A New GOOD Era

GOOD's new executive editor on why it's an awesome time to be in the media business.

A few months ago I had lunch with an editor who's been in this business for nearly 30 years. Our conversation found its way to a topic that always tends to crop up when journalists of different generations hang out together: What does it mean to be an editor and writer when journalism has become associated with aggregating instead of editing, optimizing instead of writing, clicking instead of reading?

My fellow editor was incredulous when I told her that, even if you gave me the option to magically relocate my career to the journalistic landscape of decades gone by, I would choose to stay in the modern era. It's exciting that business models are in constant flux. It's exciting that we now have lots of different ways of measuring prestige and interest, from reputation to comments to clicks to subscribers. It's exciting that editors are no longer gatekeepers, yet our skills remain indispensable. This is an era of combinations: digital and print, words and images, journalism and activism, original and curated.

For many journalists of my generation (I am 29), this excitement has been tempered by the day-to-day drudgery of convincing editors and publishers from other generations that this is, in fact, an awesome time to be in the business. Happily, now that I've accepted the job as executive editor of GOOD, bridging this divide is no longer a part of my daily working life.

Here, we all understand that "magazine" doesn't refer to the paper-and-ink product sitting on your coffee table—it's also a way of describing a community and daily reading experience. We understand that traditional advertising is not the only way to support quality journalism, and that there are many, many ways for readers to engage with our work, whether online, in print, or in person. We understand that not everything written in the first person is inconsequential fluff and that cable news and national papers are not the final arbiters of what's worthy of our attention. To us, graphics aren't just a side dish but a main course. And context is everything. GOOD is more than articles and images—it's a common denominator for people who pursue a valuable life, broadly defined. What could be more modern than that?

I'm really happy to be here at GOOD. And things are only going to get better.

via Barry Schapiro / Twitter

The phrase "stay in your lane" is usually lobbed at celebrities who talk about politics on Twitter by people who disagree with them. People in the sports world will often get a "stick to sports" when they try to have an opinion that lies outside of the field of play.

Keep Reading

The Free the Nipple movement is trying to remove the stigma on women's breasts by making it culturally acceptable and legal for women to go topless in public. But it turns out, Free the Nipple might be fighting on the wrong front and should be focusing on freeing the nipple in a place you'd never expect. Your own home.

A woman in Utah is facing criminal charges for not wearing a shirt in her house, with prosecutors arguing that women's chests are culturally considered lewd.

Keep Reading

In August, the Recording Academy hired their first female CEO, Deborah Dugan. Ten days before the Grammys, Dugan was placed on administrative leave for misconduct allegations after a female employee said Dugan was "abusive" and created a "toxic and intolerable" work environment. However, Dugan says she was actually removed from her position for complaining to human resources about sexual harassment, pay disparities, and conflicts of interest in the award show's nomination process.

Just five days before the Grammys, Dugan filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and her claims are many. Dugan says she was paid less than former CEO Neil Portnow. In 2018, Portnow received criticism for saying women need to "step up" when only two female acts won Grammys. Portnow decided to not renew his contract shortly after. Dugan says she was also asked to hire Portnow as a consultant for $750,000 a year, which she refused to do.

Keep Reading