Watching the press corps cover Michelle Bachmann, Alice Stewart says she didn’t think there was any difference between how men and women reporters wrote about the candidate—on substantive issues. “Not if we were covering the news of the day, issues and Michelle’s values, it didn’t matter,” she says. “But when there were stories being done about her as a person or a mother, you could sense the connection in a different way if it was a female reporter than with a man.” Bachmann was comfortable and opened up a little more.
For Bachmann, and Hillary Clinton before her, the quest to become the first female president leads to a level of personal scrutiny that bordered on sexist. Stewart says that she was infuriated by the questions that both male and female reporters asked after the presidential debates. “I’d get calls from reporters wanting to know the maker of her suit, what style or brand. I asked whether they were doing the same with the other candidates and they said no,” Stewart says. “She delivered knock-out performances and they’re talking about the makeup and the clothes she’s wearing. It’s insulting.” With Bachmann out of the race, those kinds of questions are off the table for this presidential cycle.
On the night of the New Hampshire debate, there was one hopeful sign that the future may not resemble the past. In one row in the midst of the press room, a cluster of young women were busily blogging away. Dotty Lynch, formerly political director for CBS, and now a professor of political communication at American University, had brought up a group of her students. “This is a field that women are intrigued by and seem to want to be involved with,” she says, although she cautions, “The people at the top doing the hiring are still mostly white men.“
At many journalism programs—such as American University and New York University, where I teach—applications from women now far outstrip those from men. Maybe four years from now, or eight years from now, and, God forbid, well before another forty years from now—life will look very different out on the campaign trail. Even now, it’s less lonely for women out there on the hustings. As Lynch puts it, “It’s no longer weird to be a girl on the bus anymore.”
Great piece, and thank you for actually doing the math.As a news junkie, I've suspected it for a long time... My ears pick up when Mara Liasson's voice comes thru on my radio just for the change in tone.
#1 Posted by Katie Pain, CJR on Fri 13 Jan 2012 at 06:32 AM
Women in general are not as interested in politics. I have noticed this in conversations for many years. And look at the early morning programs on the main networks. Their hard news and political coverage is in the first half hour when more men are tuned in. After that, we go to fashion, cooking, and other inane topics. You may also ask that they are stereotyping women. But if the female species wanted hard news coverage the last 90 minutes, they would speak up and the networks would change accordingly to keep viewers. As it stands now, if they reverted to a Meet the Press for the last 90 minutes, women would leave in droves for the other networks.
#2 Posted by Richard, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 10:23 AM
Well, in the good old days, voters didn't skew female at all. They were 100% male, and we had a better class of leadership.
#3 Posted by Mark, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 12:16 PM
Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd are not reporters. They are incredibly biased egg throwers. Sorry to say Meryl, but the new feminists are Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. These are strong woman who earned their way to the top.
#4 Posted by murf, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 01:05 PM
Who the fvck cares, but whining liberals?
#5 Posted by Buck Ofama, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 01:48 PM
Hey Meryl — nobody's stopping women from becoming journalists, sweet cheeks.
#6 Posted by John Bromante, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 01:55 PM
Great article. I would add that perhaps the gender disparity in covering the candidates is what is leading to all male presidential races. When the female candidates show more sides to themselves to female reporters (as this article says) then perhaps these female candidates would be able to stay in the races longer. Maybe this would help us get a female nominee for president.
Our problem with gender disparity in the United States is systemic.
#7 Posted by Jennifer Lee, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 02:39 PM
What sexist tripe. Who cares about the body parts of journalists or candidates? All that matters is competence. If the best people for the job are disproportionately male or female, I don't care. Those outdated lookist mindsets have got to go.
#8 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 04:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXKV78VERio&feature=colike
Look here ....
#9 Posted by heart807, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 08:07 PM
Yes, please mandate Press quotas for sex, race, LBGT, etc., since they support it for the rest of us.
It won't affect coverage at all. We will still receive both sides of the left side.
#10 Posted by Frank Lee, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 09:03 PM
Another difference in how the male-dominated media portrays women presidential candidates is that they almost always ignore the historic merit of her candidacy. Breaking the presidential glass ceiling is a major news story that will be written about in history textbooks for centuries yet male-dominated media treat this subject as if it's worthless indicating they think women are worthless. Note how much more often black male presidential candidates' historic value is mentioned, practically every day in the news, while women candidates' historic value, even when in the same contest, is almost always ignored.
#11 Posted by Nancy Kallitechnis, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 10:16 PM
Yes there may be more male journalists, but the TV reporters in Los Angeles are cute females with nice bodies. It makes sense, since it's the land of glamor, glitz and hot sexy babes.
#12 Posted by john, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 10:59 PM
For the most part, national-level governmental politics is from Mars.
#13 Posted by Ted C., CJR on Sun 15 Jan 2012 at 01:08 AM
By the way, as long as we're keeping track, I believe you'll find more ladies watching Jane Austen and more men watching UFC. This doesn't mean that ladies are less intelligent (actually it could mean the opposite!) It does convey the fact, though, that there is a difference in general interests.
#14 Posted by Ted C., CJR on Sun 15 Jan 2012 at 01:14 AM
As a young female reporter, I really appreciate this piece. But, I'd also like there to be more discussion of the lack of African American and Hispanic or Latino reporters, as well as reporters from other diverse backgrounds. I've worked in a huge Texas newsroom with less than five Spanish-speaking reporters. I now work in a majority-minority city and I've probably met two or three black or Hispanic reporters in all the news outlets combined -- TV, newspaper, blogs, etc. That's a huge, huge problem. And because socioeconomic status is still unfortunately often divided among racial lines, it means a variety of issues don't get covered as much as they should, and they certainly don't get covered with the sensitivity we should expect. I'm not saying we need minority reporters to cover "minority" issues. I'm saying we need a newsroom that reflects the electorate, and today it's not even close.
#15 Posted by NS, CJR on Sun 15 Jan 2012 at 02:32 PM
There is no shortage of women in journalism. Women reporters now outnumber men on the news programs I listen to on the radio. I don't have tv but if I see a network or cable clip on Youtube, women are well represented.(Aren't you insulted that so many of them are blondes?) I don't know why there are the gender disparities in the representation you mention above in a particular sector of journalism but what you seem to be saying is that we need parity, parity, parity, whatever. I don't think we want or need gender parity at all costs. Maybe the women don't think it's so exciting to follow the candidates round the boonies in winter listening to the same guff 10 times a day in hopes of a gaffe. Perhaps a good question is why the guy gumshoes want to do that? I can't imagine there are too many assignment editors nowadays brave enough to brave feminist ire by discriminating between the sexes. But I suppose it made a piece. Another day, another $45 dollars, as they used to say.
#16 Posted by dgforbes, CJR on Sun 15 Jan 2012 at 02:41 PM
Up until recently the political world was dominated by alpha-males who put the needs (and many of the wants) of children first, women second and men a distant last. These alpha-males are now being replaced by a new breed of alpha-female politician who put the needs (and almost all of the wants) of women first, children second and the needs of men below that of rabid dogs. The fact that every male [and every female] journalist ignores this basic truth speaks volumes about the subservient role that men play in modern politics.
#17 Posted by Ninderthana, CJR on Sun 15 Jan 2012 at 06:41 PM
Ms. Gordon, are you seriously insane???
You've never heard of Clinton's Telecommunications Deregulation Act of 1996 which allowed for the final consolidation of what was left of the American "media"???
There is NO media left in America, only that Corporate myth-media which is controlled primarily by several corporations and really, no one really is sure who controls it since those five corporations are so financially interlocked with one another and the five premier banksters in this country.
Talking about gender or ethnic or race balance, in something which does not exist, is akin to discussing the interior decor of the Starship Enterprise from the old Star Trek show!
Seriously, Ms. Gordon, are you insane, or are you simply woefully ignorant???
(And I am of an age, as I once tutored Maureen Dowd in French at Nativity.)
Seriously, if females in this country and what's laughably called a "society" don't begin raising out of their abject ignorance, and begin to finally learn something about the environment in which they exist (a strong indicator of intelligence level) then they will forever sound like complete and total airheads!
#18 Posted by sgt_doom, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 01:13 PM
"Breaking the presidential glass ceiling is a major news story "
Negative, Ms. Nancy Kallitechnis, the major news story is why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has done so many, many amoral activities, such as appoint former Bush inner circle neocon, Marc Grossman, to her State Dept. (he was #3 at State under Geo. W. Bush), the very same Marc Grossman who was implicated in the treasonous act of selling nuclear secrets to foreign countries and on the shadow arms market (please see Sibel Edmonds sworn testimony before the Ohio Election Commission on behalf of David Krikorian); the very same Marc Grossman who as the specific individual who "outed" Valerie Plame Wilson, thereby shutting down the CIA's coutner WMD proliferation operation, Brewster Jennings and Associates, which ended their investigation which might have led them to Marc Grossman and his group --- and was responsible for not only ending Valerie Plame's career and endangering her, but from the official court testimony of CIA professionals we learned that agents, and their informants (assets) were killed due to Grossman's treasonous actions.
And speaking of Hillary Clinton, what of her involvement in the financial support for the overthrow of democratically-elected Zelaya in Honduras, from her position as chair of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (Timothy Geithner, co-chair)?
These serious question about our government are most important, and yet too many female commenters here seem to be blithely oblivious of them.
Blithely oblivious......seems like an apt description for the typical zero information voter today!
#19 Posted by sgt_doom, CJR on Tue 24 Jan 2012 at 01:27 PM
One phrase which repeatedly causes vile chills to run down by spine, is when the "typical" American female mutters, "I'm a liberal, I listen to NPR."
I avoid listening to all American propaganda news/radio stations, be it Fox, CNN, NPR, ABC, CBS, etc. (and definitely PBS), but let's examine one typical morning at NPR.
First, there's a show called The Takeaway, this morning featuring a wannabe stenographer posing as a NY Times reporter, Todd Zwillick, who makes the preposterous claim that the Clinton millions comes from speaking fees after Bill Clinton left the White House.
Evidently, this typical NY Times reporter has never heard of "research"???
After leaving the White House, Bill Clinton's net worth, along with his wife, grew to slightly over $100 million from industrious lobbying on behalf of the jobs offshoring industry and for every jobs offshoring "free trade" agreement to come down the street!
A senior editor at Forbes (now that should be a tipoff right there) claims Ross Perot to be a "self-made man." Evidently this wannabe stenographer from Forbes has never familiarized himself with any Perot data: how he attended the US Naval Academy, then didn't complete his mandatory 4-year service obligation, thanks to his brother-in-law being Ramsey Clark (at that time Attorney General, I believe).
Also, thanks to that connection, Perot receives a shipload of government contracts for his EDS firm, perhaps one of the most incompetent, inefficient government contracting firms which ever existed.
Self-made? Not this lifetime!
Next, a spokes slut (female, in this case) at NPR is reporting on the Davos Forum by talking with a pseudo-economist spokes slut (male, in this case) and zero reportage takes place, naturally.
Media in America? Try tucradio.org and Bonnie Faulkner's "Guns and Butter" out of Berkeley, but other than that, if you're looking for superlative female reportage, try Polly Toynbee across the Atlantic at The Guardian.
#20 Posted by sgt_doom, CJR on Thu 26 Jan 2012 at 02:57 PM