The latest symptom of Campaign Coverage Fatigueāthe media malaise born of a too-early, too-intense presidential raceāseems to affect the candidates themselves. And, more specifically, their chromosomes.
Salon broke the big news: Democratic frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, like those crazy fish we learned about in high school biology class, have apparently gone and switched genders. āHillary is from Mars; Obama is from Venus,ā it declared. āIn the Democratic presidential pack, the leading man is a woman and the leading woman is a man.ā
The evidence of the headline-grabbing gender swap? Well, Obama loves his family and likes Aretha Franklin. How girly. And āClinton repeatedly tells people that they should let her take control of the country, eschewing Obama’s more abstract calls for national soul-searching. āIf you are ready for change, I am ready to lead,ā she says. āI want to be the president who sets goals again.āā
The assumption is clear: men are unfeeling and macho, women are sensitive and introspective. Leadership and goal-setting are male traits; abstraction and soul-searching are female. Yadda, yadda, yadda. (Iād write more on this, but am too preoccupied by fuzzy thoughts about myself…)
Itās fine to acknowledge gender stereotypes and even (shock!) gender differences; they exist, and theyāre an issueāespecially now, when, as the piece notes, āthe first woman in U.S. history is making a serious run at the White House.ā But to do that so glibly, and to traffic so particularly in some of the most generalizedānot to mention insultingāstereotypes of both genders, is unproductive at best, destructive at worst. (A candidateās media coverage, after all, can be a make-or-break factor in his or her campaign. Just ask Al Gore.) Slapping sing-songy, āHillās macho, Barackās girlyā headlines and āI see London, I see Franceā-style epithets onto our politicians turns their candidacy, and the election itself, into a schoolyard parody.
Thereās certainly a place for humor in election coverageācampaigns are often ridiculous, and itās fine to lampoon themābut it doesnāt follow that we should haze candidates through observations that amount to little more than rhetorical wedgies.
The Salon article, its snark aside, is smart. It outlines, cogently and succinctly, the historical role gender has played in American presidential elections and the impact itās having on the current oneāboth worthy subjects. The second half of the piece is exactly the type of incisive, analytical journalism I want to be reading about the campaigns right now. Which makes its first half even more frustrating.
Megan Garber is an assistant editor at the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard University. She was formerly a CJR staff writer.