Astute take from Glamour.com, the acclaimed web magazine known for hard-hitting, exhaustive reporting on "mommy sleuths" and nobodies.
***The link leads to the webcaptured article. No paywall.
A wonderfully researched piece from the Glamour reporter that broke the story about content creators earning money from views and clicks. /s
In this December 24, 2024 piece (snippet below), McNeal asks what happens after we've fallen for a smear campaign. Good question for this journalist to ask herself.
However, it seems that only the reader is asked to do the internal reflection. The paternalism displayed in these kinds of pieces is tiring. "You fell for an alleged smear campaign.." Ivory tower journalism scolding the rabble, yet again.
The author wrote this article almost 3 months ago. And instead of heeding her own advice, she lashes out at the women/mothers earning an income from democratized media.
An article entitled "How I fell for an alleged smear campaign" would have been better received.
Article excerpt
"...And the blind acceptance of gossip, conspiracy, and rumors can lead to even darker paths. One of the biggest Instagram accounts posting against Heard during the trial, former mommy blogger House in Habit, has since become a mouthpiece for far-right conspiracy.
But there is good news: The power is ultimately in the hands of the consumer. And many people, it seems, are taking the Lively lawsuit as a reason to think differently in the future. After all, they can only manipulate the narrative if we make ourselves easily manipulatable.
“During the next big drama, we should all stop and question…,” wrote one commenter online. “Everyone put on your thinking caps please and reconsider everything you thought you knew about this case. We have to think critically about this in the future too.”
***The link leads to the webcaptured article. No paywall.
A wonderfully researched piece from the Glamour reporter that broke the story about content creators earning money from views and clicks. /s
In this December 24, 2024 piece (snippet below), McNeal asks what happens after we've fallen for a smear campaign. Good question for this journalist to ask herself.
However, it seems that only the reader is asked to do the internal reflection. The paternalism displayed in these kinds of pieces is tiring. "You fell for an alleged smear campaign.." Ivory tower journalism scolding the rabble, yet again.
The author wrote this article almost 3 months ago. And instead of heeding her own advice, she lashes out at the women/mothers earning an income from democratized media.
An article entitled "How I fell for an alleged smear campaign" would have been better received.
Article excerpt
"...And the blind acceptance of gossip, conspiracy, and rumors can lead to even darker paths. One of the biggest Instagram accounts posting against Heard during the trial, former mommy blogger House in Habit, has since become a mouthpiece for far-right conspiracy.
But there is good news: The power is ultimately in the hands of the consumer. And many people, it seems, are taking the Lively lawsuit as a reason to think differently in the future. After all, they can only manipulate the narrative if we make ourselves easily manipulatable.
“During the next big drama, we should all stop and question…,” wrote one commenter online. “Everyone put on your thinking caps please and reconsider everything you thought you knew about this case. We have to think critically about this in the future too.”