Smarmy media get hot and bothered over Sarah Palin
|
Posted by Jennifer L Pozner July 8th, 2009 |
A version of this commentary is published by NPR today. Please click “recommend” and comment on NPR’s site to encourage their support for media criticism (of course, your comments are welcome below).
Think carefully: can you remember any passionate TV news debates about whether journalists or voters might want to get naked with former vice president Dick Cheney?
No? Good. Because such an insulting, irrelevant topic would – and should – never be considered newsworthy. Unfortunately, this sort of drivel frequently passes for journalism when the politician at the center of the story is female.
Take Alaska’s soon-to-be-former Governor, Sarah Palin. When she dropped her resignation bombshell – dubbed “breathless” “girlish burbling” by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd – CNN’s Rick Sanchez wondered, “hey, could she be pregnant again?,” while others chalked it up to post-partum depression. Meanwhile, MSNBC analyst Donny Deutsch told Morning Joe viewers that the Quittah from Wasilla is divisive specifically because: “This is the first woman in power with sexual appeal… We’re used to seeing a woman in power as non-threatening.”
Shortly before Palin’s declaration of independence from her job, politicos were buzzing about a Vanity Fair expose highlighting the poor opinion of Palin among the GOP’s own braintrust. VF editor Todd S. Purdum’s interviews and analysis were solid, yet he still felt the need to wax on about the “pheromonal reality” that Palin “is by far the best-looking woman ever to rise to such heights” and “the first indisputably fertile female to dare to dance with the big dogs.”
So, Palin’s polarizing because she’s… hot? Not because she’s complained about “the politics of personal destruction” – after insinuating that Barack Obama is a terrorist? Or because she champions a staunchly anti-abortion, anti-gay “values” agenda, yet has been dogged by a litany of alleged ethics violations? Or because she joined a White House campaign while demonstrating an embarrassingly flimsy grasp of foreign affairs?
Unfortunately, ethics and policy positions often take a backseat to… other positions in pundits’ fantasies. Just after Palin burst onto the national stage, Deutsch decreed her “the new feminist ideal” to “sell a woman in power,” because “women want to be her, men want to mate with her.” Though critics will attack her on “issues,” Deutsch told CNBC, “It doesn’t matter… I want her laying next to me in bed. That’s the way people vote.” (More wisdom from Deutsch-land? Hillary Clinton lost because “She didn’t put a skirt on!”)
He wasn’t alone. When we wondered who McCain’s running mate was, Yahoo! News linked readers to “Her workout, eating habits,” cable news cranks called her a “MILF” and a “naughty librarian,” and CNN anchor John Roberts suggested that becoming VP might take too much time away from her kids.
The ugly, nonpartisan truth is that corporate media have always seen women in power as threatening. That’s why they trivialize women who dare seek office by obsessing over their bodies, hair, shoes, makeup, and motherhood – as if these have anything to do with their abilities and track records. Whether it’s cable news branding Hillary Clinton a “bitch,” the New York Times reporting that Condoleezza Rice wears a size six, or the Washington Post detailing Loretta and Linda Sanchez’ hairstyles, housekeeping preferences and “hootchy shoes,” journalistic double standards condition us to consider women as ladies first, leaders a distant second — and inherently less qualified. We’ll never know how many talented people were dissuaded from politics because they knew it would be significantly harder for them to run, win, and govern.
Still not convinced? Consider the bipartisan parade of male pols whose arrogance, greed – and, let’s be frank – penises have been responsible for endless ethical and legal breaches. They’ve paid prostitutes (David Vitter; Elliot Spitzer), sexually harassed pages (Mark Foley), cheated on their wives with staff members (John Ensign; John Edwards), redefined “hiking the Appalachian trail” (Mark Sanford), and committed flagrant corruption (Rod Blagojevich; Ted Stevens). Yet it is Sarah Palin – not these immoral, egomaniacal hypocrites – who the press has diagnosed as mentally ill, questioning whether she has “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” Apparently, breaking laws and vows is just something “the big dogs” do. But a self-centered woman inappropriately spending campaign cash on clothes and surrounding herself with sycophants? She must be clinically insane.
Ironically, though Palin has railed against unfair treatment “in the mainstream media,” she’s mostly been referring not to blatant sexism but to reporters who wouldn’t show her “respect and deference.” The last thing journalists owe any politician is deference. We need news media to subject all our leaders to tough scrutiny— not smarmy, gendered taunts meant to remind us that the most powerful women in America are, ultimately, just girls.
Please click “recommend” and comment at NPR, and share your thoughts in the comments below.
Find information about WIMN’s multimedia lecture series on gender and race issues in media coverage of politics in general and the 2008 election in particular, or email info[at]wimnonline[dot]org if you’d like to discuss bringing one of our media presentations to your campus or community.
Read more about this topic from Women In Media & News’s archives:
“Commander in Chic,” TomPaine.com
“Cosmetic Coverage,” AlterNet.org & Extra! magazine.
“Fictional Geena Davis character as cautionary tale for Hillary Clinton?,” WIMN’s Voices
“How the Gilmore Girls could have helped Hillary Clinton predict her political fate,” WIMN’s Voices
…and more from WIMN’s Voices on media, women and politics: Domestic Politics, electoral politics, and Executive Director’s Blog.
July 8th, 2009 21:37
As of approx 11:30pm EST, there are around a dozen interesting comments on this piece at the NPR website.
Hope everyone who reads this here, will comment there (and cross-post your comment here, too).
July 9th, 2009 02:09
This is not unique. Whenever, wherever a woman makes a mark. this type of comments will come up. The way the American media treated the story of Governor Sanford is entirely different from what they are doing to Sarah Palin.
July 9th, 2009 07:31
you are totally right. while sarah palin herself makes me shudder, the coverage of her has even further trivialized the idea of women with power. and i’m particularly disturbed by Deutsch’s quote that peopel vote based on who they want in bed next to them…so all the men who voted for Obama or McCain voted for them because they wanted to bed the candidates? HUH?
Indu, thsi may not not be unique, but that actually makes it MORE of a problem.
July 9th, 2009 09:09
It’s so true that our “guiltless” irreverent media often runs with any opportunity to kick and punch women who have become part of the public limelight. Palin really isn’t the topic here — it’s gender and media. Most women in the distant past have been told to “look the other way” politely while being ripped to shreads by inarticulate pundits who really don’t even know “up” from “down.” Today, more people than ever (women & good men included) are starting to speak up to say this kind of media “crucifiction” (no pun intended toward Palin) is ugly, innane and completely unnecessary.
July 9th, 2009 12:02
Recommended!
July 9th, 2009 18:29
There are now more than 80 comments on NPR’s site, many of which are from people who either misunderstand the oped as being in support of Palin and therefore sexism wasn’t a problem… or believe that the media were sexist but that’s fine because Palin herself invites such treatment by playing into it.
If you disagree, add your voice to the NPR discussion. (And here, too.)
July 9th, 2009 19:51
It is laughable that this “women’s lib” site would pretend to stick up for Sarah Palin because of the unsubstantiated and totally shallow remarks made by the media about her “looks” AND THEN slam Sarah Palin on other UNSUBSTANTIATED claims aka your LIBERAL opinions. Everyone with “values” is marked to be “intolerant” though YOU have NO tolerance for anyone with values other than your own free for all mentality. Why can’t you admit you’re not pro woman or anti sarah palin but just plain anti-God. This article does women a dis-service.
July 10th, 2009 17:11
When she accepted the VP nomination, she knew she needed to bring her professional game up to another level, she never did. She knew that her family would get attacked as did Hilary and Chelsea before her (by even her twin maverick brother McCain in 1998), let face it she knew her family affairs would come out. But now she plays the victim card again, a card she played after those comical first extended interviews that we all enjoyed and SNL immortalized. But for the icing on the cake, she quits, because she does not want to be a lame duck governor, because the lawsuits keep coming, because it was the media’s fault, because seeing Russia from her house finally got to her, because its not fair that Alaskan’s paid her salary while she was running for the VP position, take your pick. So what does she tells us? Dear Mr. President, when things get tough, quit. Dear military men and women, if you are not having fun, quit. Dear son or daughter, if things are not going your way, quit. Sure, I agree when she first was introduced and gave a descent speech, sure the polls went up, but after the extended interviews, they went where they ended, down. She showed her true character, I really hope the book deal, Radio/ TV shows and the lecture circuits make up for what her party has lost by her actions. She may go down in history as the quitter that twittered.
July 10th, 2009 17:13
Let me ask who would you chose to get a surgery from a person who worked hard and received an Ivy League education, or one who does not care about education (especially science) and drifts and somehow manages to get a degree. She showed her true character, by quitting (cut and run) just like her college years. She couldn’t even give a decent exit speech (her railings against the media was sweet until she did an about face and ask them to go on a fishing trip with her to clarify her “Rambling Rose” comments). She was right for Alaska (with a population of less than 700,000), and her education matches it (journalism degree from the University of Idaho in 1987). But if you think anyone who wants to get our country back on track after the fiasco of the last administration with our economy and the fabrication of two wars then you along with the empty party are completely lost (are you surprise about the election results?). For the previous eight years we put up with a dullard president, but no more, you may try in 2012 but our eyes are open. I have heard that Republicans lost because God was against them, I can only say look at the candidates the Republicans put forward on their national ticket and don’t make the same mistake again. Mavericks, please, more like flash over substance (she quit and he fumbled) and the majority of voters saw it. We both know that she is cashing out, book deal, a show (Radio/TV), speaking engagements, she will keep stringing her followers along as long as she keeps the possibility open for running in 2012.
July 13th, 2009 07:48
Melinda– did you actually read this post? because it sure doesn’t sound like it. this post is about MEDIA COVERAGE of Sarah Palin. you might disagree with Jennifer’s analysis but there’s nothing “unsubstantiated” here. there are a whopping 13 citations to source material in a blog post of only a few hundred words. that’s what the links are. believe what you will, but WIMN’s journalistic standards are impeccable.
July 13th, 2009 08:53
Paul (and other who have had similar questions/comments),
Your main point seems to be either that:
A. Palin deserved sexist coverage because she’s a poor politician,
or
B. Coverage wasn’t sexist because Palin’s a poor politician.
Either way, you’ve missed the point entirely. This piece is not about Palin. It is about *media* and the way media refuse to cover female politicians based primarily on their politics, public record or leadership — regardless of those politics, record or leadership. I referenced similarly problematic discussions of Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Loretta and Linda Sanchez; this is a problem shared by Democratic and Republican women and has little to nothing to do with who those women actually are. (Click through the links in the post above for more information.)
Many of the examples of gendered double standards I mentioned above appeared in media in the immediate aftermath of her nomination as McCain’s vice president. She was an unknown on the national playing field, yet stories about her body, her face, her hair, her clothing, her diet, her exercise routine and more were the go-to for lazy reporters and commentators who preferred that kind of coverage to telling us much of substance related to the candidate.
As for your question, Paul, you asked:
“Let me ask who would you chose to get a surgery from a person who worked hard and received an Ivy League education, or one who does not care about education (especially science) and drifts and somehow manages to get a degree.”
I would want surgery from a well-educated doctor, of course. But asking that in relation to my oped is ludicrously off-topic. To draw out your metaphor, this piece isn’t about the surgeon, it’s about the hospital board. Assume the surgeon shows up for her first day of work, and instead of reviewing her resume or her aptitude on rounds, the review board simply sizes up her outfit, her haircut, her looks. She could be dangerously unprepared to operate, but no one would notice because they were too focused on her appearance to get to the more relevant qualification issues.
Again, this piece is about irresponsible journalism, not about Palin.
July 13th, 2009 19:51
Jennifer:
It’s unfortunate that the media lets the personal bias out when reporting on high profile women figures. But it starts in our homes and progresses to our schools and universities, to our work force (Private and Public) and yes, even our religious institutions. The way you look (as crazy as this sounds) does matter (for men and women) and often trump stellar qualifications. Have you seen many heavy set, unattractive CEO’s, running fortune 500 companies? Not many (unless they started their own companies), looks do matter, even when it comes to men. Now let me relate a time when I worked for a company that serviced several mortgage companies. Every time we visited our clients and met a high profile women, who happened to be young, attractive and available, the people who always ran her down were other women in my organization (they would say, she slept around, her blouse shows too much, blah, blah, blah). So its been my experience that women worse enemy are other women (was it not Sarah Palin who said that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t whine about tough media coverage and should just try harder). Our culture has these various bias issues as individuals how can a group of these same individuals not have the same problem, like the media, journalism, schools and universities, work force (Private and Public), religious institutions, etc. Gays, minorities and immigrants also get treated differently in their daily lives as do women (worse if they are not attractive), it is unfortunate but it’s a fact of life.
My beef is that she reminds of unqualified people like Ronald Reagan, Dan Quayle, and George “W”. She is just another “W” in heels and she is stringing the religious right along, she will sell you her books, her radio/TV shows and speaking engagements. Let me paint you a picture, in my opinion, for the last eight years where the mantra was no regulation and no oversight and spread to all federal agencies and the justice department was filled by unqualified religious types and the dullard (ex-drunk) religious president started two wars of choice with extreme tax dollar spending, is anyone real surprised with our current economic situation because of those choices. I am so tried of unqualified religious zealots controlling the government and their attempts to make the second coming of Christ a reality, their hatred of women, gays, minorities, and immigrants (even though they use them to reap higher margins for their businesses) disgust me. And if McCain had chosen a “Dan Quayle” type, I would be doing the same thing pointing out his shortcomings. I see your point but don’t be too quick to summarize that yours perspective is the only valid perspective. I think in this specific case she has reaped what she and her party have sowed.
July 23rd, 2009 09:20
I think there’s no question SP has narcissistic personality disorder (which is not quite the same as being mentally ill). But so do many, many male politicians and powerful men. Rod Blagojovich comes to mind. To the sexist press and public, it’s only “unacceptable” if a woman has an ego so huge that she won’t let reality intrude on her plans.