Why is this the case? I'd like to know more.

This should be obvious but so often is not. Artists, whether they be writers, painters or photographers, are all apt to be victims of free labour.

This is such a sad but accurate reality of independent publishing. This is why these systems of publishing need our support.

While independent publishers like Gap Riot are hugely important, I think systemic issues in book publishing won't change or improve until mainstream publishing addresses them.

Poetry as a form of activism reminded me of Rupi Kaur's work.

Data censorship is a pretty big tell that publishing houses know there's a problem — they just don't want to address it or deal with the fallout.

The UK is also guilty of a lack of diversity: "A survey of more than 1,000 people working in UK publishing has found that more than 90% currently in the industry classify themselves as white British".

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/sep/06/uk-publishing-industry-remains-90-white-survey-finds

This seems to be accurate in US: "Survey of workforce at 34 book publishers and eight review journals in US reveals 79% of staff are white and 78% female".

Link: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/27/us-study-finds-publishing-is-overwhelmingly-white-and-female

If they are accurate for some, is it truly fair to criticize the author? One character can not possibly speak for the experience of an entire group. One story is just that, one depiction of this character's experience. Sometimes I feel that the author can't win.

Here I see a challenge because if the writers answer that call and are ripped a new one then other authors are probably less inclined to step outside their comfort zone. Maybe what we need is a greater diversity of authors so that the stories we read come from the source.

Here I wonder how much input is too much input. I am definitely a PC-advocate but I sometimes am concerned that works of fiction are given too much weight and aa a result, receive far too much critique. I worry that people that want to share a story will be too afraid of the 'booklash' that might follow. Maybe I'm missing the point but I wonder where do we draw the line and say 'this is the writer's interpretation, let's leave it at that'.

Again, the market is a primary driving force behind content production. This reminds me of the popularity of the Ms. Marvel comic.

Similarly to how many non-Indigenous authors now work with or at least confide in an Indigenous community before publishing literature with Indigenous context.

Publishing for the mainstream means you are at the whim of overarching rules and restrictions and must conform to this censorship. Here is an example of why webcomics are ideal for creators who don't want to conform and cater to the largest audience or be constrained by a code of conduct.

Again we see the downplaying of content that doesn't fall under the category of 'mainstream'. Why is independent content given the short end of the stick? We see the same treatment for podcasts, zines, blogs, etc. If the content doesn't have a massive backing it must be lower quality, right? Sounds like a problematic assumption to me.

I wonder if the digitization of comics will make them less coveted because they can no longer be collected in the same way that physically distributed comics can. Of course I'm thinking of mainstream comics so maybe my view is skewed.

This reminds me of our conversation around podcasting and Chris Anderson's theory of the Digital Long Tail. The Long Tail being the proliferation of niche content that has arisen with the the internet. The Long Tail provides creators and consumers more choice and Anderson sees this as a new marketable space outside of corporatized content.

I now see some shows taking advantage of 'collective listening' by promoting the concept and offering incentives. Take Invisibilia for instance, they are launching a new season and to celebrate, they're promoting listening parties and offering participants access to the first episode a whole day earlier than it will available to the general public.

Here are some up-to-date stats: http://www.edisonresearch.com/the-podcast-consumer-2017/

The 2018 report is set to release this week.

Edison reported in 2017 that 67 million Americans were listening to podcasts every month and 42 million Americans were listening to podcasts every week.

Making podcasts more popular than Catholicism and five times more popular than going to the movies on a weekly basis. More info: http://www.convinceandconvert.com/podcast-research/the-11-critical-podcast-statistics-of-2017/

'Out with old, in with the new', doesn't seem to be an accurate expression anymore. It should be more along the lines of 'take the old, make it new'. It's not just radio drama that is being reproduced through podcasts. Take banter-style podcasts for instance, I see them as the new radio talk shows. Podcasts are a way to make radio content that's untethered to time and space.

This is interesting because I would say the medium itself lends more freedom to a greater diversity of voices. Perhaps it is the climate of public radio that needs restructuring, not the climate of podcasting.

This is a good point. If they are going to call for better support for women, they should make the space to actually support them in a functional, monetary and physical way. Maybe they avoid it because that whole premise is inherently tied to capitalism but these women need financial stability regardless of their feelings about corporate culture.

I wonder if blogs would be the current platform of choice or whether that is too mainstream.

These two descriptors summed up zine production for me.

I feel as though much of the same five characteristics of a manifest can be found in zines. Here I see the oppressor, the mainstream media, versus all women, as the oppressed. I also see the telltale call to action in the last line. Besides self-differentiation, how can we distinguish zines from manifestos?

I had not considered the zines as merely a mode of expression for teenagers. Although of the zines I've read about, their leaders tend to be young. Zines feel like the adolescent equivalent of a manifesto to me.

This seems so counter-productive to me. If you want to spread a message, comprehension and accessibility should be two foundational elements of the process.

I see the connection to Riot Grrrl material here.

Part of me wonders if there is any real purpose for zines now that we have social media. The benefit of social media being the sharing power it has that zines do not. A viral post has unlimited reach.

"We remember our dead - Sakia Gunn, Gwen Araujo and many other queer and trans poc who died because of racist, homo/transphobic violence not as a political statement".

Gwen Araujo was a 17-year-old, transgender woman murdered in California in 2002 by four of her friends. Sakia Gunn was a 15-year-old lesbian murdered in 2003 in New Jersey. There's a really good article written about Gwen titled Learning from the Death of Gwen Araujo by Linda Heidenreich.

"Before colonization we were seen as sacred"

This hit me. Colonialism has so much to do with international beauty standards and expectations. This reminded me of an article I read, "Unhappy To Be Nappy" by Azealia Banks which talks about the western taming of black hair.

This feels like an attempt to make hard issues palatable to a general audience. I see this in most mainstream publications — filler content is shoved between the more emotionally demanding content to keep consumers engaged and to reduce the chances of empathy fatigue.

This is a flaw that we encounter again and again as unity around one topic (like feminism) gets downplayed as another political movement takes the spotlight. If too many voices are yelling for change at once, we end up losing the message. This is why intersectional feminism is such a breakthrough. It enables us to talk about more than one version of the female experience.

This comment about how "we have to get the right balance", made me think of how inclusivity and diversity in the media/publishing/film world is only determined by viewership/consumer preferences. If it's not selling, it gets cut. For instance, the "there can only be one", in regards to adding minority cast members to TV shows. It's as if to say, "We support minorities! (as long as it benefits us).

Seminar Leadership Discussion Questions: Chapter 3

“You should suppress any dances which cause waste of time, interfere with the occupation of the Indians, unsettle them for serious work, injure their health or encourage them in sloth and idleness…prevent them from leaving them reserves for the purpose of attending fairs, exhibitions, etc. when their absence will result in their own farming and other interests being neglected” (Deputy Superintendent General Duncan Campbell Scott p. 60).

Q1: How is this piece of writing supposed to be interpreted by its readers? How does this writing reinforce stereotypes? Can you think of any current examples where stereotyping has been “hidden” in public agendas?

“Only a few months earlier, these shocking facts would have reached very few, but now the voice was exposing the sea of neglect to any and all who cared to read about it, the impact was palpable” (p.78).

Q2: The Native Voice became a binding agent for a broken community and culture. Can you think of any current examples of platforms/publications (newspapers, blogs, etc.), that are working towards reviving an oppressed community?

Q3: Do you see any issues with Maisie’s role as an advocate and voice for the Indigenous community when she herself was not of Indigenous dissent? Do you believe her whiteness has anything to do with the success of the Native Voice? Do you see Maisie’s work as altruistic or problematic?

fait accompli: a thing that has already happened or been decided before those affected hear about it, leaving them with no option but to accept. (Oxford Dictionary).

This section reminded me of our discussion about information literacy. It can be so easy to assume that a reputable source is unbiased when in reality there are almost always some other elements at play like private stakeholder interests.

We often forget that literacy is power — even faked literacy in this case.

This reminded me of "Black Twitter" and how the black community is using digital print culture to stay connected and share common experiences.