Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Wednesday, May 21, 2008

You Can Believe Us

by digby

... or you can believe your lying eyes.

It's been quite amusing reading and watching the media absolve itself of sexism over the past few days but I think it's getting a little bit out of hand when Republican "analysts" blithely assert during election coverage on national television that Senator Clinton can accurately be described as a "white bitch" --- and everyone calmly sits around discussing whether it's true or not. In fact, it's mind boggling:

(Thanks to Jeffrey Toobin having the guts to speak the obvious.)

Earlier in the day I saw Tim Russert complaining on MSNBC about how wrong it is for Clinton to suggest that the media has been sexist, when the problem is "the math." You don't get much more lunk-headed than that. Actually, I take that back. Here's some self-serving tripe from the obviously resentful fellow who kissed Matthews' ring after paying the price for the man's sexist sins (and later presented a pen featuring Clinton's witchy "cackle" to Tucker"when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs" Carlson):

David Shuster, the correspondent, explains it all away: “Attacking the media is not new. Presidents and politicians have been doing it for a long time, usually to deflect their own problems, often to tap into a perceived voter hostility towards journalists. The problem for Hillary Clinton is that her charges may reinforce concerns about her credibility.”

The notion that it is "perceived" voter hostility toward journalists is just funny. There is real, ongoing hostility toward journalists among a large number of the public for many reasons. Press "credibility" is nearly at the same level as used car salesmen on a good day.

SO many Americans apparently now see journalists as self-interested, careerist and unprofessional that perhaps it would make sense for media executives to call up another group of bosses who once faced fundamental questions about their product: the makers of Tylenol in the 1980's.


American confidence in the news media is at an all-time low. Most other major institutions in public life - while dealing with their own credibility issues - are more trusted.

In the post-Watergate 1970's, some 25 to 30 percent of Americans reported to the Harris Poll that they had a great deal of confidence in the press, more than they had in Congress, unions or corporate America. In the 2005 poll, the press ranked only ahead of law firms, with 12 percent reporting high confidence in the media.

Another poll, in 2003 by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, found that 66 percent of Americans see news reports as slanted, compared with 53 percent in 1985. Even more stunning to some analysts, 32 percent judged news organizations to be immoral, up from 13 percent in 1985.

"Today we have a case where the public is suspicious of the values of the news media as well," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "I don't know if it's a crisis, but it's a hell of a growing problem."

The juvenile, demeaning behavior Shuster and his cohorts have displayed during this campaign has taken their credibility further into the sewer. Last night we saw the creepy GOP operative who put together the famous Jesse Helms "white hands" ad unctuously pontificating on the Democratic primary on CNN, saying that calling Clinton a "white bitch" is simply an accurate statement.(In a previous primary night broadcast the same man had said that it was time to "take the old family dog to the vet and have her put to sleep.") Earlier this year, MSNBC featured "expert" commentary by Roger Stone, the GOP dirty trickster, who bragged in the Weekly Standard about creating a group called C.U.N.T, to oppose Clinton's candidacy. We all know about Chris Matthews' ongoing insanity, the endless stuff about the psycho female "Fatal Attraction" archetype and all the rest. This isn't just a few offhand comments. It has been a campaign narrative.

I don't think that it's fair or reasonable for the Obama campaign to be held responsible for this. I've not detected sexism coming from them toward Senator Clinton, certainly in any systematic way. I suspect they have been quite conscious of not going there, which is to their credit. Many Clinton supporters feel that Obama has benefited from the sexism in the media and should have stood up to it, but I just reject that. Both he and Clinton are fighting hard campaigns for the most important job in the world and they are not obligated to defend their rivals while the battle rages. (It might have behooved the progressive movement to have done so, however.)

Unfortunately, at this point I think the media is actually hurting the Obama campaign with their continued sexist coverage. He is trying to reach out to her supporters and the press is making it much harder for him by keeping this hostile, demeaning discussion --- particularly this endless call for her to drop out --- roiling in the ether. The party will work this out, but the media, as usual, is making things worse.

I know that many of you believe that Clinton should drop out and that will solve everything. But that's not exactly true. This ugly treatment of Clinton has left a bad taste in many people's mouths and at this point, it's probably necessary for her to see it through and leave the race on her own terms. Obama's campaign certainly seems to recognize that this needs to be handled respectfully and sensitively.

I would have thought that all decent people would be appalled that the media in this country thinks it's ok for their commentators to identify a female candidate for president as a bitch on national TV or sell sickening "jokes" like Hillary Nutcrackers in the CNBC stores in airports all over the country. One would think it was a given that they shouldn't reward people who start groups called C.U.N.T with TV appearances or imply that someone who nearly half the Democratic party has chosen as their presidential candidate is a psychotic stalker who refuses to die. Is it really too much to ask that the media show more respect than that?

Update: I just heard Chris Cilizza suggest on MSNBC that this charge of sexism is impossible to quantify, but Obama is winning partially because he turned his historic candidacy into a movement, while Clinton failed to turn hers into one. That may be true. But I can't see how she ever could have done it with coverage like this:

THE NOTE: Clinton Plays Gender Card
Gender Card: Hillary Clinton auditions for victim role

Nov. 2, 2007 —

A moment of silence, please, for Invincible Hillary. She left us at 11 am ET yesterday, in Wellesley, Mass., a victim of her own hand. She was 10 months old. She is survived by Victim Hillary.

"In so many ways this all women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said yesterday at her alma mater, Wellesley College.

This from the frontrunner, the wire-to-wire leader, the choice of the Democratic establishment, the candidate of strength, determination, experience. In the context of her poor debate performance, with all her (male) rivals sensing an opportunity to chip away at her 30-point lead, this is called playing the gender card.

She was trying to speak to women about the challenges they face in the world (and, I'm sorry, they do exist or the 50% of the population that is female would currently hold more than 12% of senate seats and we would have had a woman president by now.) Her even mentioning it was derisively called "playing the gender card." She had no chance to create a "movement" (if indeed she ever wanted to) based around her historic candidacy.

I think she made some serious strategic errors that were far more salient in her winding up in (a very close) second place. But let's not pretend that she was given even the slightest room to run explicitly as the first female candidate, because from the beginning the press used demeaning, sexist stereotypes with zero restraint. And the sad thing is that it is so commonplace in our culture that many people, including women, didn't even notice.

Update II: For those who need an explanation as to why calling a woman a bitch on a national news network is wrong, this comment threat from TPM does it about as well as anything I've seen.

Update III: This makes me want to puke.

Update IV:
The Howler hits this today as well.

Update V: Echidne explains why this isn't about supporting Hillary Clinton, but rather about supporting women like your daughters, wives, moms and sisters.