Author: Shari Graydon

Blue Monday a bad example of scholarly contribution

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Is it a measure of the fact that I’ve been a largely self-employed freelancer for most of my career that I’d never heard of so-called Blue Monday until today? This morning — before having read the Lifestyle section of the Globe and Mail, which featured a column by Sarah Hampson exploring the day’s questionable origins, I blogged about scholars’ reluctance to be seen as “media sluts”, “cheapening” themselves by providing commentary for news stories. In fact, a big focus of Informed Opinions is encouraging women scholars in particular to see the value — to themselves and to society as a whole — of contributing their analysis and context in precisely this way.

But the PR machinations behind Blue Monday — British travel company pays part-time lecturer to lend his name and academic credibility to the notion that the third Monday in January is quantifiably the most depressing day of the year (and only to be remedied by booking a holiday) — are an object lesson in what Informed Opinions is NOT about: it’s not about facilitating the exploitation of intellectual capital by corporate enterprises.

(Having spent three years in my mid-twenties working for a large PR agency that performed media relations for many big pharmaceutical companies, I know all about that. All I can say is I’m sorry, and I’ve tried to make up for it since.)

No: there’s a difference between using one’s education and research to help explain and illuminate complex issues and, well, prostituting oneself for financial gain. I’m just saying.

Media slut or community-minded public intellectual?

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Media slut — the term probably brings to mind the ubiquitous Paris Hilton of a few years ago, which perhaps explains why it’s an insult feared by tenure-track seeking scholars who want their academic credentials taken seriously. Nothing undercuts that like being perceived as irrepressibly self-promotional.

Neither a performing artist nor an academic, my perspective’s a little different, but I think there’s a lesson to be taken from the fact that every significant career opportunity I’ve had in the past 20 years has resulted — directly or indirectly — from the profile I gained through providing commentary to the news media.

As the president of MediaWatch (now Media Action) throughout most of the 1990s, I gave hundreds of interviews on issues related to the portrayal and representation of women in the media. But often the only reason my name made it into reporters’ Rolodexes in the first place was because I’d taken the time to write an op ed about an emerging issue. By publicly declaring my informed opinion, I often increased both the life of the story and the profile of my organization.

In the process — although this wasn’t the plan — I enhanced my own career opportunities. My occasional op ed writing helped me get accepted to grad school, gave me an opportunity to write a regular column for the Vancouver Sun and convinced the W Network (then WTN) to take a chance on allowing me to produce a 13-part TV series about women and media. Those experiences, in turn, helped me get a book contract, semi-regular gigs on both CBC Radio and TV commenting on media issues, and eventually a job as press secretary to a BC premier. Along the way, I’ve been invited to speak to hundreds of groups and at dozens of conferences, which has translated into more speaking and writing opportunities.

On Saturday, one of the scholars from the University of Western Ontario who participated in the Informed Opinions workshop there, echoed this experience. She did so in response to some of her colleagues expressing reservations about being seen as a “media slut” if they cheapen themselves by responding to — let alone seeking — media interviews or exposure. Even though she’s operating in a very different, tenure-track environment — one that places more value on publishing in peer-reviewed journals than in a daily newspaper — she claimed a similar benefit from having provided context about her field to mainstream media. In her case, such exposure led to invitations to speak internationally — and those, in turn, led to increased credibility here at home.

In my books, scholars who provide illuminating analysis about complex issues are performing a public service — and given that they are, essentially, public servants (on the government payroll, paid to educate citizens), that seems both laudatory and appropriate.

Prime Minister Salutes Women’s Power!

Posted on by Shari Graydon

OK, let’s put that headline in the category of ones we’d like to see… Unfortunately, it’s missing a six-letter word. As in “former”.

Yesterday’s Womens News service featured an excerpt from a new book by Gloria Feldt, called No Excuses: 9 Ways Women Can Change How We Think about Power. In it Feldt acknowledges that although some external barriers continue to hold women back (see Saturday’s Globe and Mail story about the Canadian business context), women themselves often have conflicted relationships with power. Among the problems is the fact that social-cultural pressures deem wanting it or seeking it un-feminine.

As one memorable case in point, during the 1993 federal election campaign, then Prime Minster Kim Campbell was criticized for being overly ambitious, a condemnation I’ve never seen applied to male politicians. (Because, um, doesn’t someone who seeks to lead, by definition, have to be ambitious?)

In her book, Feldt quotes the Right Honorable Ms. Campbell putting to rest the dilemma many woman face in a typically powerfully and succinct way:

“Look, power exists. Somebody is going to have it. If you would exercise it ethically, why not you? I love power. I’m power-hungry because when I have power I can make things happen, can serve my community, can influence decisions, I can accomplish things.”

You go girl!

(And writing op eds, saying yes to interviews, contributing ideas and analyses to the public discourse?  These activities increase a woman’s personal and professional power, making it easier for her to accomplish things.)

What Women Want = Better Life for Men

Posted on by Shari Graydon

American author Paco Underhill’s new book, What Women Want is currently generating lots of ink and brisk sales for pointing out what ought be obvious by now: No business can afford to ignore women’s power and presence.

Our dominant influence over broad swaths of consumer spending has been acknowledged (if not accommodated) for decades. Now Underhill charts the degree to which attending to women’s priorities and concerns can make or break even companies in industries that are seemingly far removed from spheres traditionally seen as women’s domain.

Central to his book is the argument that “…by walking the female path, you end up making things better for women and men.” … Another good reason for news media to solicit and feature women’s perspectives on a wide range of issues that affect us all.

Welcome

Posted on by Shari Graydon

In a world wrestling with the challenges presented by massive oil spills, dramatic climate change, a vulnerable global economy and food and water shortages, we need truly “informed opinions” more than ever.

And we need them to reflect and consider the full breadth and diversity of human perspective and experience.

But even in the most equitable of countries, the news sources wielding the most influence are woefully inadequate in this regard. Although women make up 51% of the planet’s population, our views on a broad range of issues are woefully absent from the public discourse. And that’s a problem – for all of us.

Informed Opinions – an initiative of Media Action – aims to help change the imbalance. This site explains why and how– and what you can do to contribute.

We hope you’ll spend a few minutes checking out what we’re up to, and we welcome your feedback, ideas and support.

Project aims to close gender gap in public discourse

Posted on by Shari Graydon

Project aims to close gender gap in public discourse

by Shari Graydon   (published in the Victoria Times Colonist 17 January 2010)

Even before my short-lived plunge into BC political waters as press secretary to premier, Ujjal Dosanjh, I’d survived the kind of name-calling most people imagine being strictly reserved for terrorists or puppy mill operators. As a weekly newspaper columnist during the mid-1990s, my mild musings on questionable polls and the peculiar sizing practices of women’s clothing manufacturers had earned me hate mail addressed to “bitch of the year”.

I reflected on this recently when learning that even in 2010, men’s perspectives on newspaper commentary pages outnumber women’s by a margin of three to one, a ratio that some editors say reflects the relative lack of submissions from women.

Reluctance to become a target of criticism remains an issue for some women, but lack of time is another factor. Women still shoulder more caregiving responsibilities than their male counterparts, and are more apt to be CEOs of small, rather than large enterprises. So even a female expert not squeezed by sandwich generation duties is less likely to have access to the resources that would support her in crafting a well-written argument based on her area of expertise.

But there’s another dynamic at play. Women are also more inclined than men to discount their expertise. I once invited dozens of female experts from a wide range of fields to be listed in a directory for reporters. A depressingly large number of them demurred, saying, “I’m really not the best person.” Journalists tell me that this kind of confession rarely emerges from the mouths of their male sources.

As a result, news media seeking qualified commentary – either on the op ed pages, or in the context of a particular story – reflect a chronic gender imbalance. And the absence of women’s voices means that their good ideas are less likely to be heard and their leadership is less likely to be noticed. And that’s a problem – not just for women, but for society as a whole.

It’s never made sense to access only the intelligence and insights of half the population, and now, when more women graduate from universities than men, it makes even less sense. Ignoring the informed opinions of women has significant implications for the health of our democracy and the quality of our governance. The challenges we face – environmental, economic, social, cultural – have never been so great, and we need the best public policy and the most informed decisions we can possibly get.

This is the impetus behind Informed Opinions – a new initiative designed to support more knowledgeable women in contributing their perspectives, priorities and perceptions to public discourse. In partnership with universities and news outlets, the project delivers skill-building workshops to female experts and connects them with key news editors. The goal is to not only broaden the diversity of voices in the media, but to enhance Canada’s competitiveness in the process.

Research from around the world makes clear that social equality translates into economic prosperity. When women are educated and contributing their skills and knowledge in all arenas, the entire society benefits. Canada is already testimony to that. But the chronic under-representation of women’s perspectives – both in government and in the news media – continues to limit our capacity to address complex issues.

In 2007 McKinsey & Company found that companies with women as well as men in senior management positions perform better financially than organizations where all senior managers are male. It’s not a big stretch to assume that our contribution to public discourse would also have a positive impact on Canada’s performance on a broad range of indicators.

At a time when traditional newsgathering models are struggling to maintain their advertising base and compete with electronic and digital media, an expanded pool of expert sources can’t help but be welcome. And who knows? Maybe the increase in women’s perspectives will make female commentators less likely to be targeted with gender slurs.

Ottawa-based author Shari Graydon is delivering a public lecture about Informed Opinions on Monday January 25th at 12 noon at the University of Victoria in room 157 at the Faculty of Law (Fraser) building. For more information, contact Maneesha Dekha at mdeckha@uvic.ca