reflectivepundit

Gross Gender Imbalance on the Op-Ed Pages

By Brigitte L. Nacos
While I disagree with New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt’s assessment in his latest column that this newspaper’s primary season coverage of Senator Clinton was by and large free of gender bias, I wholeheartedly agree with his conclusion that Maureen Dowd’s column “by assailing Clintonin gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.” More specifically, Hoyt concluded,“Dowd’s columns about Clinton’s campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work.”

Dowd has a point in arguing that columnists express their opinions or, as she noted according to Hoyt, “she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.” But even opinion pieces can go too far. And that was certainly the case for Dowd’s relentless “gender-laden assault on Clinton--in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1,” as Hoyt writes.

Since Dowd devoted more than half of her columns in the last six months to sexist anti-Hillary propaganda, it is not surprising that she hasn’t yet found another target for her assaults since Senator Clinton threw the towel.
                           
Decades ago, the op-ed page was introduced by many newspapers to provide the readers with a market place of ideas within the paper of their choice. The opinion pieces by columnists with different ideological and partisan views are one constant feature of these pages. One would expect that in our time, there would be some kind of balance (no, not quotas) in terms of gender among the newspapers’ own columnists. But the reality is far from it—certainly at the New York Times: Of the 11 columnist listed on the newspaper’s website, nine are males and only two are females! There must be an abundance of qualified males and a scarcity of qualified females, when it comes to select columnists!

New York Magazine on Media’s Gender Bias Against Hillary and Her Supporters

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Thanks to John Heilemann and New York magazine, we finally get a serious journalistic treatment of the mainstream media’s gender bias that was unleashed against Hillary Clinton and her female supporters during this year’s primary campaign and continues to be evoked against women that refuse to forget the mistreatment of their candidate. Towards the end of his excellent article on “The Fall and Rise of Hillary Clinton,” Heilemann addresses the Clinton campaign’s and her supporters’ anger towards the media that differs from so many efforts by his colleagues to brush this issue aside as sour grapes by a flawed candidate and bitter female backers.

Here are some excerpts from Heilemann’s article that deserves to be read in full:

“For months now, my e-mail box has been full of messages from women across the country, explaining what Hillary’s run meant to them, why it was so important. The reasons vary depending on age and race and region, but the one element almost all my correspondents express in common is a furious resentment at the press for what they see as blatant misogyny in the coverage of Clinton.

When I mention this to Hillary, she laughs and exclaims, “I’d love to get a look at your e-mail!” And then, more soberly, she goes on, “There’s a reason for the resentment. The level of dismissive and condescending comments, not just about me—what do I care?—but about the people who support me and in particular the women who support me, has been shocking. Shocking to women and to fair-minded men. But what has really been more disappointing to me is how few voices that have a platform have spoken out against it. And that’s really why you seen this enormous grassroots outrage. There is no outlet. It is rare that you have anybody on these shows or in a position of responsibility at major publications who really says, ‘Wait a minute! What are we talking about here? I have a wife! I have a daughter! I want the best for them.’ ”

Attackdogs against Clinton, Lapdogs for Obama

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..

Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri and Al Qaeda: Irrelevant?

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Last summer President George W. Bush spoke at an Air Force Base in Charleston, S. C. It was another of his “al-Qaeda speeches” in which he emphasized the grave terrorist threat from al-Qaeda, its affiliates in Iraq and elsewhere to justify the continued Global War on Terror—especially in Iraq. By my count, in that particular 3505-word and less than 30-minute speech the President mentioned al-Qaeda 91 times, Osama bin Laden 23 times, and Ayman al-Zawahiri and other al-Qaeda and alleged al-Qaeda leaders 18 times. Since then, bin Laden’s core terrorism organization that is hiding out and operating from the mountains of Pakistan regained strength according to the National Intelligence Estimate. But whereas President Bush, his administration and the news media hyped every bin Laden message, when al-Qaeda Central was weakest and trying to recover from its post-9/11 fate, Washington’s decision-makers and the media have all but ignored bin Laden’s latest communications—in spite of his organization’s reported revival. Thus, when the second bin Laden audio tape in two days was released last weekend, it was not commented on by high administration officials and not included in the media’s “breaking news” items.

At first sight, one would applaud this waning attention to the publicity-hungry al-Qaeda leadership. After all, terrorist strikes and the threat thereof are most of all means to intimidate foes and impress friends and potential supporters. Moreover, leaders of terrorist organizations strive for legitimacy on the domestic or the world stage—or both. When the heads of government react publicly and swiftly to such communications, they treat the bin Ladens and al-Zawahiris of the world like legitimate leaders and unwittingly enhance their status among those in whose name they claim to act.

Yet, I wonder about this sea change from public over-attention to al-Qaeda messages to mostly ignoring such communications in public discourse.

The following lines are from an on-line ABC News report by Brian Ross and Rehab El-Buri (headline: “New Bin Laden Tape: Who Cares? Al Qaeda Leader Losing Relevance”) about one of bin Laden’s latest audio tape releases:

“Isolated and in hiding, Osama bin Laden's taped messages no longer have the power to send shivers through the Western world. The release overnight of his third audiotape message of 2008, timed to the 60th anniversary celebration of the founding of Israel, provided proof the al Qaeda leader is alive but also showed his desperate attempt to remain relevant.

‘He's definitely found himself on the back burner,’ said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant. ‘It's a case of measured irrelevance. We used to do back flips when one of his tapes would arrive but no longer,’ Garrett said.”

Hillary versus Barack: Gender Bias Stronger than Racial Prejudices

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Mothers Day seems the perfect occasion to bemoan the now obvious fact that I was wrong all along to assume or hope that this was the year in which Americans would finally elect a woman to the highest office in the land. Had I not ignored the lessons of history, I would have avoided the disappointment over what is now inevitable—that another man—Senator McCain or Senator Obama and not a woman--will be sworn in as the next president of the United States. After all, African-American males got the constitutional right to vote many decades before women--regardless of their race. Little wonder, then, that contrary to every day life bias against strong and successful females has been more pervasive than prejudices against black males, when it comes to competitive advantage in politics, business, education, the arts, and other walks of life.

The deeply seated bias against and the subsequent stereotyping of successful women struck me the other day, when I read a story about the fall of Zoe Cruz, the most successful female Wall Street executive, who had been in line to become the boss of the investment firm Morgan Stanley.  These are a few excerpts of Joe Hagan’s excellent article: 

”Of all the recent firings on Wall Street, Cruz’s is the one that’s still vehemently debated… The fascination comes from the fact that Cruz is a woman, and that she had climbed further up the Wall Street food chain than any other woman ever had. She was fired at a time when women on Wall Street were starting to wonder—after more than a quarter-century of getting M.B.A.’s and slugging it out in the firms’ trenches—when one of them was finally going to make it to the CEO’s office… 

From the beginning, she had the uncompromising ferocity that seems to be characteristic of nearly all women who achieve great success.

Cruz was more “alpha” than most of the women she started out with at Morgan Stanley. She wasn’t oblivious to the fact that Wall Street, especially at the time, was dominated by men, but she was determined not to acknowledge it. She loved the game, and she was good at it—she didn’t see what her gender had to do with it.”

If that sounds a lot like the portrayal of women who manage to climb up the ladder in local, state and, particularly, in national politics, the reactions of males (and, I assume, some of their female collaborators) at Morgan Stanley is even more revealing in understanding the fall of Zoe Cruz and the failure of the once favored Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

Pundits Close to Get their Dream Contest: McCain versus Obama

By Brigitte L. Nacos
The pundits, the correspondents, and the boys and girls on the bus(es) on the roll for John McCain and Barack Obama are now close to realize their dream for this election year: media darlings McCain and Obama will face each other in November. While the stars of television, print, and blogosphere rejoice, I couldn’t stop laughing when I read Jim Rutenberg’s New York Times article “Pundits Declare the Race Over,” in which he mentions Tim Russert and Walter Cronkite and the Drudge Report as if they were one of a kind. Nothing could be further from reality: Russert and Drudge are no Walter Cronkite! Nor are the other non-journalists among the fourth estate who love to call themselves “correspondent,” “journalist,” or “press.” But whether one likes it or not, today’s pundits have enormous power—because of their  perceived and real influence on the general public, on voters, and on the media-obsessed political class.

I wonder when the know-it-all guardians of our national interest will begin to second-guess their concerted efforts to demonize Hillary Clinton and their contribution to her now all but certain defeat. Soon, they will not have Senator Clinton to kick around any more to feed their constant stream of irrelevant but hyped up “breaking news” about the presidential contender they love to hate.

Without Hillary Clinton in the mix, the mainstream media and especially the cable networks' political infotainment casts will soon need to pick a Hillary substitute to keep their good-versus-evil campaign narrative going.

Much Talk, No Action on the Need for Energy Independence

By Brigitte L. Nacos
In his latest column in today’s New York Times, Thomas Friedman addresses once again our dependency on foreign oil and the “need to do everything possible to develop alternatives…” I couldn’t agree more. This country’s dependency on oil imports and the leading petroleum exporters in the Middle East and elsewhere has influenced important aspects of U.S.foreign policy for a long time and, more recently, the so-called war on terror as well. Senator McCain was right, when he recently admitted—albeit inadvertently, what others said before—that oil was at the root of the Iraq invasion. Our leaders’ refusal to work towards independence from oil and invest in alternative energy sources is closely related to their ties to “big oil” authoritarian governments and to oil corporations—not only since George W. Bush and Dick Cheney moved into the White House. The current debate on the pro and con of a summer moratorium on the federal gasoline tax avoids once again a public debate about the larger problem, namely, to make the development of renewable energy sources one of this country’s top priorities.

For years, Tom Friedman and some of his colleagues have written and spoken in favor of changing our energy policies. But even the most urgent appeals were not heeded by our leaders. During the current campaign, the news media could have played a crucial role in elevating energy independence and related environmental protection to one of the major policy topics and forced candidates to spell out their positions in great detail. Instead, air time, column inches, and blogosphere posts have been devoted to superficial coverage of this important topic and irrelevant campaign incidentals. So far, the golden opportunity to fully inform and educate the electorate and force the candidates’ hands on putting energy high onto their agendas was missed by the media. And few seem to care—in spite of the rising price for gasoline.

I am convinced that nothing will change unless we, the people, take the lead. Most of us and perhaps all of us can make small and by now well-known but not yet widely embraced changes in our daily lives to save energy. If millions of car-drivers would embrace a “drive less this summer” habit, this would impact our gasoline consumption measurably. If millions would at least some of the time use public transportation instead of their own cars, this would decrease gasoline consumption as well. 

But more is needed, namely, a from-below movement for energy independence through clean and renewable alternative energy sources. The Internet is an ideal vehicle to start such a movement that would depend on the interest and enthusiasm of the young generation. One of my students wrote a term paper this spring on the “One Million Voices” demonstrations against the FARC in Colombia that began with an initiative on the social network site Facebook.

Why not try to initiate and organize along the same lines to create a movement for clean and renewable energy to free us from our dependence from petro-exporters and at the same time protects our environment?

I am hoping that a reader of this blog thinks along the same lines and takes the lead on this.

A Trap That Democrats Keep Falling Into

by David Epstein

Something's been niggling at me for a while, and I finally figured out what it is. Take, for example, Bob Herbert's analysis in the Times of a recent report on the staggering costs of the Iraq War ($2 trillion and counting). He notes that:

[T]he money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants...

We hear this all the time: the money spent on the military could be better spent domestically. But with the Iraq War, the point isn't just that the priorities are wrong, but that this is a terrible waste of resources. By juxtaposing the war costs to domestic programs, lefty commentators leave themselves open to the charge that they just don't value the military, are weak on defense, etc. They take what should be a clear winner issue and make it into an argument.

Next time, I'd love to hear someone say "With the money we've spent on the war, we could have bought 20 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, 15 new DDG 1000 Destroyer subs, 30 new F-22 Raptor stealth aircraft, and returned all of our combat battalions to military readiness. Oh, and with the money left over, we could have extended the solvency of the Social Security system by 20 years." Let's see them respond to that one.

A Last Word on Gender Bias in the Media

By Brigitte L. Nacos
I had promised myself that I wouldn’t write one more word about gender bias in the media—particularly not as it relates to the current race among the remaining contenders for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. But that was before I read the article by Charlotte Allen in this weekend’s Outlook section of the Washington Post that celebrates the superiority of males and the inferiority of females. At first I thought that this nonsense presented under the headline “We scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?” was a rejected proposal for a sketch on “Saturday Night Live.” But since none of the writers of rejected TV-material can be as dumb as the author of this piece, it became clear that this was not meant to be a laughing matter.   
It may not be prudent to recommend that you read the whole article because the more hits it registers the more it may tempt the Post to publish more of the same stuff. Here are but a few excerpts from the piece: 

“Depressing as it is, several of the supposed misogynist myths about female inferiority have been proven true.”
“The theory that women are the dumber sex -- or at least the sex that gets into more car accidents -- is amply supported by neurological and standardized-testing evidence. Men's and women's brains not only look different, but men's brains are bigger than women's (even adjusting for men's generally bigger body size).”
“So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home.” 

Charlotte Allen’s wisdom on gender differences also serves a partisan purpose in that, in her view, women—the stupid sex--fall for Senator Obama. As for Senator Clinton, “By all measures, she has run one of the worst -- and, yes, stupidest -- presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex.” 

The question here is not how a seemingly educated woman can come up with such idiocy in the 21^st century. Obviously, there are always some particularly dumb outliers.
The real question is, then, why the editors of the Washington Post decided to publish such piece of rubbish and promote it prominently on their web site.

Obama’s Populism and the Media

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Although it is not difficult to point to missed opportunities and mistakes in Senator Clinton’s campaign, New York Times columnist Gail Collins is right in concluding that “even the original Bill Clinton would have a hard time beating him [Senator Barack Obama].” Collins suggests that, “If things don’t go well for Hillary over the next few weeks…I hope she understands. She’s done fine. And she’d probably have won the nomination walking away if Barack hadn’t picked this moment to mutate into BARACK!”

Barack, the individual, has become BARACK, the ism of change. While most, if not all modern day candidates for high offices make populist appeals to enlist support, Senator Obama has been most successful in this respect in the current presidential campaign.

And here the mass media of communication play a crucial role. In the case of Senator Obama, the mainstream media have provided him with a hospitable stage to spread his message.

So, is Senator Obama a populist?