“Invisible” Sexism, Little Information, Taint Political Coverage
By SusanUnPC on January 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM in Bush/Cheney, Clinton, John Edwards, Media, Obama, Sexism
Erica Jong, one of my heroes, has written a powerful remembrance of “It Was Eight Years Ago Today (But It Seems Like Eighty),” a record of the skewed journalism of the 2000 election that failed to properly inform voters about the choice between Bush and Gore, the subsequent disastrous eight years of Bush rule, and what — if any — lessons were learned, even by female journalists, about not merely opining or being cleverly catty, but about actually REPORTING and INFORMING the voters.
Here are some key snippets on the failure of journalists to do their duty, as well as the sexism in the current campaign:
You’d think that after eight years of Bushwa, we’d look deeper at the candidates and what they read, what they think, what they’ve done all their lives. You’d think we’d notice that Hillary was always for kids and mothers and flex time and family leave. You’d think we’d notice that the people of New York State hated her at first as a carpetbagger but then fell in love with her because she did so much for them — even in the formerly Republican areas upstate. You’d think we’d notice that Obama is extremely promising as a leader but a bit unseasoned. You’d think we’d notice that the press is anointing him without much inquiry while enthusiastically smearing HRC. You’d think we’d notice that electing a new face is not as important as looking at thirty-five years of passion for civil rights, women’s rights, the Constitution. You’d think we’d mistrust the press a little more because the press just loved smearing Al Gore before he was a Nobel-ist. He was always very smart. Do we need the dynamite factory to validate our perceptions? Apparently.
Even today, Alessandra Stanley, covering the rather dull amity and politesse of the Democratic debate of January 14, 2008 (politeness is always dull to our hyperbolic press) for the New York Times, said that Hillary was “using niceness as an ice pick.” The other candidates, Obama and Edwards, were just polite. They were merely nice.
This sexism is still invisible to us — especially when it comes from women writers. It’s just Ms. Stanley’s opinion that Hillary uses niceness as an ice pick, but her opinions are not on the opinion page.
Once upon a time — way way back in the Pleistocene — there used to be a difference between hard news and opinion, but that distinction is now gone. So we must be aware of it–or we’ll be screwed again like in 2000.
I’m thrilled that this seems to be a Democratic year and we have a choice between a woman and an African American, but we can take nothing for granted. I will work my tail off for whichever Democrat gets the nomination. … I can blog till the cows come home, but if the voters refuse to look at Hillary’s record, and refuse to read and research, I can’t shove my passions down their throats.
The truth is all candidates make promises — that’s the nature of campaigning. George W. Bush pretended to be a compassionate conservative, a uniter not a divider. He said he was against nation building. His actions were always the opposite. I think Obama’s heart is in the right place. I like him. I will work hard for him if he’s nominated, but I really don’t know him. His record is sketchy.
I know Hillary’s record. She has made some whopping big mistakes — but she admits them and she has shown an incredible capacity for change and growth. I trust change. I trust growth. The presidency, JFK said, is not a very good place to make new friends. Nor is it a place for on the job training. It is not one job but many. It takes passion, ideas, vision, eloquence, but it also takes experience, administration and seasoned judgment. Hillary has these things. Obama is as untested and untried as George W. Bush was (and Gore was not).
Do we need another president learning on the job? I think not — even if his heart, unlike Dubya’s, is in the right place. Give Hillary a break. She has always come through for her constituents. Isn’t that what we need to know more than eloquence, promises and hope?
From Erica Jong’s “It Was Eight Years Ago Today (But It Seems Like Eighty),” Huffington Post, January 17, 2008
You really need to read it all. Are journalists doing this all over again, eight years later? This:
I was astounded that journalists seemed to love this dumb frat boy named George W., who glad-handed the press while they made fun of this brilliant man (Al Gore) who had a good grip on foreign policy, the environment, the economy (we had a surplus then, remember?) social issues, civil rights for minorities and majorities (women’s rights).
::::::::::::::::::::::::
P.S. Who’s one TV pundit who is actually reporting fairly lately? You won’t believe me. But it’s true. It’s Dan Abrams. On his new MSNBC show, which airs just after Olbermann’s Countdown, which just got removed — again — from my DVR list of daily shows I tape because Keith is sniping, and only covering the catty stories, not the substantive issues.
I’d already been erasing Keith’s show after about two-thirds of the way through because I refuse to listen to that tripe about Britney Spears, but — really — I learn so little from him, even in the “news” sections. Why doesn’t Keith do an hour on the economic crisis, and each candidate’s stimulus package? Something that INFORMS us? My two must-watch shows are “PBS Newshour” and “BBC World News America,” on BBCAmerica. Those two programs always inform me, stimulate my thinking, tell me something I didn’t know.
When I get back from physical therapy, I’m going to transcribe some of what Abrams said last night. It was outstanding. And fair! Not anti-Obama. Not anti-Edwards. Not pro-Hillary. Just fair! What a shock.
Finally, an article that is real and truthful. I too have noticed Abrams’ show and have begun watching him. Hannity and Matthews make my stomach turn. Please write more articles and keep on telling the truth about what the media is doing. Can’t we just get some facts on the issues instead of everyone’s personal opinion of the candidates. I don’t care if I like the President. I just want someone smart, aggressive, compassionate, and tough. Someone I can agree with on the issues and problems facing this country. That’s all. Not too much to ask of the media.
Even when we do get a rare “story” on the news networks about an issue, it is either so brief or so biased or both that we learn nothing. I caught such a brief “analysis” of the energy issue on Wolfie’s show the other day. The Republicans were portrayed as being serious about “energy independence” - by which they mean drilling in any remaining wilderness areas for 6 months worth of oil we could extract in 10 years, or removing all obstructions to the building of nuclear power plants. That was serious.
Edwards was then shown “playing the blame game” by calling for investigations into the big oil companies and what role they may have played in driving up the price of their products. I don’t recall hearing about Clinton or Obama’s positions, so I assume they are playing the blame game, or will raise our taxes, or are threatening our SUV way of life or something else dastardly.
Maybe the electorate would be better off if they simply did all Britney all the time. At least it would become clear that they are a lousy source for news and analysis.
You are right on target. Many Dems who got taken in by the media smears against Gore in 2000 but now love him are still gullible. (They seem to think that Gore has changed, not that the coverage was horribly biased.) Now they are clearly drinking the anti-Hillary Kool Aid while buying into the media’s crush on Obama.
What is particularly bizarre is that many of these Dems are from the political left, yet Obama’s main programs like health and Social Security are to the right of both Hillary and Edwards.
Now Obama is bringing up Ronald Reagan as a role model. Apparently he approves of Reagan more than he does Ted Kennedy who he called too old.
Some people really do get fooled all of the time.
Regarding your shout out to The News Hour; they seem as caught up in promoting the horse race as any other “news” organization. Watch last night’s Shields and Brooks segment. David Brooks obviously loves him some Obama, but at least he was willing to call the overt hypocrisy of last week’s charges of racism from the Obama camp followed by the Obama olive branch for what it was. The News Hour continues to call upon members of opposite sides of any issue, no matter how poorly presented, rather that somewhat disinterested, objective experts on a subject to comment on it, hence we never get an overview of the historical use of such invective in political campaigns. Much like having Norman Podhoretz defend proposed bombing of Iran as TNH did a few weeks ago.
The difference, as I perceive it, is that Newshour at least distinguishes clearly between its reporting and its opining segments.
You and I may not think highly of David Brooks — and if you’ve never seen it, you MUST use our site search engine to find Larry’s send-ups of David Brooks, who lives near Larry — but at least his comments are not part of the actual news reports which have been, best I can tell, quite even and fair.
AND (!) I implore everyone who gets BBCAmerica on their cable or satellite system to try “BBC World News America,” which airs twice daily. Besides covering U.S. news, they offer their superlative world reporting.
To my great delight, on the evening of the New Hampshire primary, BBC World News America stayed “live,” covering the results as they came in … they were on live until 9pm PST.
Yes, BBCAmerica interrupted its regular programming to cover the primary!
There wasn’t one U.S. network that did that. I don’t even think they bothered with an update “crawl” during their regular programming.
(Now, when I was a child, ABC/CBS/NBC all covered such events live. And that was in the days — how I long for those days — when they also all covered the national conventions day and night, and there was suspense as the reporters on the convention floor hurried about interviewing state delegates and candidates. I’ve tried to describe to my daughter what it was like for me, as a teenage political junkie, to watch those conventions and listen to every report, intrigued by the deal-making, the speculations, and those exciting votes by each state’s delegation while the anchors like Walter Cronkite, Huntley & Brinkley, et al. kept tabs of the totals. Yes, I realize there were backroom and hotel room deals being made, but for viewers in their homes, it was so suspenseful!)
From kathy..
“Can’t we just get some facts on the issues instead of everyone’s personal opinion of the candidates.”
I agree but first we have to decide what the issues are and then try to find the candidate who best addresses those issues.
Unfortunately politics doesn’t work this way. First you decide on which candidate you like and then you spend the rest of your time blindly defending him or her no matter what their record is on any issue and then trash the other candidates no matter what their record is on any issue. Of course I am talking about any election between a Democrat and a Republican. However the political process has stooped to a new low where is it now allowable for the same tactics to be used against candidates of your own party.
Also as I have tried to point out a zillion times is TV news is about ratings, money and more money. They have absolutely no desire for the truth why because as Col Jessop said in “A Few Good Men” “You can handle the Truth” or as I like to paraphrase it by saying “the dumb tv addicted American sheeple do not want to know the Truth.
In the tv news business there is an old expression that says..
“If it bleeds it leads”
“The Truth does not bleed so it does not lead”.
So what leads???
Race leads,
gender leads,
scandal leads,
murder leads,
molestation leads,
white women missing leads,
sports doping scandals lead,
police car chases lead,
Need I go on???
So why do you people get so upset about what TV news is doing or saying?
I used to read Huffpo a lot but now it too is reduced to some on the same things that tv news does however at least it is not pro Bush.
Minor correction Susan: I’d hardly call the MSM’s sexism “invisible.” Sadly it’s quite visible and pervasive, and I’m not just referring to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.
To your “Minor correction” ;F noise channel is the channel of family values and most of the programming from the “news” and beyond is all about sexism. My point is the frustrated nature of “conservative” life will not end anytime soon. I see the effects of it in k-12.
i was talking to an obama supporter last night and was pleasantly surprised when she admitted “i dont know where he stands on many issues … i wish i knew more.” maybe, just maybe some sanity will reemerge before the election process ends.
i might add … this could be true of all candidates and their supporters.
Hope is the absence of information. Despair is information that remains the same. When has sanity been a feature of american politics?
PS OT Did you the the “glass prints” of the second inauguration of President Lincoln?
His speech.
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html
All,
If you have interest in issues such as media bias and media inadequacies in general, I recommend that you visit Glenn Greenwald’s blog over at salon.com. He REALLY lays the lumber to the so-called journalism to which we are subjected thanks to the corporate-controlled MSM and the lazy punditocracy that oozes out from the same sources. He also closely scrutinizes issues related to constitutional law and civil liberties. His blog posts are always thought provoking, and his commentators (themselves generally of a pretty high standard) add materially to the examination of the issues.