More on that Snarky Review...

So Marcus Banks wrote up a post responding to my post responding to his review. I didn't wind up commenting, because I had to establish a commenting ID, and it crashed while I was trying. So I figured I'd respond here.

First off, this is why the blogosphere is great. Last Friday, I had an emotional-- and I think legitimate-- reaction to this graph:

"Lacy portrays Adelson and Rose's mutual "man-crush" with good humor and relish, in a way that seems possible only because she is a woman. Despite their ritualistic grumblings about the media, the numerous men Lacy interviews have no trouble opening up to her over crepes at Ti Couz or drinks at the Fly Bar."

Banks counters that he's not sexist, or not in the way I think. He prefers women and was trying to pay me a compliment. I appreciate his post, and take him at his word that it wasn't intended to be sexist. I frequently write things that come off another way-- every reporter does. In fact, I inadvertently offended Marc Andreessen in that very post! Hell, anyone with an email account knows what I'm saying!

That said, these are my final thoughts:

1. The Chronicle's editors blew this, frankly. Their job is to be a second set of eyes. Given Banks' explanation, he truly thought "only a woman" wasn't a sexist statement in regard to why I got unique access, but an editor should have balked at that, particularly given how hard it is for women to get credibility in this space. I'm not the only one who read it this way. (I'm not sure I yet understand why only a woman would have said that. I've certainly heard other men mock man crushes. Doesn't really seem that unique to me frankly. But that's a separate point entirely.)

And while Banks has been amazingly -- and immediately-- responsive to me, where have the Chronicle's editors been? It's more evidence of why, frankly, it's a declining franchise. I don't mean to blame anyone in particular, but let's face it, if you work at a newspaper you are trying to do more with fewer assets and things like this slip through the cracks. Honestly, if someone had written "only a black person" followed by a sentence about someone getting more access -- would it not have raised alarms? 

As someone Twittered to me on Friday: "Eh, whatever -- they're in a dying industry anyway. these days people don't cancel subscriptions, they just click 'unsubscribe.' " I think it's sad, but it's true. Again, not faulting anyone in particular here-- it's an incredibly hard job to put out a paper everyday, and I don't envy anyone trying to do it with diminished resources. There's a reason I don't work at a paper! That said, I don't subscribe to the Chronicle, and this experience doesn't convince me I should. (Although I may well continue to read Banks' blog, as I do think he had some legitimate points in the review and I would enjoy future reviews. Plus he's a male librarian! That's even more rare than a female tech reporter!)

2. While I found the comment inappropriate, and continue to balk at the idea that I got access simply because these guys love my company (ha! ask 'em!), Banks is right that there is a difference being a woman as a reporter. As I've written about before, I think women have some natural advantages and disadvantages over men in the workplace in general. I just think it's not the ones people expect. When I first got to Silicon Valley, I was in my early 20s and arguably far cuter. I was definitely thinner! I was also single (although living with my now husband). Guess what? NO ONE IN THE VALLEY WOULD TALK TO ME BECAUSE I WAS UNKNOWN. It's absurd to think people in charge of millions -- or billions-- in market value would talk to a reporter simply because she's a cute girl. I have never seen that happen. Ever. As a matter-of-fact, I know of several occasions I have been *denied* access as a result of how I look.

I do think it's possible men open up to you in a different way when you're a woman, but it has less to do with any attraction and more to do with the lack of a macho-testosterone fest. (Which is somewhat Banks' point in the blog post, I think) Everyone in my book shows real vulnerability and I think that's the strength of the narrative. For whatever reason, I was able to bring something out that other reporters have not. Perhaps it's because I'm less threatening somehow, or a better listener, or other stereotypical female qualities. Or maybe it's just me. I have long said there are enough disadvantages to being a woman in this business, I'm going to take the advantages. It's hard to know where they start and just my ability and experience as a reporter comes in.

3. Yeah, it touched a nerve. Clearly. But this is my blog and a place for me to express my point of view.  There are a lot of things written about me being a woman that I don't get upset about. But every time I've broken a story or scored an exclusive interview a competitor has said it's because I'm a woman. Seldom to my face, but I hear the back channel constantly and it's hurtful. To work so hard on a book-- something so daunting I would think no one would question my legit credentials for once-- and then read the words "only a woman" in a review would touch a nerve in anyone who cares that much about his or her job. I know I'm not alone in this feeling, so for other women reporters, I felt a duty to respond.

To put a positive spin on it all, the cool thing is that via the blogosphere, Banks and I have been able to express our points of view and hopefully learned more in the process. I know it's better than just blindly hating him forever! ;)

Ok, now let's move on. There's far more interesting stuff happening.