Media Finds Itself (Mainly) Innocent of the Charge of Sexism Against Hillary

Right.  There are none so blind as those who will not see.  According to The New York Times, a substantial number of media critics, commentators, pundits, and outlets — not to mention many well known so-called ‘progresssive’ bloggers — still aren’t prepared to acknowledge the offensively biased coverage of Senator Clinton throughout the primary.  People, even my 80 year old "I am not now, nor have I ever been a feminist" Republican mom noticed it. 

The blatant sexism of the media campaign against Hillary Clinton didn’t bother the people who were doing it or the people who benefited from it, but it bothered the hell out of a lot of women, including me.  It was quite clear to me early on that a large number of media figures had decided that Obama should be the presumptive nominee — and never mind waiting to find out what Democratic voters wanted.

Now it seems that the scales have fallen from Howard Dean’s eyes. 

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, who says he was slow to pick up on charges of sexism because he is not
a regular viewer of cable television, is taking up the cause after hearing an outcry from what he described as a cross-section of women, from individual voters to powerful politicians and chief executives.

“The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign,” Mr. Dean said in a recent interview.

“It’s pretty appalling,” he said, adding that the issue resonates because Mrs. Clinton “got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives.”

Mr. Dean and others are now calling for a “national discussion” of sexism.  (NYT)

Yes, Mr. Dean, I’d very much like to have that discussion.  But first, let’s discuss the treatment of Florida voters — who overwhelmingly voted for Hillary — whose will has been completely dismissed and discounted, as if we simply didn’t exist.  Till then, screw Dean and screw the DNC.  I can support the presumptive Democratic nominee (for the simple reason that he’s the Democratic nominee) without going through them.

Apparently, though, "[t]he perception that sexism tainted coverage of the Clinton campaign — a view expressed on Internet postings and in conversations among women — appears to be gaining ground more in political circles than in the
mainstream news media."(NYT)

I’m glad to say that Katie Couric, and a number of women have insisted on calling out the media.

For many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters, the anger over her treatment has not subsided and they are trying to take steps to minimize sexism in the future. “It’s volcanic,” said Allida M. Black, the director of the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers at George Washington University and a founder of WomenCount PAC, a group that ran full-page newspaper advertisements last month urging Mrs. Clinton to stay in the race.

“How do we deal with the media who many, many people feel compounded the missteps by the campaign and robbed her of any shot she might have had at the nomination?” Ms. Black said.

Some are calling for boycotts against MSNBC and CNN…

Both the National Organization for Women and Emily’s List, which backs female candidates who support abortion rights, are generating e-mail campaigns to the cable channels when they see sexism. The networks have usually issued on-air apologies.

“We’re certainly not going to take this lying down,” said Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily’s List. She said her hope was for a national discussion to focus on “what is fair in the new political world of Internet, cable and traditional news coverage.”

NOW is starting a campaign to highlight its “Media Hall of Shame,” an online project in which it points to examples of sexist language.(NYT)

The New York Times lists some examples of media talking who have made sexist comments.   

Cable television has come under the most criticism. Chris Matthews, a host on MSNBC, called Mrs. Clinton a “she-devil” and said she had gotten as far as she had only because her husband had “messed around.”

Mike Barnicle, a panelist on MSNBC, said that Mrs. Clinton was “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court.” Tucker Carlson, also on MSNBC, said, “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”

The establishment news media were faulted too. The New York Times wrote about Mrs. Clinton’s “cackle” and The Washington Post wrote about her cleavage.

Ken Rudin, an editor at National Public Radio, appeared on CNN, where he equated Mrs. Clinton with the actress Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.” “She’s going to keep coming back, and they’re not going to stop her," Mr. Rudin said. He later apologized. (NYT)

They don’t mention commentator Keith Olbermann — known in these parts as Obamaman — saying that Hillary should be taken into some back room by a male superdelegate and that only one should come out, but it should probably be added to the list.  Olbermann himself doesn’t think there was any media bias against Hillary — no, no; MSNBC, according to Olbermann, ‘became a whipping boy.’ (NYT)  I’m sure it wouldn’t violate MSNBC’s or Olbermann’s standards if I remark, ‘Oh how I wish!

But it’s not these comments that offend me most.  It never offends me when a man concedes that a powerful woman evokes in him atavastic, unmanageable terror.   After all,  blatantly sexist commentary can be answered with equally blatant sexist commentary.  E.g., "Don’t pin your castration issues on Hillary, boys.’

What offend me most is the pervasive, unacknowledged assumptions about how a female candidate for the presidency ought to comport herself —- and the absolutely clear inference that there is, quite literally, no way she can win. 

I am not going to go through all of it again — I have my blood pressure to think of — but I don’t mind briefly pointing out some of the points on which Hillary was found wanting as a presidential candidate.  If Hillary showed emotion, she was undignified, manipulating voters.  If she didn’t, she was ‘robotic’, a terrifying android without charm or feminine appeal. 

Does her laugh not evoke the tinkle of tiny silver bells?  Try googling ‘Hillary’s laugh.’  A kazillion men, including many who voted for George W. Bush ['heheheh']  just couldn’t face having a female president whose laugh grated on their tender sensibilities.  The 60-something Senator  — a pretty-enough woman for her age, anyone would think — was criticized were having legs that were too short and thighs that were too big.    People didn’t like her pantsuits, but when she wore a modest V-neck the media —- including to my shame a number of successful women —went mad. 

Did she persist in trying to get elected even after the media were sure that — with Florida and Michigan discounted — she could never, never win?  She was ‘ruthless’, a female juggernaut who would ride down everything in her path and stop at nothing.  This framing of Hillary has been repeated so often people accept it as if it were a fact rather than a frame.

All of it simply confirmed what Katie Couric and many other middle-aged ladies less blessed than Katie Couric know:  women in our culture aren’t valued, and therefore don’t receive any respect, if their gifts are merely life experience, intellect, political savvy, shrewdness, and all the many other qualities that Hillary Clinton brings to the table. Furthermore, no woman is allowed to be passionate about her own political goals and objective and persistent in trying to achieve them despite opposition.  Passionate and persistent in the face of opposition (for a woman) = ‘ruthless.’

So I can only laugh and roll my eyes — because crying is so manipulative — when I read the following:

Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network’s overall coverage was fair….

His views were echoed by other news media figures. “She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries,” said Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review. “She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician,
and she was covered that way.”

Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, said: “I have not had a lot of regretful conversations with high-ranking media types and political reporters about how unfair their coverage of the Hillary Clinton campaign was.”

Among journalists, he added, the coverage “does not register as a mistake that must not be allowed to happen again.”(NYT)

My favorite bit is NBC/MSNBC president Phil Griffin’s ‘blame the victim[s]‘ riff on the whole ugly issue:

“I get it, that in this 24-hour media world, you’ve got to be on your game and there’s very little room for mistakes,” Mr. Griffin said. “But the Clinton campaign saw an opportunity to use it for their advantage. They were trying to rally a certain demographic, and women were behind it.”(NYT)

Yes, yes, yes — it was all just a tactic, not just by Hillary’s campaign but by all of us in that ‘certain demographic.’    We weren’t really deeply offended; we were just trying to turn it to our advantage.  I see it all now. 

When you read this article, it’s so clear why this sort of thing was allowed to happen and why it will  continue to happen.

Paul Krugman pretty much sums up how I feel about the way we got our ‘presumptive nominee’:

The raw sexism, in all too many cases coming from alleged progressives….was part of it. So, too, was the inability of many alleged progressives to see that the news media created the narrative of Hillary Clinton as race-baiter in much the same way that, 8 years ago, they created the
narrative of Al Gore as congenital liar — by assembling a montage of quotes taken out of context and willfully misinterpreted.

This whole story shouldn’t affect peoples’ votes in the general election: there are huge substantive issues at stake, and a wide
difference between the candidates on those issues. So this is no time for a protest vote. But 2008 was definitely the year in which the progressive movement lost a lot of its innocence.

CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS