Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Re: Media Sexism, Ctd.


Are you kidding - the image is about reporting, not boobs.

Or maybe it's about her weird claw-hands. But its certainly not about boobs.

Posted by boyd main | June 13, 2008 10:50 AM

This also reminds me of all the MSM responses to Scott McLellan's book, in which he accused the "liberal" media of failing to do its job. Suddenly every news channel and newspaper ran a piece asking themselves if they had done a good job, to which they invariably answered with a resounding 'yes!'.

There's an important role for the blogosphere.

Posted by Gabriel | June 13, 2008 10:51 AM

Those recording devices are totally fucking sexist pigs.

Posted by povertyrich | June 13, 2008 10:51 AM

. . . and?

Posted by Levislade | June 13, 2008 10:52 AM

FWIW, Erica, the NYT article does not 'acquit the media' of these charges. The reporter is simply interviewing various members of the MSM and asking if they think there was misogyny in the coverage of her campaign. It's not an opinion piece and there's not attempt to justify any misogyny that was out there.

Posted by Gabriel | June 13, 2008 10:56 AM

Not sure how "sexist" this is. It's a wee bit beyond bizarre though. Especially given the caption: "Senator Hillary Rodahm Clinton is interviewed on her campaign plane in March." More accurate would be: "Goldish clothing and accessories with recording devices."

Posted by umvue | June 13, 2008 11:00 AM

the horse won't die! kill it! kill it!

Posted by ZwBush | June 13, 2008 11:04 AM

I think that photo is completely appropriate. Media figures + boobs: what could be more representative of the article's subject matter?

Posted by tsm | June 13, 2008 11:05 AM

Erica I agree the media treated Hillary in a sexist way.

I would even admit that Obama has shown moments of sexism in his hostility to Hillary.


Have you once, even once, publicly reported on the racism the media invoked to attack Obama, especially during the Rev. Wright flare ups? Or that Hillary stirred up by consciously pursuing a strategy to split white working class voters from the Democratic Party base by suggesting that Obama could not represent their interests?

Cause reading your posts you might think Hillary was a helpless victim of a smear campaign, instead of a prominent political insider who was quick to use her fake victim status to gain the support of women who otherwise would have been repelled by her hawkish, center-right politics.

Posted by Trevor | June 13, 2008 11:06 AM

So in order to avoid sexist focusing on the boobs, the media should ensure that the shape of the boobs is not visible in any other shot? Women have boobs. Get over it. An identical picture of a male candidate would pass without comment.

Posted by Fnarf | June 13, 2008 11:11 AM

"What else is new?"

ECB moaning about unfair treatment of Clinton? Go get a McCain sticker already.

Posted by The Baron | June 13, 2008 11:18 AM

If you're going to be a major political player you have to be ready for abuse on all fronts. Sure, some in the media focused on Hillary's boobs but did you see that picture of Obama that clearly showed the huge bulge that stretched down to his knee? Totally racist!

Posted by Colin | June 13, 2008 11:26 AM

I think Erica is the one who is uncomfortable with the facts of female anatomy. There is no way to take that picture without having the outline boobs visible in it. The same is true whenever a woman walks out in public; there they are. Everyone can tell you've got 'em. Whoo hoo!

What's sexist is denying a woman an opportunity because of her gender. That's not happening in this picture. Did some of the media attention denigrate her in an attempt to minimize her value as a candidate? Yes, of course. Did it hurt her chances? No, it did not.

Posted by Fnarf | June 13, 2008 11:41 AM

Fnarf: Huh? No, my objection was to the fact that they decapitated her and included ONLY the boobs.

Posted by ECB | June 13, 2008 11:41 AM

We can only hope the disavowals of sexism from the media mavens and similar denials from certain sections of We Who Support Obama will reconsider or have a little empathy for Sen. Clinton regarding this subject once Michelle becomes the focus of all attentions... Misogyny runs so very deeply in our society, often surpassing racism in its sheer scope and toxicity; just ask the single black mothers raising families along my street, in my neighborhood, within my precinct...

Posted by Laurence Ballard | June 13, 2008 11:43 AM

wait, cackles? i thought you said cankles. because hillary also has cankles, which didn't get nearly as much sexist media coverage as i had hoped.

Posted by brandon | June 13, 2008 11:43 AM

Can't we agree that the media (especially FOX news) has been equally racist and sexist.

Erica, cut Keith Olbermann some slack. When he makes an unintentional sexist remark he immediately apologizes for it, unlike Chris Matthews.

Posted by elswinger | June 13, 2008 11:46 AM

I've seen that decapitation shot many, many times before with no complaints. It's a MICROPHONE SHOT.

Posted by Fnarf | June 13, 2008 11:55 AM

That's just a ... really weird picture. Fnarf, I agree. Sure, one can't help but notice that women have boobs, but ... they had to run a picture without her head and just her boobs, really? That's ... really weird.

Posted by arduous | June 13, 2008 11:55 AM

And by the way, Laurence is correct. Just look at all the crap they're pulling out on Michelle Obama. Barack might be the media baby, but his powerful, lawyer wife?! Doesn't she know that First Ladies are supposed to have teas and care about literacy and that's it?!

And so they're turning this awesome, amazing woman, and I love Michelle with all my heart, into some demon who hates white people. It's really awful to watch.

Posted by arduous | June 13, 2008 11:59 AM

Come on ECB, do you *try* to overly exaggerate everything?

"ONLY the boobs"

I see hands, some faces, other hands, microphones, a necklace...

The picture is about the microphones, which are symbols of reporting, which is what the story was about.

There's this thing in photography called composition. Look it up.

Fnarf nailed it anyway: "An identical picture of a male candidate would pass without comment."

Posted by w7ngman | June 13, 2008 12:02 PM

Ya know, I love em boobies as much as the next straight female, but one word jumps to mind when I see this image:


So mayhaps the media is not so much sexist or racist, but sparkle-ist. If it don't sparkle, we don't cover it, and here, the effects of Clinton's fingernails and all the microphones glistening and catching the light was too much for the Media to pass up.

Posted by Marty | June 13, 2008 12:07 PM

you know, that's actually a really smart photo. with hillary's face cropped, the focus is instead shifted to the reporters' hands and recording devices. she's there, she's a central figure, but the viewer is drawn to what's going on around her. i have to admit i didn't read it, but isn't that what the piece is about?

Posted by brandon | June 13, 2008 12:28 PM

I read the same piece this morning. I saw the same picture. I interpreted it completely differently than Erica.

It's possible that I'm wrong--that as a man, I'm trapped in some sort of denial of the rampant sexism that's all around me. It's also possible, though, that Erica is overly sensitive to the point of paranoia, that anything with an ambiguous interpretation is assumed to be malicious by Erica (whereas, I admit, I tend to give the reporter the benefit of the doubt).

For fear of committing rather public calumny, Erica should make sure her case is irrefutable before making her accusations, I should think. She may be right--the picture itself, and the article, may have been sexist. But the generous--I would say even, in the absence of Erica's preconceptions, the default--interpretation of this article in no way supports Erica's complaint.

Posted by Dan | June 13, 2008 12:50 PM

Nice boobs and nice waist! They are completely covered by a horrific pant suit but if we want a woman president someday we had all better get used to boobs!
They're really not that big of a deal depending on who you are talking about.

Posted by mj | June 13, 2008 12:58 PM

"she-devil" & "makes me want to cross my legs" -- gee was there sexism, duh???

The MSNBC Catholic urban boys club denials are pathetic.

Barnicle said HRC looks like your old wife outside of divorce court.

Mika Brzezinski tried to confront him on that as it was part of the NYT article and used a typical power-male diminishment-of-women dodge: ignore the question.

His respoinse?

"Celtics won! Celtics won!"

(Way to circle the jock wagons, Mike!)

Then the boys denied media sexism was the CAUSE of HRC defeat -- another doge -- atttacking Mr. Straw man. Also sad: Mika letting them dominate her like that. Joe wouldn't if he had been there I think he talks over people and keeps restating his view unlike Mika who just kept having this "asking" tone of can we please address this boys, but letting them ignore her most pointed question.

VP watch:
Dodd out?

Madia now looking at who ELSE in DC got sweetheart loans from Country Wide -- Dodd is on the list. CW had a "VIP program" that waived points and gave other sweetheart deals to high politicians.

Posted by PC | June 13, 2008 12:59 PM

are cackles for women only? i don't get it.

Posted by skye | June 13, 2008 1:13 PM

i think the idea is that hillary was mocked for her laughter, while no male candidates ever were. which is [to my knowledge at least] true, but then the follow-up question should be: is this *only* because she's a woman? or maybe because the cackling incidents in question were rather bizarre behavior for a presidential candidate (kind of like a "dean scream")? maybe somewhere in the middle? i don't know, but i can think of worse things to endure than being picked on for having a funny laugh (being called an america-hating, terrorist fist-jabbing, crazy preacher-having marxist springs to mind).

Posted by brandon | June 13, 2008 2:02 PM

My objection was to the fact that they decapitated her and included ONLY the boobs.

Um, then why didn't you say so in your post?

I have to say, I actually found this to be a rather lovely photograph--to me, it looks presidential: candidate Clinton ticking off policy objectives, or maybe election strategy, in a knowledgeable, relaxed manner to members of an interested and engaged press corps.

Yes, women have breasts. But what I find intriguing are Clinton's hands--they tell more about the moment than all the recorders do, and I don't need to see her head to make the connection.

Posted by Boomer in NYC | June 13, 2008 2:11 PM

This post seems sexist... would she prefer that she were wearing a burka? Big deal... an image of a shapeless torso. If a woman is going to be president, she'll need to get used to being photographed. That's not sexist. What's your interpretation of these shots?

Posted by robo | June 13, 2008 2:20 PM
No, my objection was to the fact that they decapitated her and included ONLY the boobs.

I'm sorry, are you accusing the photographer and the editor of somehow trying to turn Hillary Clinton into a sex object?

Because, uh.

Posted by Judah | June 13, 2008 2:21 PM

You know what scares me about this picture? It's: what if that really is a headless woman? I mean, people are interviewing her, and she doesn't have a head. How can she answer their questions?

Maybe she taps the answers out with those fingernails? I don't know. And what does that say about where our consciousness lies?

Man, I think that may be a headless woman. My god.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 13, 2008 3:54 PM

It's weird that now the media doesn't have Hilary to pick on, now they go for Michelle Obama. Crazy.

I wonder how Nancy Pelosi stays above the fray?

Posted by la | June 13, 2008 7:47 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.