I wonder if the media is sexist.
The NY Times reported on what members of big media (and Howard Dean) had to say. Christopher HItchens then disagreed, with typical HItchens mean-wit, that any of the Times’ examples of sexism were really convincing of the crime. Really, he seems to use the column as an excuse to really make sure the audience knows how much he didn’t like her campaign, but I do agree with him in wondering how discussion of a cackle, while irrelevant, is a mark of sexism. The, TPM’s election page agreed , if “to be treated unfairly by the press” = “to be a victim of sexism.” (to be fair, the TPM piece runs through examples of media stupidity (unfairness, reporting on non-stories, etc) on Clinton, and promises a similar look into media stupidity on Obama (and one would urge McCain, just for a complete comparison). But the piece’s discussion of unfairness comes in the news-text of a bunch of pondering over sexism, and unfairness seems to be at least an indicator)
I’ve discussed the question of whether Clinton got sexist treatment from the media a few times now, and realize a few questions could use addressing. What is sexism? What is sexist media coverage? What is the media in this context, when talking campaigns?
The TPM piece on unfairness documents (and pretty savvily vis a vis the ‘what is media thing’) various unfair treatments of Senator Clinton. But, I’m not convinced the unfairness documented is of any greater degree than treatment of other candidates. The media doesn’t take most candidates seriously, ever - is there an “ism” word to cover treatment of candidates without money, celebrity status, charisma, relatively good looks, or some party history placing them in the group of “serious candidates”?
All the same, I am still very interested in whether sexism affected coverage, amplifying irrelevant and inane coverage as would exist regardless of age, sex, or race. I think we can identify sexism as a predisposition to hold a lower opinion of a person because of their gender (is it sexist to hold a higher opinion of a person based on gender alone? Was it sexist when media covered John Edwards’ good looks?) I think we can identify media moments of sexism by stories, columns, and online posts that betray the writer’s sexism (or, perhaps, the tv person’s sexism, as manifested through voice-tone, ad hoc comments, etc). But, the Supreme Court has proved that a writer’s intent is not always readily apparent. Is the media being sexist? Does the “media” include the websites, like Drudge, that fed so many stupid stories the networks picked up? Does it include blogs? Comments on blogs?
In any event, the discussion brings to mind an old question I’ve had about perspective. Say I read a news story, and decided “not sexist.” Then, say a female friend read the same story and decided “sexist.” Which of our opinions is right? Is she right, because she’s a female, having potentially experienced being a victim of sexism, and thus more adept in identifying it? What if she is over-sensitive to sexism, too-quickly labeling actions as sexist? What if, in that regard, I am more objective and accurate? Oh, but perhaps sexism is a subjective issue, whether it exists being dependent on the audience (if a person feels it, it exist). But that really makes a meaningful look at sexism, at all, impossible, doesn’t it? Thoughts?
