Definitely better than the average take on the subject, Shannon-, from my viewpoint. For both men, and I assume, women, like in the economy generally, it is a question of "power" and "control. Whose viewpoints prevail, and decided what is important to "the masses", and what is not? With the prevailing "power paradigm" being that it is the interests of the "movers and shakers" in the marketplace that should decided all matters of substance. It is a kind of relationship between "them" and "us" that seeks to keep us all, men and women, in a permanent condition of dependance and child-like naivete. The typical pablum for men is sports, while for women it is makeovers and issues of "celebrity". It is all essentially the product of an "elite" controlled model of the economy and the decisions that are made there, in the board rooms, including the "editorial board rooms". Fundamentally, what is needed, in my view, to at least "begin" to get a serious handle on the problem of the role of the economy and in whose interests decisions there are made, is to expand the reach of "popular democracy", for workers, communities and interest groups, into the decision making processes of enterprises, especially the ones with a major societal impact, the big corporations. And journalists are no less workers than are machinists,bus drivers or burger flippers. It might even improve the quality of the stories that come out of our collective culture, and the ideas and human morality that occurs there.

Apparently nobody wants to read a newspaper, regardless of gender. From the USC Online Journalism Review:

More than 80 percent of American adults read a newspaper each weekday in 1964, but only 58 percent did in 1997, according to the Newspaper Association of America. In 2003, an estimated 54 percent read a newspaper each weekday. Most analysts predict that fewer than half of adults will read the paper every day by the end of this decade.

The points is being rendered increasingly moot.

While it's good to see more women in senior editorial positions, the power of an editor is very limited these days. The marketing experts employed by publishers have made a hash of what used to be called journalism, ergo the declining readerships of many dailies. What CanWest needs is real competition in this backwater, then they might figure out why their two dailies are so awful.

Nice photo! That's about as real as it gets- or maybe, a woman sitting at her laptop with her dog at her side, reading...The Tyee!!!

The point is well taken - though it took quite a few words to make it. I did find it interesting that the example of a woman in power was the only example in which a Western country actually elected a very "masculinized" female to lead - Margaret Thatcher makes Gordo look social. I put forward the proposition that it is the socialization of women in Western/"Developed" nations that breeds the consumerism gene into them - for the survival of the society. - Money makes the West go round and the woman is centre of this universe. However, India, Pakistan, and Malaysia have had female leaders that epitomize what a leader (either female or male) should embody. It is a little ironic that these nations are looked upon as being backward when it comes to acknowledging women's rights and place in society. We promote feminsim in the context of frivolty - "girl power" in the season's best colour and the right to beautify and tighten the thigh. Perhaps it is time we concentrate more on what is lacking in our socialization of young girls rather than smugly feel that we lead the game when it comes to women's rights.

Shirin wrote, "Perhaps it is time we concentrate more on what is lacking in our socialization of young girls rather than smugly feel that we lead the game when it comes to women's rights." Oooo! A number of really good points simply and incisively made, Shirin. I would only add, that while we are looking at the socialization of young girls, though I'm one who enjoys the "differences", thank you very much, as opposed to the currently flavoured "androgenous" models that seek to be applied to both sexes from those same quarters, there is as well a need to take a serious and "in depth" look at the socialization of young males. Here, as much as men do, looking at women, women as well tend to slide into shallow assumptions and stereotypes when making conclusions about men, frankly. In general, in my view, both need some serious work on their symbiotic, working relationship and mutual socialization. There is a great "quiet" amongst hetero-sexual males, in particular, at the current time on this front. I'm not entirely sure what it means, but it "could" be a serious mistake, for all concerned, to misread it as contentment with the state of their lives. I know at the level of society wherein I move and live, many working class males at least doing the dirtiest, most "grunt" but socially essential work right now, and it's still largely a male world there, at the pointy end of the economic front lines, for longer hours and diminishing return, are doin what they feel they have to do, largely without comment. There is a look in the eye evolving, however. Certainly working class women and men have some work to do on and with each other, quickly, and the society increasingly out of control all around them. We still need each other, and the supporting socio-economic structures. One of the reasons folks may just not be reading all those newspapers that seem so important to some, about which I have doubts of their current relevance, most of them, might just be that, in the Brave New World in which everyone works, including the kids very often, out of need, we're all just too damn tired and preoccupied with more important survival shit. Newspapers, hrrumph! Not even good asswipe.

In the age of instant global communication, the only reason newspapers exist at all is to satisfy commercial interests. Open any newspaper and ‘read’ the layout. With the exception of the front page and pages that are direct commercialism and statistics (sports stats are well disguised commercialism), the ‘news’ actually occupies a very small part in the center of the page. This is no accident. Readers are trapped by ‘savings’, ‘truckload sales’, ‘play and win’, ‘earn 10 – 15 % on your money, etc, etc, ad nauseam. The notion that “newspaper publishers have an undisguised contempt for the intellect of women readers”, and that “They treat them as nothing but consumers” is only part of the story. The drivel is directed at both sexes. Men are not immune from commercial conspiracy. As Jerry correctly notes, male fascination with sports stats is a case in point. Men AND women, looking for ‘news’, want more balance and less slant. To pretend that women want something different is simply perpetuating stereotypes and plays to the male mentality that thinks it’s superior and in control. And allows the perpetuation of (Jean) Pelltierian misogyny. Jerry is correct, in part, when he says that we need “to at least "begin" to get a serious handle on the problem of the role of the economy and in whose interests decisions there are made, is to expand the reach of "popular democracy". We also need to actively seek alternate media if we want some balance. Shirin's notion that women are the center of commercialism in the in Western/"Developed" nations and that they have “the consumerism gene” bred into them – “for the survival of the society”, is being willfully blind. In this era of globalization, money makes the World go round, not just Western developed countries. The age of Oral Cultures, where women were the centre of 'news', is history.

The planet is simply covered with little consumer monsters breeding more consumer monsters...not much you can do about it unless you pack your bags and move to a self-sufficient hut in the mountains, without a Starbucks in sight. But I agree with Shirin in that girls need to be better socialized- team sports/ mixed sports are the answer to that. For everyone. Get fit, get out there...achievements made at an early age stay with you through life. Sports promote better mental focus, strength, confidence, eating habits ...I mean, the list goes on and on. Most importantly, the "high" or the satisfaction comes from the action you are performing, the community you belong to when playing a sport- not how many things you bought in a given day. We all need to be socialized to look to OURSELVES first, not to material things, for fulfillment.

I am in total agreement with the concept of looking to the self for satisfaction - or as FMaxwell put it - contentment. However, in our little consumer driven society (with which we seem to harbour a love-hate relationship) - we are led to believe that such contentment is obtained from something outside ourselves - preferably by buying it. Is it not remarkable the number of ways we have developed (movies, TV, videogames, war, food, shopping - and newspapers) to distract ourselves from the whole uncomfortable state of existing in a conscious state? We loath the aspect of the drudgery of life and need distraction - but at the same time we want to prolong this life in our quest for eternal youth and medical miracles. I admit I wear blinders when it comes to contemplating what makes the world go round - as a scientist I like the notion it is the gravitational pull between our earthly mass and the sun - and not the subjectively determined worth of the dollar. Perhaps the biggest sham is not that we are bred to consume everything to the point we are sick (mentally, spiritually, and physically) with overconsumption - but the thought that we are powerless against changing the status quo. This listlessness - be you male or female - is giving up your power and self-responsibility.

the interesting thing is the author and everyone else is talking (without clearly stating it) about european minded women (mostly white) and or middle class well educated ones. no where the article addresses how newspapers don't write/research the needs of the under class females and males. The only time the needs of the under class is addressed is when the "druggies" are stealing, vandalizing, or terrorrizing a neighbourhood. Then there is a story to be told, because fear is generating actions. Due to the great number of people becoming part of the under class (and growing by leaps and bounds on account of mulroney,chretien, paul martin and gordon campbell's policies of low wages and unrestrained rights to profiteers) one of these days no one can afford to buy the paper (large numbers of people already stopped doing it, that is why the community newspapers has increased readership) then these stultifying pushers of no news will be well pensioned and the rest of us will continue to buy the notion that we are powerless to change anything, unless is presented by a testesterone or slender looking driven body with impecable credentials, because otherwise no one will listen. so who wants to read the post or vancouver sun and the province or the globe and mail for that matter, when you can read online the tyee, guardian unlimited, le monde, der spiegel and complement with community newspapers where local coverage is actually pretty good? can't wait to see the vancouver sun go belly up! have written to the guardian to have a canadian guardian, just like the time magazine has a so called canadian edition. :)

As someone who rarely notices ads in newspapers, only glances at the fashion pages and doesn't list "shopping" as either a hobby or obsession, I agree that newspapers focus too much on the stereotypical "female shopper". In fact, this article is a prime example of the type of article I'd like to see in my daily newspaper.

Great piece. Women, kids, guys not interested in sports - all are deserting papers in droves. Which the papers know but are cluess about turning round. Instead we get "style" sections about shopping and dim bulbs like Angele Yanor, Rebecca Eckler and she who must not be mentioned at the Globe and Mail withering on about the lives of really vapid young women. Too dumb.

A timely article! I also enjoyed the discussions here -- in depth! We need to change the focus of our youngsters, for TV, MTV and the likes of Britney Spears have washed our kids' brains squeaky clean. Alas, most of our teachers -- unlike the first comenter above -- are as brainwashed and as naive as their students.

as mentioned somewhere in all the words above, the news today is advertisting-driven. money talks, hard news walks. male or female is not the issue.

hey, yanor was no "dimbulb" - i'm tired of everyone putting her down. we all read her and miss her rants on van's dating scene. but you're probably just bitter b/c she is out of your league. good article, sharon. you're spot on, but you should consider changing your last name if you want a career in writing.

"The Manipulation of Information" at http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2000/6/22/article_02.htm

Have you watched channel W lately. It's all kitchen and bath makeovers. Is this all women are interested in? What's going on here? I'd really like to know.

I know your post was up long ago...and yes, I suppose, in theory, you would miss Yanor's rants on Vancouver's dating scene -- had they actually existed and not been rants on the dating scene in Colorado, New York, and who-knows-where-else. It is fun to read about people's dating trials and tribulations..too bad a number of Yanor's "people" never existed. Fabricating people, fabricating quotations, borrowing plotlines from other articles. Ick. Yes, it reflects badly on all journalists. It also reflects badly on publications that check neither facts nor the existence of people they quote. Sad, sad, sad. And what is wrong with Sharon's last name? I think her article was very well written.

Great piece by Shannon Rupp. Looking forward to a follow-up critique after the women-targeted 'free' commuter dailies Metro, 24 Hours and Dose hit Vancouver streets in the coming weeks. Sometimes you feel like you've got a target tatooed on your forehead, Except everyone keeps missing.