An Open Letter to Wired Magazine
Dear Wired:
I feel like I’m in an abusive relationship with you. I love you. You’re charming, attractive and smart, everything I could ever want in a magazine. My heart skips a beat when I see a new issue in my mailbox. Most of the time, you’re harmless, and I tell everyone I know how awesome you are. But every now and then, you slip, and you make me feel very bad, make me question my judgment.
When I noticed this month’s issue in my mailbox, I approached it with the same breathless anticipation that I do every month. I didn’t even mind the naked picture of Jennifer Aniston on the GQ subscription insert. I mean, it’s just advertising. You’ve got to make a living, right? Then, I turned you over to see what fascinating topics I would be delighted by this month. Boobs. Right there on the cover. A pair of breasts, no head, no rest of body… just boobs. Sure it accompanied a story on tissue re-engineering, so what other possible way might you visually represent that, but with a pair of breasts? No other possible way?
This isn’t the first time. We’ve been through this before. Your covers aren’t all that friendly to women on a regular basis, and that makes me sad. There was naked Pam from The Office in 2008 (you thought you were so clever with that acetate overlay – I mean, how else would you depict transparency?). In 2003, you had the nice lady covered in synthetic diamonds. There were the sexy manga ladies and LonelyGirl15 and Julia Allison with their come-hither looks. And Uma Thurman, she’s a lady, and she was on the cover… But wait, that was for a character she was playing in a film based on a Philip K. Dick novel.
Come to think of it, the last time that a woman was featured on your cover, because she was being featured in the magazine for an actual accomplishment, was way back in 1996 when it was Sherry Turkle, the academic and author. And, the only other time was in 1994, when musician/author Laurie Anderson was featured. Because since then, I guess no women have done anything notable in technology unless it had to do with their bodies? Really?
Martha Stewart in 2007 doesn’t count, and neither does Sarah Silverman in 2008, because those were both just jokey, thematic covers.
It’s not like we haven’t talked about this. In the 1996 book Wired Women: Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace by Lynn Cherny and Elizabeth Reba Weise, the author Paulina Borsook details the woman problem in Wired in “The Memoirs of a Token: An Aging Berkeley Feminist Examines Wired.” That was 14 years ago! In 2005, I met one of your female editors, Rebecca Hurd, at SXSW. We had a nice chat, and she politely said that if I had any ideas about women that should be featured in Wired, I should send them to her. I went to the Web to solicit some input, and subsequently sent her an 11-page document of women doing interesting things with technology. I don’t think one of those ideas came to fruition on the pages of Wired.
Things were looking up a couple months ago when you published that great article on Caterina Fake of Flickr and Hunch fame. That could have been a cover… Instead you went with Will Ferrell… If you don’t believe me, see for yourself. Go back through your covers over the years. How exactly are young women supposed to feel about their role in technology by looking at your magazine?
You can say that if I have a problem with your covers, then I probably shouldn’t read GQ, Esquire, Vanity Fair, Cosmo, Glamour or Rolling Stone or just about any other magazine on the planet. Well, I don’t read those magazines, and I don’t recommend those publications to my students, many of whom are female, as an important source of technology knowledge regarding trends and culture. You’re better than this. You don’t need to treat women in this light to sell magazines. You have the power to influence the ways that women envision their roles with technology. Instead, you’re not helping. Like Jon Stewart said (stealing his quote criticizing the now defunct TV show Crossfire), “You’re hurting America.”
So, I’m breaking up with you. As much as it pains me, really, deeply pains me, I can no longer stick around for this abuse. Had this been an isolated incident, a clever and provocative way to introduce an article, I might be able to forgive you and move on. But how many chances do I have to give you before you grow up? Or before I wise up? I’ve got the kids to think about…I’m doing this for them.
I still love you. I think I need you, and I’m not sure I can live without you. But you left me with no choice.
In sadness,
Cindy
Update 11/11/10: Chris Anderson, Editor of Wired, has taken the time to respond to this post. See his comments and my response in the Comments section. Now, we have taken the conversation to email, in which he has graciously offered to listen to ideas for improving the coverage of women in Wired. I am encouraged by his prompt response and this offer. If you have any suggestions for ways in which women can be more favorably covered in the pages of Wired, feel free to leave a comment or send me an email clroyal [at] gmail.com. Let’s use this as an opportunity to influence positive change.
11/11/10: BTW, I am approving comments on this post to keep things civil. So for the record, so far, I have approved all comments except for three, because of inappropriate language (like really mean name calling) or overt stupidity. It’s fine if you don’t agree with me, but I won’t be responding to most individual points. I appreciate the discourse that has been created around this topic.
And, one final point of clarification. By “breaking up” with Wired, my intent was to not renew my subscription and severely curtail my enthusiastic endorsement of Wired to students and others who attend presentations or just ask in general. Sometimes I describe my love/hate relationship with Wired to students, and I shouldn’t have to do that. When you describe a relationship with a person as love/hate, it is typically dysfunctional, and I have no room for that in my life.
11/12/10 Update: I did a Poynter chat on the topic today, joined by Nancy Miller the editor who worked on the tissue engineering image and story, and Rachel Sklar, editor at Mediaite. Click the link to replay the chat.
This post has now been reprinted at MsMagazine.com and Mediaite, with coverage and/or links to it on the Washington Post Blog, Nieman Journalism Lab, Huffington Post, All Things D and Slash Gear. And it was included as Ad Age’s Best Writing of the Week. The post received overwhelmingly favorable response, and even those who dissented were mostly civil, except for the comments on Huffington Post, which makes me wonder if those readers actually clicked through to read the entire article. I am extremely grateful for the discourse created around this topic.
283 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Wired Magazine”
Comments are closed.
Hahahaha, I LOVE this blog Cindy! Well done. You are a genius and I stand behind your decision 100%
Hey, that’s CLEAVEAGE, not BOOBAGE. There’s a difference. It’s not even SIDE BOOB.
But, yeah. Wired? WTF? I broke up with Wired a long time ago. It became way too much about hipster douchebaggery than anything I’m interested in.
Charles
Eloquent, to the point and right on. So sick of horny boys publicizing how threatened they are by the female cerebral. Here, here Cindus Maximus! They could have easily put a small, disappointing penis on the cover for a story on tissue engineering or augmentation, but oh no for some reason that’s pornographic, not two entire breasts with the nipple hidden.
Well said. A breakup letter we should be writing to many of the publications out there. If only more folks would take a stand over the objectification of women. Cheers!
Hey, they had a take on the best mascaras in the issue to balance things out!
Kidding aside, nice take, Cindy. My roommate and I went back and forth on it. Yes, breasts are important to the story of tissue engineering. Hell, that’s the foundation of the story. But why not be bold and show other uses, other images? Why not show us the reconstructed breasts we’re told about instead of some idealistic set of, as you called them, “boobs?”
Pretty obvious that sex sells, but in this case its just a sell out. Or a cop out.
Brava!
Yes, it’s a bit desparate of them, isn’t it? I used to enjoy Wired when it had more tech in it, and not just fashionable tech-lite stories. A faded sort of glory.
Love your style of writing Cindy…..but I can’t really fault them. Everybody loves boobs.
Cindy, You’re awesome. Ditto. Breakup complete from me too. Thanks for having the BALLS & boobs to write this.
Hugs,
CB
Great write Cindy, I can think of plenty of accomplished women in the tech world worthy of a Wired cover.
Maybe it’s time for publications to allow readers to vote which story makes the cover before print. If readers demand it, it may work. Look at Betty White on SNL…
I hadnt noticed this before, thanks for pointing it out.
You’re right to vote with your wallet and your post will convince others to do so.
Unfortunately, most of the subscribers probably want the boobs on the cover- thats why they were put there in the first place. You dont need to change Wired, you need to change the minds of young males you are in charge of raising, teaching, etc.
Between the gratuitously sexual covers and the sensationalistic ones (“The Web is Dead”, for example), Wired looks like it’s desperate for newsstand circulation. The journalists have left the building.
Amazing! This would make a great study for a journal article, no? I’m stunned that you had to go back to 1996 for a positive, female cover. I haven’t subscribed to Wired in over a decade, but I had no idea it was so slanted. Thanks for sharing your insights.
Wired is a Condé Nast title. If Vanity Fair can do a “Women of Hollywood” cover, which they’ve done multiple times, can’t Wired do a “Women of Technology” cover with articles to match? It seems long overdue.
WIRED of recent years seems to have very few covers that have people (male or female) on them at all- which makes sense as it’s a technology publication. But let’s look at the numbers. On the left is the number of people on covers / total covers. The last four years it has a percentage of 35% human to non cover ratio
2010 (2 / 7)
2009 (5 / 12)
2008 (5 / 12)
2007 (4 / 14)
Pre 2007 you’ll notice a huge shift as the percentage of covers with people jumps dramatically to 63% human to non cover ratio
2006 (10 / 12)
2005 (6 /12)
2004 (7 / 12)
2003 (8 / 12)
2002 (7 / 12)
But here the trend dips back to what it is at about now 36% human to non cover ratio
2001 (4 / 12)
2000 (5 / 12)
1999 (4 / 12)
So why the shift in people to / non people covers? Perhaps a new creative director was hired or fired (perhaps because of his poor aesthetic sense). Perhaps it’s a financial thing- organizing photo shoots with celebrities costs considerably more money than using a stock images or creating graphics and since the print industry is in decline funds are less. Perhaps non-human covers sell better to WIRED’s demographic. Regardless of the reason the trend is featuring humans less and less and it would be a shame to stop reading a magazine that (except for this months publication) has seemed to shift it’s cover aesthetics.
As an unbiased reader who does not subscribe to WIRED or any magazines, but does enjoy WIRED’s writing- I would hardly classify WIRED (based on their content) as misogynists who are exploiting female stereotypes to sell magazines. It’s a shame when someone intelligent such as yourself willingly limits & shields themselves from something that is quality (a magazine like WIRED), because they perceive one aspect of something (the intention of the covers) in a different light than it was intended by the creators.
I live in Portland, OR and there are not that many women in technology. Most women I know (that are not in tech) have no interest in joining the tech scene or working in the tech sector, not because they feel it is gender dominated or they are discriminated against- they just have no interest with sitting behind computers for long periods of time. I sincerely wish there were more women in tech, but I highly doubt it is magazine’s like WIRED that are keeping them out.
I get your point, but think your a bit off mark, I think your upset that they are not celebrating the female form, (and industry achievement) and you feel they are blatantly abusing the female form for sales. Celebrating the beauty of women with images of women is not detracting. Shapes, Tissues, Torso, hips, lips and the rest. Myth it is all the archetype of humanity and culture. The Coke symbol itself (bottle and glass) are female. Rather than get angry at thousands of years of evolution, archetypes (which in positive light empower women by celebrating their difference)you have focused on the fact that female leaders and accomplishments are not as celebrated but rather they are labeled sex objects only. I find this post a bit sad too because I see that your really trying to do something about it: ‘I went to the Web to solicit some input, and subsequently sent her an 11-page document of women doing interesting things with technology. I don’t think one of those ideas came to fruition on the pages of Wired.’ I mean whoa, you have a passionate interested person giving not only feedback but results of hard work too. Wait, maybe this is why the ‘BROADCAST LAW is loosing to Metcalfe/REED’S Law?’
Nicely done. I agree with you 100%, and I’ve done the same with some magazines from Argentina (where I’m from) too.
Their business is selling colorful paper with words on it. They aren’t moral navigators. And their ploy has actually worked in your favor because you get to piggy-back off of their brash cover. Wired moves magazines and hits their sales projections. You get readers and a bit of that validation you are seeking by running a personal blog. I get to comment on how silly it all is in my own little quest for validation in this world. Hooray all of us.
I had the same reaction as you, but please, give Italian Wired a chance. They have an amazing design sense, and the articles are great – just technical enough, but also on the cutting edge of culture and style.
Even though I can’t read italian, I still buy the imported Italian Wired magazine at the marked up price.
I can’t believe it carries the same name, but Italian Wired is a winner.
http://mag.sky.it/mag/web_style/2009/03/05/wired_reazioni_in_rete.html
It’s a real shame that Wired has not been featuring women on its covers or sufficiently in its content. But getting upset about the boobs cover? Meh. It didn’t even occur to me to be upset. It’s just a body part. I didn’t find anything insulting in it.
Great article, well said! I saw this cover at the bookstore and passed on buying it myself. I’d suggest the MIT Technology Review or something similar as a good industry magazine for your students instead.
Good job, Cindy. Congratulations. Wired WAS a great magazine … it’s still better than most other things though it has lesser charm than it had before. But WOMEN? Christ, this is awful and continues to happen. I am off the mag now but glance an issue or so once. That’s all I can do.
In 2003, I posted a “Wired Magazine Index”, a la Harpers:
http://www.peterme.com/archives/000060.html
Recognizable men: 69
Recognizable women: 2 (Laurie Anderson and Sherry Turkle)
Issue date of most recent recognizable woman: April 1996
Recognizable African-American: 1 (John Lee. This doesn’t include the white OJ Simpson cover.)
Issue date: December 1994
Recognizable Asian: 2 (Jerry Yang, JenHsun Huang)
Men used as models: 2 (May 94 and Nov 2002)
Women used as models: 5 (Nov 97, Oct 98, Dec 99, May 2000, Nov 2002)
Women shown mostly undressed: 4 (Nov 97, Oct 98, Dec 99, May 01 (yes, the last one is a drawing, I know))
Most appearances: 5 — Bill Gates (followed by George Lucas, the Myst-producing Miller Brothers, and Neal Stephenson with 2 each)
Bearded film directors: 3 (George Lucas, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg)
Cyberpunk authors: 3 (Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, Neal Stephenson)
Plus ça change, plus ça c’est la même chose.
I both agree and disagree with you Cindy. I agree with you that Wired, like many tech publications, has made a variety of bad decisions in it’s portrayal of women. In you’re above examples, the woman with diamonds, the Manga and Jen from the office all fall into that category.
However, I think you’ve taken several of these images out of context and made them seem far worse than they are.
For Julia Alison, LonelyGirl15 and Uma, all three frequently rely on sexuality as part of their public persona.
Martha and Sarah Silverman are portrayed in a similar manner to many of the men on the cover. Like Will Ferrel, Steve Carel and Alex Baldwin were all featured on the cover for comedic effect.
Finally, while you may disagree with the choice of imagery for the cover of this month’s issue, it’s not irrelevant. You’re article makes it seem like some editor just picked something at random, but the featured article is about a machine for harvesting stem cells that was created by plastic surgeons to do breast enlargements.
I agree that women are far too often objectified in almost every tech publication. It’s a problem that obviously needs to be addressed. However, the fact that you chose this particular cover to vent over shows that you may have already stopped reading Wired since it’s actually relevant to the content. (Also, there’s a far more graphic photo in the actual article.)
Has Wired made the occasional bad decision? Yes. Are they some closed group of misogynistic curmudgeons? Probably not.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you.
Not to mention that more than half of the site is advertising. Data here: http://stegic.net/?p=31
yup, what Charles Soto #2 said. Long time gone. It used to be cutting edge tech, now it’s a lifestyle magazine. So it goes.
@Kevin Leversee I think you’re missing the point. Cindy wasn’t saying the female form should not be celebrated, but rather that it’s misogynistic to only celebrate the female FORM. A one-off cover about women being sexy is probably to be expected from the publishing industry, it becomes a problem when the only time you see a female on a cover is when she’s being sexy.
Because what that says is that the ONLY reason a female can command attention is because she’s hot (and/or famous). And when Wired will happily give cover space to a series of not hot males – Craig of Craigslist comes to mind – that’s a double standard. You’re not celebrating the female form thanks to evolution (though really, why is WIRED doing that out of all publications in the first place?), you’re willingly ignoring all the women in tech who aren’t lookers.
That having been said, I’m not breaking up with Wired yet. Their cover editor may be a dick, but I have so much respect for many of their features writers. In that sense, Wired could be like the guy who is inherently feminist, even though he crinkles his nose at the word.
I stopped reading Wired between roughly 2001 and 2006, because it had turned into a shallow gadget magazine. I started reading it again on a monthly basis in 2006 and I’ve noticed that they’re trying to pull of a tricky balancing act. On the one side, they are trying to appeal to the overspending macho who likes his expensive toys and wants to appear sophisticated. On the other hand, they publish a lot of inspiring and in-depth technology journalism. The Caterina Fake article is a good example of how they approach these subjects without focusing on just the tech.
And that’s why I’m still reading Wired.
I don’t think any of the covers that you mention are problematic per se, but it is rather remarkable that this is the *only* way in which Wired puts women on its covers. Caterina Fake would indeed have been a much better cover choice than Will Ferrell and his white huskies. That was one of those short-attention-span douchebag pieces anyway.
Great post, but some of these follow-up comments are making me incredibly dejected — full of well-meaning, intelligent people that don’t quite get it. Wired isn’t just a cultural bell-weather, it’s a culture maker and to absolve it of responsibility by saying that covers are driven by market forces is essentially saying that it’s okay to do whatever it takes to make money. As a publication in a position of influence they could make a difference in the way women in technology are viewed — and that’s the point, Latj. They are not innocent bystanders in a sexist culture, they’ve helped create it.
Kevin: commodifying women as objects of sex is *not* empowering. In fact, it presents women’s bodies as things to be enjoyed by men. Look at where the power and the privilege is in that relationship. It takes the most personal thing in the world, your own physical being, and makes it about someone else. Believe me, as a gay woman I understand the beauty of a woman’s body but also as a woman in tech, when I’m in the workplace I want my empowerment to come from the skills I bring to the table, not the size of my boobs. That kind of empowerment is for after work, when I’m trying to pick up cute girls at the bar 😉
Look, I consider myself sex-positive and therefore am mostly fine with ethically produced porn. Sex has its place but when one of the foremost magazines in my *industry* uses covers like this, it sends a message that tech is men’s domain and that the role of women in tech are as objects to be enjoyed (even if it is as an object of beauty). *That* is what’s unacceptable.
It’s about tissue engineering, people. What do you suggest as an alternative image? Dr. House’s missing thigh? Get a grip.
Wired should thing twice when choosing their cover page, those “boobs” cover maybe attract wired male readers, but for female readers may have another perceptions, I wonder what wired responding to this issue. By the way cindy.. Nice breaking letter you have here 😉
I agree with your article 100%, except for the bit where you said Wired Magazine is awesome.
It’s not. It’s terrible writing with sensational headlines feeling the pulse of where technology was going 8 months ago. It’s the Rolling Stone of tech journalism. Maybe Wired was great once, but that was long ago. Its current target audience is 14-year-old boys and bored executives at airports. Apparently this target audience is fond of boobs.
If we all stop reading them, linking to their ridiculous articles, and subscribing, maybe they’ll go away.
The good news is that I’m going to laugh my head off when I walk into Walmart and see Wired magazine covered with an “Adult Content” placard like Maxim or Cosmo…
“How exactly are young women supposed to feel about their role in technology by looking at your magazine?”
They need a MAGAZINE to tell them how to they’re supposed to feel about their own role in the world? Really?
Cindy: I’m new to your blog and I’m happy to have found it.
Kevin: That’s a good argument and I almost buy it, UNTIL I look at that damn booby cover again, and then we’re right back where we started.
I don’t want to look at boobs when I’m thinking of tech and industrial design and global warming (or not).
I wonder how author Sharon Begley feels about the way Wired opted to illustrate her story.
MORE worrisome still is the fact that this regrettable cover follows a regrettable cover story, “The Web is Dead.” Is Wired really losing its touch? Where will we go for our cool tech info (besides Twitter, Slashdot, Engadget, Lifehacker, Boing Boing, Make, Scoble and thousands of other sources)?
Wired business practices made me drop them a long time ago. You can’t force or trick me into auto-renewing anything.
Wired has jumped the shark.
Thank you! Great post!
If you’re done with Wired, have you tried Ars Technica? It’s by no means identical, but it’s a tech publication, online, for free (ad supported, obv)
Very well said! I enjoy Wired and I’m a woman and I want to be included!
▲ WOLF WHISTLE ▲
The recent boob cover is on top of my stack of “most favorite” magazines in the living room. Each time I walk by, I flip it over, feeling, well, uncomfortable…later, my husband flips it back. Doesn’t this say a lot?
“Martha Stewart in 2007 doesn’t count, and neither does Sarah Silverman in 2008, because those were both just jokey, thematic covers.”
Nice way to change the facts to fit your argument. Does humour rob them of their gender?
And “come hither looks”? Are you serious? Were you also offended by Brad Pitt’s come-hitheriness last August?
And are taking exception at Uma Thurman just for existing? How does that cover offend you exactly?
… and this follows right after I read this (http://sixrevisions.com/infographics/web-designers-vs-web-developers-infographic/). somehow they can’t see the problem.
Amen!
Cindy,
I’m the editor of Wired, and thank you for your post; I take your points. This is an issue we wrestle with all the time, and it reflects a combination of things, ranging from not enough high-profile women in the tech industry who are recognizable to sell a cover (every month we cover test a list of names to see which ones people know well enough to want to read about them), to your sense that if we go outside the tech industry for women that this somehow doesn’t count.
First, I have to correct one point: this cover story was not about tissue engineering, it was about *breast* tissue engineering. Of all the covers with cleavage out there, it’s hard to find one more editorially justified than that.
Second, this problem goes beyond women: we have trouble putting *people* on the cover. It’s the same reason: they have to sell, and what sells for us is either big ideas (sans people) or well-known, likable people with interesting things to say. The problem is that there aren’t enough geek celebrities, so we often end up going with celebrity geeks instead. Our Gates and Zuckerberg cover didn’t sell as well as our Will Ferrell cover. I’m glad we did both, but at the end of the day, we have to work on the newsstand to be a profitable business.
But we do take risks with people we really admire. For instance, I’m a huge fan of Martha Stewart, both as a businessperson and media innovator, to say nothing of her presence in the DIY movement. So we put her on the cover, heading an issue focused on her passion, and included . I knew that it would’t sell well (it didn’t), but did it anyway, including a Q&A with her. But you don’t count that one, because it’s “jokey, thematic”.
So when we put women on the cover, it must be only be for serious profiles? Okay, then I could use some help with suggestions. We love up-and-comers, but they don’t sell magazines if they don’t already have a relatively high profile and are leading a company people want to read about. For instance, Carol Bartz is a great CEO, but I just don’t think a “wither Yahoo” cover would work right now. I know this sounds like a chicken-and-egg situation, but the time is long gone since people needed magazine covers to become famous. Witness our Julia Allison cover, which was entirely about her accomplishments in self-promotion, which we applauded as a key 21st Century skill. But you don’t like that one because she has “come hither looks.”
Finally, I’m glad you liked our feature on Caterina Fake, but do you really think it would have worked as a cover? Hunch is still a small startup, yet to prove itself, and Caterina left the company a couple months later. I think if we had put her on the cover, we would have been accused of hyping Hunch beyond its due in the first month, and then clueless the next month when she left.
In other words, suggestions please!
In fact, I quit when those absurd “Your wristwatch is a reflection of your penis length.” ads took over the opening pages of the magazine.
Here’s to standards!