Shame on Media Sexism
Just because we saw a woman within reach of a presidential nomination doesn’t mean the mainstream media have covered the 2008 race with gender equality in mind. From bashing Michelle Obama to calling black women “angry” to consistently labeling Sen. Hillary Clinton a bitch, the mainstream media have displayed one outrageous sexist moment after another.
But don’t trust me - the National Organization for Women has the evidence to prove it. They’ve launched a Media Hall of Shame and are listing the worst offenders in this season’s election coverage, from TV, radio, print, Web and political cartoons. NOW is asking for your help in ranking the “Shamers” on a sexism scale they’ve dubbed the “Misogyny Meter.” They’ll present the top offenders at this year’s national NOW conference in July.
And just how does sexism work its way into the everyday dialogue of political pundits, news anchors and columnists? Well it doesn’t help that media consolidation has squeezed women out of top-level positions at media outlets. Women own just 5 percent of commercial broadcast television stations and 6 percent of all full-power radio stations.
“If we are to create a media environment that covers issues important to women, that treats women with respect, promotes their voices and opinions and portrays them as three-dimensional human beings, we must have more women at the very top calling the shots,” said NOW in a press statement. “The same goes for people of color and other traditionally disenfranchised groups.”
The situation could be getting worse if the FCC is allowed to follow through with plans to let media conglomerates own ever more media outlets. The Senate has already passed a “resolution of disapproval” to thwart the FCC’s plans. It’s now up to the House to do the same.
We’ve launched a campaign to get 100 co-sponsors for the House version of this crucial legislation. Already, 31 representatives have joined. But we’ve got 69 more to go, which means we need your help.
Tell your representative to co-sponsor H.J. Res. 79 to Stop Big Media and help end sexism in our news.
Shame on everyone. Why don’t we all tell the truth first, of course that is a relative issue itself. What is the truth? Is the truth something based on your point of view or can there be objective statements that we can then give our opinion on. The media took Obama under their wing and Hillary become irrelevant. Yet I remember less than year ago many current Obama supporters just salivating over a Hillary campaign against any Republican, because they the Clinton’s, knew all the Karl Rove tactics and they would not be affected by them. The same objective media which in most after the fact polls, lowest survey results say 80%, say they did not vote for Bush.
Can any of you tell me any single significant issue in which Barack and Hillary differ? The same with Joe Liberman. Here is a man less than three years ago was the undercard on the Democratic Presidential bid and know he is a party outcast! On the war in Iraq can you point out any significant difference between Mr. Liberman and Mrs. Clinton, other than rhetoric? When it comes to an actual voting record on the war in Iraq is there any difference?
I try to listen to both sides of the spectrum but it is extremely difficult. I don’t listen to Hannity or Rush. I can tolerant O’Reilly for a while. On the left Mike Malloy and Randi Roads drive me nuts, unless she’s talking about economics then sometimes she makes sense. Like the time she was talking about commodity speculating. I agree they need to be required to put up more money. But when they go on and on about the evils of the ” Bush crime family” or the knuckle dragging Republicans, it stupid. I heard from the Right the same complaints about the lack of proper media coverage. So which way is it?
Look I thing the Administration has done some bonehead things. But they are not Nazis. I have a dear friend that was a “guest” of both Herr Hitler and Mr.Ceausescu so I know of what I speak. When you get bombastic like that you shut down the conversation. If you disagree with them that’s fine. But when you use such extremes of comparison you just raise the emotional level of the situation and nothing gets accomplished. You also reduce the impact and severity of the atrocities that they committed. Where are the Gulags, the ovens, the mass graves? Can someone show me the smuggled photos of the round-ups or provide a list of names of individuals who have disappeared in the middle of the night to never be seen or heard from again. Such evidences was provided to Mr. Roosevelt prior to Dec. 7, 1941 and the great light of the Democratic Party replied, ” Americans will not fight a war for Jews.” Another little factoid that the left often or never mentions when they brag on the virtues of the great leader is that on inauguration day 1932 unemployment was 17.2%. In September 1939, close of the 3rd quarter coinciding with the invasion of Poland, unemployment in the United States was 17.2%. So much for government intervention in the economy having an actual affect.
Back to the subject of using over the top rhetoric in trying to make a point. When you make a comparison that is to extreme you are going for an emotional response. When you go for emotional reaction instead of logic you show the real weakness in your argument. Plus, more importantly it totally disrespects the suffering and the loss of the victims of these horrific political systems.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:16 am[…] - bookmarked by 3 members originally found by FantoMelt on 2008-10-08 Shame on Media Sexism http://www.stopbigmedia.com/blog/2008/07/09/shame-on-media-sexism/ - bookmarked by 6 members […]
October 26th, 2008 at 7:00 am