Gender bias in media coverage of the 2012 campaign

By Richard K. Barry 

Yes, let me tell you all about women.

I just discovered an interesting website called "4th Estate.net: Visualizing the Social Influences of Media & Newsmakers."

They have done some work on the lack of women's voices in the media coverage in the current campaign season. They present some terrific graphics in a feature called "Silenced: The Gender Gap in the 2012 Election Coverage."

About their research they write:

Women are significantly under-represented in 2012 election coverage in major media outlets. In our analysis of news stories and transcripts in the past 6 months, men are much more likely to be quoted on their subjective insights in newspapers and on television. This pattern holds true across all major news outlets, as well as on issues specifically concerning women. For example, in front page articles about the 2012 election that mention abortion or birth control, men are 4 to 7 times more likely to be cited than women. This gender gap undermines the media's credibility.

Note that they are talking about "subjective insights." Mostly these are men kicking back and telling us what they think about women's issues. I can only say that the women I know would really appreciate that.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Fair pay

By LindaBeth

Yesterday, April 18, was "Blog for Fair Pay" Day, in honor of the fact that yesterday women finally caught up to what men earned income-wise in 2007. Yes, the gendered pay gap means women have to work almost 4 months more to earn what men do. And Angry Black Bitch reminds us it's even worse for women of color. Designating a day for recognition and advocacy of this is an important tangible reminder of the effects of inequality and sanctioned discrimination.

It kind of reminds me of Tax Freedom Day, the day that the nation has earned enough income to pay our tax bill. Funny, though -- (federal) Tax Freedom Day is April 23rd (although this varies by state, mine in New York isn't until May). That tends to make people pissed -- realizing they work 4 months just to pay their government taxes.

But women have to work an extra 4 months to equal what men are paid yearly for the same job, which is about the same amount of time "Americans" have to work to pay their tax bill. Thus, from a conceptual point, the difference in men's and women's pay is about the same as the amount of taxes paid by the "average" American. Think about that for a second. Or several.

Then write in your support for the Fair Pay Act -- and encourage others to do the same.

This Sunday's a new day in Democratic presidential politics

By Carol Gee

Obama sweeps -- Barack Obama's Saturday primary victories made big news headlines that are dominating most of my main news sources. Memeorandum's headline from the The New York Times announced "Obama Gets Convincing Wins in 3 States." To quote from the story:

Senator Barack Obama won decisive victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington, Louisiana and Nebraska on Saturday, giving him an impressive sweep going into a month when the Democratic nominating contests are expected to favor him.

The successes come just as Mr. Obama is building a strong advantage over Mrs. Clinton in raising money, providing important fuel for the nominating contests ahead. Still, the results were expected to do little to settle the muddle in the delegate race that resulted after the wave of contests last Tuesday in which the two candidates split up states from coast to coast.

The Democratic primary season feels very new and different as it is now playing out; it is unprecedented. And so the discourse should be new and different. This year everybody is breaking new ground. And the way voters are deciding is also unusual. What we are doing is a seemingly impossible combination of voting purely for the person or purely out of one of the various demographic groups. It would not seem likely for thoughtful people to be doing both but that is what is happening.

We all hope to avoid gender or racial bias. So far, the success rate has not been perfect on either front. Each prejudiced breach is hurtful to those of us who happen to be female or African American, or both. The most interesting issue lurking beneath the surface at this point is more gender, than race related, in my opinion. For example, Memeorandum picked up this article in The Washington Post that "Women Could Give Clinton the Edge in the Maine Caucuses." To quote:

It is women like Linda Sinclair who have turned New England into a potentially tough playing field for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).

. . . "She's really in touch with the common person, even though she's not one," Sinclair, 58, said of Clinton. "I think they're both very bright. But she's more solid. I think he's fluffy."

Translated into gender stereotypical language, "solid" sounds Male (Freudian non-hysterical female) and "fluffy" sounds Female (soft, lacking in substance). What this says to me is that presidents are Male. And yet the opposite traits seem to be actually embodied in the candidates.

The opposite kind of stereotypical description came out of an Australian female correspondent's story about the two speeches given in Virginia last night. It carried this provocative headline: "Clinton sells dream as Obama hits warpath," in The Sydney Morning Herald. This language of attribution also sounds fraught with gender imagery - in the opposite direction. This writer attributes Clinton's coming potential for a poor showing in Virginia to "dreaminess," and Obama's potential strong showing to "demolishing" his opponent. To quote:

For the first time, Senator Clinton decided to try to out-Obama Senator Obama. She delivered an inspiring speech.

Senator Clinton went for the big picture, which until now has been strangely absent from her earnest, policy-laden speeches. And for once she played up her unique point of difference: she would be America's first woman president. She dwelt on the fight of the suffragettes, who from the start of their activism at Seneca Falls in New York in 1848 waited 70 years to win the vote. "Only one of them lived long enough to see their dream realised," she said. "Come join me, be part of my campaign. Make history."

. . . Senator Obama then did the demolition job of the night. Senator Clinton, so anxious to avoid the criticism of a fortnight ago that her husband Bill Clinton had been too strident in his attacks, treated Senator Obama with kid gloves. Senator Obama had no such compunction.

He hit her voting record on the war and on being a candidate who has taken more money from lobbyists than even John McCain. He mentioned the last six "match-up" polls that show him more likely to beat Senator McCain.

"Now Hillary and I were friends before this campaign, and we will be friends after," he said. Really? The Democratic race is now a bitter struggle for delegates, and it will not end until March or April. Meanwhile, Senator Obama will move ahead in the delegate count and gain that most valuable of political ingredients: momentum.

The magnificent opportunity that the American people have in 2008 is to step beyond prejudice, bias, and stereotypical generalization, in choosing the best presidential candidates. People acting in good faith want to do the right thing as we choose a new administration. I quote now a third article about the Democratic race. And I think it is an absolutely great example of pretty unbiased and interesting writing. It is an OpEd for the Hartford Courant, by Bill Curry. I highly recommend reading it. It is not terribly long. It is headlined, "Obama's Three Advantages: Map, Money And Message." To quote just a few great lines:

Hillary Clinton amazes me... Her resilience makes husband Bill look like just another glass-jawed palooka.

. . . Living off the land means grass-roots organizing and small-donor fundraising, but most of all it means ideas. Barack Obama is handsome, articulate and whip smart. But he didn't start winning until he began making his case... His may be the first campaign based on subliminal negatives... It makes Barack's successful covert attacks all the more dazzling, even mystifying. The Clintons were not only flat-footed but tin-eared and ham-handed.

. . . The good news for Clinton is that she's right in the race. The good news for Democrats is that she and Obama are both candidates of exceptional, even extraordinary ability. She must now make the case that some of the Clinton legacy is worth building on. Her best chance lies in a purely positive campaign in which both candidates tell us what they really think, and not just about each other.

[Bill Curry, former counselor to President Bill Clinton, was the Democratic nominee for governor twice].

For my readers the question of potential presidential leadership qualities is central. It recurs as visitors return over and over to read my post on Leadership Qualities. As I said in a more recent post, "Democrats have a Delicious Dilemma".

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Let's talk about sex...

By Carl

There's simply no excuse any longer: women are the equal of men. Period. End of discussion. Why in ANY country they should be treated as lesser citizens, nevermind the United States, is beyond my comprehension:

GENEVA (Reuters) - Nordic countries again dominated the World Economic Forum's ranking of gender-equal countries, while New Zealand squeezed into the top five and the United States fell to 31st place.

Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland retained the top four spots in the 2007 Gender Gap Index released by the Swiss-based think tank on Thursday.

The Forum compared four areas: differences between men and women's salaries, access to education, political representation and health including life expectancy.

Nordic countries were "strong performers" in all four areas, although "no country has yet achieved gender equality", it said. All four countries improved their scores for women's economic participation, driven mainly by a decreasing gap between women and men's labor force participation rates and salaries.

Sure, some ass is going to point out that woman are physically inferior in some rigged, arbitrary way (perhaps raw anerobic power), and someone else will point out that women score consistently lower on some arbitrary, rigged scale, say math and science scores in schools.

Bullshit. Men score way lower on other scales than women and if THOSE scales were the ones used to decide opportunity and by inference wealth and power, I'd be wearing a gold lamé thong and serving drinks poolside.

Not that I'm making an endorsement here, but do you want a strong reason to vote for Hillary? Here's one:

The United States, the world's leading economy which had ranked 23rd in 2006, fell back as a result of weaker economic and employment opportunities for women, though female political empowerment improved somewhat over the year, the Forum said.

Don't you agree that this is a horrendous statistic? Not only are women hurt more by our national policies, things are not getting better, but worse!

And yet, our President touts the "strong economy" and spinning the most positive silk out of a pile of feces. Trouble is, the silk still stinks and doesn't look good.

My god, we're 25 places behind the Phillipines, and nine behind Cuba, for Christ's sake!

I'm sure some wise-ass right-wing white male will point out that Switzerland fell into 40th... gee, that's small comfort to the single mom in Kentucky who's struggling to raise two kids while having been let go from the only job she's ever loved, and debating whether to work at Wal-Mart or move.

Is anybody out there? Does anybody care? We risk our entire nation with these offensive and oppressive policies towards people that need our help. In the global economy, with global threats to our nation and her citizens, and with the opening of borders all around the globe, to deny ourselves the resources -- the full abilities, intellect, talents, and efforts as full partners -- of half of our population is not just disgraceful, but idiotic.

(The full rankings are here... it's an Excel file. A PDF version is here.)

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)