Tonight, Trump relented and signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, which includes the coronavirus relief measure and the 2021 appropriations bill (along with other measures).
Re: the NYTimes article: HCR, it is time to own your importance in the international discourse on the state of the world and its historical context. But I admit I am not congratulating you on the article, because it is far less than you deserve, especially since the author, Ben Smith, is clearly not well versed in historical writing and cannot be bothered to treat what is happening on these pages of your newsletter and comments as a significant turning point. Snarky remarks about 58-year-old women are designed to undercut the relevance and innovation of this community--because as we all know, "old" women (sigh) are useful only as Golden Girls caricatures. Clearly Benny isn't aware that some of the most incisive minds in public today--Rebecca Solnit, Elizabeth Warren, our own HCR among them--are women over 50 (as is Kamala Harris, although she has not yet hit that "magic" number of 58). The little lad just thinks that it is amusing to undermine what HCR is saying by stating that he lives "today" on Twitter and doesn't understand how important historical context is (or, indeed, that the adjective 19th-century is supposed to be hyphenated, although the Times copyeditors should know this) in understanding the tipping point we are experiencing today. The nineteenth century is the era that has shaped us all, and we continue to interrogate and debate its ethics, its visions of the world, its crimes. Failure to understand that means a failure to understand why we have to acknowledge, apologize, and change.
What HCR deserves is a serious journalist in the Times producing a major Sunday Magazine-cover-quality interview and essay (repeated in all the important outlets), not some mimsy little media columnist with mommy issues (sorry I can't resist) saying "wow, an 'older' woman with a public internet following: who'd a thunk it?". Give me strength.
The combination of these makes for a fairly accurate lens with which to view both the short- and long-term effects of governmental activity, and how it affects us all.
I discovered this newsletter in the Times article, so credit where credit is due., I suppose. Ironically, it was Mr. Smith's admission that he rarely opens the newsletter and "lives on Twitter where yesterday is old news." that prompted my immediate subscription. This 64-year-old female (yes, I fit the profile) has come to understand the value of context. Without it, people feel panicky and powerless, a poor foundation for purposeful citizenship. Thank you, Dr. Richardson. I've been searching for you.
I agree. Professor Richardson's rank and importance is very high and should have high quality journalism written about her both to honor her and to inform the wider public.
Your comment made me laugh, but then I read the article again. I think it's pretty good. I like the last bit, where Bill Moyes good-naturedly chastises the author: "You live in a world of thunderstorms, and she watches the waves come in."
I was not as offended by this article but for a writer who is somehow so established, he kind of phoned it in. Something I am sick of is bad newspaper writing and lack of proper editing. Here's my comment on the NYT page: "Really? You are a writer who wrote a whole article, and expects people to stop and read the whole thing, and you "rarely open" HCR's newsletter and read it while doing research on said topic? And the "letters" are much shorter than any NYT article. Hey NYT, maybe you should hire a writer who reads. Unbelievable. Newsflash Mr Smith, I read your WHOLE article, also read HCR's newsletter daily, also interact on social media, work in media arts, AND I'M UNDER 58 years old."
I agree - "living on Twitter" indeed is nothing to brag about - especially coming after the statement that he even tho he gets HCR's letters in his inbox - wrote this "article" without even reading one! Seems to me anyone who claims to be a reporter would do his research and not put his own inaccurate theories into his writing!
I wrote him an email telling him to make time to read the letter. Especially with his nose up in the BS on Twitter. I cannot believe he can't pull himself away from Twitter to read what typically takes me 15 minutes and gives me more info than most NYTimes articles. He did get some things correct. I have to agree with you (Linda) that he put a bit too much focus on the audience (women) for these letters. I also pointed out to him that HCR made significant a contribution to Stacey Abrams' new book about voter suppression. I'm a 48 year old male in NYC and ive told anyone I know who can read and has a brain to get with the program and read thus letter daily.
I read the article on-line (only after reading everyone's comments--I learn so much from HCR and then a bit more from all of you), and there was a place at the end to post a comment. You may want to check back and see. Thank you for your comments and have a great day!
I just read a bunch of comments--Linda (the other one who posts regularly): you rock!! And I am sharing my comment with you all because often the Times considers my comments too critical of their poor sensitive snowflake male columnists:
I am adding my voice to the other readers and subscribers to Dr. Richardson's Letters website. Ben, my lad, if your attention span is insufficient to read a single-page summary--with extensive sources identified and appended below--then you should consider building up your intellectual stamina to read a concise, trenchant, and eloquent statement of the doings in America every morning. Your failure to value the historical context for today's events in the face of the quick-fix minimalism of Twitter is a failure of character, I would suggest. In addition, your dismissal of Dr. Richardson and her readers as a bunch of "58-year-old women" smacks of white male privilege, and is sexist, condescending, and mean-spirited: designed to minimize the impact of the value of a finely tuned intellect. It really undermines the supposed admiration claimed in the beginning of your interview and begs the question: what are you afraid of? That you might learn something?
Brava! My husband, who also reads the letters daily, read the NYT article and he thought the same thing about the author not being interested enough to actually open the newsletter e-mails. He agreed that was pretty pitiful.
I love you! I didn’t have a chance to respond to the times after cleaning up ‘Christmas week without power’, and I was hoping to do so today. Perhaps I will just say, ‘what Linda said!!!’
I was not offended by the Times article, either. I am a 53-year-old woman and am always impressed by the discourse here! If you reread it with the thought that he is stating a fact about Heather’s subscribers, I don’t think he is insulting them or Dr Richardson. In fact, I felt complimented to be among readers who are looking for a straightforward explication of the daily news mess, and who are willing to take the time to read a rich newsletter.
I am guessing Ben Smith might have had to figure out what the average/mode/mean age and gender of Dr Richardson’s 350,000 subscribers actually is in order to have that printed. Still, I like the fire and vigilance of the comments here!
Thank you, Jeanne. I always appreciate your comments and you said it so much better than I did. And just to be clear, no offense was intended to Linda, or any of you.
I started reading Heather on Facebook last fall, but not daily until probably February. Then subscribed here as soon as available. I am thankful for her everyday and only call her “Heather”because she has said that’s what she likes to be called. I’m also grateful that she is beginning to get the coverage that is past due.
Cheri, your post gave me courage to disagree out loud, so to speak! I might not have posted if you hadn’t done so first. Brava
I haven’t been a member as long as many of you have. I think I may have started in April or May, but it could have been summertime or even fall and I just want to claim a longer readership. That’s why I still always refer to Heather as Dr Richardson. I think she used to be able to respond to our comments more, and I joined later than others who know she welcomes corrections and being called Heather. And then I wonder if that would still be true for those of us that are newer and part of a growing multitude of followers!
I will read the Times article again to see if I missed some veiled insults, as many here felt insulted. I wonder though, if a majority of Dr R’s followers ARE women in their 50’s, does that make her massive following less important? Does Ben Smith imply that? Maybe just by mentioning it, he does. But maybe many of us automatically feel that, as we are too used to being dismissed. I love that HCR’s Letters and her huge following were worthy of the article, that so many thoughtful men and women read her letters daily, and that Ben Smith might be one young journalist who will be persuaded to read some of her letters now, too.
I clicked on the words Letters from an American at the top of this blog, and a drop down menu let me look at my account. I joined in late July of 2020!
I cut and pasted the following from the NYT site. As the founding editor of BuzzFeed, I’m betting he’s considerably younger than I/us. That doesn’t mean his opinion has less value, but maybe hasn’t refined his diplomacy. 🙂
Ben Smith
Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The New York Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. Before that, he covered politics for Politico, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer and The New York Sun. Email: ben.smith@nytimes.com
Cheri, I do so as well (as a 64 year-old woman who has spent a lifetime in academia!) because women get snarked at by men all the time. But I admit that I do get offended for others, which I suppose is obvious.
I wasn't offended by the snark but I'm just so tired of it. As a 68-year old woman I do get tired of being lumped into a group that most people, certainly most men, have rigid preconceptions of. -Uh, not so great preconceptions. We're a cohort which is just as diverse as other ones - teenagers, young adults 18-24 ....etc. So, at this point, I no longer roll my eyes at snark but feel a need to call it out quite emphatically. It's important to not be invisible.
I certainly don’t want to get off topic here. There’s so many more important things to be concerned with these days. Remember, we’re on the same team. I will continue to choose my battles and roll eyes if it helps my attitude.
For me, it depends upon from the snark comes. I used to work with a much younger Native American woman who enjoyed nothing more than joking about my age (I was 64 at the time) and pretending to be amazed that I could text, take pictures with my phone and had both Facebook and Twitter accounts. She and I had a lot of fun kidding each other (I won't reveal what I kidded her about - because my own behavior at her age was no "better") and we are still connected on social media. However, when a man my own age begins to question my intelligence and abilities, I do get very hot under the collar and am likely to snap, "Don't talk to me like that! I'm not your wife," because I'm sure that's how they treat their wives. It's very refreshing to me that the younger men in my community that I've come in contact with don't have the kind of issues with older women that Ben Smith has. But I live in a fairly progressive part of my state, too, and their mothers have taught them well!
BTW, Heather got a nice write up today in the New York Times, and it’s terrific to see how deservedly well she is doing. It was shameful, though, at the end, when the reporter admitted he gets her Letters in his inbox, but rarely takes the time to read them—an undercutting comment he or his editor should have omitted.
Was just coming to link this as well...congrats to Heather!
(and yeah wtf with that comment. Also I'm not a 58 year old woman if that matters, and neither are the dozens of people I've convinced to sign up to the best writing of 2020)
Agree. Nobody told me that “Letters” was written for women. All along, I’ve been reading, appreciating, recommending, and delighting in this newsletter as a 70-year old man. I can’t figure out which part is not directed to me; I love it all. (And all y’all too).
Yes. I've been a regular reader and commenter since June and I never perceived any kind of "for women"motivation. I do perceive a "for history-minded people of good will" motivation. Whatever Dr. Richardson (see what I did there?) uses as a reason to share her considerable efforts on a daily basis is just fine with this sixty-five year old male.
I was a little surprised by the quote attributed to HCR that she is writing to women. “What I am doing is speaking to women who have not necessarily been paying attention to politics, older people who had not been engaged,” Dr. Richardson said. “I’m an older woman and I’m speaking to other women about being empowered.”
Did I miss something? I've been reading the Letters daily since February and never, ever did I get the sense that the Letters were directed to one gender or another, or to a particular age group for that matter. A young man 30 years my junior recommended HCR to me.
Betcha a nickel her reply was in answer to a question that was subsequently not mentioned. I was so excited to see an article on Heather in the NYT. Alas, I definitely detected some misogyny and journalistic envy. The reporter did several things to undercut her. It really galled me that he said she prepares dinner every night and afterwards begins to read, implying read and research the news (like she hadn't done anything else all day except prepare dinner). In fact, her articles are so well informed, unlike anyone else's, because she reads the news all day long, and sits down to WRITE after dinner. She works like a superhuman. Someone needs to write a more accurate article! Or perhaps we should write letters to the NYT editor?
And the writer missed the context of Heather’s saying “prepare dinner.” She mentioned in last Thursday’s loosey-goosey chat that what she does for fun is cook and bake, so it’s not like a female chore.
I just sent an email to the author of that story. I thought the ending was arrogant and did not portray solid investigative reporting, like he could even be bothered to read a letter or two that Dr. Richardson has written.
Ok, I'm going to show my own bias here. When I read this -Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. - although I was vaguely aware of his co-founding Buzz-Feed, which, BTW, I used to read during the Bush years and fell away from, I thought, 'This points to a generational gap'.
Since the dawn of CNN, then Fox and MSNBC, we've lived in this machine-gun-delivery, 24/7 news 'cycle', with no time for nuance or context. Nuance and context aren't sexy - they're not hip, they're not photogenic!
Is it any wonder a large percentage of Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map or don't know diddly about how government is supposed to work? Between starving our public school systems and teaching to the test (and dumbing down curricula), I'm surprised most Americans can find their way home at night.
And that is the universe wherein Mr. Smith apparently cut his teeth. He may not value the depth we do because he's never really been introduced to it properly. (I know, there I go, making assumptions again.);-)
Thanks to social media and the simplistic way people ‘communicate’. Memes, likes, gifs, sound bites. No receptive or expressive skills needed. I crave good conversations after a good read.
These days, not only do a lot of people not have any training in scientific or critical thinking, many of those do not even know anyone who has any training in scientific or critical thinking.
And of course they will not learn any such skills from our usual electronic sources. Incidentally, I am personally in favor of electronic news and communication, only not the kind that we are currently available to people who desperately need and deserve something far better.
What the writer of this article left out is the ton of information that Dr. R releases through her followers on this and every page of her Letters. He would do well to read what he writes about.
Exactly. She researches all day long and he totally left that out. He made it sound like she fixes dinner and then starts researching the news after dinner. The article really misses the point in many ways.
The NYTimes's sexism and arrant misogyny, despite having some fantastic women as opinion writers and editors, continues to amaze even this longtime reader. Rebecca Solnit would have something to say about this, I expect.
I was thinking about this in the context of poets like Mary Oliver. For decades she was criticised with claims that her work was for women, and was merely "inspirational" and "accessible". The rare thing Oliver taught me was that attention is a kind of love and is a way of showing gratitude. I learned from her to quietly attend and to stay open to uncertainty. So, too, have I been inspired day-after-day by Richardson in an entirely different arena, in which I am energized and challenged to be more observant! Mary Oliver loved Whitman's poetry. Whitman is also a favorite of Richardson's. Oliver went on to win every imaginable award. Without a doubt, Richardson will do the same.
Oh! I love this reference to Mary Oliver! I love her poetry and Love HCR’s writings, but never thought of them as analogous as you have. That is poetic itself.
Perhaps Ben Smith should have read HCR instead of only looking at Twitter in order to put events into perspective. Twitter gives an instant picture, like a snapshot, while HCR is like a short film providing the context, background and implications. Ben might have won a Pulitzer by now if he had.
Yes! Congratulations on the article! It is beyond time you received such recognition! Like other members here, though, I was annoyed that Ben could not be bothered to read the letters and that we were all cast as 58 year old women. (I’m a 61 year old woman btw) Those two sentiments combined seemed to deminish the importance of Dr Richardson’s writing. Why don’t we all drop Ben a little note suggesting he actually ought to read the letters and the accompanying comments before reporting on them ?
Ellie Kona, I loved that article and saved it in my "collections". I also thought it was interesting the reporter rarely read the "Letters". Probably, as a media reporter he was more interested in her being currently the most successful individual author on Substack. Regardless of that unfortunate comment, it was one of the best profiles I have ever read and I think the author will be reading the "Letters" more often in the future. I was introduced to HCR by a husband of a friend. Subsequently, I shared her "Letters" frequently with my likeminded friends. I like to think I contributed to her following among the progressive members of the dog agility community:). My Christmas commute to my mother's was spent listening to her "free form" session taped on Christmas eve and the first two history chats on "Reconstruction". And like Stuart Attewell, I "truly liked the last paragraph...", it is HCR in a nutshell, "she watches the waves come in." Again it was well deserved recognition.
Took a few minutes off to scan the "Comments" to today's "Letter." As of five minutes ago, judging by their names, 61 comments came from females and 25 from males. So the Times was correct on this point, although I don't know on what he based his determination that the females were middle aged. These numbers are corrupted by those posting several times, using the "Letter" as a chat room, going back and forth with one another (This is my third posting today, one commenting on the Corporate Transparency Act which HCR explains, another emphatically agreeing with someone and lastly, this one).
Re: the NYTimes article: HCR, it is time to own your importance in the international discourse on the state of the world and its historical context. But I admit I am not congratulating you on the article, because it is far less than you deserve, especially since the author, Ben Smith, is clearly not well versed in historical writing and cannot be bothered to treat what is happening on these pages of your newsletter and comments as a significant turning point. Snarky remarks about 58-year-old women are designed to undercut the relevance and innovation of this community--because as we all know, "old" women (sigh) are useful only as Golden Girls caricatures. Clearly Benny isn't aware that some of the most incisive minds in public today--Rebecca Solnit, Elizabeth Warren, our own HCR among them--are women over 50 (as is Kamala Harris, although she has not yet hit that "magic" number of 58). The little lad just thinks that it is amusing to undermine what HCR is saying by stating that he lives "today" on Twitter and doesn't understand how important historical context is (or, indeed, that the adjective 19th-century is supposed to be hyphenated, although the Times copyeditors should know this) in understanding the tipping point we are experiencing today. The nineteenth century is the era that has shaped us all, and we continue to interrogate and debate its ethics, its visions of the world, its crimes. Failure to understand that means a failure to understand why we have to acknowledge, apologize, and change.
What HCR deserves is a serious journalist in the Times producing a major Sunday Magazine-cover-quality interview and essay (repeated in all the important outlets), not some mimsy little media columnist with mommy issues (sorry I can't resist) saying "wow, an 'older' woman with a public internet following: who'd a thunk it?". Give me strength.
What I'd like to see is Heather's Letters from an American and her video histories in a collection at the Library of Congress.
There are three things I follow daily:
1) HCR's Letters From an American;
2) Kiser's "What the F**ck Just Happened Today?"
3) Siskind's "The Weekly List."
The combination of these makes for a fairly accurate lens with which to view both the short- and long-term effects of governmental activity, and how it affects us all.
I also follow and subscribe to Dan Rather’s, News and Guts.
I love PBS Nightly News. It's all I actually watch newswise, that is. Thanks for the ideas of other reading sources!
Agreed!
I discovered this newsletter in the Times article, so credit where credit is due., I suppose. Ironically, it was Mr. Smith's admission that he rarely opens the newsletter and "lives on Twitter where yesterday is old news." that prompted my immediate subscription. This 64-year-old female (yes, I fit the profile) has come to understand the value of context. Without it, people feel panicky and powerless, a poor foundation for purposeful citizenship. Thank you, Dr. Richardson. I've been searching for you.
Thank you for the great review, Linda. Ben showed us that he is a member in good standing of the patriarchy. And a twit.
Quite!
I agree. Professor Richardson's rank and importance is very high and should have high quality journalism written about her both to honor her and to inform the wider public.
Your comment made me laugh, but then I read the article again. I think it's pretty good. I like the last bit, where Bill Moyes good-naturedly chastises the author: "You live in a world of thunderstorms, and she watches the waves come in."
And FYI, for anyone who has not seen it, here is a link to Moyers' podcast of December 10, "Democracy on the Edge," in which he interviews Heather together with lawyer Steven Harper about threats to democracy: https://billmoyers.com/story/podcast-democracy-on-the-edge-cox-richardson/
Thanks for the link. It was/is a good discussion.
Damn, Linda! Yaaaassss to everything you said! Nailed it!
I was not as offended by this article but for a writer who is somehow so established, he kind of phoned it in. Something I am sick of is bad newspaper writing and lack of proper editing. Here's my comment on the NYT page: "Really? You are a writer who wrote a whole article, and expects people to stop and read the whole thing, and you "rarely open" HCR's newsletter and read it while doing research on said topic? And the "letters" are much shorter than any NYT article. Hey NYT, maybe you should hire a writer who reads. Unbelievable. Newsflash Mr Smith, I read your WHOLE article, also read HCR's newsletter daily, also interact on social media, work in media arts, AND I'M UNDER 58 years old."
Brava, Jennifer.
Jennifer, you are fab!
Way to go.
I agree - "living on Twitter" indeed is nothing to brag about - especially coming after the statement that he even tho he gets HCR's letters in his inbox - wrote this "article" without even reading one! Seems to me anyone who claims to be a reporter would do his research and not put his own inaccurate theories into his writing!
Sorry one too many "he"!!
I wrote him an email telling him to make time to read the letter. Especially with his nose up in the BS on Twitter. I cannot believe he can't pull himself away from Twitter to read what typically takes me 15 minutes and gives me more info than most NYTimes articles. He did get some things correct. I have to agree with you (Linda) that he put a bit too much focus on the audience (women) for these letters. I also pointed out to him that HCR made significant a contribution to Stacey Abrams' new book about voter suppression. I'm a 48 year old male in NYC and ive told anyone I know who can read and has a brain to get with the program and read thus letter daily.
Agreed, but the question remains Is there a serious journalist remaining at the times?
Nicely done. Even the snark is verbally elegant.
I read the article on-line (only after reading everyone's comments--I learn so much from HCR and then a bit more from all of you), and there was a place at the end to post a comment. You may want to check back and see. Thank you for your comments and have a great day!
I read all of the 113 (at the time) comments - there were good ones there - mainly from readers of HCR - present and future!
I just read a bunch of comments--Linda (the other one who posts regularly): you rock!! And I am sharing my comment with you all because often the Times considers my comments too critical of their poor sensitive snowflake male columnists:
I am adding my voice to the other readers and subscribers to Dr. Richardson's Letters website. Ben, my lad, if your attention span is insufficient to read a single-page summary--with extensive sources identified and appended below--then you should consider building up your intellectual stamina to read a concise, trenchant, and eloquent statement of the doings in America every morning. Your failure to value the historical context for today's events in the face of the quick-fix minimalism of Twitter is a failure of character, I would suggest. In addition, your dismissal of Dr. Richardson and her readers as a bunch of "58-year-old women" smacks of white male privilege, and is sexist, condescending, and mean-spirited: designed to minimize the impact of the value of a finely tuned intellect. It really undermines the supposed admiration claimed in the beginning of your interview and begs the question: what are you afraid of? That you might learn something?
Brava! My husband, who also reads the letters daily, read the NYT article and he thought the same thing about the author not being interested enough to actually open the newsletter e-mails. He agreed that was pretty pitiful.
I love you! I didn’t have a chance to respond to the times after cleaning up ‘Christmas week without power’, and I was hoping to do so today. Perhaps I will just say, ‘what Linda said!!!’
Brava!
Hmmm, I wasn’t offended by the article. As a confident (most days) 67 year old woman, I roll my eyes at snark.
I was not offended by the Times article, either. I am a 53-year-old woman and am always impressed by the discourse here! If you reread it with the thought that he is stating a fact about Heather’s subscribers, I don’t think he is insulting them or Dr Richardson. In fact, I felt complimented to be among readers who are looking for a straightforward explication of the daily news mess, and who are willing to take the time to read a rich newsletter.
I am guessing Ben Smith might have had to figure out what the average/mode/mean age and gender of Dr Richardson’s 350,000 subscribers actually is in order to have that printed. Still, I like the fire and vigilance of the comments here!
Thank you, Jeanne. I always appreciate your comments and you said it so much better than I did. And just to be clear, no offense was intended to Linda, or any of you.
I started reading Heather on Facebook last fall, but not daily until probably February. Then subscribed here as soon as available. I am thankful for her everyday and only call her “Heather”because she has said that’s what she likes to be called. I’m also grateful that she is beginning to get the coverage that is past due.
Cheri, your post gave me courage to disagree out loud, so to speak! I might not have posted if you hadn’t done so first. Brava
I haven’t been a member as long as many of you have. I think I may have started in April or May, but it could have been summertime or even fall and I just want to claim a longer readership. That’s why I still always refer to Heather as Dr Richardson. I think she used to be able to respond to our comments more, and I joined later than others who know she welcomes corrections and being called Heather. And then I wonder if that would still be true for those of us that are newer and part of a growing multitude of followers!
I will read the Times article again to see if I missed some veiled insults, as many here felt insulted. I wonder though, if a majority of Dr R’s followers ARE women in their 50’s, does that make her massive following less important? Does Ben Smith imply that? Maybe just by mentioning it, he does. But maybe many of us automatically feel that, as we are too used to being dismissed. I love that HCR’s Letters and her huge following were worthy of the article, that so many thoughtful men and women read her letters daily, and that Ben Smith might be one young journalist who will be persuaded to read some of her letters now, too.
I clicked on the words Letters from an American at the top of this blog, and a drop down menu let me look at my account. I joined in late July of 2020!
I cut and pasted the following from the NYT site. As the founding editor of BuzzFeed, I’m betting he’s considerably younger than I/us. That doesn’t mean his opinion has less value, but maybe hasn’t refined his diplomacy. 🙂
Ben Smith
Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The New York Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. Before that, he covered politics for Politico, The New York Daily News, The New York Observer and The New York Sun. Email: ben.smith@nytimes.com
Cheri, I do so as well (as a 64 year-old woman who has spent a lifetime in academia!) because women get snarked at by men all the time. But I admit that I do get offended for others, which I suppose is obvious.
I wasn't offended by the snark but I'm just so tired of it. As a 68-year old woman I do get tired of being lumped into a group that most people, certainly most men, have rigid preconceptions of. -Uh, not so great preconceptions. We're a cohort which is just as diverse as other ones - teenagers, young adults 18-24 ....etc. So, at this point, I no longer roll my eyes at snark but feel a need to call it out quite emphatically. It's important to not be invisible.
I certainly don’t want to get off topic here. There’s so many more important things to be concerned with these days. Remember, we’re on the same team. I will continue to choose my battles and roll eyes if it helps my attitude.
For me, it depends upon from the snark comes. I used to work with a much younger Native American woman who enjoyed nothing more than joking about my age (I was 64 at the time) and pretending to be amazed that I could text, take pictures with my phone and had both Facebook and Twitter accounts. She and I had a lot of fun kidding each other (I won't reveal what I kidded her about - because my own behavior at her age was no "better") and we are still connected on social media. However, when a man my own age begins to question my intelligence and abilities, I do get very hot under the collar and am likely to snap, "Don't talk to me like that! I'm not your wife," because I'm sure that's how they treat their wives. It's very refreshing to me that the younger men in my community that I've come in contact with don't have the kind of issues with older women that Ben Smith has. But I live in a fairly progressive part of my state, too, and their mothers have taught them well!
Love this, Linda. Thank you.
I agree 100%. Especially the “give me strength” bit.
BTW, Heather got a nice write up today in the New York Times, and it’s terrific to see how deservedly well she is doing. It was shameful, though, at the end, when the reporter admitted he gets her Letters in his inbox, but rarely takes the time to read them—an undercutting comment he or his editor should have omitted.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/27/business/media/heather-cox-richardson-substack-boston-college.html
Yes but i truly liked the last paragraph, thereafter.....
"When I confessed that to Mr. Moyers, he didn’t seem surprised. “You live in a world of thunderstorms,” he said, “and she watches the waves come in.”
I think that was typically kind of Mr. Moyers. I'd have been much less tolerant.
We can all learn a lot from the gracious style of critique Moyers has perfected.
Beautiful.
Wow!
Was just coming to link this as well...congrats to Heather!
(and yeah wtf with that comment. Also I'm not a 58 year old woman if that matters, and neither are the dozens of people I've convinced to sign up to the best writing of 2020)
and what about us men who are rooting with you all?
Agree. Nobody told me that “Letters” was written for women. All along, I’ve been reading, appreciating, recommending, and delighting in this newsletter as a 70-year old man. I can’t figure out which part is not directed to me; I love it all. (And all y’all too).
My BROTHER was 61 when he recommended her to me! He was a history buff.
The journalist, Smith, evidently believes it is for an audience which is not he.
Ditto!
Yes. I've been a regular reader and commenter since June and I never perceived any kind of "for women"motivation. I do perceive a "for history-minded people of good will" motivation. Whatever Dr. Richardson (see what I did there?) uses as a reason to share her considerable efforts on a daily basis is just fine with this sixty-five year old male.
I was a little surprised by the quote attributed to HCR that she is writing to women. “What I am doing is speaking to women who have not necessarily been paying attention to politics, older people who had not been engaged,” Dr. Richardson said. “I’m an older woman and I’m speaking to other women about being empowered.”
Did I miss something? I've been reading the Letters daily since February and never, ever did I get the sense that the Letters were directed to one gender or another, or to a particular age group for that matter. A young man 30 years my junior recommended HCR to me.
Betcha a nickel her reply was in answer to a question that was subsequently not mentioned. I was so excited to see an article on Heather in the NYT. Alas, I definitely detected some misogyny and journalistic envy. The reporter did several things to undercut her. It really galled me that he said she prepares dinner every night and afterwards begins to read, implying read and research the news (like she hadn't done anything else all day except prepare dinner). In fact, her articles are so well informed, unlike anyone else's, because she reads the news all day long, and sits down to WRITE after dinner. She works like a superhuman. Someone needs to write a more accurate article! Or perhaps we should write letters to the NYT editor?
And the writer missed the context of Heather’s saying “prepare dinner.” She mentioned in last Thursday’s loosey-goosey chat that what she does for fun is cook and bake, so it’s not like a female chore.
Very good point. Thanks.
Plus, as 56 y/o I can say that HCR is not an older woman! These are the middle ages.....!
BTW, how does he know the age and gender of all who subscribe?
From the article it sounds like Heather told him that many of us are like her, female and wanting the truth, not the hype.
I believe I am in better-than-average company here.
(Not sarcastic! I mean it!)
You guys are great.
And that’s why we ALL (male, female, anyone looking for truth without drama) come to Heather. She gets rid of the noise.
I second that!
Seconding your second! It was a bum ending to a good write-up.
Third time second's a charm!
Well that does it, now I'm going to have to dig out the business section which I didn't get to today.
Day's not over...we'll wait for you!
I just sent an email to the author of that story. I thought the ending was arrogant and did not portray solid investigative reporting, like he could even be bothered to read a letter or two that Dr. Richardson has written.
Ok, I'm going to show my own bias here. When I read this -Ben Smith is the media columnist. He joined The Times in 2020 after eight years as founding editor in chief of BuzzFeed News. - although I was vaguely aware of his co-founding Buzz-Feed, which, BTW, I used to read during the Bush years and fell away from, I thought, 'This points to a generational gap'.
Since the dawn of CNN, then Fox and MSNBC, we've lived in this machine-gun-delivery, 24/7 news 'cycle', with no time for nuance or context. Nuance and context aren't sexy - they're not hip, they're not photogenic!
Is it any wonder a large percentage of Americans couldn't find Iraq on a map or don't know diddly about how government is supposed to work? Between starving our public school systems and teaching to the test (and dumbing down curricula), I'm surprised most Americans can find their way home at night.
And that is the universe wherein Mr. Smith apparently cut his teeth. He may not value the depth we do because he's never really been introduced to it properly. (I know, there I go, making assumptions again.);-)
I agree. Taking time to read, ponder, and think seems to be sadly outdated in many spheres.
Thanks to social media and the simplistic way people ‘communicate’. Memes, likes, gifs, sound bites. No receptive or expressive skills needed. I crave good conversations after a good read.
Agreed.
These days, not only do a lot of people not have any training in scientific or critical thinking, many of those do not even know anyone who has any training in scientific or critical thinking.
And of course they will not learn any such skills from our usual electronic sources. Incidentally, I am personally in favor of electronic news and communication, only not the kind that we are currently available to people who desperately need and deserve something far better.
I also sent Mr. Ben Smith an email on his not-quite-perfect article.
Great!!! I hope he realizes that you're a male reader. LOL
I also happen to be male.
Good for you!
Excellent!
Perfect!
Excellent!
What the writer of this article left out is the ton of information that Dr. R releases through her followers on this and every page of her Letters. He would do well to read what he writes about.
not to mention her afternoon FB chats!
or even just follow her on Twitter for news that matters!
Exactly. She researches all day long and he totally left that out. He made it sound like she fixes dinner and then starts researching the news after dinner. The article really misses the point in many ways.
To be fair, I do not read Mr. Smith.
The NYTimes's sexism and arrant misogyny, despite having some fantastic women as opinion writers and editors, continues to amaze even this longtime reader. Rebecca Solnit would have something to say about this, I expect.
I was thinking about this in the context of poets like Mary Oliver. For decades she was criticised with claims that her work was for women, and was merely "inspirational" and "accessible". The rare thing Oliver taught me was that attention is a kind of love and is a way of showing gratitude. I learned from her to quietly attend and to stay open to uncertainty. So, too, have I been inspired day-after-day by Richardson in an entirely different arena, in which I am energized and challenged to be more observant! Mary Oliver loved Whitman's poetry. Whitman is also a favorite of Richardson's. Oliver went on to win every imaginable award. Without a doubt, Richardson will do the same.
Oh! I love this reference to Mary Oliver! I love her poetry and Love HCR’s writings, but never thought of them as analogous as you have. That is poetic itself.
Perhaps Ben Smith should have read HCR instead of only looking at Twitter in order to put events into perspective. Twitter gives an instant picture, like a snapshot, while HCR is like a short film providing the context, background and implications. Ben might have won a Pulitzer by now if he had.
Yes! Congratulations on the article! It is beyond time you received such recognition! Like other members here, though, I was annoyed that Ben could not be bothered to read the letters and that we were all cast as 58 year old women. (I’m a 61 year old woman btw) Those two sentiments combined seemed to deminish the importance of Dr Richardson’s writing. Why don’t we all drop Ben a little note suggesting he actually ought to read the letters and the accompanying comments before reporting on them ?
Yes, I agree and I did.
I already did first thing this am...his email address is at the end of the article.
But since he never opens HCR's emails, one cannot be sure he'll bother to read them. I just commented on the NYT's website instead.
FYI - comments are now open on the article.
Ellie Kona, I loved that article and saved it in my "collections". I also thought it was interesting the reporter rarely read the "Letters". Probably, as a media reporter he was more interested in her being currently the most successful individual author on Substack. Regardless of that unfortunate comment, it was one of the best profiles I have ever read and I think the author will be reading the "Letters" more often in the future. I was introduced to HCR by a husband of a friend. Subsequently, I shared her "Letters" frequently with my likeminded friends. I like to think I contributed to her following among the progressive members of the dog agility community:). My Christmas commute to my mother's was spent listening to her "free form" session taped on Christmas eve and the first two history chats on "Reconstruction". And like Stuart Attewell, I "truly liked the last paragraph...", it is HCR in a nutshell, "she watches the waves come in." Again it was well deserved recognition.
I also liked that Dani was quoted in the article:)
Me, too.
Took a few minutes off to scan the "Comments" to today's "Letter." As of five minutes ago, judging by their names, 61 comments came from females and 25 from males. So the Times was correct on this point, although I don't know on what he based his determination that the females were middle aged. These numbers are corrupted by those posting several times, using the "Letter" as a chat room, going back and forth with one another (This is my third posting today, one commenting on the Corporate Transparency Act which HCR explains, another emphatically agreeing with someone and lastly, this one).