Cult of Gracie Radio With Amber Rhea

On Wednesday I'll be chatting with Amber Rhea, the pole dancing, sex positive feminist with a Bachelor's degree in linguistics and a Master's degree in internet technology. She's also co-founder of the Georgia Podcast Network, co-host of the award-winning podcast Mostly ITP (which focuses on people and issues in Atlanta), main organizer of PodCamp Atlanta 2007, & organizer of Sex 2.0, an 'unconference' focused on the intersection of social media, feminism, and sexuality.

One of the things that impresses me most about Amber is that she gets sex work ~ despite never having worked 'the game', despite being 'young' and not a crone. She truly has wisdom beyond her years.

You can join the raunchy-fun and the ranty-goodness on Cult of Gracie Radio at 9 p.m. central ~ listen live, hang out in the chat room, and call in at 646.200.3136.

XXBN Sponsorships & Advertising

Looking to reach sex positive, progressive men and women?

You can sponsor &/or advertise on individual shows or all of XXBN's programming. Options include web display ads (banner), audio ads, & on-air sponsor mentions.

You may also advertise on this blog. (Monthly ~ or longer ~ sponsors receive acknowledgement for their support with mention/link at this blog, so that all listeners know of your continued support.)

Contact Gracie Passette at Gracie (dot) Passette (at) gmail (dot) com to discuss your interests & needs.

If you're an individual or company simply wishing to give kudos, you may donate to the shows/hosts to show your support:

Donate to Up The Hill With Zach & Jill (Jill Brenneman)

Donate to Cult of Gracie (Gracie Passette)

(Please note that donations are wildly welcomed; but as donations, have no promises or strings attached.)

Thanks, BlogTalkRadio!

Hey, today's Cult of Gracie show (9 pm central) with Nina Hartley is featured on BlogTalkRadio's home page!


Never let it be said that BlogTalkRadio isn't super supportive of adult conversation, issues and programming.

The Monolith Of Alternative Media: Thoughts On Blogs & Blogging

Amber Rhea writes of different kinds of blogs:

...this is something I’ve talked about all over the place plenty of times before: how making sweeping statements about “blogs,” as if blogs are a monolith, is pointless because there are so many different kinds of blogs. There are blogs that are online news outlets, many of which break stories. There are blogs that are devoted to political analysis. There are blogs that are focused on a specific topic and definitely write with more of a “for the audience” perspective. And there are plenty of blogs (such as I would class my own) that exist primarily for the blogger, cover a wide variety of topics, but do not purport to be unbiased or “fair and balanced” or objective, etc. etc. etc. So when talking about credibility, citizen journalism, etc., I was thinking it only makes sense to apply those standards to the certain types of blogs that want them.

But then I thought, well, that’s too simplistic, too. With a lot of blogs, there’s not this stark dividing line between one type vs. another type. I would call my blog a “personal blog,” but I also have, arguably, “reported” on plenty of things. So have many other people who write the type of blog I do - and that makes sense, because why should writing about an issue, or posting news, etc., have to be sequestered from writing about one’s life? And really, i think when the two mingle, that’s when some of the most effective political activism can take place - or am I abusing the old adage “the personal is political” again? ;) I just think for a lot of people, putting the humanity into something helps them see why it’s important, and think of it in a more concrete way, and not just as an abstract “issue.”

Her post, as usual, is thought provoking & brings up several good issues... Today, I'll just focus on the matter of blog definitions; something I find both interesting and irrelevant.

Such distinctions are are irrelevant because as the self-published acts of individuals, they are about as varied as the individuals themselves and so warrant no distinctions. Like the paper diaries and journals they digitally represent/replace, they are without need for categorization. However...

As published public displays, they become media; and this is where it gets interesting.

For the most part, individuals themselves categorize the blogs just by the act of selection; they read what they like and eschew the rest. But as blogs are available to all, some feel the need to define, even regulate. Combine this with the fact that many bloggers themselves argue for the same rights, access privileges, & status as "members of The Media", the discussion of definitions (including the side-paths of credibility & legitimacy) will continue.

"Legitimate" is a funny word. It is about as subjective as the "art vs. porn" debate, wherein the I-know-it-when-I-read-it definition of value will be applied to, in this case blogs and bloggers, as each individual sees fit to define it. Even when they cannot articulate it.

From a business point of view, the popularity (in terms of readership, loyalty &/or following) speaks volumes to the issue of legitimacy. Consumption is a bottom line that few can argue with, even if issues such as quality, purpose, and status continue to elude agreed upon definitions.

Many of us simply just act as if we and our blogs are Media. Considering ourselves to be/offer alternative media, we don't worry about the pat on the head which comes from a "legitimate" label. We just do it. And we do it in our own way.

Radio's Influence Changing

This post, On the Radio: New listening habits alter playing field, by David Hinckley, is focused on radio's power in terms of music; but the information (not actual numbers) likely represents changes in talk too:

...another survey by Coleman Insights illustrates the changing landscape.

Coleman surveyed 14- to 17-year-olds, who are obviously critical because they're the listeners and consumers of tomorrow, and found 78% listened to radio every day.

That's strong. But it's lower than it used to be, and the survey found 84% listened to music on a computer, iPod or MP3 every day. That's the first time "alternative" sources have topped radio.

In another Coleman study of teenagers, 41% said theiriPods or MP3 players are the first place they go to hear music. About 27% said computers and 22% said FM radio.

So teenagers who all used to listen to the radio now increasingly find new music through Facebook or MySpace or P2P file-swapping. The radio is still important, but now it's just one thread in the fabric.

You may be tired of so many "changes in media" talk, but I'm building towards something; so keep reading.

Alternatives In Radio & Media

At Washington Interns Gone Bad, Jason Buckley rejoices in the finally allowed merger of XM-Sirius. He puts things in grande perspective:

But wait a second, you ask, aren't I supposed to be against big corporate media mergers? Well of course I am. But this isn't the same as Rupert Murdoch or Clear Channel or Viacom buying up as many TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, billboards, social networking sites and concert venues as they can get their greedy little hands on to homogenize the information that the public has access to and race to find the lowest common denominator to market to. No, these are two new companies using new technology to compete with the monolithic media conglomerates out there. And that is why the National Association of Broadcasters has pumped hundreds of millions in bribes of lobbying dollars to keep these struggling companies from merging. No, the terrestrial media does not want another kind of media that the public can opt into and take their eyes and ears away from their advertising, and for them to say that they are against this because it's a monopoly is laughable. These stuffed suits are scared shitless of having to compete with a medium that is uncensored and has less advertising, and they bought off enough members of congress and FCC hacks to make this the longest merger approval process perhaps in the history of business. To put it in perspective, oil companies have their mergers approved practically overnight, and look how great that's been for the consumer. This was a concerted effort to kill an emerging medium, and completely the opposite of any kind of free market capitalism that these people supposedly believe in when it's convenient to them.

Though I can't afford to be a subscriber, I too have been hoping for the merger for the very same reasons. I'm all for alternatives ~ especially those which positively shake-up and wake-up the media.

For too long real choices have been kept from those of us who, due to economic imprisonment, have been forced to subsist on the mediocre & the conservative. Neither form fosters real discussion.

What upsets and concerns me the most is that you cannot really call current media "mainstream" as it doesn't accurately reflect what the majority thinks &/or wants. We, the huddled masses, cannot express our votes as consumers as readily, greedily, as those in corporate media ~ or those whose wealth exploits and pressures it. Millions of viewers/listeners are less valued than the millions of advertising dollars; for even while we are the target audience which is supposed to have the final say in a capitalistic society, our shifting & shrinking buying power potential is like those birds in the bush when compared to the bird in the hand of ad revenues, product placement, and the "values" these companies want extolled. And so, media no longer is for us. Or even about us.

I'm not saying that satellite radio is perfect, nor that it will not become like the rest; certainly cable TV has changed from a subscriber focused media to an advertiser driven business. But maybe, just maybe, satellite radio will learn to capitalize, monetize, the opportunity to appeal to listeners. And we will have not only alternative media, but alternatives in media.

Of course, you need not use satellite radio to get alternative media. May I recommend XXBN? *wink*