Archive for reporting

Hey, it’s OK to call Hillary by her first name

It’s come up a lot: why do we (and I must say that I include myself in this ‘we’) constantly refer to Hillary Clinton as ‘Hillary’ in the same breath that we refer to the other, male candidates by their last names?

 If this were the case with any other female politician, I wouldn’t think too hard about labelling it as sexism in reporting. However, with Hillary, there is the sticky issue of Bill. The fact is, we can’t just call her ‘Clinton’. It would just be too confusing. And the reason that we abbreviate the names of well-known people in the first place (politicians, writers, intellectuals, and celebrities alike) is both to make speaking about them more convenient in colloquial terms, and to bring them down a little bit closer to our level. Referring to someone by part of his or her name is an expression of familiarity.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

such sexist coverage!

A classmate of mine recently found this Media Matters article which discusses the sexist nature of MSNBC’s coverage of the first presidential debate.

Click on the link above– the story and transcript of the coverage speak for themselves.

Comments (2) »

Is she too ‘strident’?

While I was listening to NPR show which was discussing the presidential hopefuls this morning, one caller mentioned that reporters and pundits often used the word ‘strident’ when describing Hillary. He was angry because he thought that this word was extremely sexist; he viewed ‘strident’ or ‘shrill’ as demeaning words that society used to describe women who it deemed too pushy or insistent in their views.

I decided to do a bit of research and see if this caller was right– did the media, in fact, use these two words more often when describing Hillary than other candidates?
Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Hillary: unelectable?

I was reading an interesting blog today “about the politics of reporting– and the reporting of politics.” On it, Greg Sargent dissects and analyzes the way in which reporters and popular newspapers, such as the New York Times, write about politics and political candidates.

In one article, Sargent points out that, when asked about Hillary, most pundits will say something about the impossibility of her being elected because she is “polarizing” and, although she sticks closely to her pretty centrist agenda, this makes her “unelectable”. Sargent debunks this myth with an ABC/Washington news poll showing that Hillary is in fact far more electable than another presidential hopeful, John McCain.

So why the presumed “unelectability”?
Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.