|
Latest Stories
Recent blog posts
|
February 28, 2008 - 7:27am.
Are media outlets biased against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton due to her gender? It's an open question and one I'm not prepared to answer. But Tuesday night's debate in Cleveland certainly blew open some angles for examination. First, there's the time question: Who got more of it? According to The New York Times Web site's Democratic debate analysis page, Clinton spoke for 30:43 while Sen. Barack Obama spoke for 38:17 (the moderators spoke for 16 minutes). So Obama was allowed some 25 percent more critical time on-camera. Then there's the question of how much file video was used of each candidate -- or, more specifically, against each candidate. For Clinton, the tally was 56 seconds; for Obama, it was 22. Each was asked to explain past statements he or she had made after being confronted with videotaped proof of the claims. For Clinton, NBC moderators launched the debate by showing two contrasting clips. In the first, she was being exceedingly gracious toward Obama. In the second, she was ripping into him in a speech before an audience of her supporters, for misrepresenting her health-care plan in mailings to Ohio voters. The question: Which one represented her true feelings about Obama? She reacted mainly with aplomb to the unanticipated question. There was perhaps a glint of surprise in her eyes while she explained she made the comments during two different periods of the campaign. Her reaction changed, she said in essence, as events changed. Obama was asked later in the debate to explain criticisms he leveled against Clinton for casting herself as "co-president" with her husband, while dodging blame for President Bill Clinton's unpopular decisions, such as support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is a question he's been asked before. The Clinton video and questions certainly had a much more obvious element of surprise or "gotcha" in them. The moderators could have posed tougher questions to Obama, but for whatever reason chose not to do so. One example: Why he took credit while campaigning in Iowa for passing an anti-nuclear bill that never passed the U.S. Senate. The opening video-clip question to Clinton was followed up by asking her why a right-wing Web site that day had posted a picture of Obama dressed in African garb. The Web site claimed it obtained the picture from the Clinton campaign. Again, an element of surprise. She said she had no knowledge it came from her campaign. The tough questions for Obama centered on praise he has received again and again from controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Obama has repeatedly denounced Farrakhan's support, so it was not a question by which the moderators could have reasonably assumed he would be surprised. Obama was also allowed in response to go on and on extolling the virtues of the Jewish community and its support for his campaign. I'm not prepared to take a stand on whether the two senators were treated similarly or dissimilarly. Clearly, Obama could cite examples of where he feels he was treated unfairly. But one has to wonder how big a factor gender bias is in Clinton's move from front-runner to underdog. Of course she entered the race with so much baggage historians could spend centuries researching the issue without finding an answer. A high-level Democratic strategist told me months ago that internal polls showed some groups of American voters were more likely to vote for an African-American man than a woman of any color. And one webzine this week ran an article likening the Obama-McCain race that now seems all but inevitable, to cop flicks that team a white man and a black man together to overcome a woman. I was in the U.S. Capitol last week and noticed two portraits side by side. One was of Joseph Rainey of South Carolina, who in 1870 became the first directly elected black member of the House of Representatives. The other was of Jeannette Rankin of Montana, the first woman elected to the House, in 1917. That's a 47-year gap. How prescient, I thought, that history appears to be repeating itself. (Bonnie Erbe is a TV host and columnist. E-mail bonnieerbe(at)CompuServe.com.)
Capitol Hill Blue's columnists, blogs and reader comments Capitol Hill Blue is an independent, non-partisan news site that belongs to no political party and subscribes to no political or philosophical point-of-view. Our columnists are welcome to their opinions but readers should understand that their views do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of this web site. We also welcome comments to selected opinion columns and in our popular ReaderRant discussion forum. Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site and comments may be reviewed, moderated or removed if we feel they contain obscenities, racism, bigotry, anti-Semitic remarks or attack other posters. Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation and we do not feel that goal is served by personal attacks and by seeing how many cute adjectives you can attach to an elected official or politician's name. Copyright © 2008 Capitol Hill Blue
|
User login
|
Wait a cotton-picking second
Submitted by Steve Horn on February 28, 2008 - 9:07am.Wait a cotton-picking second - wasn't Hillary bitching about always being asked the questions first? If that's the case then I'd think that her opportunity to speak would have been superior to the next person down the line. Her failure to dominate the conversation does not indicate media bias, but it is a clear indicator of her inability to construct meaningful, interesting arguments during a debate process.
Then again, perhaps the media reflects the public opinion, which does not seem to be pro-Clinton.
I noticed that she's dredging up yet another relic from her husbands campaign - "it's the economy" -
Peace
Steve
Why is the assumption always
Submitted by Pablo on February 28, 2008 - 10:49am.Why is the assumption always made that anybody against hillary is due to gender??? Apart from whether there exists bias against her, there so many reasons to be biased against her, for example her angry, divisive character, her selling out to corporate interests, lying to make herself out to be somebody who cares about the downtrodden instead of the corporations, her full support for bush's war (until she started campaigning), etc...
Gender bias?
Sheeeshhh!
"Is the media biased against
Submitted by JudyB on February 28, 2008 - 12:11pm."Is the media biased against Hillary Clinton?"
YES!
For whatever reasons, anyone who hasn't noticed it is not being honest about the subject. I have said for some time now that Obama was the media' baby and that they deemed
him to be our next President. Their unceasing promotion
of him began the moment he finished giving the Keynote Address at the Democratic convention in Aug. of 2004.
Judy, Is it blind bias or is
Submitted by Steve Horn on February 28, 2008 - 3:08pm.Judy,
Is it blind bias or is it preference based on an evaluation of her character, positions and past performance?
One would imply prejudice, the other a rare case of common sense.
Peace
Steve
My problem with the woman
Submitted by Belle on February 28, 2008 - 3:53pm.My problem with the woman who would be.. is that she does not know when to SHUT UP. Her answers are rambling and seldom have anything to do with the question asked. She always tries to turn the conversation to something she did whenever...Being first lady does NOT make one presidental material,, Can you see her in a Cabinet meeting when someone diesgrees with her so called "intelligence" Shear arrogance and rudeness keep her blabbing on when the moderator asks her to stop She is a person who seems to think anything she has to say is earthshaking... give me a break Four years of THAT.. Lord, NO NO NO NO NO And take a GOOD LOOK at that face when Obama says something that hits the truth in a lie she just uttered...If looks could kill !!!!!
Let me add... Although Obama
Submitted by Pablo on February 28, 2008 - 8:01pm.Let me add...
Although Obama seems to be pretty decent for a moderate (He's one hell of a diplomat in my opinion) and he certainly doesn't frighten me like Hillary, it does give me concern if there is media bias. I watch as little of the MSM as possible (It just gets me too upset, just like too much of any source of news...so if ya'll haven't seen my posts for awhile, I have been on break from gloom and doom)so can't verify current bias, but as Judy mentioned, there has been a lot of buzz in the press over him for a long time. I always thought it was peculiar that the press would give so much attention to one man without extensive experience. And if the press supports somebody, I feel nervous, for I always suspect a hidden agenda from them. Remember these are the folk who marched us off to the war based on lies. They're the last group whose judgement I would trust! Nevertheless I will vote for Obama and hope for the best! Besides, I don't think it is any less important or desirable to get in a black president than a woman.
Yes, it's a constant thing
Submitted by John J on March 1, 2008 - 7:24pm.Yes, it's a constant thing and I'm surprised that that hasn't been a major uproar over it.
For example, I watched the Ohio debate (I'll skip what's already mentioned) in the exit interview all but 4 of the Ohio voters were for Hillary, but the press continued to talk as if it didn't matter and pushed the Obama win.
Hillary Clinton is a good and decent woman and doesn't deserve the horrible treatment she's gotten in the press.