old Washington woman who has a lot of parties at her house. To me, it's a socially acceptable way of calling a woman a whore. Like calling someone "asinine" when you really want to call them an ass.

Thank my lucky stars I haven't read this in the newspaper lately (probably because I haven't been reading the newspaper lately); however I encountered its use in this book I am reading called "The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate" by Fox News correspondent James Rosen. In one passage (page 215) Rosen refers to now-deceased Washington Star columnist Mary McGrory as a "doyenne," calling to mind someone who doesn't have a job, or who thinks of throwing dinner parties as a full-time job. When in fact Mary McGrory was a political columnist who made it onto Nixon's enemies list. So don't go round town calling her no 'doyenne.' Your mothers a doyenne ya SOB!



James Rosen




Mary McGrory




Propose solution: Just as transfats have no place in a healthy diet, the phrase "Washington doyenne" has no place in my vocabulary.

Have you seen this "viral" yotube "video"?

When a print journalist, or, in this case, columnist, writes about a youtube video -- 3 weeks after it's already gone viral.

See:
Kathleen Parker's column in today's post. The video in question is local news footage of a man called Antoine Dodson having a nervous outburst following the attempted rape of his sister. He has a funny voice, funny lookin face, and a 'fro so the whole video sounds weirdly ripped from a Dave Chappelle skit.

Attempted rape = ROFL

Anyway, here's my twitter reinterpretation of Parker's column. "Totally don't have anything to write for 2days column BC been on utube watching THIS HILARIOUS MOFO! OMFG black people are funny!"



INvariably, when a print journalist writes about a youtube video -- first of all, the article runs two weeks to up to several months after everyone has watched and forgotten the video.

The subtext seems to be: "If you're reading this you are either old and senile and need to read about youtube in the newspaper because you don't know what a computer is. OR, you are young and hip and therefore me telling you about this youtube video will demonstrate my awareness of what the kids these days are into!" For example.

This pretense of hipness just reinforces the following perceptions:


1) Journalists are losers so their friends don't send them links to youtube videos until 3 weeks after everyone else has already seen it. Which is why you can only read about a youtube video in the newspaper 3 weeks after you've already seen it online.

2) Since journalists spend their days looking at crap online, there's really no difference between you and a journalist, so who the hell needs them.

3) Buying a newspaper is exactly the same as spending 75 cents to read a second-hand account of something you already saw with your own eyes, for free, 3 weeks ago.



Proposed solution:

> Universal ban on articles about 3-weeks-old youtube videos unless the video has actually caused something newsworthy to happen. (I know, I know 'newsworthy' is itself a vague and lame term ... to be scrutinized another day). AKA Shirley Sherrod firing.

This Little Reporter Had Roast Beef, and this little reporter had none

When a reporter refers to himself as "a reporter" in the context of a story.

I will use as an example this passage from an August 6 article in the New York Times, "Watergate Becomes a Sore Point at Nixon Library," by Adam Nagourney. The article itself is pretty interesting if you care about the politics of presidential libraries (which I DO) -- HOWEVER. It is guilty of my journalism pet peeve #1:
The construction of the omnipotent reporter.


Mr. Naftali spoke in his basement office, where — with no apparent appreciation of the irony — he flinched when a reporter took out a tape recorder for an interview, saying that he would not agree to taping of an interview in his office in the Nixon museum.


What is so wrong with the use of the phrase "a reporter," you may ask? The only alternative is for a writer to do something truly crass like use the first person, and Jesus Christ this isn't a Maureen Dowd column!

Here's what's wrong:

1) Use of the phrase "a reporter" is factually inaccurate because it gives the impression that maybe there were a whole bunch of reporters present during the interview when really it was just one lonely man interviewing another lonely man.
SUBFACT: The very fact that the interview was one on one is significant for the reader to know because everyone knows that people act differently with an audience of 3 vs. an audience of 1.

2) It creates an alternate universe where the reporter is omnipresent and ergo God, which is both false and extraordinarily offensive to non-atheists.



Ladies and gentle readers of the New York Times, BEHOLD.

This is the face of the reporter who attempted, and failed, to tape an interview with the director of the Nixon Library,



WHY ARE YOU HIDING BEHIND THIS FACADE OF ANONYMITY ADAM NAGOURNEY, WHY????


Proposed solution:
Even "this reporter" would be better.