Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Cavemen Clearly Control the Mainstream Media: Just Look at How Women Were Treated During the Election

By Sheila Gibbons, Women's eNews. Posted November 25, 2008.


The good, the bad and the ugly of this political season's media coverage of women.
womensenewslogo
For more Women's eNews, visit, www.womensenews.org. To subscribe to Women's eNews, the daily news service for all women, go to www.womenenews.org/join.cfm.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For women, this political season has been a big improvement over prior years.

  • An accomplished woman in hot contention for the Democratic presidential nomination;
  • A dynamic female governor as the Republican vice presidential nominee;
  • An African American man at the top of the winning slate supportive of women's concerns;
  • More women among political correspondents and analysts;
  • Brilliant, illuminating parody courtesy of "Saturday Night Live" comedians Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

All good. The bad:

  • Media reporting and punditry that can't seem to get out of second gear when it comes to discussing female candidates and the priorities of women in the electorate.
  • Media employment for women is still in low gear, too. Even with more female journalists and bloggers closely following the campaigns, not nearly enough of their work is on display in the most prominent journalistic venues and Internet sites.

And the ugly:

  • Caustic, callous and downright gross commentary from misogynistic talk radio hosts about female candidates and women in general. They set the bar so low, so often, that some mainstream television news hosts felt comfortable adopting a "lite" version of sexist comments about female candidates and their supporters.
  • Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's talk show "Hardball," made no end of cutting comments about Sen. Hillary Clinton during her run for the Democratic presidential nomination. He compared her to a "strip-teaser saying she's flattered by the attention," called her an "uppity woman" and said that a strong speech delivered by a woman can "grate on some men when they listen to it, (like) fingers on a blackboard."

Vicious Talk Show Hosts

But that's kid stuff compared with what Media Matters for America found. In an analysis released Nov. 13, the media watchdog group confirmed that right-wing talk show hosts are especially vicious toward women.

Chris Baker, host of a morning drive show on Minneapolis' KTLK-FM, called Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin a "smoking-hot chick" who "shoulda had a little cleavage going" when she gave her acceptance speech at the convention.

Discussing John McCain's acceptance speech, Baker called the Code Pink protesters who briefly interrupted the address "another bunch that ought to have all their tubes tied. All right? I can't stand these Code Pink broads."

Lee Rodgers, whose morning drive-time talk program airs on San Francisco's KSFO-AM, said, "You look at many -- perhaps most -- of the women who are professed leaders of the feminist movement in this country and they're a bunch of hags ... They couldn't get laid in a men's prison, let's be honest about it." He also ascribed Democrats' appeal to women this way: "A lot of women in this country who get knocked up and they don't have a husband. In effect, the government becomes Daddy in terms of paying the bills ... that accounts for a large part of that vote."

Cincinnati-based talk show host Bill Cunningham made almost the identical remark on his show less than two weeks later.

I won't repeat more of these contemptible comments here. You get the picture.

Attacks That Go Unchallenged

What is appalling is how these attacks go largely unchallenged, even by people who should know better.

Cunningham was recruited to warm up the crowd at a McCain rally, urging the crowd to reject "Barack Hussein Obama," repeating the now president-elect's full name over and over to imply that McCain's opponent wasn't an authentic American. McCain later apologized for the incident. But Cunningham's prominence signalled the McCain campaign's accommodation -- at least -- of his broadly repugnant views.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: politics, media, sexism, clinton, right-wing radio, huffington post, palin

Sheila Gibbons is editor of Media Report to Women, a quarterly journal of news, research and commentary about women and media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Cavemen
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 25, 2008 2:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the McCain campaign's "limiting Palin's interaction with the press" was more about damage control than sexism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cavemen Posted by: kegbot1
Jackie Irish
Posted by: Jackie Irish on Nov 25, 2008 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Complaining about'unfair coverage' of Sarah Palin or the McCain's 'sexist' decision to keep the press away from her is ridiculous and ultimately detrimental to feminism.

Sarah Palin was chosen for the nomination the way Fox news chooses its female on-camera personalities: she is far-right and physically attractive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the cave with the men
Posted by: SBean on Nov 25, 2008 3:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women journalists unaware of Cynthia McKinney's nomination by the Green Party and choice of a female running mate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In the cave with the men Posted by: Parcival01
Oh puleze ! What about the men who aren't the rough ones?
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 25, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does it have to be about women only? Reading this article, one would almost assume that all women on the air are Democrats while the men are Republicans. This article is too selective.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just like the way Alternet and bloggers treated....
Posted by: Allstar Cookie on Nov 25, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....Condoleezza Rice over the last 8 years.

A distinguished and intelligent black woman.......trashed by the so call compassionate progressive's.

Regardless of her politics, at the very least, she's a wonderful role model, particularly for young African American women.

Very shameful.


Allstar Cookie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Only if you think a role model... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» compassionate progressive's Posted by: zizizzi
It's a man's world
Posted by: 2thepoint on Nov 25, 2008 4:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I'm glad to see Alternet posting this article. The treatment Clinton and Palin received at the hands of the media was a dark spot in this election coverage.

We're ready for a black president but not yet ready for women!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's a man's world Posted by: BST
» We are ready for a woman Posted by: SteveO
» RE: We are ready for a woman Posted by: 2thepoint
» Not surprised Posted by: BlueTigress
A crock
Posted by: kenhymes on Nov 25, 2008 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Hillary Clinton almost won, her own bad campaigning, and mostly her support for the war, did her in.
2. Women in media - can you say Rachel Maddows, a woman and a liberal? Katie Couric tanked because she's lame, not because she's female. Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, Marie Cocco; Judy Miller I hate to mention because she's such a tool, but she was a powerful, influential tool. You're dreaming if you say there is a shortage of strong female voices in the media.
3. Your overall focus is also off in my view. Real change doesn't happen because a different flavor of person sits at the right desk, it happens because there is alternative institution building going on at the local and state level that has to be coopted and managed by the national voices and agencies in order to avoid threat to national and corporate interests... it's always been that way, whether you're talking about Vietnam, Civil Rights, or the New Deal.
4. The presence of unenlightened males in media jobs is not strong evidence of the influence of their statements on the prevailing decision making process. What media companies care about is $$$$. That's why Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are getting so much play... because they are bringing in the advertising dollars.

You're way behind the times. The scary sexism you ought to be worrying about is local... women being abused and not protected by the sherriff and the courts. Girls being barraged with bullshit about abstinence instead of empowered with strategies and tactics to control their own bodies and lives. Women not getting a shot at the management job at their local WalMart. Go help someone where you are instead of sitting here whining about crap no one watches anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A crock Posted by: BST
» RE: A crock Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A crock Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: A crock Posted by: Lauren
It's About Patriarchy
Posted by: Urstrly on Nov 25, 2008 4:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can't have a patriarchy without sexism, and our society is full of patrarchial institutions like the mainstream media, the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists and the Latter Day Saints, the armed services, not to mention the Republican Party. Just because a few women work in these organizations does not change their core conviction that men must dominate.

The Democratic Party, flawed as it is, has made a real attempt to address sexism and racism, and it's finally paying off.

The famously sexist John McCain picked Sarah Palin in a cynical attempt to gain female votes, but the only ones she'll ever get are those who support the patriarchy.

Attacks on feminists, especially anti-war feminists, demonstrate what a threat we are to patriarchy. Why else would people like Ann Coulter and her ilk be tolerated? I say, Just turn it off. My friends make more intelligent comments than most of what I hear in mainstream media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» George Orwell much? Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: George Orwell much? Posted by: zizizzi
» "C***" shirts EXAMPLE OF SEXISM Posted by: planet doomed
» MORE EXAMPLES OF SEXISM BY DEMOCRATS Posted by: planet doomed
» RE: It's About Patriarchy Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: It's About Patriarchy Posted by: Parcival01
» RE: It's About Patriarchy Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: It's About Patriarchy Posted by: Lilykins
Where was Alternet when this this was happening?
Posted by: planet doomed on Nov 25, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sweeties, Alternet lost the right to complain about the sexism. You didn't complain when it was going on, so suck up it and bend the fuck over.

In case you missed the memo, the democrats are the "social justice" party. That means ignoring the rampant sexism just because your boy was the instigator leaves you folks with the title "The Hypocrite Party".

Fuck off, it's really obvious how much the DNC cares about women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Prove it show me the articles Posted by: planet doomed
» Why "mainstream" media? Posted by: YogiBear
» Somebody needs shock therapy Posted by: mtatasmith
Women are also culprits
Posted by: BST on Nov 25, 2008 5:02 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's my opinion that many women are tops as offenders when trashing women.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were each targets -- not so much of criticism and critiques about their policies or lack thereof -- but disgusting, nasty, catty, furious and denigrating comments.

Somehow this is all worse when it comes from women, most of whom should know better based on the gender challenges of their own lives.

Much of this dreck appeared on AlterNet. I tried to make balancing comments to a tsunami of ugly invective directed toward Palin in one instance and was invited by an AlterNet blogger "to climb back under my rock."

Thanks. Makes me proud of my "sisters" out there, sure does. Methinks some ancient feminists were actually distraught that women had finally made the grade. No more victimhood.

And, yes, I am a woman and a Democrat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women are also culprits Posted by: Lilykins
» How come. . . Posted by: kegbot1
Ain't I a woman?
Posted by: AthenaAwakened on Nov 25, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a black woman, I don't get this black vs. woman thing. What am I suppose to do? Be outraged at myself? The black MAN was elected and not the WHITE woman.

It may seem a minor detail, but I think it says alot about how people in this country think about race and gender and who gets to speak about both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ain't I a woman? Posted by: aonghus36
» One drop rule... Posted by: zizizzi
» RE: One drop rule... Posted by: 2thepoint
What about folks with disabilities?
Posted by: End The Echo on Nov 25, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On election night NBC folks were making a huge point out of the fact that South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson needs help walking, like that is an issue in a world with FDR and Max Cleeland serving while in wheelchairs.

They didn't mention that NY Governor is legally blind.

More recently we have seen mention that Dingell has health problems and is in a wheel chair because of knee replacement surgery. Now if that context had something to do with why the caucus did not vote for him to retain his chairmanship that he lost to Waxman, then fine, put that mention in context to the story. Otherwise drop it because it is irrelevant to the story.

So remember, it isn't just women, but folks with disabilities that are being disrespected by the corporate media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call me when this is about Sarah Palin...
Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals on Nov 25, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and ALL WOMEN
Not just Liberal Women!
This cheeping the debate and leads all of us to NO WERE good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh yea and before you put down your Ms. mag Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
» And while you're at it. . Posted by: kegbot1
BAH - we are awash in stinking herrings
Posted by: stellabloo on Nov 25, 2008 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and all of them are RED.

As long as we are fighting about abortion then we are NOT talking about universal health care and anti-poverty measures.

As long as we are squabbling about gay marriage then we are NOT discussing equal rights, equal opportunity or equal pay.

As long as we are carping about the high price of filling the tank then we are certainly NOT worrying about the toxic petroleum-based chemicals in personal products or the impact of billions of tons of rotting plastic on our aquifers.

For the nth time, real feminists are NOT men in lipstick. Women have an innate social intelligence (making it possible for the next generation to survive), men have no such inner compass; their social values are learned. Hence the desirability of brainwashing within the patriarchal institution and the suppression of thought and speech in women.

I think of this more as a continuation of the Dark Ages: the shadow of the chastity belt and the admonishment to "BE SWEET" still hangs over us. The biggest thug is still king. And if being sweet isn't working, there's always Prozac... Hello, some of us KNOW the system is insane :.(

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Link for you ;.) Posted by: stellabloo
If you can't take the heat....
Posted by: doodahman on Nov 25, 2008 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
stay in the fucking kitchen.

You have two women, one almost the nominee for president and another was the nominee for VP and you still bitch bitch bitch.

YAWN. Frankly, if you want to speak on behalf of women, I say you owe us an apology for Palin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Praise of Cavemen
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Nov 25, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I generally agree that the mainstream print and broadcast media - to say nothing of the religious right and rabid Republican radio - are culpable in maintaining misogyny during and after the electoral campaign, I'd also like to say a word in defence of "cavemen."

Now, I understand that there are not many people in the immediate universe who worry a lot about stereotyping and displaying prejudice against the "Neandertal" and "Cro-magnon" populations that preceded us. They are not high on our list of available victims.

Nonetheless, we should recall that our ancestors pretty much invented language, music and the rudiments of technology. They enjoyed a healthy diet, got plenty of exercise and worked only as long as was necessary to meet their basic needs. They did not suffer much from obesity and attention deficit disorder. They did not need viagra or valium. They rarely quarreled over private property, and they left a very small carbon footprint.

Their avarice and sense of entitlement did not lead to ecological degradation, and they possessed no nuclear weapons. They would probably have been unimpressed by "extreme sports," and would likely have considered e-mails and i-Pods to be a colossal waste of time.

It is, of course, undeniable that their lives might have been temporarily enhanced by a nearby medical trauma unit to mend broken limbs and some capable ob-gyn specialists to help lower the hazards of child birth.

It is, nevertheless, unseemly that we routinely denigrate them for their "primitive" qualities. After all, when they killed one another, they did so for sensible reasons such as survival, jealousy or vengeance. When we do so, it is for mere abstractions such as political ideologies and religious doctrines. And we tend to kill far more allegedly sapient humans than they could or would have contemplated.

In retrospect, cavemen (and women) and their lifestyles have much to recommend them. Our stupendous arrogance should not lead to thoughtless judgements about them, and we might even learn something from them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In Praise of Cavemen Posted by: BigElectricCat
Hey! Ever watch 'Mad Men'?
Posted by: Ghoulman on Nov 25, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... so called 'conservatives' watch it without any irony. lol! :D

Weak minded, cowardly men, will not abide a woman. So they make up rules: Children, Women, etc. they have their place (so does the dog). American Family Values TM, right?

It's been said a bazillion times but American culture is constantly trying to get back to the 50s and early (never the late) 60s when the so called idyllic America existed... in spite of or perhaps because of the over whelming fear of being nuked by the commies.

I do believe this is part of the American conservative "narrative". Anything else, especially a feminist, is Politically Correct fascism where gay men in pink jackboots will take over America and paint the white house rainbow.

But you know all this... what you might wanna keep in mind is that the corporate media (Mr. Murdock I'm looking at yooouuuu!) spends billions a year to promote this narrative, this vision of America. As I mentioned, the vision from over 40 years ago.

What's the view the so called 'Millennial' girls have on their world today? Do you think they even know what feminism is? If they do, they most likely have heard of it as something evil and anti-American... from the TV and Radio.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only Film Star Quality Women are hired in the NEWS MEDIA
Posted by: joeocho88 on Nov 25, 2008 2:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the day, what FEW WOMEN who were hired to report the news on the radio and for the newspapers were not judged by what they looked like but rather what they could PRODUCE!

And then the newspapers went the way of the diosaur ( or soon will be out of business) and TV and the Internet became the dominant mediums and the news producers noticed that hot looking babes with no facial wrinkles or gray hair seemed to get HIGH ratings and so we have GORGEOUS INFOBABES that are totally lost without a teleprompter or a triple spaced news story written so they can read it like a script. Cause all they are --frustrated movie stars who never got that break. So they live in a plastic surgery and BOTOX hell with their ONLY WORTH being what they LOOK LIKE and the moment they start looking their real age, they will be JETTED and a NEW,HOT INFOBABE will be brought it.
The BROADCAST news media has ALWAYS been like that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cavewomen clearly control the media
Posted by: anarchris on Nov 25, 2008 2:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's the old double standard!
just look at how the old girls club reacted when barack obama was falsely accused of sexism by Hillary's boomer sisters on two occasions. they did nothing about it. clearly it's guys who still have to endure women's false accusations disproportionately. when will women alternet and the rest of the 'liberal media' change their attitude, stop denying the problem and take responsibility for their behavior so men don't have to endure women's harrasment and abuse in the work place or the public eye just cuz women are threatened by strong men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

treatment of women in the media, proportions of women in the media=related
Posted by: ladyoracle on Nov 26, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is about Clinton and Palin, so I don't get the comments that say the writer's just defending liberal women. And I do think we probably are in danger of beleagering the point about how they were treated, because the lines on the issue are drawn so that you either think they were victims of sexism, or you don't or you don't care.

But what's new with this article is the connection to the media's large ratio of men, who (if you agree with the writer) made sexist comments that went unchallenged.

The fact that there are few friends of women in the media is a new angle to the conversation that gives us something to do something about instead of just analyzing and arguing. And the most compelling part of this article, in my opinion, is the slur against Code Pink, because they did not "sign up" to be abused by the media like one might argue is true of political candidates of any gender, and that example opens the conversation about media pundits advocating violence against people they disagree with, which is of course a masculine stance that frames the "prey" as feminine, which is only a meaningful statement in a patriarchal society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gibbons is clearly just plain wrong
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Nov 26, 2008 8:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll go with what Barbara Ehrenreich said about a decade ago: "The whole media world is dominated by upper-middle-class women."

Why? Because they're the affluent spenders advertisers want to reach, and they do so by supporting programming which appeals to that demographic.

US women in toto account for some 85% of the discretionary spending in the economy. She who pays the piper calls the tune.

And, yes, I realize that means women bear the bulk of the responsibility for the largely content-free coverage of our politics in the MSM, something Gibbons likely doesn't want to admit much less consider the implications of. Perhaps women like to watch cavemen types because it stokes their sense of superiority over and general resentment at men.

Talk radio is an entirely different demographic because it's something you can multi-task with by listening to while you drive a truck or pound nails into a house, such jobs being 90+% male. Remember Rush tried a TV version of his show way back when, but it flopped because generally men don't have the luxury of being able to sit in front of the TV like women do.

With that said, the market is big enough and diverse enough to be able to support counter-niche players like Faux Noise or NPR, though I note even the former, judging by the advertising I see there, still tries to appeal to female viewers.

"We're not the shoppers, we're not the buyers -- except when it comes to beer."
- Advertising agency owner Newell Ledbetter, explaining the difficulties of male-targeted demographics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement