By Brigitte L. Nacos
Surveying media coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton during
the primary season and the media treatment of Governor Sarah Palin since she
became the GOP’s vice-presidential candidate, E.J.
Dionne asks in the Washington Post, “Is there one standard for Hillary
Clinton -- a tough one -- and another, permissive standard for Sarah Palin?”
The answer is crystal clear: Whereas most in the media seemed to compete for
the top prize in the destruction of Hillary’s candidacy, they have lost their
bark when it comes to Sarah’s run for the second highest office in the land.
During the primary season, I posted repeatedly on the media’
gross gender discrimination against Senator Clinton. Dionne’s example here is
instructive: After Hillary falsely claimed that she had come under sniper fire,
when she visited Bosnia more than a dozen years ago, the media never let her forget her mistake. There has
not been a comparable reaction after it was established that Palin and her
handlers lied when they claimed that she visited U.S.
By labeling even criticism and questioning of
Palin by and in the media or from any other quarter as sexist, the McCain/Palin campaign has pulled of an astonishing swift-boating
act: they intimidated and pressured the talking
and writing fourth estate into practicing reverse discrimination/reverse
sexism in favor of the female candidate and at the expense of her male
counterparts.
This is the new rule of the general campaign season: simply
because she is female, the least known candidate in the race must be treated soft and gentle. When Charles Gibson interviewed Palin last week, he
followed that rule and was still attacked for displaying gender bias. From what
I saw and heard, Gibson was not at all tough but remained cool and professional
in the face of Governor Palin’s—let’s say—inadequate performance.
Some of the media watchdogs are now actually helping to
enforce the new female protection tenet by dwelling on remarks that have nothing to do with the untouchable Sarah or express legitimate concerns—but are
deemed sexist by a McCain/Palin team whose agenda, ironically, does not promise to end true discrimination against women.
Yes, Plato's cave allegory is perfect to explain how the perceived reality is but a reflection of the real thing. As Lippmann recognized, this is the way to explain who modern man's view of the world--including politics: Since most of what we know about what is going on in our localities, states, and the national and international environment, we take our "knowledge" from the media. But even if there were no bias in the press, media reality would not some close to reality. Now add to this the mass-mediated spinning and outright lying and the failure of most of the media to correct the dismal record.
That said, I am glad you are back Tony.
Posted by: Brigitte | September 16, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Hello Professor,
My cranium is threatening to implode from all the pressure generated by the misinformation flying around. Dana Perino has dismissed OBL as mastermind, thus turning 7 years of books on the subject into fiction; McCain has credited the surge to explain events that occurred before the surge was even announced; B Obama is enunciating like an inner-city brother, Biden came across on CNN last night like a veteran of the Dark Side, (did they mention his 5 deferments?); and there are at least 7 separate versions of the Bush Doctrine. The Fed's bailouts are going to reduce much of the nation to pauperdom, and soon. So it shouldn't be any surprise that the Reps control the terms of the dialogue as usual, since they have a better grasp on the innocence of the mind(lessness) of the typical American voter. Is this reminiscent of Plato's Allegory of the Cave?
Tony
Posted by: Tony Facade | September 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM