.gif){kind=logo}
sexist coverage in the press
Submitted by Kathy Giannini on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 5:12pm.
As an American citizen living in France, I am trying to follow the primary campaigns. Since France has just had its elections and there was a female candidate, I'm particularly sensitized to the biased way the media covers female candidates and I invite Americans to look at CNN and Herald Tribune coverage of the French candidate Ségolène ROYALE and compare it to coverage of Hillary CLINTON. What was particularly disgusting on CNN is how biased the female journalist was on the night of the French election.
Recently, on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart humorously underscored the biased behavior of the journalists organizing the Cleveland debate. I had noticed it and I'm glad that it was picked up by Stewart and that the journalists were exposed.
After the French election -- when the damage was irreparably done -- people recognized more and more as time went on just how biased most of the press had been during the campaign period but, by then, it was too late. French citizens now have to live with their choices, based as they were on rhetoric and slogans. This last week the person they voted into office called one of them a "pauvre con" which can be translated "asshole". The French president cannot cope with the fact that the French see that he has not come through on his electoral promises. His popularity (voted in at over 53%) has dropped to under 34%. But it's too late now!
How could the French voters have gotten it so wrong? They voted on rhetoric instead of looking at what the person HAD DONE. But the press was in on it as well.
By his own admission during the Cleveland debate, Obama said that he hadn't been assuming his responsibilities in the senate. He chairs a committee linked to Europe. He hasn't called any meetings, he hasn't travelled to Europe. He doesn't have time. And he will lack the time to treat the necessary isssues if he gets into the White House. His previous behavior will merely be transferred to a new setting.
His comments on Pakistan definitely erase any points that he might deserve for his lucky call on Iraq. And WHAT LEGISLATION did he write up to end the war in Iraq since arriving in the senate?
To borrow a phrase which he borrowed from his fellow pltician Governor Patrick (whose RECORD in Massachusetts was so convincing that Obama COULD NOT TAKE the state with two huge endorsements from Kennedy and Kerry), "words just words". I think that America deserves more than just words. I think Obama should be made to acquire and present a record before taking the reins. Can anyone imagine a female trying to pull off what he's trying to get away with?
And he's getting away with it largely because of the bias of a press which doesn't "press" him. If it did, we would have a more obvious choice of a female get-down-to-work candidate versus a talk-a-good-game male candidate.
Bias in the Press
I agree the Press has affected the campaign because of almost continuous negative comments about Sen. Clinton -- accompanied by continuous positive comments about Sen. Obama.
After all the hours I watched C-SPAN, listening to speeches by all the candidates, researching online, and listening to numerous news channels, I was so disappointed to learn that my efforts to make a fair and informed decision about a candidate was to no avail.
The Press had already decided who was going to be portrayed in a good light in every situation. Since January 3, I have written countless e-mails to MSNBC and CNN, and have directed my comments to four specific programs on MSNBC and two on CNN. What I have written about, I have backed up with factual information, but no one wanted to deal with facts. They had all decided how this campaign was going to be run -- and it was going to be run on television -- with the help of the Washington, D.C. print media. I should say, of course, that not all articles were read, and not even all of any one article was read! The parts of articles that were beneficial to Obama's campaign were read, and the parts of articles that were detrimental to Clinton's campaign were read!
There was not even an attempt to hide this fiasco -- which I have called "stealing the election from the American citizens" in my letters to those whose comments were the worst. The commentary was so biased, I was embarrassed FOR the people saying the words -- but they were not embarrassed at all. There was no stopping them -- their intent was clear.
I watched the polls change right along with the intensity of the cable news channels' coverage of the campaign. It was almost predictable what would happen on a voting day -- each channel would have a favorable interview with Obama which was repeated throughout the voting day. Then, the chosen few would come on while the votes were being counted and prepare themselves for a really nasty "review" of the primary held that day.
I am still wondering how the Press got in such total control of our thinking, and I hope everyone will do their own research -- even if it means reading for several hours over a period of time.
This is a part of a pretty extensive report -- with researched information -- otherwise known as facts. Read the segment on this page, then go to the left of the page and read the other segments. There will be some things there that you may not have known, as well as a clarification of some things that have been talked about, but not with the honesty they deserve.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0705030035may03,0,...
Maybe tonight, Ohio voters will send the Press a message saying, "We are not falling for the campaign you have been running! We are going to vote for the person we know, the person who has not written a book and left so much out -- or made so much of it up -- that it doesn't even portray what really occurred in Obama's life."
Someday, I hope the American people will join me in trying to find out how the cable news media and the Washington, D.C. print media can legally run a campaign on the airwaves!
peggysuz