NBC On Sexism And Unfair Media Coverage: Who, Me?

In a front page NYTimes story, NBC reacts to charges of unfairness and sexism in its political coverage of Hillary Clinton:

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. “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.

Ha! The Obama News Network claims it was fair. Hilarious. Oh and the sexism consistently exhibited by its main newsreaders and commenters? Just a Hillary Clinton ploy. More . . .

The funniest is the reaction from Obama's O'Reilly, the awful Keith Olbermann:

Keith Olbermann, the host of “Countdown” on MSNBC, said that while there were “individual, sexist, mistakes,” there was no overall sexism. Any suggestion that MSNBC “was somehow out to ‘get’ Senator Clinton is false and unfair,” Mr. Olbermann wrote in an e-mail message. “We became a whipping boy.”

Heh. Sure Keith, those 30 minutes at the top of every one of your shows blasting Hillary Clinton is proof positive that you were NOT out to get Hillary Clinton. Might as well call yourself an "independent" like O'Reilly.

All in all, the article is most disappointing when you read nonsense like this from so called academics on the Media:

“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.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Lehmann is not having any regretful conversations with Media types because they do not regret it. That hardly means it did not occur.

And of course, that is the big problem. The Malign Acceptance of Sexism continues apace.

Speaking for me only

< Mukasey Says Military Commission Trials Will Proceed | Demanding Respect >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My first read this morning (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by kmblue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:42:16 AM EST
    The media's defensive posture is a laugh riot.

    Thanks for summarizing this, BTD (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by kempis on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:48:42 AM EST
    I don't think I can bear to read the whole thing and relive the fury of being told, "no, really, that really was rain."

    And this is priceless. Olbermann has truly stared into the O'Reilly abyss too long:

    Any suggestion that MSNBC "was somehow out to `get' Senator Clinton is false and unfair," Mr. Olbermann wrote in an e-mail message.


    Not that I'm such a big fan of Katie Couric, but (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:51:08 AM EST
    Olbermann's designation of Couric as his "Worst Person in the World" this week for criticizing MSNBC's sexism was utter hypocrisy. (I watched the clip online, since I do no longer TiVo Countdown.)

    Keith can't take his own medicine.  Reminds me of O'Reilly.

    He did that? (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:52:52 AM EST
    Really? Wow, what a classless hack.

    There is my second post for the day (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:55:18 AM EST
    Olbermann is absolutely useless.

    Great (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by joanneleon on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:47:42 AM EST
    I've brought this up twice -- about the Couric rant by Olbermann the night before last.  He also said that the claims were "ridiculous".  He went off on Couric.

    As might be expected by bullies and grandstanders like Olbermann, the more he gets called out on it, the worse he gets.  In defending himself, he further displays the same kinds of behaviours he is being called on and is denying.  Keith is so caught up in his fandom worship that he's being careless.

    I was hoping someone would pick up on it.

    Also, something I saw this morning on MyDD was pretty disconcerting.  There are a few guys over there talking about Alegre, talking about how they know her identity, where she lives, and writing comments about emails exchanged offline which disclose what seems to be damning information about her.  They're actually talking about using "black ops" email accounts, saying she's "fair game" and really starting to act like stalkers.  It's pretty creepy.  I'm hoping someone calls them out on it.


    Speaking of useless (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    I emailed Media Matters on numerous occasions over Olbermann and the MSNBC coverage and bias against Clinton. With the exception of the very early on Matthews forced apology, they never addressed the sexism in the media.

    However, now that Obama is all day news, they are watching every single word they say and calling them out on it.


    Oh, yes. You'd enjoy the Katie clip as well as (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:56:11 AM EST
    the Keith clip.  

    I actually respect Katie doing it, even this late in the game.


    Katie showed courage...., (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:45:27 AM EST
    I sent an email of support to Couric and the CBS network.  

    I had stopped watching Couric, but have now reconsidered.

    On a Today Show segment, she was the ONLY anchor to admit to Media's guilt in run-up to Iraq War.
    The other two anchors whimped out.

    Since,Couric is probably losing her job, maybe she figured she had nothing left to lose by telling the truth.

    She earned back some measure of respect from me.


    It shouldn't have to be an act of courage (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:53:59 AM EST
    to engage in some industry self-examination and self-criticism.

    Good for Katie, it brings her up in my estimation as well.

    But how ironic that the massive cowardice of the rest of the industry makes her statements into an act of bravery, in freakin' 2008.


    That's the bigger story. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:59:58 AM EST
    I really feel that the true comparison that is relevant (and scary) is not whether racism or sexism is more prevalent or pervasive. The comparison is the treatment of Hillary circa '92 and Hillary circa '08 and the fact that not much has changed from how she was treated then to how she is treated now. 16 years later!!

    Maybe CBS (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM EST
    just decided to try to court the disgruntled women. Katie could have benefitted greatly had she taken up this cause earlier. Gosh, she could have even changed the tone of the other networks if the CBS network all of a sudden became #1 in the ratings.

    I'm not rewarding her for this late 45 second comment. We're in for four more years of incompetent no matter which candidate wins now.


    Did she happen to note (none / 0) (#96)
    by sj on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    that she herself was one of the wars biggest cheerleaders?

    It sounds like she's got some buyer's remorse and that's a good thing.  But I would lose a lot of my antipathy towards media figures with one or two sincere mea culpas for one's personal actions instead of some passive voiced admission that "uh, yeah, there were pressures".  Take some personal responsibility for crying out loud.


    Olbermann (none / 0) (#73)
    by vigkat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:27:52 AM EST
    Posted a diary on the big Orange yesterday, in which he discussed the special comment he planned to deliver last night.  In the course of the discussion, he had this to say:  "I do not deny sexist remarks slipped out. I was guilty of not being able to be sufficiently empathetic to understand the undertone that could be perceived (rightly or wrongly) in my own remark about 'the room.' That doesn't make me guilty of sexism and it doesn't mean Senator Clinton was more of a victim of sexism than Senator Obama was a victim of racism."

    He went on to assert:  "The point of this was Couric assuming a debatable point as a fact, and beating over the head with it, somebody who was entirely honest about covering Obama amid cheering throngs (and who never said or did anything the least bit sexist). It was an unconsceniable (sic) generalization."  

    So there you have it; he was not engaging in sexism.


    well to Keith (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:29 AM EST
    asserting that the reporter in question was NOT sexist doesn't excuse said reporter from his own admission that he wasn't able to cover Obama without being biased.  They are two separate points.

    And, I'm still waiting for any examples of the MEDIA engaging in racism against Obama.  Again, Clinton and Obama "supporters" engaging in both racism and sexism is one thing.  But, it is unfair to use the "supporters" racism as a "both sides did it" defense against the MEDIA's use of sexism against Clinton.  Show me the MEDIA's use of racism and then we'll talk....


    Olbermann admits to not being (none / 0) (#140)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:12:51 PM EST
    empathetic enough to the sexist remarks that just "slipped out?"  Maybe if he would date a woman nearer his age rather than a teeny bopper he might get some "education."

    Couric was much like Olbermann! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:55:36 AM EST
    Her WWTFBQ slurs against Hillary were over the top.
    And Bob Schieffer! - don't even get me started.

    Although I welcome (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:17:07 AM EST
    Couric's coming back to her senses, let us not forget her Miss Frigidaire interview with Senator Clinton.  She tried to play with boyz and only came home when she had little to lose. Glad she came around, but she has penance to do.

    Perhaps she thought about her (none / 0) (#10)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:57:40 AM EST
    daughter and decided to try to even it out a little?  Who knows.

    all I know is - CBS & NBC were awful (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:13:13 AM EST
    and it was obvious they were pro-Obama.

    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by lilburro on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:40:02 AM EST
    The most evil, terrible thing going on that day was Katie Couric denoucing sexism in the media?

    The whole idea of that segment is a joke.  "Worst Person In the World" is a just a polite way of characterizing a segment that should actually be called "Keith Olbermann Throws a Fit for Reasons Beyond Our Ken."  What kind of show is that?


    Ho! (none / 0) (#148)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    How's about calling that segment:
    "Keith Olbermann Throws a Fit for Reasons Beyond Our Barbie."

    Feh (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:53:02 AM EST
    the media is doing it's best to make Obama unpalpatable to large chunks of voters. The more they act like this, the more women are going to reject Obama.

    The media (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by madamab on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:38:34 AM EST
    doesn't have to do a thing. I don't even watch TV "news" any more.

    I evaluate Obama by his own words and his own actions. They are enough to turn me off of Obama forever.


    there is nothing more pointless.... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:59:55 AM EST
    than one mainstream media outlet doing an examination of bias in the mainstream media.

    For instance, MoDo is one of the worst offenders when it comes to originating and populazing sexist memes in the mainstream media - and Dowd is a Times columnist.  But there is no mention of the role played by Dowd...

    The Times is capable of self-criticism, only after (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:03:05 AM EST
    convening a committee and investigating itself. Cf. their mea culpa on WMD and the run-up to the war. (Though I found their effort in that regard far more admirable than the Washington Post's.

    Of course (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:00:55 AM EST
    But beside the point in my view.

    I think it is the point.... (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:12:18 AM EST
    the MSM defends itself.  

    The Times makes a number of glaring ommissions in this piece -- like allowing Olberman to defend himself without citing Olberman's constant vitriol against Clinton, and mentioning the "Someone should take her into a room" comment.

    The other problem is that it wasn't sexism, so much as misogyny, that was directed at Clinton.  Hillary-hate has its roots in misogyny -- and the "normalization" of attacks on Clinton had blurred the distinction between fair and honest criticism and misogynistic venting.


    I was not defending the Times story (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:14:07 AM EST
    Indeed, in essence, I wrote my own story out of the quotes gathered by the Times.

    Ergo, beside the point of my post.


    NYT & NBC teamed up for the election (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:16:21 AM EST
    and after that announcement last year, the circular reporting increased.

    Unfair comment (none / 0) (#47)
    by bocajeff on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:51:09 AM EST
    If one opposed Hillary then one's opposition is rooted in misogyny? Isn't that the same as being opposed to Obama and being called a racist?

    A persons color and/or sex is the least of my reasons for opposing people. There are always so many other and better reasons for not liking someone.


    Criticize words and actions on their own merit (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:07:16 AM EST
    No one said anyone HAD to support Sen Clinton.

    You're deflecting, and also taking a shot at a straw(wo)man.


    Stunningly, Bocajeff (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:22:44 AM EST
    this isn't about you.  Unless you work at NBC.  

    No one said that (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:59:39 AM EST
    Stick to the point, please.

    Unfortunately the misogyny seems to (none / 0) (#141)
    by hairspray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM EST
    be taking a turn toward Michelle. I don't really care for her, but I think some media will turn on her in the same way they turned on Hillary.  Nothing more than a "nagging wife," etc  It will start with the GOP, but will seep into the 20 somethings mindset.

    columbia journalism review was no better (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:21:10 AM EST
    Which is quite sad. CJR had articles negative of Hillary that were shown false but weren't updated when the truth came out. So this guys bias already puts his efforts into question. Since he doesn't own up and have regret himself, it's hardly surprising he didn't find any such regret elsewhere.

    The bias has been most everywhere and completely accepted. It has felt the same as when GWB was pushed on us, and when the Iraq war was pushed on us. The press has a very large responsibility for our current state of affairs since they have repeatedly shown themselves to be not independent journalists. Instead they are independent in the sense of O'Reilly or Olberman.

    And a big problem for the boyzblogs (pro sexism) and others that are now happy with the current bias instead of calling them on it is that they've lost all integrity and can't be taken seriously when the press eventually blows with the wind (or he money) and changes their biases. What's really sad is if there were a new group of blogs that were all pro racist as part of how they were against Obama, the boyzblogs could not legitimately argue against them.

    CJR is not in this story (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:28:59 AM EST
    that I can find.  Did I miss it, or are you confusing CJR and AJR?  Who is "this guy" of whom you write?

    Nicholas Lemann is from CU (none / 0) (#127)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    and hence affiliated with CJR. I don't know if he works directly with CJR, but since that's his school and is part of his expertise in this article, I think it's worth mentioning.

    Blaming the victim.....again (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:22:32 AM EST
    Oh look! Poor media! Here we are blaming the victim again.
    Oh wait -they're blaming the victim. It gets so confusing.
    I just must remember that anything bad is the Clinton's fault. Anything good that can be made to look bad too.

    So many charges of HRC playing the 'gender card' (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:13:56 AM EST
    ... were because she responded to misogynistic attacks and called those objectionable.

    Right there is a two layered attack: the unprovoked bigotry then "justified" by the target standing up against them.

    NBC's indefensible posture that Clinton was rallying women -- over half the population -- so the misogyny was fair game is ridiculous.

    It's like saying that if women are going to participate in democracy, we all deserve to be bashed by NBC.


    Oh! I know! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:29:03 AM EST
    Any sexist criticism of MO will be laid at the feet of Hillary Clinton because she didn't call out the sexists during the primary.  

    Two nights ago, Olbermann (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by joanneleon on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:28:00 AM EST
    (aka Obamann) said that the accusations of sexism and misogyny toward Clinton were "ridiculous claims".  Some truth teller he is.  He really should stop with the Murrow schtick because Murrow was nobody's shill and he's a disgrace to Murrow's legacy.

    they are using the Obamabot defense... (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:31:04 AM EST
    "she brought that on herself"...  "She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician, and she was covered that way."

    Seriously, this is what the Obamabots always said, it wasn't sexism...  It was just Hillary.  It wouldn't have happened to a different woman.

    where was the outrage over the nutcrackers?  you know every pundits head would have exploded if there had been Obama lawn jockeys for sale.  But, they keep writing this stuff off as though it was just "funny" or "deserved because it is Hillary"

    If they want to use Bosnia as an example of her bringing it on herself, then where was the constant reporting of Obama's LIES?  At the same time the Bosnia story was reported, it was also reported thta Obama lied by taking credit for two senate bills he had nothing to do with.   Where was the outrage over that?  Did it need to have convenient video tape to get coverage?  Which is more important?  A lie about how you as First Ladt arrived at an airport or lies about your senate legislative record?

    NO ONE is saying that sexism is the ONLY reason Clinton lost.  But, it certainly contributed to it and I would think they could at least acknowledge it.

    But, this article makes it now sound like they are justifying tougher coverage of Clinton because she is a tougher politician.  So, what does that say about the relatively weaker coverage of Obama, they thought his record didn't merit the kind of coverage Clinton got?  Maybe they should have looked a little harder and found the Rev Wright stuff BEFORE Super Tuesday.  Because his slump and Clinton's rise all came immediately AFTER the Wright issue came to light

    blame the victim (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by lilagirl on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:38:27 AM EST
    This is textbook blame the victim defense. well judge I didn't exactly hit her, well maybe I did a couple of times but really she asked for it.  

    Musta been those miniskirts (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:41:30 AM EST
    Hillary loves to wear.

    No, wait.  Michelle and Cindy wear skirts, not Hillary.


    No Clothes (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by mwb on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:48:56 AM EST
    MFB (Media Fluffer Brigade):  We carefully looked at ourselves and objectively decided that we were as usual right, fair, just, impartial and devastatingly good looking.

    And when did HRC blame sexism?? (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by suisser on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:49:47 AM EST
    To read the NYT today one would have to believe that HRC spoke up about the media coverage and sexism day and night. Never, not once do I recall her doing anything of the sort.
    I've had it up to HERE with the NYT.

    Uh, she should (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by frankly0 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:02:24 AM EST
    complain about sexism in the middle of the campaign so that Tools for Obama, Media Division, can pounce on her for "whining"?

    Yeah, that's what she should have done, alright.


    Morning Joe (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by DFLer on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:52:42 AM EST
    without Joe this morning...but the awful Barnicle and company lamely throwing off the charges.

    And Mika! - I shall call her Meeka from now on.

    Olberman sent the message out to any female (none / 0) (#129)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:40:00 PM EST
    MessNBC personnel that talking about sexism, misogyny in other than the MessNBC Boyz accepted manner will be suitably punished. Prime example, now: Katie Couric.

    And there was a message there for other women reporters, pundits.

    Fortunately, Rachel Maddow has internalized it very well and she will be safe.

    NBC fires women who do not toe the line. Ashleigh Banfield is the prime example of that.


    Hee hee! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by stillife on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:55:32 AM EST
    Can't wait for Somerby's sardonic take on this.  

    Your comment will be deleted (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:56:10 AM EST
    because it is off topic.

    Please acknowledge that you understand that by replying to my comment.

    This comment was directed to rishi (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:15:09 AM EST
    who is now suspended from participating in my threads.

    Rishi, do not comment in my posts please. Your comments will be deleted. You have indicated you much prefer the posts of Jeralyn and TChris and therefore I think you should restrict yourself to commenting in their posts.


    isolated incidents or a pattern? (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:02:38 AM EST
    After the first most people will give some rope, after the second most people will raise and eyebrow, after the third most people will question the integrity, but what do you do after the 5th and beyond?

    During an appearance on the January 9 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Matthews said of Senator Hillary Clinton, "the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around" and that "[s]he didn't win there [New York] on her merits." Matthews has referred to Clinton as a "she devil," compared her to a "strip-teaser" and called her "witchy." He has referred to men who support her as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." He has suggested Clinton is not "a convincing mom" and said "modern women" like Clinton are unacceptable to "Midwest guys."

    Matthews' sexism is hardly limited to his comments about Clinton; such rhetoric is just the latest in a string of sexist attacks he has made against prominent female political figures.

    -- During coverage of the New Hampshire primary, he said that Clinton is the only viable woman presidential candidate "on the horizon." He couldn't think of a single female governor eligible to run: "Where are the big-state women governors?" he asked. "Where are they? Name one." In fact, several of the states that currently have women governors are comparable in population to the states in which the male presidential candidates serve or have served as governor.

    -- In November 2006, shortly after the Democrats took the majority in Congress, Matthews asked a guest if then-presumptive Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer" if Hoyer (D-MD) were elected House Majority Leader.

    -- They stopped listening a half-hour in, and they noticed how pretty she is -- Michelle [Obama] -- and they said, 'I like the fact he's [Barack Obama] got this pretty wife. He's happily married. I like that.' They like the fact that Hillary was demure, lady-like in her appearance." When Mitchell interjected, noting "You're talking about two ... lawyers," who went to "Harvard and Yale," Matthews defended himself, saying, "Cosmetics are a part of this game."

    MATTHEWS: I thought that she avoided playing victim to the other candidates. She avoided demanding any special courtesy or protocol as a woman. She never appealed to her femininity as any reason to be any different or treated any differently. And I thought, again, it's so hard and everybody disagrees, well, a woman has a special challenge when it comes to political argument because we can raise our voices and it works sometimes. When a woman raises her voice, the octave goes up, and Hillary didn't do it.

    While giving post-debate analysis during the April 27 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert asserted that Clinton would never admit to "ma[king] a mistake" in voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution "because she is afraid that if she acknowledges a mistake, it will show a lack of surefootedness in national security and foreign policy, and, for a woman candidate, that can be a real detriment."

    Discussing the most recent Democratic presidential candidates debate on Morning Joe, political and social commentator Mike Barnicle said Sen. Hillary Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court," eliciting laughter from the all-male panel that featured MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, Willie Geist, and David Shuster.

    On and on and on.  It is an embarassment to journalism.  The love of money.....

    borrowed (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:03:37 AM EST
    from NOW, MediaMatters, maminmagazine. I am certain that a running list would produce 10 good pages.

    Agreed. I hope all this is pulled together (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:54:32 PM EST
    in one place, and chronologically, to show the impact of what seemed to me to be daily, daily, daily sexism and/or misogyny -- sometimes tied to events but often not so, apparently a reaction to nothing Clinton did but to media's testosterone levels.  A timeline also could show if the attacks increased, as I think that they did.

    wow, when you string those together (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:12:46 AM EST
    it's even worse than what was sitting in my head. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. It's stunning. It's as if we've made no progress against bigotry towards women in the last 100 years. I've even heard some pundits actually complain about women having the right to vote. Seriously.

    Perhaps it's time for some bigger changes.


    the fun part would be to compile (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:18:57 AM EST
    a list of the "racist" comments made by the media.  Since now the claim is being made that both sexism and racism existed, please let's see the documented evidence of the media using racism against Obama.

    I suspect overt racism (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM EST
    is the Media's Third Rail.  Would be very difficult to find as extensive a list of examples as you can with sexism especially with regards to Hillary Clinton.

    For the Media, sexism and misogyny are the road well traveled.


    that's my point really... (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:14:50 AM EST
    It is not right for the media to use NON MEDIA racism that may have appeared in the campaign to excuse the MEDIA generated sexism that occurred.

    But, that is exactly what they are trying to do.  They want to use the "both sides did it" argument.  And supporters on both sides may have done it.

    But the MEDIA only participated in sexism.  And the MEDIA actively fought against the racism.


    I strongly suspect (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:13:38 AM EST
    that the Voters' patience with Obama hiding behind a shield of "perceived racism" as a way to protect himself from questions about his thin resume, his questionable associations and his downright dirty tricks during the Primary will be incredibly short.

    To attack someone else -- through spokespeople and supporters -- in a shockingly sexist way and then flinch and insinuate racism if a question or criticism hits too close to home will prove wildly unpopular in the GE, in my opinion.

    That's not leadership, it's cowardice.


    Oabam is trying the same thig (none / 0) (#125)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    with Michelle now claiming she is OFF LIMITS.  Since when did his campaign consider Clinton's spuse "Off limits"?

    I might agree with him if Michelle was out campaigning for him.  But, she is.  So, she is fair game.


    The Other Obama is a public figure now (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    and made herself one (sometimes it occurs without volition).  So tough, Michelle.  If Bill was not off limits, Michelle is fair game.

    And for all the talk of Bill Clinton needing "handlers" . . . Michelle Obama's record suggests that she's going to need a 24/7 staff of handlers.


    i did not hear one racist comment (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:39:18 AM EST
    on msm.  I seldom watch and i am sensitive to both and do not recall one racist remark but seemed like most times i watched i would catch a sexist remark.  

    I seem to recall (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:48:02 AM EST
    there was some comment Chris Matthews made about Obama's affinity for basketball that was a little sketchy.

    But basically, look, the media is super-sensitized to racism.  Even if they don't care about it, they see people losing their jobs for saying bad things, and they learn where the line is in the interests of self-preservation.

    There's no such dynamic for sexism, although I find it a little hard to understand why.  (Maybe women need an Al Sharpton.)  The isolated incidents of actual punishment, like David Shuster, they convince themselves are nothing more than an unjustified witchhunt.  Honestly, they won't learn by reading impassioned essays about the evils of sexism.  They'll learn the hard way that it's wrong, or they won't learn it at all.


    If it were treated the same as racism (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:53:20 AM EST
    it would go away.  As long as it is overlooked it will persist. I don't know it if is pathetic or sad but my wife and I simply cannot watch the msm.  

    Ditto. And I was a news junkie. (nt) (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:50:19 PM EST
    How is Tweety still employed? Seriously. (none / 0) (#130)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    Yes, I do know: He plays the game well, does what is expected of him, and does change his tune when the paymaster calls a new one.

    The media (5.00 / 10) (#56)
    by Steve M on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:05:49 AM EST
    is always ridiculously defensive and lacking in any capacity for self-criticism.  That's just how they are.  They are no more willing to acknowledge the sexist coverage of Hillary Clinton then they are willing to acknowledge their role in promoting the Iraq War.

    Remember Jon Stewart's famous appearance on Crossfire?  The thing that struck me about it was Tucker Carlson's humorless reaction to it all.  Here's a pundit who dishes out criticism towards anyone and everyone, yet when he's criticized himself, his reaction was "Is this how you behave all the time?  I'd hate to have dinner at your house!"  They simply can't stand to be criticized, even in the exact same way they feel entitled to criticize others.

    So much of what has gone wrong in our politics can be laid directly at the feet of the media.  America deserves better.

    here is a good running list (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:07:22 AM EST
    Ellen Goodman has a great op-ed (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:12:26 AM EST
    in the paper this morning.  A snip that seems relevant to this discussion:

    Get Even in the Media. Every Clinton supporter I talk to heatedly brings up the media. Women who have never let the word "misogyny" slip from their lips now pair it alliteratively with media. If you have five minutes, go to the website of the Women's Media Center (womensmediacenter.com) and be aware that this is just a Whitman's Sampler.

    It wasn't just the ugly stuff coming out from under the rocks - "Life's a B - -, Don't Elect One." Nor was it just the sleazy shout-outs of the new boys' blogosphere. What shocked even the slur-hardened feminists was that, as Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List said, "it seemed to be so acceptable. And it was shameful." Where was the DNC's voice of protest? Where were the big feet and CEOs of the media? Why do sexist slurs get a laugh while racist slurs end careers? Getting even is, finally, shaming the media messengers.

    I think Ellen gets it, but then she's a woman...

    Thanks (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:32:36 AM EST
    I used ot for my latest post.

    Again, why so late with this critique? Or was she (none / 0) (#131)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:44:35 PM EST
    out there, documenting the absurdities and horrors? Not that I was aware of.

    This part: (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by rooge04 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:14:06 AM EST
    "She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician, and she was covered that way."

    is my favorite.  Because Obama was covered how? As a teenage ingenue?  I don't understand that at all. She was covered as a tough politician while Obama was covered as what?  A child?

    My other questions is this: I thought Hillary lost.  Why are they STILL bothering with her? Oh that's right. They don't get any ratings without CDS in full force.

    Keith Olberman: The Greatest Propagandist of our time -Somersby.

    Obama's covered as the prom king shoo-in (none / 0) (#132)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    they're all hoping to get a date with.

    So what's the next step? (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:23:16 AM EST
    We watched it happen.  We called them out. They responded with more of the same.  They have investigated themselves and found themselves either not guilty or justified in their behavior. I haven't watched TV - at all- in weeks, but apparently nothing has changed.  (Are those people on that island still LOST?)  I'm tired of the "pity party".  What are we going to do about it?

    I think we should (none / 0) (#86)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:43:31 AM EST
    find a way to sue.....".. subjugation through dehumanization" by the media

    There has to be a way through civil rights legislation,  Also, through the FCC.  I had a correspondence with them in re Chris Matthews during the Clinton administration and they gave me some ideas but I lost the file.


    I'm not a lawyer (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:04:35 AM EST
    But I  have had the experience of being the "first woman" to do something and all that entails.  I also have a history of tilting at windwills when it's needed. Point me at Holland.

    I was wondering if there was legal action (none / 0) (#100)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:05:46 AM EST
    that could be taken. While it may be up to us to not watch/read/whatever, there should still be accountability for such blatant actions.

    I wonder if G.E./subsidiaries holds sexism seminars for their employees and what their policies are . . . most people would lose their jobs for repeated blatant sexism/misogyny. And the victim(s) could sue for lack of action.


    It's pervasive. I used to think that "hair (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:25:58 AM EST
    of the dog" was the way to combat Fox, Drudge, and right wing talk radio.  But MSNBC, Daily Kos et al., and Air America have shown that using these methods to combat mainstream media narratives can create greater problems.

    This is all a mirror image of the Gingrich years.  And this kind of machine, concentrated and unchecked, can lead to the kind of blind authoritarianism we've seen for the past eight years.  I know that sounds melodramatic.

    What of the DNC moving its core operations to Chicago?  The Obama campaign's effort to undermine independent, progressive interest groups?

    I know the "cult" language can offend core Obama supporters, but this "movement" is looking like a content-less personality cult.

    You are SO right.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:19:28 AM EST
    What has happened to the Left (becoming like the Right) is beyond frightening.   Character and morals have gone out the window.  Are money and power the ultimate goals in life these days?

    Can Democracy survive?  Will the multi-billionaires of the world completely take over?

    Conspiracy Theorist?    When my Democratic Party becomes unrecognizable to me...I don't know where to turn...what to believe in.   Just call me heartbroken and disillusioned.


    I read Air America is in bankruptcy (none / 0) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:12:17 AM EST
    As long as KO continues to draw attention and they can get advertisers for his program, they will do exactly as they please.

    O'Reilly yesterday said he beat KO in the ratings by 500,000 viewers. He kept repeating the number to make sure no one missed what he said.


    O'Reily (none / 0) (#122)
    by Virginialass on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    Continues to speak to his base. Kieth Olberman attacks his base viewer. Think about it - a lot of Hillary supporters probably watched Countdown before the primaries. KO took sides and attacked Hillary and her supporters on a regular basis. He could potentially lose half his viewers. I expect O'Reily to attack Hillary his viewers do too. There are a lot of Democrats that love the Clintons. I predict KO show is on the way out.

    That's certainly true for me. KO was a season (none / 0) (#123)
    by Joelarama on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    pass on both TiVos before he started in on Hillary in this household.

    I think KO has maxed out.


    He may have maxed out (4.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    but his ratings have been climbing the more he piled on the Hillary-hate.

    He certainly lost viewers but all he or NBC cares about is the net gain.  He really doesn't care who his audience is -- progressive, reactionary, Martians -- he just cares how many.

    This latest thing is laughable, but it shows he's still desperately clinging to Hillary's coattails to try to keep his ratings up.


    And now that the accident has been cleaned (none / 0) (#128)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    up, and there's nothing more to see, he could see a major plummet.  O'Reilly boasted his viewer numbers exceeded KO's this week by 500,000

    The demo KO aims to win is the 18-35 male viewer- (none / 0) (#133)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    he is not aiming for women, especially older women.

    I'm not positive of the age range, but when he would brag about beating O'Reilly it was only in the young demographic range.


    His ratings (none / 0) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    peak on the days he bashes the Clintons.

    You can view ratings here: Link

    Olbermann's audience is growing.  The fact is, he doesn't even care if he gets a huge audience.  He just wants to win the 25-54 range.

    I wish we could somehow model what his ratings would be if he hadn't been so unfair to Hillary.  I think he'd then beat O'Reilly nightly.  Frankly, though, I'm glad he's opened my eyes.  


    Thanks for the correction and info. (none / 0) (#138)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    The NYT's Own Coverage was Awful (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by datadriven on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:28:00 AM EST
    Over the course of the long campaign, the paper became progressively worse. In particular, the photo coverage starting with Iowa seemed to be in some sort of sick coverage race with the Op-Ed page: "Who could paint a worse image of Hillary?" BHO's photos would be positively glowing, while Hillary was photographed from behind, in silhouette, from below-- seeming looking up her nostrils, nervously interacting with the press, and so on. I can't recall a single image of her that portrayed her a postive light. Of course, the Op-Ed folks (with the exception, of course, of Krugman) shot spitballs all day and night.

    Can we expect a paper with a staff such as this to find something amiss at NBC? We stopped our NYT delivery about the same time we recycled all our back issues of The Nation.  

    Yes, Seelye's byline on this (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    linked story tells me it's a useless read.  I recall her byline on stories guilty of the same things that she reports on here.

    It may be in part because of her editors, as we never can know for sure how much is a reporter's work.  But reporters whose work is repeatedly changed ought to have the integrity to quit.  And Seelye still is there, so I can only consider her to be part of the very problem about which she reports.  There 'tis: useless story.


    they were discussing this (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:28:53 AM EST
    on Joe this morning.
    it was surreal.  Mickey Mica, Blabbermouth Barnicle and Harrold Ford.
    surreal.  its the only word I can think of

    Morning Joe (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Tess on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:33:24 AM EST
    This is a quick post. However, did anyone see Gail Collins on Morning Joe this morning?  I only caught part of it but the discussion was about today's NY Times sexism piece and she made a reference to these angry women as "the women whose husbands walked out on them" !!!!!  MY JAW DROPPED....

    Did I get this correctly? If so, I'm horrified at her suggestion(s).

    We HAVE to find the video of this!

    I saw it. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:54:01 AM EST
    You missed the context. Gail was pretty good, acutually. Barnacle was being dismissive of the acusation that his comment that Hillary reminds people of their first wives standing outside of probate court was sexist. In response to that, she called him out and said something like there are women whose husbands left them and treated them like a "pain in ass" when they went to court to try and get what was rightfully owed to them. They are the first wives you (Barnacle) are ridiculing. I'm paraphrasing, but that was her point.

    Apologies... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Tess on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    Glad I asked here first!!!

    Thank you kindly for making the clarification....

    Not sure if my post can be deleted or not...


    No worries (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:21:53 AM EST
    Gail did a pretty good job in the face of Barnacle and Mika acting like the story had no merit at all.

    Are there transcripts for Morning Joe? (none / 0) (#134)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    What woman will ever want to do it after this? (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by goldberry on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:39:24 AM EST
    The only way I see a woman ever becoming president after this is if she is first Vice President to some other man.  And it won't matter how talented, intelligent, experienced or commanding that woman is.  She will not be able to make it on her own.  She will need the coat tails of a person with a Y chromosome and a penis.  

    I have resigned myself to never seeing the like of Hillary Clinton in my lifetime. I have resigned myself to the fact that the Democrats have made the world a lot tougher for every woman competing for a job, education or just plain fairness.  

    Let's not blame the media for this.  They are entertainers and bashing women sells.  If they had been held accountable, if sexism was as dirty as racism, they wouldn't have been able to get away with it.  

    Let's put the responsibility for it where it belongs: on the Democrats who did nothing to stop it and didn't stand up for their loyal party member.  

    Way to go, Howard.

    The First Woman President - A Republican? (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:07:03 AM EST
    If the Republicans are smart, they will select a woman VP for McCain and then run her for President the next presidential cycle. The Republican attack machine could then go after any comment from the media or blog boys with the slightest hint of sexism. It would be a stark contrast to the Democratic Party that either remained silent or engaged in the sexist activity. They could definitely IMO win over quite a few women that way.  

    If there is no woman on Obama's ticket, (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:53:25 AM EST
    I think there's a really good chance that McCain will go that way, and he has several good choices depending on where on the moderate to conservative scale he wants to go. I was at small group meeting with Pat Schroeder in the early 90's, and she speculated that the Republicans might be better at getting a woman elected. More cohesion.  When they decide to do it, it will happen.

    Yep, Whitman or Palin (none / 0) (#113)
    by goldberry on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:51:15 AM EST
    Would probably get McCain brownie points.  And I'll betcha dollars to donuts that the first anchor to open his pie hole to criticize her will provoke the Republicans to attack.  They'll look like heros.  They could do worse than Whitman.  She was a two term NJ governor and if the EPA thingy comes up, they can always say she did what the Bushies asked of her until her conscience started to bother her and she quit.  Plus, she's pro-choice which will signal to the rest of us that we're moving on from the abortion wars.  

    Whitman did not do her job after 9/11, subjecting (none / 0) (#135)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    thousands of people to contaminated dust.

    She will not be asked, imo, and she would be eviscerated over so much she did not do when EPA director.  But the biggie is saying all clear when it was known things were not clear and were possibly dangerous. She lucked out with the judge who said she could not be sued.


    Disagree. I think this election (none / 0) (#142)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:07:44 PM EST
    has given women a laser-like focus.  We won't get distracted by green issues, the Supreme Court, or anything else.  No one is perfect, but Whitman is a great choice.  If she is on McCain's ticket, he will win in a landslide.

    an asterisk (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by ClareAK on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:55:59 AM EST
      I have always thought that when the inevitable sexism came out against Michelle Obama the media would decry it, but characterize it as "racist" and therefore more "serious".
      At this  point, there are a lot of people invested in the narrative which trivializes the misogyny directed at Clinton by labeling voices calling attention to it'whining' and 'girls crying because they lost'.
       Another part of this narrative involves the deliberate misinterpretation of complaints - insisting that Clinton supporters claim that's why she lost.  There is also the rewriting of history by claiming that Clinton "played the gender card".
      People are really excited about Obama's candidacy, and that includes people in the media.  Too bad that this candidate of New Politics benefited from such vile commentary.  
      As far as I'm concerned this year's "progressive" candidate will always have an asterisk by his name.  

    Re MO (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:11:38 AM EST
    You know that's what's going to happen. Maybe we'll finally have that national conversation?

    The best we'll do is another speech. (none / 0) (#139)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    And I don't think I could stomach an Obama speech on gender.

    I actually went to NOW's (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Mrwirez on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:13:35 AM EST
    web-petition and signed up for the petition against the media. Particularly against Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, and Tim Russert and NBC/MSNBC as a whole. In a million years I never thought I would even take a peak at NOW. I am convinced Mrs. Clinton did get a raw-deal.. I believe in fair and balanced news ;-)

    Orchestrated Misogyny (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Silhouette on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:32 AM EST
    It was orchestrated misogyny.  The anchors were just doing what the memo said after the staff meeting.

    Big Media is owned by GOP and functions as the mouthpiece of their current propaganda.  That's why what should be reliable personality traits in anchors seems to waver so wildly depending on what's going on at the time.  There was such a concerted effort across the board to trivialize, demean and hamstring Hillary Clinton by both the men and the women anchors; I watched in marvel as the months unfolded.

    My first thought was: "Wow, they're really afraid she's going to take the nomination.  They're actually struggling and contorting themselves to present sexism as "normal" and "the only sane thing" when it came to Hillary."

    The GOP fears the Clintons like nothing else.  And that's exactly why come Fall I'm writing in Hillary for president no matter what superdelegates get pressured or duped into doing.  

    Why do you think Stephen Colbert's exquisite devil's-advocate satire has a subliminal McCain cartoon head popping up and chanting "O-baa-maaaa.  O-baa-maaaa"?

    They knew who the guy to beat was.

    Write your superdelegates before it's too late. Hillary still has a shot at being our nominee.  We still have a shot to unify and get our voices represented in the Oval Office.  Obama ain't it.

    A Racine, Wisconsin delegate for Clinton (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    says she's not voting for Obama at the convention -- and is voting for McCain in fall.  The state Dem party doesn't quite know what to do -- it's a hoot.  (See jsonline.com for the story.)

    the media and the Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST
    Throughout the entire campaign the media has been biased against the Clintons.  It shows up in this article again with the claim that she received tough coverage because she is a tough politician.  The media always used as their starting point that ANY statement coming from the Clinton campaign MUST, not MIGHT, but MUST have at least two meanings.  And, the second MUST be nefarious and MUST be a coded message designed to insert race into the campaign.

    A case in point was the "as far as I know" comment.  The first day it was discussed by Chris Matthews (when Iused to watch him) he was claiming she was sending the coded message that he might be a Muslim.  The panelists on the program ALL said you might be able to get that impression if you only READ the quote.  But, if you actually WATCHED the video, you could tell by the inflection in her voice that she wasn't trying to make that implication at all.  But, still Matthews kept it up.  He actually said that the Clinton's are such professional pols, that there is ALWAYS a message behind what they say.  Within two days of the initial coverage, EVERYONE in the media was reporting it as fact that Clinton was trying to imply Obama might be Muslim.  Even though everyone on that panel had said NO.

    At the same time, no one in the media ever was of the opinion that anything Obama ever said had a "coded" message behind it, even when female panelists said it did.  Case in point here is Obama's "periodically, the claws come out" comment.  Every female pundit on Matthews explained the sexism behind that statement to Matthews, he just wasn't buying it.

    There are many examples.  But the media, ewspecially MSNBC, always took the position that the Clinton's ALWAYS have a coded message and even if it was a surrogate that said it, the surrogate was being TOLD waht to say by Clinton.  And, the media NEVER took that position with Obama.  They always did the opposite with him.  Obama was too good and perfect to use "coded" messages.  And Obama's surrogates were never scripted by the campaign as to what they should say.

    All the Clinton abuse in the media was excused because it was "The Clintons" and that is just how they are and they therefore deserve the kind of coverage they get.

    Somerby pointed out that Tweety praised Hillary's (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    speech after winning SD and losing MT--initially. Then when the MessNBC Boyz decided to slam her for not conceding IMMEDIATELY, Tweety joined in. By the next morining, her lack of concession was the Worst Thing Ever in politics.

    Tweety does know when to change his tune--just needs to hear his master's (s') voice.


    Sure, there was sexism (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:52:35 AM EST
    I think even most Obama supporters concede that, to greater and lesser degrees.  There was also racism, which I think most Clinton supporters concede, to greater and lesser degrees.  And no doubt McCain supporters would complain of ageism.

     The talking heads couldn't care less, I would guess.  They're not in it for much more than ratings.  Much like blogs and site traffic.  Sensationalism sells.  Interesting narratives sell (a presumptive pre-primary candidate knocked out by an insurgent, for example).  

     The lesson? Ignore the talking heads as anything other than entertainment value.

    the bottom line is (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:58:57 AM EST
    the media concealed damaging info about Obama - and this continues to date.

    Right, no Muslim crap (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cpa1 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:12:49 AM EST
    but that he would not join the filibuster against Alito.  Real agents of Change were there for that but not Obama.

    and Obama's lie about the Kennedys (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Josey on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:30:35 AM EST
    bringing his father to America. WaPo exposed it, but no other media or press reported it - except Jeralyn. ;>
    Of course, the Kennedys also went along with the lie - which probably explains why it wasn't reported.
    Hillary embellished the Tuzla landing, but there was no truth at all to Obama's tale about his father and the Kennedys. Just an opportunity to deceptively wrap Obama in Camelot.

    For 8 years, Dems have criticized the media for concealing info about the Bush administration. But now Obamacrats are quite happy to be in bed with the same media.


    It is not just the talking heads (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by cpa1 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:09:35 AM EST
    It is the entire media.  They made a concerted effort to destroy Hillary and Bill because they wanted the story of a black man becoming president.  They were tired of Hillary and Bill and they wanted something new to write about.

    I will never forget what they did with Bill's South Carolina answers to a question posed by black congressman Gary Meeks son, distorting and lying about it when they conveniently took it out of context, hiding the question.  Of course, the Obama machine fertilized it with faxes every single day.  Never forget what they did because they had every single person in America spreading that lie.

    The continue also to bring up sniper fire but forget that Obama was a DIC a "delayed immaculate conception" being born in 61 after being conceived in 1965 as a result of the March on Selma.  

    They wanted Obama and they got him like they wanted Bush over Gore and they got him.

    There are arrogant jerks like Sally Quinn who never liked the Clintons and never they they BELONGED in Washington and when she and those like her grabbed onto the Obama lies about the Clintons, stupid people believed them.


    the difference is in the media reaction to it... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:37:31 AM EST
    Yes there may have been both sexism and racism by "supporters" of the two candidates.  But, the media NEVER engaged in any racism the way they did sexism.

    And, whenever any "perceived" racism happened, the media jumped all over it to defend Obama.  That never happened with sexism either.

    In fact, the media helped Obama in created the illusion of racism at times where NONE existed.  The "fairytale" remark being a prime example that to this day persists.  A commenter on this blog last week was still claimimg that Bill Clinton said the "entire Obama Campaign" was a fairytale.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  But every network, with the exception of FOX, reported it that way and none of them ever corrected.


    only McCain supporters would complain (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:43:42 AM EST
    about ageism. See, here's the crux of the problem. The bigotry used against any of these three candidates should be called out and shot down whenever it's seen. To even suggest that only McCain supporters would complain makes me think many people opposed to McCain would sit quietly by and be fine with that. It's bigotry. Let's use that word instead of racism, sexism, ageism, or others. Because even the word sexism for example, unfortunately only brings a smile to some people (e.g. the various pundits and boyzblogs we all know about). They are bigots. People saying McCain is confused are pushing bigotry. Plain and simple. It should not be accepted anywhere.

    How many lawn jockeys did media trot out? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:19:03 AM EST
    Let's go for that handy nutcracker:lawn jockey ratio of egregiousness and number.

    The charges of racism were very much ginned up and planted for planned outrage. (The allegation of darkening a flyer: that varies from monitor to monitor.)

    Don't pretend this occured equally in degree or onslaught.


    Ignore the talking heads (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:34:28 AM EST
    is not a solution.

    If you do  not have the gumption to fight against sexism and misogyny, that is on you. do not try and make the rest of us follow your cowardly example.


    I do not concede this (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by goldberry on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:48:03 AM EST
    If there was racism, it was engineered by Obama himself as a weapon against Hillary and her voters.  That was the most cynical and unforgivable abuse.  Just because millions of voters thought that Obama was not ready to be president doesn't make them racists nor does it make Obama any readier.  

    One of the reasons I will never vote for him is the way he bashed us over the head with that without even thinking that for the vast majority of us, racism never even entered our minds.  It would be like Dennis Kucinich complaining that we didn't vote for him because he is from Eastern European stock instead of the fact that some of us just thought he was too left and inflexible.  Will every failed candidate come out now with a ethnic/racial/religious excuse for why we didn't vote for him?  


    Not a good argument (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:15:04 AM EST
    I hate this talking point:  You can't criticize sexism because racism exists also.

    The existence of one does not negate, lessen the impact, justify, excuse or ameliorate the other.  If I could think of more synonyms to use there I would.

    Nor does it magically make them equal in intensity, motivation or effect.


    Alec does not surprise (3.00 / 2) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 10:00:47 AM EST
    as usual, you don't disappoint....you are incapable of discussing sexism without bringing up race.

    Where's Seth, he does it every time also.


    Slightly on topic. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:06:35 AM EST
    "baby momma" versus "pimped out"

    Slang or sexist?

    Baby momma was racist (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:13:08 AM EST
    Why? (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:21:42 AM EST
    seriously, explain to me why "baby mama" is racist.

    When Katie Holmes can be called Tom Cruise's "baby mama", and Kevin Federline can be called Britney's "baby daddy" and Bradgelina are referred to as each others' "baby daddy/mama", the neologism has lost its direct racial reference -- or even a reference to illegitimacy.

    Its a pop-culture thing.  


    i guess I need to update.... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:03:35 AM EST
    my Urban to English translator.  I always thought that baby in the term "Baby Mama" was referring to the age of the single mother meaning she was so young that she could still be considered a "baby" herself.

    Not comparable (none / 0) (#35)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:35:42 AM EST
    It's one thing when pop culture outlets like E network use that phraseology (which I still think is in bad taste) but quite another when a supposed news outlet uses it. Fox News should not use it to describe an entertainer like Katie Holmes, a potential first lady like Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain or an average woman on the street as part of a story.

    There are no news outlets (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by magisterludi on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:59:36 AM EST
    anymore. Newsfotainment is the paradigm now. Since when has Fox been known for its journalistic ethics? Since never, IMO.

    Unfortunately, there is no such thing as straight news these days. CNN and MSNBC, along with the networks, are 24hour commercials more than anything else. And I'm not buying what any of them are selling.


    Considering FOX's demographic (none / 0) (#38)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:39:46 AM EST
    it's a poor choice of words.

    Now if FOX catered to the young "hip" demographic I could actually see it.  But I believe FOX's viewers are a bit older than that.

    (Does that mean that the young, hip generation is sexist?  More sexist?)


    Good Point (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by indy in sc on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:48:08 AM EST
    Also, I highly doubt they would run a banner under Cindy McCain calling her John's "Baby Mama."

    Isn't there a movie out (none / 0) (#77)
    by nashville on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:30:41 AM EST
    with that title...Tina Fey And Amy P?  That was actually the immediate thing my husband and I both thought of, but we are not up on teen or street talk.

    Oh. Sorry. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:25:32 AM EST
    I figured it was sexist too.  When I(white girl) was waiting at the shopping cart with my baby brother I got looks from people who assumed that I was my brother's mother, not sister.  That's what comes to my mind when I hear that phrase - single mother, often young and poor.  The black versus white thing barely registers.

    OTOH - Reagan's fictitious "welfare queen" I remember as a black woman.  Now why would that be?  


    Racist>sexist term? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by rise hillary rise on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    I don't know which. I was offended by Faux news calling MO "baby mama," but no more so that I was by the Obamabots wearing t-shirts that said "bros before h*es."

    the "youth vote" called it just a pop culture thing when HRC was called the WH word , repeatedly. live by the sword, die by the sword I say.

    Oh yeah, and Keith Olbermann is a sexist boor. JMO.


    yep, and they can't complain (none / 0) (#27)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:24:07 AM EST
    with any integrity because of their sexism. That's the down side of using bigotry to push your candidate like they have done.

    because Michelle is black..... (5.00 / 10) (#45)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:49:42 AM EST
    From what I have been able to figure out during this campaign, there are phrases or topics you are allowed to say about WHITE people, that you can't say about blacks or the supporters will call it racist because you are supposedly trying to "ghettoize" the black person.

    It was the same with any discussion of Obama's youthful drug use.  Those comments were met with immediate calls of racism even though in previous elections we have talked about Bill Clinton's drug use and still use the phrase "didn't inhale" today.  And in 2000, we talked about GW's drug use.

    So, it was perfectly accepted to talk about drug use of white candidate.  But, not with Obama.  I you did, you were "playing the race card"

    The media did this over and over.

    "Roll of the dice" supposedly was said to conjure up images of inner city black men shootin dice in urban alleyways.

    "fairytale" supposedly meant you were saying it was just crazy to think a black man could ever become preident.

    "3AM phone call" ad was supposed to make you think a black man was lurking in the bushes outside your home waiting to break in like it was suggestive of a home security alarm ad.

    The mental gymnastics that the media was willing to perform FOR Obama and AGAINST Clinton was apparent from the beginning when Chris Matthews began prodding both Obama and Edwards to start attacking Clinton in the early debates because neither of them was getting any traction and apparently it wasn't "interesting" enough for Chris to watch Hillary blow them all away by actually understanding policy and being able to discuss it on demand without a script.


    Gandy's comment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Munibond on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:23:54 AM EST
    NOW's president suggested that Michelle Obama would be the next target of misogyny.  I predict Dean, Pelosi etc. will quickly characterize any criticism of MO as sexist, just as criticism of BO has been labeled racist.
    The NYT article would have been better if it had been 90% examples and 10% defensive comments by the perps, instead of the other way around.

    They (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:28:20 AM EST
    won't have any credibility. I'm sure that they can make these accusations but Obama using sexism against Hillary and complaining when the same thing is done to Michelle just isn't going to wash. And as far as racism goes, he's lost the credibility on that issue too. He and Michelle are just going to have to sit quietly and take it. They need to ignore this stuff and focus on something else.

    No. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:33:09 AM EST
    I want them to react with righteous indignation each and every time.  Maybe the people who didn't understand why Clinton didn't do just that will figure out why she didn't.

    Besides, it'll be fun to see what happens to Obama in the polls when everyone who dares to criticize Barack or Michelle is called racist and/or sexist.  I'd love to see how that goes over in the GE.  (aka I think it's a dangerous strategy that is likely to backfire and create resentment, especially in the media.)


    Credibility (none / 0) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    won't matter in the least.  When has hypocrisy been a problem with these people?

    Let's blame the victim (none / 0) (#57)
    by Lahdee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:06:10 AM EST
    So who's next?
    Why the presumptive Democratic nominee of course. In a true example of "what have I done to you lately," expect that BO will get the bum's rush before this is over.
    I've got July 20th in the pool.

    It's not easy for women in the media (none / 0) (#67)
    by Sunshine on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:15:34 AM EST
    Until the last few years, the media was almost all male..  For a woman to make it she has to become one of the guys and very few will risk their standing to defend another women being attacked with sexist remarks... If she does, she's not one of the guy's anymore and she knows it and in return, she may be attacked with the same remarks...  

    Nicholas Lemann (none / 0) (#78)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 08:31:34 AM EST
    I've often enjoyed his writing, for example this recent review of Barbara Walters' new book. But back in '99-'00 he was covering the Bush campaign. The overall tenor of his coverage was 'Bush wouldn't be too bad' as President. Overall, the media gave Bush far too easy a time in that campaign. If The New Yorker wouldn't be cricital, who would? So, he carries part of the blame for the Bush years in my mind.

    Check out the PHOTO the NYTimes used with this (none / 0) (#143)
    by jawbone on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:31:52 PM EST
    article! Found via comment at Digby's by BAC, who blogged about it at BAC's blog.

    Talk about objectifying a female! Making a nonperson of her.

    I am shocked this was used. Perhaps it was snark, or disprespect? Intentional--or not?

    Utterly amazing.

    Second story down right now, but photo is a grabber (and, yes, I actually chose this word bcz the photo made me think of being groped).