But while women’s opinions were better represented in digital media, they were more than twice as likely to focus on “pink topics”—the “four F’s” (family, food, furniture, fashion), plus women’s and gender issues—than in the traditional media, where about 14 percent of women’s op-eds were “pink.” These statistics suggest a silo effect online, with writers speaking more frequently to like-minded (or like-bodied) individuals—a concern that has been much lamented within the political media landscape, but less so with regards to gender, race, and class. This development would seem to hark back to the days of the “ladies pages”; while there is nothing wrong with women writing on “pink topics,” it’s the relative lack of women’s voices on non-pink topics like the economy and politics online that is problematic.

To see a larger version of this image, click here
Other studies have produced similarly mixed results. A byline tally by GOOD released in the wake of the VIDA count found women had higher contribution rates in publications “for the next generation,” or those which Good described as “magazines and websites Millennials write and read”.
Conventional wisdom has it that social media, the ever more heralded tool for journalists of the next generation, will, because it’s social, actually skew feminine. Blogs are more likely to be written by women, and Facebook and Twitter users are more likely to be female. But while women dominate these platforms in numbers, they are less likely to drive conversation with them.
Take for example findings from The Gender Report, an organization that monitors gender in online media: a year-long study found that women had bylines on 19.6 percent of the most-linked and discussed stories. Women were also less likely to be sources in these most discussed stories: only 19 percent of sources were female, and 35 percent of stories had no female sources at all (perhaps more troublingly, 30.4 percent of the stories had no sources at all.)
Twitter, the platform that is all about putting one’s voice and opinions out there, also appears to suffer a gender gap. A Harvard Business School study published in 2009 found women on Twitter have 15 percent fewer followers than men. Men were twice as likely to follow a man than a woman, and even women were 25 percent more likely to follow a man.
The Rise of Opinion
These statistics from the media frontier are interesting, but a pair of sociologists suggest the incremental growth in the women’s commentariat in traditional media is far more significant. Their argument: Despite the rise of new media, traditional media remains most influential in shaping public opinion and setting the national and broader news agendas.
Eleanor Townsley with her co-author Ronald Jacobs make this point in their book, The Space of Opinion: Media Intellectuals and the Public Sphere, arguing that because of the trickle-down nature of the new news landscape—mainstream conversation becomes fodder for new media conversation— television commentaries and the op-ed pages of elite newspapers are “increasingly central to the large and densely networked public sphere.”
In other words, opinion in the legacy media is more amplified and influential than ever.
At the same time, as media budgets and reporting staffs have shrunk, opinion is more abundant than ever across the media landscape. Look no further than television, where lower-cost punditry has largely replaced reported video pieces or to the news wires—Bloomberg and Reuters both recently expanded into opinion. The New York Times has also bulked up its opinion offerings online and in the Sunday paper.
“Opinion has become much more important,” Townsley told me. She and Jacobs argue that though this shift has arisen in part on the back of journalism’s troubled business model and the decline in investigative journalism, the media’s (much maligned) expansion into opinion, is not necessarily a bad thing, but in fact, a very American thing—the means to a more varied and vibrant public sphere.

Take a look at the list of Opionmakers for the Orlando Sentinel. The top person
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/orlando_opinionators/about is Jenna Toth who became CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Florida on March 1. She with the other two women make up 1/3 of the paper's Opinionators!
My hunch is there will be more women before the year is out!
#1 Posted by MaryElizabeth McIlvane, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 01:48 PM
"the calculus rarely strikes the ideal demographic balance.
EXCUSE ME?!
What precisely is the "ideal demographic balance" in consideration of editorial import?
Sweet Jeebus, the liberals are doing their level best to destroy every institution they can find, aren't they?
We have Thimbles here advocating his insane racist stance that journalists should be held to different standards in the expression of their political opinions on the basis of the color of their skin.
And now we have Erika informing us that there is some "ideal demographic balance" to be had in journalism.
Who, precisely, decides which op/ed gender contribution ratio is "ideal"? Who, exactly, says that the current contribution ration isn't ideal? HUH?
The NERVE to presume the authority to demarcate the "ideal balance" for all of society!
What a crock of politically correct leftist crapola!
So now we'll take crappier op/eds from women, and reject better ones from men, in order to strike the "ideal demographic balance"?
Dumbing down for the purported common good... It's the liberal way!
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 02:31 PM
My colleagues in the Association of Opinion Journalists, formerly National Conference of Editorial Writers, had an interesting private discussion of this when we alerted the members' discussion list to Erika Fry's initial query. Views ranged widely, especially among those whose jobs include soliciting-choosing-editing op-eds. I understand that several contacted her by email, and am pleased that AOJ's diversity chair, Richard Prince, is among the thoughtful practitioners quoted here.
--John McClelland, emeritus faculty
Roosevelt University, Chicago
editing The Masthead for AOJ
http://opinionjournalists.org/masthead
#3 Posted by John McClelland, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 04:56 PM
It's truly strange how media liberal orthodoxy works. Men of white offer one kind of liberal opinion they think is superior; women of white offer a better kind of liberal opinion but they've been trampled on. Women of color offer yet another liberal opinion, but not superior to women of white, and men of color remain invisible. But we won't talk about them, will we?
#4 Posted by Chuck Sweeny, CJR on Tue 29 May 2012 at 05:15 PM
Women v men. White v black. Us v them.
The violent, backward, ugly face of collectivism.
#5 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 02:02 AM
Gosh, this is SO frustrating. There are all these fantastic women columnists out there, but every time they apply for a job, the crusty old cigar-chomping white male editor chortles, "Look here little lady, column writing is for MEN!".
And then all the old boys in the newsroom guffaw and slap their knees. A WOMAN? Writing for a NEWSPAPER? THAT'LL be the day!
Oh wait... that's not how things are at all. That's just a comically anachronistic caricature. Just like this article.
#6 Posted by Julie P, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:26 AM
The frustrated editorialists of the fairer sex need help. This calls for a federal program.
#7 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:57 AM
I've been hearing some version of "we're just looking for the best" as to why women are not hired, not published, not cited for 20 years. It cannot possibly be true, it is statistically impossible for it to be true that well-educated, interesting women writers have just not submitted enough copy, not written well enough or on non "pink" topics or done bad research. It's misogyny, plain and simple. I can prove it:
David Brooks & Thomas Friedman.
Neither of these men has had an original idea, ever. They are consistently wildly, demonstrably wrong in their conclusions, have no interests in facts or evidence, their writing is bland and yet, they have jobs writing for a major news service and even PBS News Hour applauds their inanities. Name one woman with their degree of placement.
It is much more likely that the frat buddy mentality of men hiring men is so pervasive that women aren't even invited to participate. it is also likely, as keeps getting demonstrated in the art world by women who adopt a male pseudonym, that simply having a woman's name means the work is less valued. Much as realtors rename districts for maximum financial gain, "pink" topis are a marketer's device to sell stuff, mostly yogurt.
#8 Posted by Mary McFadden, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 12:51 PM
@Mary McFadden
You claim that David Brooks is "consistently wildly, demonstrably wrong", yet in a review of accuracy in political prognostication he was rated 7th of 25, which does not seem so bad to me (see paper)! I find your 'proof' of misogyny lacking.
#9 Posted by Jreckx, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:12 PM
Only 9% of Wikipedia contributors --an activity similar in nature to journalism-- are female and there are extremely minimal barriers to entry there, so the thesis of this article that it is "a straightforward question of access" seems unlikely.
#10 Posted by Jreckx , CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 09:21 PM
@ Mary
Maybe it's a vast postal conspiracy.
The mailmen (chauvinist bastards that we all know they are) are ripping up all the op/ed submissions in pink or scented envelopes.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 30 May 2012 at 10:12 PM
The pursuit of women's human rights have led to the dearth of female intellectuals? Is there nothing that the apologists (including the morons in this comment thread) will stop at to deny that there is still discrimination? Shut up with your smug opining from your position of privalege. SHUT UP.
#12 Posted by belowthelineguffagain, CJR on Sat 9 Jun 2012 at 04:27 PM
YES! SHUT UP MEN WITH YOUR PRIVALEGE!
I don't care about the wikipedia example - this is clearly the patriarchy at work - fiddling the database and rejecting female submissions with their mysterious device - the online gender detector.
For the last time MEN ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON GENDER DISCRIMINATION! WOMEN ONLY! WE ARE THE UNDERDOG!!!1111one
#13 Posted by Sackcloth Queen, CJR on Wed 13 Jun 2012 at 04:23 PM
Honestly, most of the female columnists I see today write sexist crap, mommy war drama or inflammatory posts about rape for SEO clicks, so I don't see why as a woman I should support them.
In fact, I read an opinion column by a woman in the New Yorker about the tv show 'Girls' that included the words: horney, provocative, sex, fucking, orgasms, kinkiness, raw, spanking, humiliation, masturbation, dominatrix - all in the first few paragraphs. Yes, it's so sad we don't have more female columnists who can enlighten us about what women think about the major issues of today (sarcasm).
The TRUTH is that today most female columnists pander to horney men, bottom feeders, outraged mommies and "sex-positive" internet feminists because that is what SEO demands - and as a intelligent woman, I won't support that crap. I'd rather read a man's opinion than a woman trying to get men's attention by spamming her opinion pieces with porn keywords any day.
#14 Posted by I expect better, CJR on Wed 6 Feb 2013 at 11:01 AM