Wednesday, Katie Couric opened her "Notebook" (CBS Evening News) and proved the old adage, "If every woman in the world told the truth at the same time, the world as we know it would change forever."
If you doubted it, you missed what followed Couric calling out sexism. An intense effort to play dumb, attack or stay silent. On Friday, The New York Times went with with the first tactic. In a long article that said very little (no women in broadcast or cable news were sought out for the story), Katharine Q. Seelye and Julie Bosman offer "Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage." Heavy on featuring men (all quotes on the front page are from men) and short on women. All women featured show up late in the story (and inside the paper where it continues). Among the tiny number featured is one our readers know very well, Dr. Kathy:
"Largely, the problem was on cable and in the blogosphere and on the Internet, and that's a relatively small audience," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. "But while it was limited, it was limited to influential people."
Oh, Dr. Kathy, we try to be nice. We tried. But as Staci Lattisaw once suggested, "Nail It To The Wall." "It" would be your ass, Dr. Kathy. Dr. Kathy lied to The New York Times and let's deal with that first. "Relatively small audience," she insisted last week. Well, golly, what did she say in May?
"Secondly, we know something about how the electorate is using the new media environment," Dr. Kathy told Bill Moyers on May 2nd. "Meaning lots of cable channels that you have an option to go to, even when you're watching traditional, mainstream broadcast. People aren't watching 30 minutes of NBC or CBS or ABC anymore. There's a whole part of the electorate that is watching a segment of it. It gets what it needs of politics, and it starts to channel-surf to find other political information. And over a third of the electorate says, it's done that at least once or twice in this most recent viewing experience."
To the paper last week, she insisted "the problem" (what is it, vaginal odor -- she can't say "sexism"?) was exposed to a "very small audience." Yet last month, on PBS, she was stating one-third of the electorate (ONE THIRD!) was utilizing cable channels and the web for information. Dr. Kathy has always struggled to build a relationship with the truth. The two remain estranged.
During the primary campaign, Dr. Kathy was brought on frequently as an 'expert' by Bill Moyers (to his Bill Moyers Journal -- which airs on the non-cable PBS and has a very large audience). On one of those segments (January 9th), Senator Hillary Clinton 'crying' was addressed. Hillary didn't cry but Dr. Kathy felt the need to bring that moment up and, 'expert' that she is, she credits it with Hillary's success in New Hampshire despite the fact that late breaking voters identified their reasons for going with Clinton as the Saturday debate. From the transcript of the January 9th broadcast:
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: But that's not the whole story. In the Hillary moment, characterized very differently by people-
BILL MOYERS: The moisty moment?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, whatever adjective or adverb you use, Hillary Clinton has this moment in the diner.
BILL MOYERS: The national press was cynical. Clinton is hoping that showing that other side will bring women in particular to the polls, almost as if she had done it deliberate. We don't know whether she did or not. But the two significant newspapers in New Hampshire didn't cover the event at all. And local television coverage in New Hampshire was pretty matter of fact about it. It became a bigger national story than it did a local story.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Mm-hm. But what's also interesting to me is you're not sure whether she did it deliberately or not.
BILL MOYERS: The moisty moment?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, whatever adjective or adverb you use, Hillary Clinton has this moment in the diner.
BILL MOYERS: The national press was cynical. Clinton is hoping that showing that other side will bring women in particular to the polls, almost as if she had done it deliberate. We don't know whether she did or not. But the two significant newspapers in New Hampshire didn't cover the event at all. And local television coverage in New Hampshire was pretty matter of fact about it. It became a bigger national story than it did a local story.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Mm-hm. But what's also interesting to me is you're not sure whether she did it deliberately or not.
What's interesting to us is that 'expert' Dr. Kathy brought it up on her own, interjected it and didn't know what the hell she was talking about. What's interesting to us is that Bill Moyers calls it a 'moisty' moment -- oh, ha, ha, you are so very funny.
But along with trying to be funny, he also likes pranks. The same episode.
JESSE JACKSON, JR.: We saw a sensitivity factor…But there are a lot of issues for which we can be emotion on this campaign.
That's how the transcript 'plays' that moment. It is not how it played on TV. (And we called it out in real time.) The "..." was not used on PBS, Jackson's actual words (aired on MSNBC) were. Dr. Kathy wants to tell The New York Times it was the bad world of blogs and the bad world of cable. But Moyers played Jackson entire sexist attack on Hillary. (Watch the episode online if you doubt us.)
And Dr. Kathy? Not a word. Brought on as an 'expert.' Moyers plays the sexist attack on Hillary and Dr. Kathy responds?
BILL MOYERS: What do you think?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Much of the commentary about that moment is simply a Rorschach read on people's ideological relationship to Hillary Clinton. The question for the electorate at large is: Does it speak to her capacity to lead? It's the same question that one should ask of everything one sees of candidates.
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Much of the commentary about that moment is simply a Rorschach read on people's ideological relationship to Hillary Clinton. The question for the electorate at large is: Does it speak to her capacity to lead? It's the same question that one should ask of everything one sees of candidates.
Jackson has just falsely lied and attacked Clinton in sexist terms and Dr. Kathy doesn't address that. She doesn't point out that he's lying when he says she cried about her appearance and she certainly doesn't point out that he had a chunk of his intestines removed to lose fifty pounds -- so who is he to accuse anyone else of vanity?
Dr. Kathy just let it skirt on by. Dr. Kathy can insist it was 'cable, all cable!' But people like Bill Moyers amplified it by replaying on non-cable and Dr. Kathy was present for that. And it should be noted that journalists know the difference between primary and secondary sources. Meaning? Bill Moyers should explain why he REFUSED to play Clinton's moment but was happy to air an attack on that moment while pretending he wanted to address the moment. But Dr. Kathy was present and she didn't call out the lies or the sexism. She just called it a "Rorschach read." Dr. Kathy, you're an embarrassment.
Don't believe us? Check over her various visits 'explaining' what was what to Moyers. Dr. Kathy, even when Hillary won New Hampshire, never attempted to portray it as anything for women to take pride in or to connect it to the centuries old and ongoing women's movement. But golly, bi-racial Barack was to be connected to history.
Check out the babble from the January 4th broadcast, after Barack won Iowa, "echo of Martin Luther King, Jr." (Dr. Kathy), MLK and Moses (Moyers), "Civil Rights movement" (Dr. Kathy), "Selma and Montgomery" (Dr. Kathy), "father from Kenya" (Dr. Kathy), "transcend the racial divide" (Dr. Kathy), "unification" (Dr. Kathy), "Obama changes the metaphor; because King took his people to the mountain, Obama can take them somewhere else" (Moyers and, yes, it is racist as well as laughable since Barack's bi-racial and made no promises to America's Black community), and that's all from one appearance. In that appearance she also casts Hillary "as the establishment" -- Dr. Kathy would argue she said the press did but Dr. Kathy was brought on to 'see beyond' the press spin as Moyers stated ("Her calling is to mine the facts hidden in all the spin," Jan. 11th, BMJ)) and she didn't question and certainly didn't point out that Barack, first entering the Illinois state legislature in 1995, was no political virgin.
Speaking to The New York Times, Dr. Kathy left out the fact that whatever happens on cable is amplified elsewhere. She seemed to 'forget' Jackson's MSNBC attack was re-played by Moyers on PBS and that she was present for it and that she didn't call out. She forgets a lot.
'The internet is unimportant.' (Big words for someone sobbing over our past criticism of her s**t poor sense of fashion.) Well golly, we'd think the internet was vastly more important than text messages. Wouldn't you?
Not if you were Dr. Kathy. From the February 29th broadcast:
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: And part of what they're doing on this channel is different, candidate to candidate. So when you look at the ads for Barack Obama across the recent primaries and caucuses, in some of those ads, you see an instruction that I bet went past you when you saw all those spots. And certainly, it passed me, until I asked one of the students what it was doing there. It says, "Text hope." And then it gives you a number.
BILL MOYERS: Wait. Text H-O-P-E
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: H-O-P-E, the theme of the Barack Obama campaign and then, a number. That's a communication to say if you have text messaging on your cell phone, text in "hope" and that number. And the Obama campaign begins to communicate directly to you. You're putting in a zip code, and it tells you where the nearest rally is, when you're supposed to be voting, when the caucus is being held.
And so, the channels of communication this year are highly diverse. And then there's one more. I'm in Pennsylvania. We've been watching the internet communication that candidates deliver through E-mail. Now, why would they want to text message, rather than E-mail? Remember, Pennsylvania primary, 22nd of April-- have been instructions about how to get together in order to be trained to participate in the volunteer pool to get people to the polls. That's a form of advertising. Text messaging advertising, Internet advertising. And then, an unprecedented amount of money on the air. This is a year in which there's been more communication than ever in the history of primary, to more people about candidates.
BILL MOYERS: Aren't these text messages going to kids who aren't old enough to vote?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: They may be. But they're not going to people who aren't old enough to volunteer. There's no age barrier to volunteering. And what's important also, in the advertising stream this year, is that there is advertising to the young about issues of concern to the young.
The Obama campaign has pioneered this. There is one Hispanic language ad for Senator Obama, in which a young person basically explains why it's important to get your parents involved for Obama. We know there's a generational divide. Older voters, more likely, particularly older women will be with Senator Clinton, younger, with Senator Obama. This is a trickle up theory. Get the young to influence their parents.
BILL MOYERS: Wait. Text H-O-P-E
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: H-O-P-E, the theme of the Barack Obama campaign and then, a number. That's a communication to say if you have text messaging on your cell phone, text in "hope" and that number. And the Obama campaign begins to communicate directly to you. You're putting in a zip code, and it tells you where the nearest rally is, when you're supposed to be voting, when the caucus is being held.
And so, the channels of communication this year are highly diverse. And then there's one more. I'm in Pennsylvania. We've been watching the internet communication that candidates deliver through E-mail. Now, why would they want to text message, rather than E-mail? Remember, Pennsylvania primary, 22nd of April-- have been instructions about how to get together in order to be trained to participate in the volunteer pool to get people to the polls. That's a form of advertising. Text messaging advertising, Internet advertising. And then, an unprecedented amount of money on the air. This is a year in which there's been more communication than ever in the history of primary, to more people about candidates.
BILL MOYERS: Aren't these text messages going to kids who aren't old enough to vote?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: They may be. But they're not going to people who aren't old enough to volunteer. There's no age barrier to volunteering. And what's important also, in the advertising stream this year, is that there is advertising to the young about issues of concern to the young.
The Obama campaign has pioneered this. There is one Hispanic language ad for Senator Obama, in which a young person basically explains why it's important to get your parents involved for Obama. We know there's a generational divide. Older voters, more likely, particularly older women will be with Senator Clinton, younger, with Senator Obama. This is a trickle up theory. Get the young to influence their parents.
Uh, Dr. Kathy, what was that other than a commercial to promote Barack? It wasn't commentary, it wasn't analysis. The segment would also feature multiple radio ads . . . from the Obama campaign. It's amazing how she and Moyers had nothing critical to say about Barack -- who would go on to lose the Latino vote in Texas despite his attempts to buy it, it should be remembered. But they were saving their darts and knives for Hillary.
Dr. Kathy: Let me read you a line from the NEW YORK TIMES, from March 6th, 2007, that tells you what one construction of Hillary Clinton is, as opposed to another. THE NEW YORK TIMES, March 6th, 2007. "As a Senate candidate in 2000, Mrs. Clinton embraced the role of an attentive listener. As opposed to the power hungry climber many have suspected."
In Hillary Clinton's biographical past is the health care reform efforts in 1993-94, in which she is accused of conducting a process that was closed door, that didn't bring the friends that might have been there to help her, into the room to help work it out. Hillary Clinton, who is accused with Bill Clinton, of not working through the compromises with those who had legislation pending that might have worked with the Clinton proposal, to ultimately produce health care reform in spring of 1994. So, closed, secretive meetings. Climber, aggressive, calculating.
In Hillary Clinton's biographical past is the health care reform efforts in 1993-94, in which she is accused of conducting a process that was closed door, that didn't bring the friends that might have been there to help her, into the room to help work it out. Hillary Clinton, who is accused with Bill Clinton, of not working through the compromises with those who had legislation pending that might have worked with the Clinton proposal, to ultimately produce health care reform in spring of 1994. So, closed, secretive meetings. Climber, aggressive, calculating.
Meow. As Goldie Hawn says to Meryl Streep in Death Becomes Her, "On guard, bitch." We're not in the mood for your lies, Dr. Kathy. We're not in the mood for your crap. Let's stay with that broadcast where Barack was praised through the roof (for texting and Spanish language ads) and let's note Dr. Kathy's response to Hillary being "given a pair of boxing gloves" in Ohio.
The problem with boxing gloves is it's the wrong kind of fighting. First, a woman's naturally disadvantaged the minute you go to a boxing metaphor. But more importantly, that moves into a game reference point, not to the point that she highlights in one of her ads, in which she features the fighter theme, but she showed her identification with people who came back from the National Guard. And it identifies her with her issue position, fighting to get them benefits.
Oh, really, Dr. Kathy, you sexist, little troll. Really? You want to play 'analyst' and also talk about women and their 'innate nature'?
She should be asked about that specifically on Tuesday. She should be asked about a lot of 'wisdoms' and silences she offered throughout the campaign season. Tuesday?
Women's Media Center holds a panel discussion at The Paley Center for Media (25 West 52nd Street, NYC) which starts at nine and is scheduled to conclude at noon. The event is free and open to the public. The panelists include Dr. Kathy, Juan Gonzalez, Christiane Amanpour, Sue Carroll, Courtney Martin, Celinda Lake, Mika Brzezinski, Catalina Camia, Geneva Overholser, Ron Walters and Dr. Patti Williams. (Click here for the announcement and for information on registering.) It should be lively especially if even half the women we've spoken to ask the needed questions and raise the needed points they aren't so sure the panel will. Dr. Kathy needs to be specifically asked about the attack on Hillary Clinton where Jesse Jackson Jr. went on MSNBC right after Clinton won New Hampshire and said she'd cried, implied she was a racist and that she cried out of vanity.
Here's what actually happened:
Hillary Clinton: And I couldn't do if it I just didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know I have so many opportunities from this country [the eyes tear] I just don't want to see us fall backwards. You know? So. This is very personal for me. It's not just political, it's not just public. I see what's happening and we have to reverse it. And some people think elections are a game, it's like, who's up and who's down. It's about our country, it's about our kid's futures, and it's really about all of us together. You know some of us put ourselves and do this against some [sardonic voice] difficult odds, and we do it, each one of us because we care about our country. But some of us are right and some of us are wrong. Some of us are ready and some of us are not. Some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't really thought that through enough. And so when we look at the array of problems we have and the potential for really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections America has ever faced. So [smiling] as tired as I am, and I am, and as difficult as it is to keep up what I try to do on the road like occasionally exercise, and try to eat right, it's tough when the easiest food is pizza, I just believe so strongly in who we are as a nation. So I'm going to do everything I can to make my case and then the voters get to decide.
Here's some of how Jesse Jackson Jr. lied about it:
Not in response to voters resp-, uh, not-not in response to Katrina, not in response to uh-uh other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears --
Again, that was on MSNBC. For some strange reason, Bill Moyers elected to discuss the 'moisty' moment not by providing viewers with a clip of what actually happened. It was more important to him, to play Jackson's clip (in full) and to let lies stand. Dr. Kathy, asked about the Jackson clip, let the lies stand as well. She needs to answer for that. The clip was played on PBS, on her segment, and, when it ended, Moyers specifically asked her for her 'analysis.' She didn't call out the sexism, she didn't call out the lies. She mumbled the sort of b.s. that never offends any sexist pig. She enabled and encouraged the trashing of Hillary and she has to answer for it.
So The New York Times at least took the issue seriously enough to offer a 'confused' article. Uber Cess Pool Keith Olbermann elected to call Couric out for her speech the night before and for her "Notebook" as he awarded her Worst Person of the Week. It's really important to the pigs that they never be found out. That's why they attacked Gloria Steinem, that's why they attacked Robin Morgan, that's why they attacked any woman who stood up and called out the sexism. The pigs (male and female) used sexism throughout the primary race. They thought they were going to get away with it. In terms of Hillary's campaign, they may have. But sexism is never about one woman, it's about all women. And that's why so many people (women and men) are enraged. So Keithie feels the need to trash Katie Couric in the hopes that his fat ass will intimidate other women and lead to their not speaking up.
Keithie tried to pretend his attack on Couric was over her calling out, in her speech, an unnamed TV personality who confessed he couldn't be objective about Barack. Keithie felt the need to name who he thought Couric was speaking of: Lee Cowan. And Keithie felt the need to insist that Cowan was balanced and fair. That he thinks his image allows any but his knuckle-dragging nimrods to see him as able to make that call is hilarious.
Lee Cowan? We called him out back in January:
As many laughs as Gibson provided, it was more shocking what was going on at NBC/MSNBC. Correspondent Lee Cowan confessed on air to Brian Williams that it was "hard" for him to be objective about Barack Obama, whom Cowan was assigned to cover. Now in the world of a functioning mainstream press, Cowan would have immediately been reassigned. And should have been. Reporters are supposed to be objective and just the hint that you aren't, forget confessing on air that you find it "hard," is enough to damage the credibility of the news organization. At NPR, Michelle Norris has a set list of things she can do and cannot do in election cycles due to her husband's work. It's not that Norris couldn't be objective, most assume she could be, but it's that they don't want even the appearance that they're not being objective. Brian Williams, who bragged of his desire to censor the news before he took over as anchor (bragged on air to Jay Leno -- which is where all the really great news anchors go, right?), embarrassed himself by posting to his blog, "Lee was talking about the swirl of excitement that has hit the Obama campaign after Iowa -- the crowds, the hoopla -- all of it. Today we learned that rival political efforts were spinning this as some kind of 'bias' on the part of either Lee, or me, or this News Division, and that's just ridiculous. My response is as it always is in these situations: look at it again, listen to what's being said, and judge us by the quality and fairness of our journalism." Guess what, in a functioning news organization, you're biggest complaints wouldn't be coming from candidates, it would be coming internally. The fact that NBC didn't grasp the problem, didn't immediately pull Cowan off the beat and reassign him, goes a long way towards explaining the destruction of news standards in the MSM.
"Lee was talking . . ." only follows an announcement that, "To avoid the appearance of conflict, Lee Cowan will now be covering the Mitt Romney campaign after having stated on air that he found objectivity 'hard' when covering Obama." But we don't have a functioning press, do we?
Our call was correct in real time and Couric's was on the spot Tuesday. If you doubt it, you can go back to your media 'watchdogs' and see how none of them weighed in. Not FAIR, not CJR, not Danny Schechter. Not anyone. The reason is because to note what happened would require calling Lee Cowan out.
If you're still confused try this:
Gas bagging to Brian Williams, White House correspondent Lee Cowan confessed it was 'hard' for him to be objective when it came to discussing the Bully Boy. "I just find George W. Bush so inspiring."
They all would have been on Cowan. Because it was Barack, whom they support, they look the other way. A strange way for media 'critics' to behave. It's not as if they hadn't called out Cowan in the past. In 2003, when Cowan was at CBS and an 'embed,' he could be called out for bias by the same sort of 'watchdoggies' that refused to bark in January and played stupid last week.
Jeff Besocwici (Portfolio) revealed his own bias Friday while attempting to defend a friend. He wanted to ask "a different" question: "What is the acceptable level of racism in the media? Because no matter how we try to police it, the level is never going to be zero, nor -- depending on how you define 'racism' -- should it be." That's outrageous and we think most people would agree. The level of racism should never be zero? But, thing is, you need to put "sexism" where we've put "racism" because Jeffy was writing about sexism and, because it's sexism, we're not supposed to be outraged. Because it's sexism, he thinks he can argue (a) that there is an acceptable level of sexism the media can traffic in and (b) that sexism should always exist.
Jeffy was trying to defend his buddy John Neffinger who infamously dubbed Hillary "shrill." John-o aired his own defense and he took it to Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box because what sexist doesn't know Arianna Huffington will let him air trash? She already allowed an 'actor' to tell 'jokes' about mentally challenged children which really underscored how she has no standards.
John-o tried to dismiss charges that he engaged in sexism by pointing to a study that found women's voices are higher than men's. So what he's offering in his defense is (a) his comments were on all women and not just Hillary (doesn't clear you, John-o) and (b) it took a study for the allegedly educated John-o to grasp something most people notice in childhood. But high pitched is not "shrill." Were it, we would have called Clarence Lusane "shrill" in our critique of him. There are few women in the world who speak in higher tones than Lusane.
Gwen Ifill offered her own dismissing on Washington Week Friday. She announced Hillary gave a speech the Saturday before and that already seems so long ago to Gwen. Hence, no need to discuss sexism. That would be the same Gwen who got praise from the press when she went on NBC's Meet the Press and called out Don Imus for racism.
That really says a lot right there. A woman calls out racism and she gets applause. Katie Couric calls out sexism and The New York Times tries to play confused while pigs attack Couric and where are the feminists?
Like the media 'watchdogs,' Ms. magazine played dumb yet again. On Friday, they foolishly posted an item that decried 'sexism' and 'racism' against . . . Michelle Obama. As Betty has demonstrated so aptly, it was neither. And unless Ms.' 'Feminist' Daily Wire intends to go back and retroactively criticize press reports on Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise, they don't have a leg to stand on. Ms. elected to headline their FDW nonsense "Sexist Campaign Coverage Continues."
Continues?
Would they please steer us to their previous coverage? They don't keep workable archives, so allow us to set you straight. On January 18th, they carried one item on sexism which noted that NOW, Feminist Majority Foundation(the organization that now owns Ms. -- a fact left out of the brief), WMC and the National Women's Political Caucus were calling out "sexist comments" by Chris Matthews. They never even quoted the comments (though they were 'fair' enough to include Matthews clarification posing as an 'apology'). On February 11th, they noted David Shuster was suspended for saying Hillary had "pimped out" Chelsea. After MSNBC suspended him, Feminist Daily Wire (also called "Feminist Daily News" and "Feminist Wire") could note it. Not before, not when it needed calling out, but after he was supsended. The same way they waited until Chris Matthews issued a response to write about his sexism.
Continues?
Would they please steer us to their previous coverage? They don't keep workable archives, so allow us to set you straight. On January 18th, they carried one item on sexism which noted that NOW, Feminist Majority Foundation(the organization that now owns Ms. -- a fact left out of the brief), WMC and the National Women's Political Caucus were calling out "sexist comments" by Chris Matthews. They never even quoted the comments (though they were 'fair' enough to include Matthews clarification posing as an 'apology'). On February 11th, they noted David Shuster was suspended for saying Hillary had "pimped out" Chelsea. After MSNBC suspended him, Feminist Daily Wire (also called "Feminist Daily News" and "Feminist Wire") could note it. Not before, not when it needed calling out, but after he was supsended. The same way they waited until Chris Matthews issued a response to write about his sexism.
That was it. On June 4th, they declared Hillary's campaign over ("The Legacy of Hillary's Run So Far"). With the run over, they could note (June 11th) that WMC was launching a campaign to combat sexism.
Yet on June 13th, when the Obama campaign was telling everyone in the press that Michelle was the victim of sexism, it was time for 'the wire' to spring into action with "Sexist Campaign Coverage Continues." It's a pity that in real time, when it mattered, 'the wire' couldn't cover sexism. Two items don't count for coverage but, rest assured, while Ms. magazine couldn't do a damn thing to speak out against sexism aimed at a woman who 'dared' to run for president, they're happy to fret over the state of a potential First Lady. How very 'traditional' of them. Good Housekeeping couldn't have made themselves more useless if they'd tried.
Three to four items a day is not uncommon (Monday through Friday) for 'the wire' but somehow they only had time in all the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton (while they saw her as a candidate) to file two news briefs. One on the fact that their foundation and others were decrying sexist remarks (in January) and one when David Shuster was suspsended for his sexist remarks. They couldn't even do a brief when Shuster made his remarks. They never went out on a limb. But, be sure, they're going to do so for Michelle Obama because the sad reality is that those in charge do not and did not support Hillary Clinton. So much for the sisterhood.
It's not that they weren't aware of the sexist attacks on Hillary. E-mails circulated by Ms. staff demonstrate that they knew about them throughout the campaign . . . and that they found them 'funny.' The magazine needs a top-down shake up immediately and first to go should be Michele Kort. Ms. stayed silent throughout the sexist attacks on the first woman and they stayed silent on homophobia. Kort's head is the first one that should roll.
How did Ms. magazine make the decision to ignore Barack Obama's use of homophobia? How did Ms. make the decision to ignore the sexist attacks on Hillary? They need to explain to the readers.
On March 30th, Kort explained to a few readers, via e-mail, why the sexist attacks on Hillary were not being called out, why the magazine (and online site) were not following the campaigns of Hillary and Cynthia McKinney:
I just want to point out to you that we haven't covered the presidential campaign NOT because we don't care--we all care deeply--but because Ms. is owned by the Feminist Majority Foundation which is a 501c3 nonprofit. By law we are NOT allowed to make endorsements or do anything that is seen to be an endorsement, because we could lose our tax-exempt status.
That's not just a lie, it's a damn lie. Their tax status did not prevent coverage, it only prevented making an endorsement. We noted it was a lie in real time. Any who doubted we were right should pick up the latest issue of Ms. In that, Kort runs Donna Brazile's nonsense Ms. where Brazile identifies herself as "Black. Woman." -- somehow Brazile forgets "Lesbian."
So Donna Brazile, who has trashed Hillary non-stop in e-mails that have been posted online everywhere, and who was always supporting Barack (as CNN's Campbell Brown pointed out to her on air) was the only one Michele Kort allowed to weigh in on the Democratic primary. Ms. readers should be outraged (and judging by our e-mails, most are -- if it helps, some at Ms. are outraged as well). And here comes 'the wire' signaling that they'll document anything the Obama campaign calls 'sexist' -- whether it is or not.
Kort needs to go and we're very serious about that. Her appeals to mutual friends to "call them off" aren't working and will not work. She revealed herself as a fraud, we just pointed it out. Like the Emperor, her exposure is no one's fault but her own. Ms. elected to stay silent on the sexism throughout the race. They filed nothing on the "nut crackers," they filed nothing on "shrill," they filed nothing on Olbermann's suggestion that a man should beat Hillary so badly that she couldn't leave or a room (or he may have been suggesting she couldn't leave because she'd been killed), they filed nothing on Glen Beck, on anyone. Two briefs. From January to June when they declared Hillary's campaign over.
And we're going to repeat: They did not file anything on Couric winning an Alice, anything on her acceptance speech or anything on her Notebook. A network evening news anchor called out the sexism in the media coverage of the campaign and to Ms. that wasn't news?
You need to be disgusted. You need to be outraged.
Until it's called out, it never ends.
Katie Couric, as women in network news pointed out to us Friday, did a very brave thing. Brave to call it out period. Brave to call it out while knowing you would slammed for doing so. Here's what Ms.' 'wire' didn't consider news.
Katie Couric: Over the last week it's been almost impossible to pick up a newspaper or turn on a cable show and avoid the endless post-mortems on Hillary Clinton's campaign. Senator Clinton has received her fair share of the blame and so has her political team. But, like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued and accepted role of sexism in American life -- particularly in the media. Many women have made the point that if Senator Obama had to confront the racist equivalent of an "Iron My Shirt!" poster at campaign rallies or a Hillary nutcracker sold at airports or mainstream pundints saying they instictively cross their legs at the mention of her name, the outrage would not be a footnote, it would be front page news. It isn't just Hillary Clinton who needs to learn a lesson from this primary season, it's all the people who crossed the line -- and all the women and men who let them get away with it. That's a page from my Notebook, I'm Katie Couric, CBS News.
And all the women and men who let them get away with it.
And continue to let them get away with it.
Seeyle and Bosman's article notes that Howard Dean now takes it seriously (that would be a change, as Mike pointed out last week) and is calling for a national dialogue. That might seem like a good thing . . . until you read on. In the fifth to last paragraph you confront a woman who, for those women who still have the scars of Miami, will seem very familiar. She has a different name and a different face but any woman at the 1972 Democratic convention will damn well remember how pathetic George McGovern stabbed women in the back and then hid behind women who had no self-respect and were more invested in McGovern's run than in the cause of equality. From the article:
In response, the Obama campaign directed a reporter to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida who supported [Ms.] Clinton but who is now speaking for the Obama campaign. She said Mr. Obama had no specific plans for a speech on sexism, partly because he already incorporated themes of discrimination as a societal problem in his speeches.
So Howard Dean says we need a national dialogue and Barack, who allegedly wants women's votes, says there's no need to speak about the topic. He's talked about "discrimination" in other forms. And he's going to get away with that?
(And Wasserman Schultz is going to be stupid and craven enough to run interference for him with the press? Debs, talk to the women who did that for McGovern in 1972 and ask them how fallow the next few years were for them. It wasn't a pretty time. It wasn't just friendships that ended, the gender traitors found out that the job markets dried up as well.)
Sexism can be lumped in with other "discrimination." It's not important enough for the Christ-child to call out. That could be due to the fact that he'd have to call out himself and his own campaign. He used sexism and we're sure his campaign would say "We got what we wanted." That, after all, was their sole public comment when they used homophobia in South Carolina.
He got away with it then because 'feminists' refused to call him out on it. They refused to make an issue out of it. Must not ever upset the Christ-child's rise to power. So the LGBT community can just suck on it and so, apparently, can all women.
It's interesting because Barack's campaign has repeatedly claimed he'd never have a problem with women, he was married to one! And he had two daughters! If that laughable 'logic' resulted in laughter, you probably remember the RNC arguing the same about Dan Quayle. Women were offended by that back then. They should be offended by what's going on today. Including 'Women' For Obama which saw the ridiculous (and non-feminist) Megan Beyer trotted out on PBS' To The Contrary last week to tut-tut over "illegal immigrants." If there's anyone more White bread than Megan, we've never seen them. But women can take comfort that while Barack 'reaches out' to us by dismissing us, he also seems to think the way to shore up the Latino vote is by tossing out today's Anita Bryant to moan about those "illegal immigrants."
Self-identified "Homemaker" Beyer gave $4,600 to Barack's campaign in March of 2007. Working outside or inside the home, we don't think most women will identify with Megs.*
As two women who will never vote for Barack, we intend to watch the nonsense as long as it lasts. We've already witnessed MSM journalists insist that, any day now, they will stop filing fan club clippings on Barack. They insisted that in December, in January, in February . . . If we couldn't laugh at them, we'd have to cry.
The same with media 'critics' who want respect for their 'tough calls' but refuse to call out homophobia or sexism. What you're witnessing is a collapse of all known standards on the left. And while CounterSpin (which only noted sexism once this year) can be counted to 'notice' Katie Couric when it's time to deliver a 'media critique' on the 'issue' of ratings, it -- along with all 'FAIR' outlets -- works overtime to ignore Couric's words of truth.
As two women who will never vote for Barack, we intend to watch the nonsense as long as it lasts. We've already witnessed MSM journalists insist that, any day now, they will stop filing fan club clippings on Barack. They insisted that in December, in January, in February . . . If we couldn't laugh at them, we'd have to cry.
The same with media 'critics' who want respect for their 'tough calls' but refuse to call out homophobia or sexism. What you're witnessing is a collapse of all known standards on the left. And while CounterSpin (which only noted sexism once this year) can be counted to 'notice' Katie Couric when it's time to deliver a 'media critique' on the 'issue' of ratings, it -- along with all 'FAIR' outlets -- works overtime to ignore Couric's words of truth.
They were delivered. And they were heard. As important as Couric's comments were so was the reaction and, in fact, you could argue the reaction was all the more telling. And it was only surprising if you ignored what has repeatedly happened this year and how everyone from Bill Moyers to Keithie have participated in it, reinforced it and allowed it.
--------
*Added: After this posted a male friend at NBC News called us to say we'd missed one of the more hysterical moments of Megs Beyer. This is Meggie praising Barack in February of this year: "In many ways, he really will be the first woman president." Yes, she really is that pathetic.
