By Brigitte L. Nacos
The other day, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, devoted her column to defend Michelle Obama against possible future attacks from Republicans. Dowd, who was and still is along with her colleague Frank Rich one of the leading attackdog among the perennial Hillary (and Bill) Clinton haters, wrote that “Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of ‘Kill the witch.’ If anyone plays the “Kill the witch” game as ugly as it can get, it is columnist Dowd—at least when it comes to Hillary. Even after Senator Clinton threw the towel and endorsed Senator Obama, Dowd couldn’t stop going after Hillary. Nor could Rich or the obnoxious talking heads on cable television—especially those on MSNBC.
The attacksdogs against Clinton are lapdogs for Obama.
All during the campaign, female pundits were as sexist as
their male counterparts in their united front against Hillary. And they fought
mightily against those who accused them of gender bias. Dowd closed one of her
recent columns with yet another defense against the charge of the mainstream
media’s gender bias, when she wrote that Clinton “didn’t lose because she was a woman. She didn’t lose because
America isn’t ready for a woman as president. She lost because of her own — and her husband’s and Mark Penn’s — fatal missteps.”
Don’t believe it.
Even Katie Couric who knows a thing or two about gender bias in the media, especially when it comes to the coveted positions of TV-network anchors, said the other day,
“However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I’ve ever seen.”
According to one account, “Couric went on to say that latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat. She referred to one ‘rominent member of the commentariat’ who said he ‘found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama.’
‘That's your job,’ she remembers thinking when hearing this, before suggesting that he ‘find another line of work.’”
For these remarks, I am sure, Katie will be put through the wringer one way or the other by those in the media who can’t overcome their gender prejudices..
As for Dowd’s defense of Michelle Obama against the “Kill
the witch” players, she predicts, “Now Republicans can turn their full
attention to demonizing Michelle Obama.” In other words, as lapdog for Obama
this columnist rises in direct defense of Michelle and indirectly of Barack
Obama even before what she calls “Mincing of Michelle” has begun. So, Dowd
sings the praises of Michelle as “a devoted daughter, wife and mother who has
lived the American dream, from the humble South Side of Chicago to
Harvard Law School.”
Nothing wrong with praising Mrs. Obama—except for the fact
that this comes from the same columnist who was and still is a leading “Kill
the witch” player against Hillary and who now goes all out in defending
Michelle against possible Republican “Kill the witch” plays in the future!
Those in the media who voice their opinions have a right to do so. Readers and radio/ TV-audiences know the ideological and partisan preferences of columnists, editorial pages, and talk show hosts. But even in the realm of opinion, press ethics require adherence to truth and fairness and balance.
Unfortunately, gross partisanship is part and parcel of
today’s mainstream media’s campaign coverage—and not only when it comes opinion
pages and talk shows on radio and television.