General Forums >> Controversial Topics >> Was the media sexist in its coverage of Hillary?
Was the media sexist in its coverage of Hillary?
|
Posted 3 months ago I think not. And it kills me that this idea is being thrown around. We could say the same, really, for McCain (ageist media) or Obama (racist media). I think she failed as a politician, not as a woman politician, necessarily. (i.e. it wasn't her gender that ended her bid for the candidacy) What's your take? |
|
| Posted 3 months ago Let's put it this way: The media was not anymore sexist than it was racist or ageist, in the coverage of the presidential race up until now. I think it's just too easy to blame sexism (or racism or ageism) for unfavorable coverage of any candidate. When you have situations such as a FOX anchor calling Michelle Obama a "baby mama," then this is overt racism. If a talking head on TV insults Hillary's clothes but makes no reference to the male candidates' apparel, then that might also be sexism. If your question is whether or not sexism was the downfall of Hillary's candidacy, I'd have to say no. Her downfall were her 1990's politics in the face of Obama's breath of fresh air, change campaign. She had everything going for her (sense of implied incumbency, etc.), but she decided to take a road already taken instead of a new one. After eight years of Bush/Cheney/Rove/neo-cons, I think Democrats and most Americans wanted something really new and reverting back to Clintonism wasn't enough. Daniela
|
|
| Posted 3 months ago Was the media sexist re: Hillary? Hmmm. Well, when ISN'T the media in this country sexist in some way/shape/form? Or ageist or nationalist or..... Let's be honest. And, I honestly feel that for the media moguls to be saying "This is an historic moment, we have an "African American" as a candidate" is just.... shameful. Shameful in such an extreme way I can hardly believe it. Why is it historic that we are even NOTICING someone's race or color or gender and not dealing specifically with what issues are being represented? Are we still such children? This country has SUCH a long way to go - (heavy sigh). Did the various paid factions in the media play the 'race', 'gender', 'ageist' etc. cards? Sure. That's still what they do... and we have not found a way, collectively, yet, to stop them. Did Hillary use the wrong strategy? A more interesting topic. Possibly. I agree with Daniela that the country is ripe for change and her platform was just too 'same old', regardless of the fact that the economy was healthy under her husband's administration. ;) |
|
| Posted 3 months ago No, the media lambasted all of the candidates. Clinton made too many mistakes for an intelligent woman, and she appeared aloof and unreachable. The presidential campaign trail is not the right venue to lament about unfair treatment. How would she handle a veto by Congress? Our country is ripe for change so Clinton's status quo platform demonstrated that citizens would endure more of the same broken promises. We need a strong president who resolutely deals with the problem and devises a workable plan to confront the serious issues facing the US. We should encourage all voters to make their voices heard in November.
|