The minute Amy Klobuchar started getting some traction in the 2020 nomination race, the stories of how she was mean to her Senate staff started to appear. A male boss can be demanding, but when a female boss does the same thing she is deemed mean, or even bitchy...often by female reporters. One of the worst misogynists in the MSM is Maureen Dowd, whose specialty is the feminization of Dem men. Recall she once said that Al Gore was "practically lactating," and she likened Barack Obama to a debutante..."O'Bambi." And her Hillary hatred goes without say.
I was shocked to see this NYT article regarding campaign staff/volunteers complaints about harassment and pay, though this article (and a few others) did not unleash a torrent of similar articles every single day for months at a time like the campaign we're seeing against Biden and Harris.
Imo, I think many male reporters who follow Kamala bring with them their own anti strong woman biases, knowingly or not, and project them onto the stories they write, ie Kamala’s. Bernie’s a gruff old guy and that kind of behavior from him is a given. For Kamala it’s unbecoming, a lack of competence……
I apologize for constantly repeating myself Eric, but thank you for your astonishingly excellent work in succinctly pointing out the misogynistic coverage that is daily served up towards women like Kamala Harris. We older women, especially, are so weary of a lifetime of being dismissed, demeaned, and worse, that we tend to internalize the abuse, while fighting on. Your reminders of these unfair and cheap journalistic attacks on the VP by The NY Times and other media outlets helps us gird our loins for the ongoing battles ahead. I will be sending your article to every woman I know.
This is the standard way they report on female politicians, at least ones who are Democrats — boring and bitchy.
Off topic but I just read a WaPo article by Dana Milbank about how overwhelmingly negative the reporting about the economy has been — from right wing media. Funny how just a while ago Milbank wrote an article that said the mainstream media coverage of Biden has been as negative as that of Trump’s. It seems to me that his bosses must have reined him in or maybe the criticism he took from his peers has made him return to the “blame right wing media” fairytale.
Until the mainstream media faces the fact that they have played a big role in the bamboozling of the American public and decided to make objectivity not faux balance their creed our democracy will continue to collapse.
Very sly way of undermining… can you imagine ‘insulting’ 2 male candidates like that (“oh, both are wonderful in their own way - we just couldn’t choose”…). Yeah - right.
No, this was during the primaries. In this case it had nothing to do with Trump. They could have chosen Biden, or Bernie, or Pete, or any of the other Dem candidates running.
I think it had a lot to do with who the DNC and the media believed would be most electable. I supported Pete until he dropped out of the race. Realistically, I could imagine only Joe Biden actually getting the nomination.
Times has always disliked Joe, and no they don't take their cues from the DNC. I really wish that whole "DNC was in the tank for Bernie" nonsense would die already. They didn't have to let him run as a Dem; he's an independent and slamming Dems doesn't make you a lot of friends. Also the DNC and the party have NOTHING to do with how states set up their registration deadlines, etc, which was a huge misconception in 16.
But that was then; I'm really impressed how unified much of the Dem party was through 2020 and even today (oh no, I forgot we're in perpetual disarray). Bernie really stepped up to back Joe and has been an excellent legislative partner. With a few notable exceptions, all of them have. I like Pete very much but thought he was too inexperienced—right now. He'll be president someday, I firmly believe. Joe was always my guy. Working on the midterms in 18, when talk would turn to the 2020 race I always said my dream ticket would be Joe and Kamala. And here we are.
"Right wing media" is a useful straw man punching bag. It was the MSM that gave the Former Guy millions of dollars worth of coverage, happily served as cheerleaders for Bush's illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, and that decided that neither Al Gore ("Liar!") nor Hillary Clinton ("Emails!") could be president.
Two things can be true at the same time. That there is even acknowledgment that RW media exists is news itself. For years mainstream reporters claimed there was no RW—remember how they cackled over HRC’s “vast RW conspiracy.” Journalists claimed their brethren at Fox we’re the same just from a more conservative perspective. But to only call them out for crappy coverage on the economy, while true, is only part of the story.
Disappointed Milbank caved in to pressure coming from either his editors, his peers, or both.
For trying to tell the truth about how awful & dishonest the mainstream media coverage is towards Biden, Milbank was attacked & shunned by his colleagues until he relented and did a "blame the right-wing media" piece.
It's frustrating to read on a daily basis, the American mainstream media's inability to reflect on how much they've played an implicit role in the weakening of democracy.
Their focus over creating narratives in order to get more clicks & readers over actual reporting is a bad business model.
Yep, correct! But Republican women are perfect, falling in line supporting their men wearing pearls, the perfect women from a 1950s sit-com. That's how the MSM like their women. The press is sickening when it comes to reporting on intelligent, powerful, effective women, as if white powerful men have shown time and time again how competent they are.
Whatever happened to the R woman who always appeared w/the leaders on tv. McMorris …..? At least she was civil. Stefanik is their ideal, an intelligent woman who sold her soul spewing lies, venom. The Rs like that it seems.
Actually, they adore Liz Cheney right now. I understand why given the circumstances—she's got my backing on this too, we both want to save our democracy and punish the seditionists—but that's the press's model.
VP Harris presents a trifecta for our terrible political press: Black/Asian/Woman.
While a male boss will always be presented in some sort of competent, “firm but fair” way, the same behaviors will be presented for women as a cat fight, “difficult to work with,” or just plain old bitchy.
Last point I want to make is that it is not unusual for talent to leave the low-paying civil service jobs and go to the private sector, and in some cases VP Harris’ staff are leaving to get more women elected to office: I read that some are leaving to work on Stacy Abrams run for Georgia Governor. Our press had notably not asked any of these recent departures where they are going, only where have they been.
Eric, I'm shocked, shocked that you didn't mention the $600 the Veep spent on good cookware in France. Dems aren't supposed to have quality things—not when so many Americans "are suffering." (The holiday economic numbers of course tell a different story.) No matter that anyone who likes to cook knows the importance and value of getting good cookware. The Veep loves to be in the kitchen, so her purchase made perfect sense. That could have been the angle of the story, tying together French culinary traditions, our longstanding ties to France, and the then upcoming Thanksgiving holiday together. But instead, the press took the cheap shot, following the lead of the "conservative" Washington Free Beacon. (Beltway journalists really are lemmings.) I'd roll my eyes at the stupidity but for the obvious double standard and how it was and is meant to damage the VP.
Their coverage of VP Harris has been appalling. It's a triple whammy—they hurt her and weaken her image among voters, smack Biden for making a "bad choice" picking her, and make the administration look feckless with someone like her in charge. Of course Beltway press denies they are singling her out or even giving her bad coverage, though on Twitter, one reporter responding to another claimed it's their job to mock the Veep regardless of party (can't remember who because it was a while ago now). Gah.
I thought it was painfully petty considering that spending $600 on cookware is not really a big thing if you're looking for the good stuff. But she's a woman, it's kitchen stuff, and it was a great way for the male press to trivialize her. All they have done is trash Harris despite the fact that she's done her job well. It's an extension of the terribly negative coverage they've given to Biden.
The fact that it was started (I believe) by a bullshit story in the Washington Free Beacon is what's so annoying. It never should have been an issue. They never blinked over the price tag of Melania's wardrobe, but something functional? God forbid. It was certainly clueless for anyone who doesn't cook, and plenty of men do. I bet some of those reporters have some very nice pots and pans in their own kitchens.
Frankly, anything she would have bought over $30 they would have had a cow. Remember Biden's Rolex? HRC's expensive haircut? John Kerry wind sailing? If Dems aren't digging ditches and shopping at Walmart than they are just showing how elitist and out of touch they are according to the press, who take their cue from the outraged GOP.
The clothes Melania strutted around in were actually ugly, but nobody said so because they were designer stuff. The pith helmet she wore in Africa was particularly tasteless, It would have been a cold day in hell if the Mad Queen bought cookware. Anyway, $600 for cookware is not extravagant in the world of foodies, and Harris loves to cook. Of course we Democrats are "elitist" - it's because we live where people are more likely to be educated and we're in the population hubs. We pay for everything the federal government does, including the aid to poor red states.
The same people who use this excuse for hammering Democrats for having nice things are the same ones who say people admire guys like Trump for being successful.
Bullshit. There are plenty of people in the Midwest who have copper cookware and have traveled to France. This was the media looking for a stupid nonissue to slam Dems and especially this administration.
Yes - there are many Midwesterners w/$$$ cookware and lifestyles to match - But when the msm repeatedly highlights the ‘diner-goers’ - aren’t they trying to create a picture of plain, down-to-earth folks, ‘just looking for a voice’? (optics). That said, the infamous $600 pot (for contrast) - fits into that narrative nicely :/
The real socioeconomic mix of that group of supporters is way more complex…
That was my point on another post. I am thoroughly sick of the rural Midwest Trump country trope, people sitting around in diners wearing John Deere caps and talking about how Trump won the election. It's become a stereotype. I doubt it's as geographical as the media wants us to believe, but they love the 4H club county fair stuff, and you can't get $600 cookware at Wal-Mart unless you go online. Keeping people divided creates a lot of clickbait.
Agree on all points. I will say, however - having lived in NYC - a photo w/plaid shirts, Carhartt, ball caps and a ‘silo silhouette’ in the distance - looks GREAT on the NYT front page… ( Makes it look like everyone did their homework, for some reason:/ ?!) gah.
Misogyny, racism pure and simple. Kamala couldn’t have gotten where she has gotten had it not been for her talents, brains, determination and appeal DESPITE the bad press and the forces that are hard against her, beginning w/the cheap, unimaginative notion that she slept her way to the top in CA. Embarrassingly obvious press bashing of a formidable and enviable woman.
Indeed, the press also tried to portray Harris as being untrustworthy to progressives & social justice advocates because during her tenure as District Attorney of California, there were longer jail times for nonviolent offenders & people getting busted for having low amounts of weed (?)
Apologies if my memory over the criticisms of her tenure as California DA are inaccurate.
Sounds right to me. Women, especially black and of color, have a strike or two against them before they even get out of the gate. My mom was a local pol in a small NJ town in the 60s and was accused of sleeping w/the guv to land a county wide appointment on a tax appeals board. She was also offered a $20k bribe for her vote to increase density in developments. No and no. Mom was a tough cookie but lamented often about the odds stacked against her. Some MEN will never change. Those old goats will die off one day. I’m placing my bets on my grandkids. They are unbiased, informed, open minded genuinely nice people. Those old bulls are relics of the dark ages. Time for them to get out of the way.
We would be far better informed on the actual state of the country, especially the actual behavior of Republicans if the odious Maggie Haberman was gone. More than almost any other working reporter, she values access to Republicans and the circles of power and influence they occupy more than any value she places on journalistic integrity.
They would just replace her with someone equally as bad. There are plenty of Katharine Seelyes, Ceci Connellys and Chris Cillizzas ready to take her place. Even Mark Halperin and Politico’s John Harris blame Seelye’s and Connelly’s lying about Gore as a major reason he lost.
Chris Cillizza’s constant hyping of and misreporting the facts about Hillary’s emails did a lot to help Trump win. CNN chose to hire him in spite of — or maybe because of — his role in her defeat.
Never forget, Gore didn't lose. Roger Stone organized a mob to stop the recount of Dade County when it became clear that Bush was done. Add to that the Banana Republican Jeb Bush, governor and the majority Republican Supreme Court. Gore never had a chance.
And the Republicans on the Supreme Court refused to allow Florida to follow their own Supreme Court’s decision to recount the entire state despite the fact that states are in charge of elections. The fact that they made it clear this was a one-time ruling, not precedent made it clear this was a political act.
Her mom worked for years for the powerful PR firm Rubenstein Associates, the one Rudy G called “the dean of damage control”. From what I have read she worked on the Trump family’s account though she claims she never met him. Clearly the family is deeply ingrained in the incestuous NYC elites club.
Misogyny. Harris is portrayed as bitchy to her staff, "clumsy" in her interactions on the world stage, not very smart and of course, having a slutty past where she has been alleged to have "slept her way to the top." Throughout her career, she's had to overcome the most disgusting innuendoes and yet, she has admirably succeeded.
Recently one of Harris' top aides left the administration. Even though it was agreed that she would serve only one year, the Washington Post wrote it up as a situation where it was Harris' "style" as a boss that not only drove the woman away but was threatening to see an "exodus" of staff fleeing the evil Kamala Harris. No such exodus happened.
This is why I have come to believe we'll never have a woman as president. Look what the press did to Hillary.
It’s puzzling why the VP’s Office doesn’t get ahead of the story and simply announce that someone is leaving “per their original 1 year agreement” (like Psaki has done)…
Also ginning up a poor/weak image of her - in case she has to step up someday… It’s sad, it’s obvious(agree) - and if women in general don’t call that stuff out UPFRONT- nothing will change.
Glad to see Margaret Sullivan getting mentioned in this post's Good Stuff. She appears to be a genuine journalist versus a narrative-driven storyteller, and does some excellent work for WaPo. I keep an eye on the paper's Media section to catch her byline.
If you look at the list of Sullivan’s articles on her WaPo bio page, most of them are under the style section while the much less relevant Eric Wemple’s are always opinion section. Unless I am missing something the Post values him more than her.
No doubt. Wemple, some of whose material is reasonably good, is constantly featured on the Post's Opinion page. You have to go looking for stories by Sullivan, whose work is consistently much better. Sullivan has called out the rotten coverage of DC politics dished out by the mainstream Beltway hack brigade, and that had doubtless done nothing to increase her standing with Post management.
Wemple would impress me more if he would put as much attention on the faux balance and crisis hyping his peers do rather than obsessing about things like the Steele Dossier.
I just check her WaPo bio page regularly. All of her columns are there.
I do the same for Jennifer Rubin. Just click on the author’s name on any article to get to their bio page.
I also like to read the authors Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman who write for the WaPo’s Plum Line. Their articles aren’t always with the main opinion pieces. I think they only get moved there if enough people read an article. The link for their page is here.
It's the United States of America or as some refer to it - White Men In Control and They Want To Keep It That Way. In nature when a species is threatened, it will do anything to survive. In human society today, minorities are growing. The US being as diverse as it is, and truly what makes it special, is a threat to the dominant "species" of white men who are slowly losing their power. Apparently the press, predominantly run by white men, feels the threat is real and is doing what it can to marginalize women and people of color. When you combine those two traits of our Vice President Kamala Harris, watch out! The MSM is never going to give her the coverage she deserves. Sadly it's the same game that has been played out throughout human history - divide and conquer. Make the folks you are most fearful of out to be the boogie men, pushing them back a step or two. This country (and the world) is changing. We are now going through the growing pains of change. I predict things will get worse before they get better but they will get better. It's only a matter of time regardless of how the press cares to portray it. There, that's my New Year's hope for a better future. LOL!
Racism Misogyny mash up. Are they pro-Trump or pro ratings and clicks? Or both. Nothing much else explains it, since she's doing her job perfectly well.
“The Vice President was particularly struck by the description of Napoleon's military technique in Charles de Gaulle's discourse on war,” the Times reported, …”
Just take a moment to parse this construction, which our media use constantly, and ponder where they got this information. I’ll give you a hint—it rhymes with Blan Sail.
“… stressing Quayle was “keen on self-improvement.”
Imagine saying this about Kamala Harris. The fiddling-while-Rome-burns takes would be coming even more thickly than they already are. There would be calls for her resignation.
What’s your estimate on the percentage of our six-figure media stars who are aware they’re doing this? Because I know it’s not 100 but I also know it’s not 0.
How this could have been written—or approved by an editor—with a straight face is beyond belief. I mean just over the top. Was this before or after the Veep learned the plural of potato?
They have always looked down on strong women of any color. Their coverage of Hillary was clearly sexist. Amy Klobuchar got the “mean boss” treatment but Bernie, who had similar accusations from some staffers.
Unfortunately, if a candidate or elected official has an enemy or just someone looking to gain an advantage, they use the press, whispering in journalists' ears about "staff defections" or "rumor has it so and so is really mean to their assistants" or some other stupid thing and the lazy ass journalists, catching a whiff of clickbait, run with it. Often the reporters don't care, sometimes they cover it with glee. I think the latter is the case with Biden and especially Kamala. She is so much smarter than they are. (I miss her on the Senate judiciary committee for sure.) She's genuine—from her Chucks to her sophisticated style to that infectious laugh and full smile—and they loathe that. I have a friend who worked on her campaign in Iowa and spent a lot of time with her. He adores her! Of course she isn't perfect; who is? But the country is in good hands with her and she couldn't have a better teacher/partner than Joe.
The pattern is clear, but the corporate media tripped itself up. Desperate to avoid being too obvious in it's anti-Democrat narrative, and confounded by their need to not say anything good about our First Black President, they were a bit too supportive of his White VP, and missed their chance to trash Biden enough, paving the way for the current administration. It would have been insanely clear how contradictory their perspective on Ol' Joe was between his time as VP and his turn as the Democrat Candidate in 2016, but fortunately for them they got the safe harbor of piling on a woman nominee.
Actually a lot of the media had a crush on Obama, at least when he was running. I remember them gushing about his speeches and Chris Matthews who talked about them giving him a “thrill up his leg”. They clearly preferred him over Hillary in the primaries but it was more than than that — he was seen as a cool guy and they were excited about the possibility of the first black president, which I complete understood. Unfortunately they we not excited at all about the possibility of the first woman President even when that woman was extremely qualified for the job. They went back to the the usual attacking Democrats as wusses after he got elected.
He was cool, and his speeches were extremely impressive, as were his political instincts. Nevertheless, he was derided for both being too strong and too weak.
It is true that the media preferred Obama in the primaries. He was also preferred by a majority of Democrats voting in those primaries. I'm open to the notion that might have been a matter of American misogyny being slightly more powerful than American racism, but regardless he was still the better candidate, and as much as I revere Secretary Clinton, and will go to my grave angry about what this county did to her in 2016, I seriously doubt she could have done any better as President than he did. The idea they took a pause from attacking Dems as wusses while he was in office is pure fantasy.
Democrats as wusses is an ongoing implicit theme that is based in misogyny. Wuss= effeminate. The only Republican I can remember getting that treatment was Bush 1 when Newsweek had that “Wimp Factor” cover. I never liked him and never voted for him but this was a man who had volunteered to be a fighter pilot in WW II. My husband and I were so enraged by that we cancelled our subscription. I was appalled when the media fell for his chickenhawk’s son faux macho posturing. Talk about style over substance!
Disagree. The media didn't like Biden then either, and was more than happy to crow any time he misspoke or made a gaffe. And they certainly didn't want him in the race in 2020. They were rapturous over Liz Warren and Pete; were gleeful when Biden was in early trouble—and certain he was going to be forced out—then shocked when he came back strong and the whole party coalesced.
I don't recall saying they ever "liked" him. And he's been notorious for being a "gaffe machine" for decades, long before he was on a national ticket. But they didn't pummel him as grotesquely as they did Gore, and I'm quite certain that part of the reason why is that he was a white male, and so not savaging him to an outrageous degree (by, for instance, actually reporting on the fact that he was very popular and influential) was a way of both making the Black Man look worse (than he otherwise would, not necessarily worse than Biden) in comparison and to obfuscate their (still obvious but more easily denied) anti-Dem bias.
This 'inverse intersectionality' issue, where the media, as proxies for the larger populous, show a round-robin of partisanship, misogyny, and racism to obscure one bias with another, isn't even partially intentional, but is prevalent nevertheless. I used to think perhaps it was "in the eye of the beholder", but lately I've given up on that theory, because it has become too consistently effective to be dismissed as a subjective impression.
So because the media wasn't as hard on VP Biden as they would have otherwise been, since the President was Black, the Democrat, being a white male (not to mention running against a petulant narcissistic buffoon) was able to "sneak" a 'triple threat' (black, female, and left of center) VP into office. And the result is manifest: there will be no good press for Harris, ever. As for whether the mainstream was ever "rapturous" for Warren or Buttigieg, apart from their glee at a horse race in the Dem primary, I think that still qualifies as a subjective impression on your part, though since Warren is a woman and Buttigieg is gay, it still supports my hypothesis either way.
The American mainstream media is part of the problem why the 'Murica doesn't have a female commander-in-chief.
It seems the (usually) old white men who run the media companies are unable to see the possibility of a woman leading the country.
This misogynistic mindset that a woman cannot be president has somehow entered the minds of the men (and women) covering politics that anytime a female politician (usually Democrat) enters the public consciousness, the scrutiny over her performance is put under a microscope.
Until Republican women realize their complicity in making life difficult for their fellow women (particularly racial/ethnic minorities & LGBTQ), they will continue to uphold the horrible status quo of inequity & discrimination.
I hope not too! If a woman like Elise S makes it to the nomination the base and GOP voters will back her because she’s an R (they’d back Satan if he were GOP —and considering Jrs recent remarks…
Whereas we have already seen that is not the case with the left.
Agree that that train of thought has (unfortunately) been established :/ Sad that since D’s tend to promote women candidates, taking them down via the ‘woman angle’ seems fairly easy. Just saying those tools exist, so… Just a way to hold back the D agenda. (The misogyny here may be gaslighting?) :/
Are you saying that the Democrats sabotage themselves by promoting female candidates? Sounds like a misogynistic statement. Do they do this with Black candidates as well?
This may sound like a ‘chicken/egg’ argument - but I think it’s incredibly important to analyze what’s going on here at a granular level… I mean - if Germany (the mother of all patriarchies?!) can have a woman leader for 16 years… Come on, man!
The irony being that women are much closer to equality in the US vis a vis job opportunities, education, etc (but not when it comes to salaries for sure) than many other nations who have women as heads of state.
The minute Amy Klobuchar started getting some traction in the 2020 nomination race, the stories of how she was mean to her Senate staff started to appear. A male boss can be demanding, but when a female boss does the same thing she is deemed mean, or even bitchy...often by female reporters. One of the worst misogynists in the MSM is Maureen Dowd, whose specialty is the feminization of Dem men. Recall she once said that Al Gore was "practically lactating," and she likened Barack Obama to a debutante..."O'Bambi." And her Hillary hatred goes without say.
oh it’s interesting, Dowd co-wrote that Dan Quayle valentine
In contrast her writings about the much more qualified Gore dripped with disdain.
And trashed Gore, and pimped for GW Bush, at every turn, in 2000.
In 2015 a Vermont news outlet had reported similar complaints about Bernie but the mainstream media chose to ignore that story.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/anger-management-sanders-fights-for-employees-except-his-own/Content?oid=2834657
I was shocked to see this NYT article regarding campaign staff/volunteers complaints about harassment and pay, though this article (and a few others) did not unleash a torrent of similar articles every single day for months at a time like the campaign we're seeing against Biden and Harris.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html
So it’s likely more the ‘Dem’ aspect first - then the woman-thing?
Nooooo. It’s the combo rolled into one nasty meme. Cheap shots taken with a dash of glee.
I see the Bernie/staff reference does validate the misogynist argument. Depressing.
Imo, I think many male reporters who follow Kamala bring with them their own anti strong woman biases, knowingly or not, and project them onto the stories they write, ie Kamala’s. Bernie’s a gruff old guy and that kind of behavior from him is a given. For Kamala it’s unbecoming, a lack of competence……
I apologize for constantly repeating myself Eric, but thank you for your astonishingly excellent work in succinctly pointing out the misogynistic coverage that is daily served up towards women like Kamala Harris. We older women, especially, are so weary of a lifetime of being dismissed, demeaned, and worse, that we tend to internalize the abuse, while fighting on. Your reminders of these unfair and cheap journalistic attacks on the VP by The NY Times and other media outlets helps us gird our loins for the ongoing battles ahead. I will be sending your article to every woman I know.
Oh, much thanks!
Thanks for speaking and standing in our truth.
This is the standard way they report on female politicians, at least ones who are Democrats — boring and bitchy.
Off topic but I just read a WaPo article by Dana Milbank about how overwhelmingly negative the reporting about the economy has been — from right wing media. Funny how just a while ago Milbank wrote an article that said the mainstream media coverage of Biden has been as negative as that of Trump’s. It seems to me that his bosses must have reined him in or maybe the criticism he took from his peers has made him return to the “blame right wing media” fairytale.
Until the mainstream media faces the fact that they have played a big role in the bamboozling of the American public and decided to make objectivity not faux balance their creed our democracy will continue to collapse.
Dem women are def held to diff standard, the general theme seems to be they can’t be trusted
The irony being that the Times endorsed Amy Klobuchar and Liz Warren during the Dem primaries.
Have they ever simultaneously endorsed 2 male primary candidates - for either party? Curious…
No! They got blasted for it.
Also lays the groundwork for ‘a cat fight’ - pitting them against each other- yup, that move had it all
Very sly way of undermining… can you imagine ‘insulting’ 2 male candidates like that (“oh, both are wonderful in their own way - we just couldn’t choose”…). Yeah - right.
The only alternative was Donald Trump.
No, this was during the primaries. In this case it had nothing to do with Trump. They could have chosen Biden, or Bernie, or Pete, or any of the other Dem candidates running.
I think it had a lot to do with who the DNC and the media believed would be most electable. I supported Pete until he dropped out of the race. Realistically, I could imagine only Joe Biden actually getting the nomination.
Times has always disliked Joe, and no they don't take their cues from the DNC. I really wish that whole "DNC was in the tank for Bernie" nonsense would die already. They didn't have to let him run as a Dem; he's an independent and slamming Dems doesn't make you a lot of friends. Also the DNC and the party have NOTHING to do with how states set up their registration deadlines, etc, which was a huge misconception in 16.
But that was then; I'm really impressed how unified much of the Dem party was through 2020 and even today (oh no, I forgot we're in perpetual disarray). Bernie really stepped up to back Joe and has been an excellent legislative partner. With a few notable exceptions, all of them have. I like Pete very much but thought he was too inexperienced—right now. He'll be president someday, I firmly believe. Joe was always my guy. Working on the midterms in 18, when talk would turn to the 2020 race I always said my dream ticket would be Joe and Kamala. And here we are.
Too EMOTIONAL
Bullseye! Yep, women are just too emotional to govern or lead.
Except in the U.K., Germany, India… New Zealand idk
Indeed!
"Right wing media" is a useful straw man punching bag. It was the MSM that gave the Former Guy millions of dollars worth of coverage, happily served as cheerleaders for Bush's illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, and that decided that neither Al Gore ("Liar!") nor Hillary Clinton ("Emails!") could be president.
And it is a good way for the mainstream media to deflect blame rather than examine their own decades-long complicity.
Exactly!!!
Two things can be true at the same time. That there is even acknowledgment that RW media exists is news itself. For years mainstream reporters claimed there was no RW—remember how they cackled over HRC’s “vast RW conspiracy.” Journalists claimed their brethren at Fox we’re the same just from a more conservative perspective. But to only call them out for crappy coverage on the economy, while true, is only part of the story.
Fascinating, as I watched the Merkel documentary on PBS… 😒
Disappointed Milbank caved in to pressure coming from either his editors, his peers, or both.
For trying to tell the truth about how awful & dishonest the mainstream media coverage is towards Biden, Milbank was attacked & shunned by his colleagues until he relented and did a "blame the right-wing media" piece.
It's frustrating to read on a daily basis, the American mainstream media's inability to reflect on how much they've played an implicit role in the weakening of democracy.
Their focus over creating narratives in order to get more clicks & readers over actual reporting is a bad business model.
Yep, correct! But Republican women are perfect, falling in line supporting their men wearing pearls, the perfect women from a 1950s sit-com. That's how the MSM like their women. The press is sickening when it comes to reporting on intelligent, powerful, effective women, as if white powerful men have shown time and time again how competent they are.
Whatever happened to the R woman who always appeared w/the leaders on tv. McMorris …..? At least she was civil. Stefanik is their ideal, an intelligent woman who sold her soul spewing lies, venom. The Rs like that it seems.
Actually, they adore Liz Cheney right now. I understand why given the circumstances—she's got my backing on this too, we both want to save our democracy and punish the seditionists—but that's the press's model.
I had the same thoughts you did when I saw the headline.
VP Harris presents a trifecta for our terrible political press: Black/Asian/Woman.
While a male boss will always be presented in some sort of competent, “firm but fair” way, the same behaviors will be presented for women as a cat fight, “difficult to work with,” or just plain old bitchy.
Last point I want to make is that it is not unusual for talent to leave the low-paying civil service jobs and go to the private sector, and in some cases VP Harris’ staff are leaving to get more women elected to office: I read that some are leaving to work on Stacy Abrams run for Georgia Governor. Our press had notably not asked any of these recent departures where they are going, only where have they been.
agreed that some staffers leaving after one yr I think was overblown…it’s how DC works
WOW. First I’ve heard of that. Proves the point, Kevin.
Eric, I'm shocked, shocked that you didn't mention the $600 the Veep spent on good cookware in France. Dems aren't supposed to have quality things—not when so many Americans "are suffering." (The holiday economic numbers of course tell a different story.) No matter that anyone who likes to cook knows the importance and value of getting good cookware. The Veep loves to be in the kitchen, so her purchase made perfect sense. That could have been the angle of the story, tying together French culinary traditions, our longstanding ties to France, and the then upcoming Thanksgiving holiday together. But instead, the press took the cheap shot, following the lead of the "conservative" Washington Free Beacon. (Beltway journalists really are lemmings.) I'd roll my eyes at the stupidity but for the obvious double standard and how it was and is meant to damage the VP.
Their coverage of VP Harris has been appalling. It's a triple whammy—they hurt her and weaken her image among voters, smack Biden for making a "bad choice" picking her, and make the administration look feckless with someone like her in charge. Of course Beltway press denies they are singling her out or even giving her bad coverage, though on Twitter, one reporter responding to another claimed it's their job to mock the Veep regardless of party (can't remember who because it was a while ago now). Gah.
oh yes the cookware! def a 2021 Media low point
I thought it was painfully petty considering that spending $600 on cookware is not really a big thing if you're looking for the good stuff. But she's a woman, it's kitchen stuff, and it was a great way for the male press to trivialize her. All they have done is trash Harris despite the fact that she's done her job well. It's an extension of the terribly negative coverage they've given to Biden.
The fact that it was started (I believe) by a bullshit story in the Washington Free Beacon is what's so annoying. It never should have been an issue. They never blinked over the price tag of Melania's wardrobe, but something functional? God forbid. It was certainly clueless for anyone who doesn't cook, and plenty of men do. I bet some of those reporters have some very nice pots and pans in their own kitchens.
Frankly, anything she would have bought over $30 they would have had a cow. Remember Biden's Rolex? HRC's expensive haircut? John Kerry wind sailing? If Dems aren't digging ditches and shopping at Walmart than they are just showing how elitist and out of touch they are according to the press, who take their cue from the outraged GOP.
The clothes Melania strutted around in were actually ugly, but nobody said so because they were designer stuff. The pith helmet she wore in Africa was particularly tasteless, It would have been a cold day in hell if the Mad Queen bought cookware. Anyway, $600 for cookware is not extravagant in the world of foodies, and Harris loves to cook. Of course we Democrats are "elitist" - it's because we live where people are more likely to be educated and we're in the population hubs. We pay for everything the federal government does, including the aid to poor red states.
👆👆👆
*Its also a price tag that might not sit well with many Midwesterners… in diners?…
The same people who use this excuse for hammering Democrats for having nice things are the same ones who say people admire guys like Trump for being successful.
Bullshit. There are plenty of people in the Midwest who have copper cookware and have traveled to France. This was the media looking for a stupid nonissue to slam Dems and especially this administration.
Yes - there are many Midwesterners w/$$$ cookware and lifestyles to match - But when the msm repeatedly highlights the ‘diner-goers’ - aren’t they trying to create a picture of plain, down-to-earth folks, ‘just looking for a voice’? (optics). That said, the infamous $600 pot (for contrast) - fits into that narrative nicely :/
The real socioeconomic mix of that group of supporters is way more complex…
That was my point on another post. I am thoroughly sick of the rural Midwest Trump country trope, people sitting around in diners wearing John Deere caps and talking about how Trump won the election. It's become a stereotype. I doubt it's as geographical as the media wants us to believe, but they love the 4H club county fair stuff, and you can't get $600 cookware at Wal-Mart unless you go online. Keeping people divided creates a lot of clickbait.
Agree on all points. I will say, however - having lived in NYC - a photo w/plaid shirts, Carhartt, ball caps and a ‘silo silhouette’ in the distance - looks GREAT on the NYT front page… ( Makes it look like everyone did their homework, for some reason:/ ?!) gah.
(And never bat an eye if a visiting Congressman grabs a souvenir 1 or 2k bottle of wine…)
Misogyny, racism pure and simple. Kamala couldn’t have gotten where she has gotten had it not been for her talents, brains, determination and appeal DESPITE the bad press and the forces that are hard against her, beginning w/the cheap, unimaginative notion that she slept her way to the top in CA. Embarrassingly obvious press bashing of a formidable and enviable woman.
Indeed, the press also tried to portray Harris as being untrustworthy to progressives & social justice advocates because during her tenure as District Attorney of California, there were longer jail times for nonviolent offenders & people getting busted for having low amounts of weed (?)
Apologies if my memory over the criticisms of her tenure as California DA are inaccurate.
Sounds right to me. Women, especially black and of color, have a strike or two against them before they even get out of the gate. My mom was a local pol in a small NJ town in the 60s and was accused of sleeping w/the guv to land a county wide appointment on a tax appeals board. She was also offered a $20k bribe for her vote to increase density in developments. No and no. Mom was a tough cookie but lamented often about the odds stacked against her. Some MEN will never change. Those old goats will die off one day. I’m placing my bets on my grandkids. They are unbiased, informed, open minded genuinely nice people. Those old bulls are relics of the dark ages. Time for them to get out of the way.
We would be far better informed on the actual state of the country, especially the actual behavior of Republicans if the odious Maggie Haberman was gone. More than almost any other working reporter, she values access to Republicans and the circles of power and influence they occupy more than any value she places on journalistic integrity.
They would just replace her with someone equally as bad. There are plenty of Katharine Seelyes, Ceci Connellys and Chris Cillizzas ready to take her place. Even Mark Halperin and Politico’s John Harris blame Seelye’s and Connelly’s lying about Gore as a major reason he lost.
https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/serial-misinformer-kit-seelye-reportedly-set-become-ny-times-web-political
Chris Cillizza’s constant hyping of and misreporting the facts about Hillary’s emails did a lot to help Trump win. CNN chose to hire him in spite of — or maybe because of — his role in her defeat.
Never forget, Gore didn't lose. Roger Stone organized a mob to stop the recount of Dade County when it became clear that Bush was done. Add to that the Banana Republican Jeb Bush, governor and the majority Republican Supreme Court. Gore never had a chance.
And the Republicans on the Supreme Court refused to allow Florida to follow their own Supreme Court’s decision to recount the entire state despite the fact that states are in charge of elections. The fact that they made it clear this was a one-time ruling, not precedent made it clear this was a political act.
They thought they were getting a rerun of Poppy Bush's administration. Yep, and that's when SCOTUS was "apolitical."
Now THERE’S a t-shirt slogan :)
Another good point…
She’s still on the Trump beat. Yes, the Times still has dedicated journalists covering him. Says everything.
Her mom worked for years for the powerful PR firm Rubenstein Associates, the one Rudy G called “the dean of damage control”. From what I have read she worked on the Trump family’s account though she claims she never met him. Clearly the family is deeply ingrained in the incestuous NYC elites club.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/02/12/the-fixer
Misogyny. Harris is portrayed as bitchy to her staff, "clumsy" in her interactions on the world stage, not very smart and of course, having a slutty past where she has been alleged to have "slept her way to the top." Throughout her career, she's had to overcome the most disgusting innuendoes and yet, she has admirably succeeded.
Recently one of Harris' top aides left the administration. Even though it was agreed that she would serve only one year, the Washington Post wrote it up as a situation where it was Harris' "style" as a boss that not only drove the woman away but was threatening to see an "exodus" of staff fleeing the evil Kamala Harris. No such exodus happened.
This is why I have come to believe we'll never have a woman as president. Look what the press did to Hillary.
It’s puzzling why the VP’s Office doesn’t get ahead of the story and simply announce that someone is leaving “per their original 1 year agreement” (like Psaki has done)…
The press will never attack a female Republican who runs for President.
I doubt that we will see a female Republican run for President so it's a moot point. It's a party for white men.
They do bring up Nikki Hayley often…
She would never win against Ron DeSantis.
And he’s only 43 :/ Maybe R woman VP?…
Why am I even mulling this over - I can’t see casting ONE VOTE for anyone in that party. They are getting a pass on obstruction, period.
Have to agree :/
Agree, sadly.
Also ginning up a poor/weak image of her - in case she has to step up someday… It’s sad, it’s obvious(agree) - and if women in general don’t call that stuff out UPFRONT- nothing will change.
Glad to see Margaret Sullivan getting mentioned in this post's Good Stuff. She appears to be a genuine journalist versus a narrative-driven storyteller, and does some excellent work for WaPo. I keep an eye on the paper's Media section to catch her byline.
yes, she’s excellent
Wapo was very smart to hire her as their media columnist after her very successful run as the NYT’s public editor.
If you look at the list of Sullivan’s articles on her WaPo bio page, most of them are under the style section while the much less relevant Eric Wemple’s are always opinion section. Unless I am missing something the Post values him more than her.
No doubt. Wemple, some of whose material is reasonably good, is constantly featured on the Post's Opinion page. You have to go looking for stories by Sullivan, whose work is consistently much better. Sullivan has called out the rotten coverage of DC politics dished out by the mainstream Beltway hack brigade, and that had doubtless done nothing to increase her standing with Post management.
Wemple would impress me more if he would put as much attention on the faux balance and crisis hyping his peers do rather than obsessing about things like the Steele Dossier.
Yes, I’ve had to go search for her columns some days. Maddening.
I just check her WaPo bio page regularly. All of her columns are there.
I do the same for Jennifer Rubin. Just click on the author’s name on any article to get to their bio page.
I also like to read the authors Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman who write for the WaPo’s Plum Line. Their articles aren’t always with the main opinion pieces. I think they only get moved there if enough people read an article. The link for their page is here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/
I get the online edition of the Post and I select "Media" from the drop down menu. That's where I look for Margaret Sullivan's articles.
She’s terrific!
Same here,
It's the United States of America or as some refer to it - White Men In Control and They Want To Keep It That Way. In nature when a species is threatened, it will do anything to survive. In human society today, minorities are growing. The US being as diverse as it is, and truly what makes it special, is a threat to the dominant "species" of white men who are slowly losing their power. Apparently the press, predominantly run by white men, feels the threat is real and is doing what it can to marginalize women and people of color. When you combine those two traits of our Vice President Kamala Harris, watch out! The MSM is never going to give her the coverage she deserves. Sadly it's the same game that has been played out throughout human history - divide and conquer. Make the folks you are most fearful of out to be the boogie men, pushing them back a step or two. This country (and the world) is changing. We are now going through the growing pains of change. I predict things will get worse before they get better but they will get better. It's only a matter of time regardless of how the press cares to portray it. There, that's my New Year's hope for a better future. LOL!
great pts
Appreciate the optimism.
Racism Misogyny mash up. Are they pro-Trump or pro ratings and clicks? Or both. Nothing much else explains it, since she's doing her job perfectly well.
“The Vice President was particularly struck by the description of Napoleon's military technique in Charles de Gaulle's discourse on war,” the Times reported, …”
Just take a moment to parse this construction, which our media use constantly, and ponder where they got this information. I’ll give you a hint—it rhymes with Blan Sail.
“… stressing Quayle was “keen on self-improvement.”
Imagine saying this about Kamala Harris. The fiddling-while-Rome-burns takes would be coming even more thickly than they already are. There would be calls for her resignation.
amazing, right?
What’s your estimate on the percentage of our six-figure media stars who are aware they’re doing this? Because I know it’s not 100 but I also know it’s not 0.
How this could have been written—or approved by an editor—with a straight face is beyond belief. I mean just over the top. Was this before or after the Veep learned the plural of potato?
Nothing has really changed with the Corporate Controlled Conservative Press.
They've always looked down on strong black women.
They have always looked down on strong women of any color. Their coverage of Hillary was clearly sexist. Amy Klobuchar got the “mean boss” treatment but Bernie, who had similar accusations from some staffers.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-09-06/medias-sexist-coverage-of-hillary-clinton
Unfortunately, if a candidate or elected official has an enemy or just someone looking to gain an advantage, they use the press, whispering in journalists' ears about "staff defections" or "rumor has it so and so is really mean to their assistants" or some other stupid thing and the lazy ass journalists, catching a whiff of clickbait, run with it. Often the reporters don't care, sometimes they cover it with glee. I think the latter is the case with Biden and especially Kamala. She is so much smarter than they are. (I miss her on the Senate judiciary committee for sure.) She's genuine—from her Chucks to her sophisticated style to that infectious laugh and full smile—and they loathe that. I have a friend who worked on her campaign in Iowa and spent a lot of time with her. He adores her! Of course she isn't perfect; who is? But the country is in good hands with her and she couldn't have a better teacher/partner than Joe.
The pattern is clear, but the corporate media tripped itself up. Desperate to avoid being too obvious in it's anti-Democrat narrative, and confounded by their need to not say anything good about our First Black President, they were a bit too supportive of his White VP, and missed their chance to trash Biden enough, paving the way for the current administration. It would have been insanely clear how contradictory their perspective on Ol' Joe was between his time as VP and his turn as the Democrat Candidate in 2016, but fortunately for them they got the safe harbor of piling on a woman nominee.
Actually a lot of the media had a crush on Obama, at least when he was running. I remember them gushing about his speeches and Chris Matthews who talked about them giving him a “thrill up his leg”. They clearly preferred him over Hillary in the primaries but it was more than than that — he was seen as a cool guy and they were excited about the possibility of the first black president, which I complete understood. Unfortunately they we not excited at all about the possibility of the first woman President even when that woman was extremely qualified for the job. They went back to the the usual attacking Democrats as wusses after he got elected.
Perfectly said, Theodora.
He was cool, and his speeches were extremely impressive, as were his political instincts. Nevertheless, he was derided for both being too strong and too weak.
It is true that the media preferred Obama in the primaries. He was also preferred by a majority of Democrats voting in those primaries. I'm open to the notion that might have been a matter of American misogyny being slightly more powerful than American racism, but regardless he was still the better candidate, and as much as I revere Secretary Clinton, and will go to my grave angry about what this county did to her in 2016, I seriously doubt she could have done any better as President than he did. The idea they took a pause from attacking Dems as wusses while he was in office is pure fantasy.
Democrats as wusses is an ongoing implicit theme that is based in misogyny. Wuss= effeminate. The only Republican I can remember getting that treatment was Bush 1 when Newsweek had that “Wimp Factor” cover. I never liked him and never voted for him but this was a man who had volunteered to be a fighter pilot in WW II. My husband and I were so enraged by that we cancelled our subscription. I was appalled when the media fell for his chickenhawk’s son faux macho posturing. Talk about style over substance!
Disagree. The media didn't like Biden then either, and was more than happy to crow any time he misspoke or made a gaffe. And they certainly didn't want him in the race in 2020. They were rapturous over Liz Warren and Pete; were gleeful when Biden was in early trouble—and certain he was going to be forced out—then shocked when he came back strong and the whole party coalesced.
I don't recall saying they ever "liked" him. And he's been notorious for being a "gaffe machine" for decades, long before he was on a national ticket. But they didn't pummel him as grotesquely as they did Gore, and I'm quite certain that part of the reason why is that he was a white male, and so not savaging him to an outrageous degree (by, for instance, actually reporting on the fact that he was very popular and influential) was a way of both making the Black Man look worse (than he otherwise would, not necessarily worse than Biden) in comparison and to obfuscate their (still obvious but more easily denied) anti-Dem bias.
This 'inverse intersectionality' issue, where the media, as proxies for the larger populous, show a round-robin of partisanship, misogyny, and racism to obscure one bias with another, isn't even partially intentional, but is prevalent nevertheless. I used to think perhaps it was "in the eye of the beholder", but lately I've given up on that theory, because it has become too consistently effective to be dismissed as a subjective impression.
So because the media wasn't as hard on VP Biden as they would have otherwise been, since the President was Black, the Democrat, being a white male (not to mention running against a petulant narcissistic buffoon) was able to "sneak" a 'triple threat' (black, female, and left of center) VP into office. And the result is manifest: there will be no good press for Harris, ever. As for whether the mainstream was ever "rapturous" for Warren or Buttigieg, apart from their glee at a horse race in the Dem primary, I think that still qualifies as a subjective impression on your part, though since Warren is a woman and Buttigieg is gay, it still supports my hypothesis either way.
Interesting point!
The American mainstream media is part of the problem why the 'Murica doesn't have a female commander-in-chief.
It seems the (usually) old white men who run the media companies are unable to see the possibility of a woman leading the country.
This misogynistic mindset that a woman cannot be president has somehow entered the minds of the men (and women) covering politics that anytime a female politician (usually Democrat) enters the public consciousness, the scrutiny over her performance is put under a microscope.
I believe we will have a woman president, but I fear she will be from the GOP.
I really hope not.
Until Republican women realize their complicity in making life difficult for their fellow women (particularly racial/ethnic minorities & LGBTQ), they will continue to uphold the horrible status quo of inequity & discrimination.
I hope not too! If a woman like Elise S makes it to the nomination the base and GOP voters will back her because she’s an R (they’d back Satan if he were GOP —and considering Jrs recent remarks…
Whereas we have already seen that is not the case with the left.
Agree that that train of thought has (unfortunately) been established :/ Sad that since D’s tend to promote women candidates, taking them down via the ‘woman angle’ seems fairly easy. Just saying those tools exist, so… Just a way to hold back the D agenda. (The misogyny here may be gaslighting?) :/
Are you saying that the Democrats sabotage themselves by promoting female candidates? Sounds like a misogynistic statement. Do they do this with Black candidates as well?
No. I think they focus on actual talent, in a good way.
Which unfortunately opens them up as ‘easy targets’, as Eric’s article points out :/
This may sound like a ‘chicken/egg’ argument - but I think it’s incredibly important to analyze what’s going on here at a granular level… I mean - if Germany (the mother of all patriarchies?!) can have a woman leader for 16 years… Come on, man!
India and Pakistan have had women leaders, too.
The irony being that women are much closer to equality in the US vis a vis job opportunities, education, etc (but not when it comes to salaries for sure) than many other nations who have women as heads of state.
Strange.