Clinton and the talking heads
After reading this useful piece on Hillary Clinton's polling strength among women, I got to thinking about "the political discourse."
With white men uniformly dominating and overrepresenting on the talk show circuit (name one major politics talk show hosted by anything else,) is Clinton getting a short deal?
How big is bias?
(As example, three white men. Or maybe these two.)
With white men uniformly dominating and overrepresenting on the talk show circuit (name one major politics talk show hosted by anything else,) is Clinton getting a short deal?
How big is bias?
(As example, three white men. Or maybe these two.)
posted by mikevotes at
11:09 AM
4 Comments:
Very interesting observation. Does this homogeneity in the talking head pundit circuit result in such a myopic view of politics as to be essentially irrelevant in understanding the real American landscape? I think so.
By
-epm, at 12:23 PM
Maybe.
This all started in my head with the open discussion about Romney and how religious bigotry against him seems to be framed as perfectly OK.
Then there's the weird coverage of Obama. The talking heads are so careful around his race.
But with Hillary Clinton they seem perfectly willing to discuss how they, as rich white Washington insiders, feel her sex will impact her chances, job performance, etc.
And, I would refine your comment.
I don't think their opinions are irrelevant. I don't think they reflect alot of the country's opinion, but, repeated frequently enough, they may come to shape some elements of it.
By
mikevotes, at 1:50 PM
Well it's the echo chamber, again, that I'm thinking of. And in this case framed around cartoonish images of manliness and femaleness.
Leaving aside the religion and race firewalls for a moment, look at how some of the punditry talks about Romney's physicality as being presidential, for example. And consider the misty-eyed romanticism of Regan's physical carriage as being presidential. The punditry links macho with presidential, and conversely, the feminine as deficient in some way -- it's all rather Freudian and outmoded, I think.
I've heard -- and believe -- the sentiment that the citizenry is ahead of the politicians on so many issues: immigration, gay issues, gender issues, health and medical issues, the quagmire in Iraq, distrust (disdain?) for the Bush administration and it's appointees... I wonder if the zeitgeist is also out in front of the privileged-white-male punditry. Or, worded another way, I wonder if the punditry is woefully disconnected from the zeitgeist.
Your comment about repeating a made up notion frequently enough and it becomes fact is well taken. But this sort of truthiness is nothing new, is it?
I think you're also making a point that sexism is seen as an acceptable bigotry in political punditry, where race and religion (ostensibly) are not. Correct?
By
-epm, at 3:40 PM
Oh there's definitely a sexism towards politicians. (and the mancrushes on Romney are getting out of control.)
I've often wondered if Hillary Clinton could pull off the dismissive motherly "they like to walk around and act tough like little boys."
To your last point, that's sort of it. Sexism seems to be acceptable because no one ever brings it up. They can say whatever they want, and no one stops them to say, "hey, that's wrong."
While at the same time, racial bigotry is a third rail. Everybody knows the words that will get them fired (Mr. Imus.)
On the third hand, you have this bizarre mixup on religious bigotry. It's okay to bash (rationalize not voting for) a Mormon, but if you were to try to make the same argument about a Jew, heaven itself would fall on you.
Look at the crap that Muslim Rep Keith Ellison has had to take.
It all seems so selective. That's what's bugging me. How are some bigotries acceptable while others aren't.
(And sexism is probably the most widely influential, and least well defined.)
Just babbling.
By
mikevotes, at 4:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home