« Obama’s Populism and the Media | Main | Women, Gender and the Campaign »

March 02, 2008


Francis L. Holland

I couldn't believe they had published that crap. It's too simply too antagonistically gender-aroused and stigmatizing for publication by any reputable newspaper. It's basically a reprise of the comments by Harvard's EX, EX president, Lawrence Sommers.

But is the media treating Obama better? If so, whatever happened to the cliché term "frontrunner" that we always pasted on whomever had the most delegates and the most popular votes? It seems that, when the candidates are a Black man and a white woman, NEITHER of them is considered to be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, because the term is too positive to be bestowed on either of them, as far as the white male supremacist media is concerned.


I can't agree with the second post, in that the problems are both a diminished journalistic standard AND a willingness to allow gender stereotyping. In this example, a woman wrote the article, which keeps alive the double standard that members of a group are allowed to denigrate each other, but outsiders are attacked.


Yes, Professor Lehman-Wilzig, there is a dilemma in criticizing media content for precisely the reason you give: particularly offensive articles receive even more attention.
That's why I wrote that it was prudent to put a link into my blog. I did it reluctantly trusting that the people who visit my site are sophisticated enough to deal with this.
And, yes, the article appeared in the weekend Outlook print section as well.
Thanks for another thoughtful comment.

Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig

The problem here isn't so much gender stereotyping as it is journalistic standards. The WP felt (correctly) that such a piece would increase traffic to its site for being "controversial". Prof. Nacos is correct in severely criticizing the piece but also plays into the hands of such "anti-journalism" because her column merely indirectly feeds the frenzy. This is not a criticism but rather a dilemma: do we criticize a ridiculous opinion even if we know that such critique will add fuel to the fire (or serve the base interests of the publisher)? Hard to say. One question, though: did this piece also appear in the WP print edition? If not, then that's proof that the issue is "linking" -- only on the Net can such outrageousness really work. Shame on the WP...


Here, here...I couldn't finish the article by Charlotte Allen because it's stupid and crazy and so not true. I know it was in the Outlook section and she's entitled to her opinion but I'm disappointed in the Post for publishing it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2006