Since her 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton’s served as Secretary of State, published a memoir and found herself embroiled in a scandal involving her personal e-mail. But don’t worry – all those accomplishments haven’t stopped the media from focusing on the most important thing: What’s she wearing?
In her 2008 campaign, the media initially covered her in the way any political candidate deserves to be covered: Articles were published discussing Clinton’s policy plans and previous political experience. But as the campaign wore on, and the race progressed, the media regressed. Many articles covered fluffy topics such as Clinton’s pantsuits, her likability and pretty much anything but her policy plans.
This same pattern of gender bias in the media continues with 2016 female presidential candidates such as Clinton, who is subject to gendered attacks in the press that her male counterparts are never forced to address.
Take, for example, the New York Times article titled “Hillary Clinton to Show More Humor and Heart, Aides Say,” which announced a shift in Clinton’s campaign, dedicating an entire paragraph to the former Secretary of State’s diet.
“Since declaring her candidacy,” the article read, “Mrs. Clinton has embraced a rigorous diet (when staff members set up a mouthwatering spread of barbecue after a stop in Arkansas, she chose to eat just a single tomato), lost significant weight and thrown herself into yoga and weight training, giving her new energy.”
And this is just one paragraph – the rest of the article discusses ways in which the Clinton camp plans on showing voters their candidate in a new light, a light in which Clinton is apparently going to have more humor and heart.
In contrast to the derogatory statements Donald Trump makes about women such as journalist Megyn Kelly and presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, the New York Times article may seem tame.
But this kind of irresponsible journalism shows just how little things have changed – and how dangerous it can be.
A perfect example of this cultural stagnation comes from another New York Times article in 2008 titled “For Clinton the Speaker, the Smaller the Better.”
The piece discussed how Clinton’s speaking style “can sound grating,” and author Patrick Healy critiqued Clinton for giving “what sounded like a university lecture, analyzing domestic and foreign policy issues and laying out her plans for tax credits, health care and education reform.” In the same article, Healy wrote that a “better moment” for Clinton was when she cried in New Hampshire and “opened up about the rigors of the campaign trail.”
Ask yourself whether a male political candidate would have ever been attacked for the same things Healy attacks Clinton for, such as the tone of her voice, or the way she speaks about her policy. Why were her tears being lauded but not the way she was informing voters about her policy plans?
And while The New York Times is not entirely to blame for this type of content, as Clinton’s campaign aides spoke openly about this switch in focus, the most recent New York Times piece highlights the ridiculous standard Clinton is still held to today in contrast to the other 2016 candidates. This type of journalism demonstrates the lack of progress made since the 2008 presidential campaign in terms of eradicating gender bias in the media.
This is the danger of this type of reporting: It does not come off as obviously biased or wrong, allowing gender bias to perpetuate in mainstream media outlets. It’s ridiculous, outdated, and most importantly, unfair to hold Clinton or any other female candidate to a different standard than their male counterparts. Seemingly harmless discussions about diet and yoga allow this standard to not only exist, but to flourish.
It is critical to think about why Clinton is even being forced to tackle the subject of her “humor and heart,” also frequently referred to in the past as her “likability” in the first place. No male candidate faces similar scrutiny about the tone of his campaign. No male candidate – except perhaps Trump’s hair – has articles being written about his diet or appearance in the way Clinton continues to be covered by the media.
To be sure, male candidates face scrutiny on the campaign trail, as anyone running for public office does, but it would be a giant stretch to say that this scrutiny in any way compares to the biased, gendered treatment of female candidates.
The media is tasked with holding politicians accountable, with as little bias of its own as possible. Until newspapers can leave gendered coverage behind with first drafts and the 20th century, we can’t trust them to give us the difference between Clinton’s diet and foreign policy.
The light tone of the first article is evidence that gender bias against Hillary Clinton exists during her present campaign? To what extent does a 2008 article reflect gender bias with relevance to a presidential campaign seven years later?
Speaking of irresponsible journalism, you might consider backing up claims of widespread bias with evidence. It exists, and it should be included in any article with such a claim.