by Max Brantley
The NY Times examines complaints of sexism in media coverage of Hillary Clinton and seems to conclude, on balance, that it wasn't sexist.
I think the framing of the article misses the point -- except tangentially. There were undeniably occasional sexist episodes in coverage and commentary. The larger question is whether Hillary got a rougher ride, generally, than her opponents -- for reasons related more to her personally than to her gender. One commenter noted this.
Many in the news media say it is important to look at the coverage of Mrs. Clinton in the context of the coverage of Mr. Obama. While hers was frequently positive, his was even more so — even “euphoric,” said Mr. Rieder of American Journalism Review. That may have added to the impression that the Clinton coverage was negative, he said.
The general election campaign will be interesting. You've read that Obama has established a website to combat smears. The GOP is moving merrily ahead with plans to demonize his wife. Smearing was fair game with the Clintons. The mainstream media, time after time, let nonsense hatched in political attack rooms insinuate itself into regular coverage. Even today, on this blog, we still argue about the Clintons' death list. Perhaps Obama can enforce -- or shame -- some higher standards on media. We'll see. He certainly isn't likely to enforce any new standards on the Rethugs.
Just wondering: Will this nut get the same attention Say McIntosh got for his Clinton allegations? He's about equally credible, sounds like.