From Deseret News archives:

Press bias isn't cause of Clinton's campaign problems

Published: Monday, Feb. 18, 2008 12:37 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
It is true that the candidates' stump speeches are markedly different: Clinton's is about competence and diligence, Obama's about hope and change. But journalists didn't write those speeches, campaign speechwriters did. And any reporter or commentator who failed to note that Obama is an exceptional public speaker would be guilty of journalistic malpractice.

Reporters are busy combing through Obama's personal, professional and financial history, just as they have examined the lives of the Clintons. Obama has facilitated this process by releasing his tax returns, which Clinton has declined to do. It is not unfair to point this out.

The contention about racism versus sexism is harder to dismiss out of hand. Being unapologetically racist or sexist is no longer acceptable in this country, at least in most settings. The social censure for being publicly racist, though, is well codified; the perpetrator must recant and repent and may never completely eliminate the taint. There's also pretty solid consensus on what's racist and what isn't. The views on sexism are less settled.

When John Edwards, in one of the early ensemble-cast debates, mentioned Hillary Clinton's attire, I think everyone agreed he had made a mistake. Yet it's not always out of bounds to comment on a presidential candidate's wardrobe and appearance, or else we wouldn't have chuckled at Edwards' $400 haircut or Mitt Romney's game-show-host mien.

Story continues below
When people refer to Hillary Clinton as strident, is that a sexist code word? I think it probably is.

But when her speaking voice is described unfavorably, is that blaming her unfairly for physiology that's obviously beyond her control? Are male journalists just not used to hearing a woman's voice speak with presidential authority? Or are they making a valid observation about dynamics and tone, which are within her power to modulate?

Is sexism in the coverage of the Clinton campaign excusable? No, and we deserve to be called on it. But it wasn't the media that decided she should take for granted all those states Barack Obama has been winning.


Eugene Robinson's e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

Recent comments

The arrogance of Bill Clinton's comments about the press is offensive...

Clinton's sex isn't the reason | Feb. 18, 2008 at 4:38 a.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Just a question for the all wise McCartney…What about people like...

Why are you people complaining? You wanted to be a socialist...

Letters: What about the woman?

Simply, it's the price you pay for making stupid mistakes when you are...

Harpring's NBA career is over

I like Harpring though the joke is he's good for one missed layup a game....

More of Utah's fascination with Romney and trying to keep him in the news....

Letters: Can't play together

together. It is the tag-alongs that are in constant battle.

Obama turns spotlight on jobs

All these reported spending will not create jobs. Business is not hurting for...

I think Hall should get the bad mouth award. I hope he doesn't get the...

I have a lot of friends that started with APEX and they are all rich. The...

Matt Harpring fought through more injuries than any player I have ever seen....

Advertisements