Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's still all about the white men. Hillary Clinton's loss has renewed critiques that American political media is slanted, sexist and dominated by men. While Clinton and Obama broke barriers in the Democratic primary, swiftly dispatching white male Senators with more government experience, the race was still refereed, scored and narrated by white male commentators, an influential constituency in presidential politics. Pundits talked a lot about gender and racial progress during the campaign, of course, but the elite opinion media continues to employ, groom and promote a commentators corps that is disproportionately white and male.
The most traditional location to reach the political establishment, the Washington Post opinion section, is brazenly male-dominated. Seventeen of the 19 columnists are men; only three of the columnists are racial minorities. Guest op-eds could present more voices, but they rarely do. This year, only 12 percent of the Post's guest pieces came from women, according to a May count by ombudsman Deborah Howell. At the New York Times, eight of the ten weekly columnists are men; one is black. (The Times also recently created a bimonthly graphics column, a post filled by a black commentator.) And in an industry review last year, about one out of four columnists were women at the largest syndicates around the country, according to Editor and Publisher. As Times columnist Nick Kristoff lamented last month, even as reporting staffs diversify, white men dominate American punditry "from newspaper columnists to television talking heads."
The disparity is striking on air. Most anchors, producers and writers in television news are women, according to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, 
yet the vast majority of prime time hosts, who dominate campaign coverage and frame presidential debates, are white men. That includes all the Sunday morning hosts, all the prime time hosts on MSNBC, and all but one of the prime time hosts on CNN and FOX.
The Democratic primary did briefly boost the diversity of the pundit pool – all those segments about race and gender would have been eerie with the usual lineup. "Both MSNBC and CNN this election season have given new prominence to a handful of contributing commentators from varied backgrounds and perspectives: blacks, Hispanics and women," the Times reported in April. "Whether such moves signal real progress in diversifying the punditocracy or merely reflect the needs of a particular news cycle is the question." And while the networks obviously should not bench diverse commentators until "diversity" is in the news, the booking history for political shows is not encouraging.
According to a recent, two-year study of the four major Sunday talk shows by Media Matters, out of over 2,000 guests, 77 percent were men and 82 percent were white. The top rated show, "Meet the Press," also led the pack in male representation, at an embarrassing 85 percent. Latinos were almost completely absent, comprising one percent of the guests. Latinos make up about 14 percent of the population, and the study ran through 2006 and 2007, when immigration policy was often in the news.
Many women and minority commentators must also battle ideological discrimination. All four Sunday shows booked more conservative pundits than liberals in 2006, according to a Media Matters study. On ABC's "This Week," for example, conservative pundits dominated by 36 percent to 19 percent. So liberal guests end up competing for fewer spots. Black commentators are already underrepresented. And then, since most black commentators lean left, their booking odds plummet further. (Only seven percent of black Americans self-identify as Republicans, according to Pew.)
In fact, a 2005 Urban League study of the Sunday shows found that a staggering 69 percent of all the appearances by black guests were made by just three conservatives -- Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Juan Williams. The study found that appearances by black commentators "other than Rice, Powell and Williams account for less than 3% of all guest appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows." And out of over 600 bookings during the same 18-month period, you could count the invitations for black women on half your hand. After Rice, only two other black women appeared: PBS' Gwen Ifel and Democratic strategist Donna Brazille.
The commentariat's gender and racial disparities are perennially documented and criticized, of course. Susan Estrich, a writer and ubiquitous political pundit in her own right, sparked the last debate in 2005, after blasting the testosterone coursing through the op-ed section at the Los Angeles Times. Fred Hiatt, the Washington Post's editorial page editor, jumped in the fray by declaring, "there ought to be more women on op-ed pages in general. Over time, I intend to make that happen." (Apparently he did not have a three-year window in mind.) The Nation's Katha Pollitt has constructively published lists of female writers who would make great columnists (or pundits), just to help out any media search committees. Next month, minority bloggers are gathering at the "Blogging While Brown" conference to network the burgeoning black blogosphere – a new and largely neglected talent pool of opinionated commentators for print and television debates. And some writers say even Clinton's loss could spur gender progress. Anna Holmes, a self-described "woman of color" who blogs at Jezebel.com, recently penned a Times op-ed urging Hillary Clinton to give a major, post-campaign address about "sexism in American life." That speech could contrast the public's demonstrated support for women in actual politics – from her strong showing to the rising number of women in Congress – with the exclusion of so many women and minorities from political media. And readers, like voters, can continue to press for a political system and public discourse that actually represents the public.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
The media is liberal
The media is liberal
The media is liberal
The media is liberal
The media is liberal
The media is liberal
there, I proved it.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 07:25am
Mr Melber, aren't YOU a white male?
Isn't Ari Berman a white male?
I know John Nichols is a white male.
I know Peter Rothberg is a white male.
I know Richard Kim is a Korean male.
I think Tom Engelhardt is a white male.
I think Christopher Hayes is a white male.
I know Tom Hayden is a white male.
I think Robert Dreyfuss is a white male.
I think William Grieder is a white male.
I think Bob Moser is an African-American male.
Not really sure of the ethnicity but certain of the gender of ...Max Blumenthal....Marc Cooper....Matthew Blake....Max Fraser...Gary Younge....Jon Wiener....Adam Howard....
Then you've got Ms vanden Heuvel, Katha Pollitt, Laura Flanders, Te-ping Chen, and Zephyr Teachout (temporarily) and very rarely Karen Houppert and Liza Featherstone.
So of 18 males almost all white. And of all contributors 18 are male to 7 seven female. (or count Ms vanden Heuvel twice if you like, since she's a writer and the publisher.)
Seems pretty white, mostly male, with a female "boss" who probably posts fewer articles than the white males.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 09:03am
Oh c'mon. Clinton was treated with more deference and tolerated, in fact coddled (in part possibly to continue horse race raitings)despite the fact that she couldn't overcome the odds--even with her efforts to skew the numbers by cheating. The sexism charge was just another hook thrown out there--although when directly confronted there is scant evidence of it--considering Clinton wins the votes of those who would vote for a white woman over a black man and the sexist charge is a ploy to give her cover from any criticism at all. This white woman says give me a break--the whole act is a fraud and does a disservice to real human injustice on all levels and only serves to further divide and polarize--selfish, smugly entitled Clinton's greatest ability.
Posted by Lil at 06/09/2008 @ 09:32am
the old old soldier's campaign will sink itself. McSame has been described as Bob Dole without the charisma.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 09:52am
Watch who the MSM supports in the Nov election...and it ain't the white guy..---Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/9/2008
Uh, MAASCH....YOU don't like "the white guy" that much either, do you?
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 10:03am
posted by Ari Melber on 06/09/2008 @ 01:05am
I vote Chris Hayes be fired and replaced with a female, or anybody.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/09/2008 @ 10:10am
Watch who the MSM supports in the Nov election...and it ain't the white guy..
Posted by JOMAMMA
another prediction? with your track record of predictions?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 10:26am
'The disparity is striking on air. Most anchors, producers and writers in television news are women, according to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, yet the vast majority of prime time hosts, who dominate campaign coverage and frame presidential debates, are white men. That includes all the Sunday morning hosts, all the prime time hosts on MSNBC, and all but one of the prime time hosts on CNN and FOX.'
Yeah right....prime time hosts dictate coverage and frame presidential debates...Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that producers and writers under ownership direction are the ones dictating coverage and framing presidential debate? You actually think that prime time hosts actually write and direct their own material? This is a good one.
As Mask points out, KVH decries lack of women in the media but yet her rag is dominated by men. Isn't the Nation governed by employment at will laws? So KVH -- why don't you take the first step and load up your headliner journalist staff with women?
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 10:28am
So KVH -- why don't you take the first step and load up your headliner journalist staff with women?
Posted by OneVote at 06/9/2008
Do not do as they do, do as they say, it's the socialist way.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/09/2008 @ 11:17am
Ari:
This is just so unfair! The solution is obvious. We must mandate quotas.Precise, numerical, statistically valid quotas for every job category in the country. All positions must satisfy Census Bureau derived racial and gender categories immediately. If a particular company doesn't have enough jobs to match the template, then we must aggregate similar companies and share the diversity wealth across those companies. Perhaps we should also prohibit people from changing jobs or moving for a while until we get the numbers right. This must be done immediately. Then all will be good, right?
Posted by sntauri at 06/09/2008 @ 11:18am
Ari:
This is just so unfair! The solution is obvious. We must mandate quotas.Precise, numerical, statistically valid quotas for every job category in the country. All positions must satisfy Census Bureau derived racial and gender categories immediately. If a particular company doesn't have enough jobs to match the template, then we must aggregate similar companies and share the diversity wealth across those companies. Perhaps we should also prohibit people from changing jobs or moving for a while until we get the numbers right. This must be done immediately. Then all will be good, right?
Posted by sntauri at 06/09/2008 @ 11:19am
excellent article, although I wish you hadn't let the blogosphere of the hook on this -- the problems are equally bad in the "new" media.
and yeah, what Mask said about The Nation's bloggers.
Posted by JonPincus at 06/09/2008 @ 11:21am
Do not do as they do, do as they say, it's the socialist way.
Posted by Benchrest at 06/9/2008
It would seem!
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 11:56am
sntauri
reductio ad absurdum
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 11:58am
Albert Einstein was a white male. Should he not have been allowed to publish his general and specific theories of relativity because he was male? Could any woman have done as well as he?
Shakespeare was a white male. Should he not have been allowed to write all those plays and sonnets because he was male?
Beethoven was a white male. Should he not have been allowed to write music because he was male?
Should all these geniuses, and many thousands more, have stepped aside to make room for women? I say "HELL, FUCKING NO!!!!"
(And no, I do NOT mean to suggest that the blabbermouths on TV are "geniuses.")
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:27pm
A WOMAN is the editor of The Nation. Are there not MEN who are better writers and editors than Katrina vanden Heuvel?
OF COURSE THERE ARE, but that hasn't led to the ousting of Ms. vanden Heuvel.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:33pm
KSP556
can your post be any more stupid?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:37pm
emile, Is that the BEST you can do?
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:38pm
it's a start.
Einstein's wife was his partner in his work. Marie Curie won I believe two nobel prizes.
Shakespeare lived in the 16th century.
Beethoven lived in the 18th century
you are an ass.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:46pm
Curie was NOT Einstein's intellectual equal, and no, Einstein's wife was NOT his "partner" in work. Nice try.
It doesn't matter that the geniuses I named lived in another era. The point remains that obsessing about the number of men and women in the media is stupid.
You're a jerk.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 12:50pm
'This is just so unfair! The solution is obvious. We must mandate quotas.Precise, numerical, statistically valid quotas for every job category in the country. All positions must satisfy Census Bureau derived racial and gender categories immediately.'
Posted by sntauri at 06/9/2008
And lets also mandate equality in education. The percentage of women getting a college education is higher than it is for males. The education system favors female physiological, emotional and intellectual progression from adolescence on. This is sooooooo unfair. We must mandate that all women comprising an excess over the respective gender breakdown in society at large be removed immediately to make way for males, who obviously have been discriminated against, and whose lesser scholastic achievements are due to discrimination and bias in our education system.
I know KVH will address these issues in an upcoming article. I am just apalled that she hasn't already.
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 12:51pm
Einstein married Mileva on January 6, 1903, although Einstein's mother had objected to the match because she had a prejudice against Serbs and thought Marić "too old" and "physically defective."[20] [21] Their relationship was for a time a personal and intellectual partnership. In a letter to her, Einstein called Marić "a creature who is my equal and who is as strong and independent as I am."[22] There has been debate about whether Marić influenced Einstein's work; however, most historians do not think she made major contributions.wiki
as for Curie, that is a matter of opinion.
She was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity, the first and only person honored with Nobel Prizes in two different sciences, and the first female professor at the University of Paris.
so what was your point again?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 12:58pm
Yeah, Beethoven and Shakespeare are real relevant to this discussion. sure
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:01pm
Do you even bother to read your own quotes? Apparently not.
"There has been DEBATE about whether Marić influenced Einstein's work; however, most historians do NOT think she made major contributions."
Last I knew, people do not reference the Einsteins the same way they reference Masters & Johnson. We don't say "theory of relativity" in one breath and mean "Maric & Albert" on the other.
Oh, and since we're into quoting things...I kind of like this passage from one of Marty Nemko's articles:
"What do the following people have in common: Aristotle, Plato, Jesus, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Monet, the Wright Brothers, Jonas Salk, Steven Spielberg, 98% of the Nobel Prize Winners for science, the key scientists behind the development of every drug from aspirin to breast cancer breakthrough Herceptin, from anesthetic to heart bypass surgery, from refrigeration to heating, from the electric light bulb to the radio, the television, the computer, and the mapping of human genome? They're all men.
"And in the five decades since the women's movement began, 97% of science, 92% of literature, and 100% of economic Nobel Laureates still are men."
All that male success. DAMN! It can only mean ONE THING, only ONE THING: misogyny is the reason men have excelled intellectually. In order to achieve something intellectually, men must have conspired to keep women down.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:06pm
"Yeah, Beethoven and Shakespeare are real relevant to this discussion. sure"
Why, of course they're not! Because the best intellectual specimens throughout history have been men, these examples must NOT count for squat. Right?
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:08pm
it's been a man's world for some time. it is called patriarchy.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:09pm
KSP556
you are a child. grow up.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:12pm
No, not at all.
Over time men and women have had different roles. Nature decreed that it would be the female who gives birth, who nurtures her young, who breast feeds. That's biology. It's true of every female mammal that I know.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:13pm
emile
You're a baby who hates getting shown up in debate. Get over yourself.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:14pm
KSP556
you are a child. grow up.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:16pm
emile
You're a baby who hates getting shown up in debate. Get over yourself.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:16pm
Quite striking:
"...98% of the Nobel Prize Winners for science, the key scientists behind the development of every drug from aspirin to breast cancer breakthrough Herceptin, from anesthetic to heart bypass surgery, from refrigeration to heating, from the electric light bulb to the radio, the television, the computer, and the mapping of human genome? They're all men.
"And in the five decades since the women's movement began, 97% of science, 92% of literature, and 100% of economic Nobel Laureates still are men."
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:18pm
"...breast cancer breakthrough Herceptin..."
When's the last time you heard a feminist credit the man who came up with the breakthrough for breast cancer?
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:19pm
KSP556
been some time since you had a date, hasn't it? girls can be so cruel, huh?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:21pm
"KSP556
been some time since you had a date, hasn't it? girls can be so cruel, huh?"
I guess when someone's been so thoroughly beaten in debate, he resorts to ad hominem attacks like the one above.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:23pm
the women's movement is far older than a few decades. ever hear of suffragettes?
black males won the right to vote, de jure, BEFORE women did. that was justice, huh?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 1:39pm
So now you've reverted to debating mode...good.
I can't speak for the author, but it sounds like he's talking about the women's movement since the 1960s. Even feminists speak of different aspects or "waves" of the movement.
Black males won the right to vote before women, but unlike white women, they were bought and sold and owned as property. They have arguably endured more humiliation and hatred than white women in the last century or so.
Throughout this primary campaign season there has been an ugly undertone that a white woman is somehow more deserving of the presidency than a black man. In states like WVA and KY upwards of 20% of voters admitted that race was a factor in their decision. I don't know of a single state where as many voters indicated that gender was important in their decision.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 1:52pm
*ahem*
Let's go back even further KSP.
Arate of Cyrene - contemporary philosopher of Socrates, author of over 40 books.
Hypatia - Roman scientist, was appointed head of the University of Alexandria.
Hildegard Von Bingen - famous composer and also a natural scientist.
Marie Cunitz - the premier translator of the works of Johannes Kepler, for several centuries was the standard work for Kepler's theories.
Maria Mitchell - pioneer of astronomy, first to photograph the surface of the sun.
I just picked five, but if you'd open your eyes you'd find women have contributed in astounding ways to our modern world.
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 1:58pm
[ McSame has been described as Bob Dole without the charisma.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008 ]
HA!
Good one Emile!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/09/2008 @ 2:03pm
Yutsano, I've never read any of Arate's work, and am actually surprised to hear of a female contemporary of Socrates who wrote, as you say, over 40 books.
But I'll go out on a limb and say that Arate never wrote an article or book whining about how much influence men like Socrates had in Athens.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:07pm
yutsano
add the Heptameron, a laundry list of great women in antiquity.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 2:09pm
You seem to have this need to demonize modern feminism. That suggests a personal problem, possibly an overly assertive female boss. Plus if you've never researched her, how do you know what she wrote about?
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 2:13pm
yutsano
if you were female would you go out with that nutcase?
of course I don't know which gender you are.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 2:16pm
No, I'd say the problem's not mine. The problem is that there's a certain breed of feminist that absolutely despises men. If you think it's acceptable to hate men, then you have a problem.
If you read what I wrote carefully, you'd know that I was offering a hunch. Can you find anything Arate wrote that complained of men's influence in Athens? If I had to guess, I'd say she looked up to men like Socrates.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:17pm
Poor little emile...gets beaten in a debate and has to name-call.
Poor little thing. I can't imagine anybody wanting to date you, either.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:19pm
We should not be thinking in quotas or anything like it, but surely diversity is very important because it brings the public several distinct perspectives and enrichens the debates. And perspectives are very personal, every individual develops them during his/her life and nobody can impersonate them.
As for my ethnic group, Hispanic, I see almost complete absence in the media except for a host in CNN. And liberal "The Nation" which should break with the molds, does not escape that general rule.
Posted by Frank42 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:27pm
Emile I outed myself as a gay man awhile back, I guessed you missed that :) But going by your logic, he's not really selling himself as dateable material, no.
Arate of Cyrene was a contemporary of Socrates. They actually were colleagues and he held her in highest regard. Plus assuming their arguments can be framed in the context of modern feminism is intellctually lazy on your part.
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 2:29pm
Yutsano & emile...boyfriend & girlfriend? Lovers?
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:31pm
What you struggled to say is that Arate held Socrates in the highest esteem, and wasn't all hot and bothered because most of the leading lights of Athens were men.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:33pm
Again, putting modern morals on 2500 year old writings and philosophers. Bad form there gent.
Posted by yutsano at 06/09/2008 @ 2:41pm
No, I think comparing our attitudes and thoughts with those of our ancestors can sometimes be instructive.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:44pm
yutsano
I'm sorry, I did not remember that.
dude's Kinder, Küche, Kirche trope was ancient in the 19th century.
I admit, I do not suffer fools gladly.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 2:54pm
A fool not suffering fools gladly..hmm
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 2:55pm
KSP556....such a goldmine of weirdness!
I've been a card-carrying femmie for 38 yrs..Still married to a wonderful guy after 34 yrs..He was pulling for Hillary. Go figure. I don't hate men. Neither do most feminists that I know. Most of us are married or attached to nice men who manage to be able to think outside the black/white box you seem to be trapped in.
I love your posts....really. Great material for a serial killer weirdo in my next novel. Keep it coming, dear. The dialog just writes itself. Makes my job easier. Thanks.
Posted by alaskadiva at 06/09/2008 @ 3:15pm
Diva dear, are you strong enough to be able to converse without hurling insults? Or do you think doing such things makes a woman "strong"?
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:19pm
Don't much agree with KSP....but "Professor" EMILE JOHANNESS DUBOIS ROLF did contradict his own post....
"Einstein's wife was his partner in his work."----Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008
"There has been debate about whether Marić influenced Einstein's work; however, most historians do not think she made major contributions"----Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 3:25pm
Why don't you agree with me, Mask?
Don't you think it's silly to obsess over the numbers of men and women in the media?
Do you think that women are oppressed in America?
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:27pm
misogynists, antisemites, it's a haters ball at the Nation today
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 3:36pm
It seems Ari left out of his thread which of the prime time and Sunday hosts he believes should be fired to make way for this mandated affirmative action program?
And is it sufficient cause to state "you're being fired so we can have more diversity"?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/09/2008 @ 3:56pm
lvl: "And is it sufficient cause to state 'you're being fired so we can have more diversity?'"
Only if the ones being fired are men.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:01pm
lvl: "And is it sufficient cause to state 'you're being fired so we can have more diversity?'"
Only if the ones being fired are men.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/9/2008
It's against the law.
"In the 1960s, in response to the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT and an increasing awareness of discrimination against minorities, several pieces of landmark legislation were signed into law. Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.), the most comprehensive CIVIL RIGHTS legislation in U.S. history, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, nationality, or color. Title VII was designed to provide for parity in the use and enjoyment of public accommodations, facilities, and education as well as in federally assisted programs and employment. It further allows an injured party to bring suit and obtain damages from any individual who illegally infringes upon the party's civil rights."
http://law.jrank.org/pages/6174/Discrimination.html
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:24pm
It seems Ari left out of his thread which of the prime time and Sunday hosts he believes should be fired to make way for this mandated affirmative action program?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/9/2008 |
I would like to hear this as well. We get the complaint without the specific demand or remedy. So Ari.....who do think is deserving of her very own prime time news hour on MSM? Remember, if she is going to get the position, she has to have the ratings potential. Rememaber, advertisers call the shots in this business.
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 4:27pm
Also, all of these hosts are over 40 and therefore there would be a further violation of federal law
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) (29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq.) prohibits employers with 20 or more employees from discriminating because of age against employees over age 40.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:27pm
What was the point about Shakespeare and Beethoven? I can somewhat understand Einstein, although I disagree with it proving anything. Science is science. But art is a matter of taste and has little to do with fact, although its content often does. Whatever if you read Shakespeare and get nothing out of his writing, then he is a shitty artist. Same with Beethoven.
On a bigger point, I enjoy seeing/reading white men crying about feeling oppressed. It's wonderful. God knows what type of fun it would be if they actually ever had a reason for feeling that way.
Posted by onthehelm at 06/09/2008 @ 4:39pm
it's been a man's world for some time. it is called patriarchy.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008 |
Ever been to the Nordic countries?
These societies are matriarchal and yet they don't resent men being men. You don't hear all this feminist nonsense spouted off for commercial and political opportunism, or just plain anger and the search for a scapegoat.
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 4:45pm
Onthehelm,
The point I was making is that the emphasis should be on talent, not on gender, and the mindset that there should be an equal number of women in the media to men (by the way, there are plenty of women in the media) is very problematic if taken to its logical conclusion.
I don't think men like Shakespeare, Einstein and many similar male geniuses should've been bumped out of their respective job so that women could fill them. Nor should there be an almost paranoid counting of heads in the professions today.
If there's any crying & whining being done, it's by certain writers at publications like The Nation, who apparently resent the fact that so many men are in positions of influence and authority.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:51pm
Well said Onevote.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 4:52pm
On a bigger point, I enjoy seeing/reading white men crying about feeling oppressed. It's wonderful. God knows what type of fun it would be if they actually ever had a reason for feeling that way.
Posted by onthehelm at 06/9/2008
How unfeeling!
How would feel about reducing social security payments for women because they live longer than men, based on insurance actuarial tables for longevity. Seems like women ultimately get the bigger payout than men based on biology and not merit. Why should men get less payout? Alternatively, we could increase the benefits to men, and leave benefits to women at the same level. Right now...its just sooooooooooo unfair. What say you nutcracker?
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 4:53pm
Well said Onevote.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/9/2008 |
Whiners without a cause and a viable solution. Affirmative action arguments just don't carry much weight anymore. Lets offer them Wolf Blitzer in exchange for replacing a woman producer with a man. Ari tells us they already outnumber men.
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 5:02pm
OneVote, It's funny because every time I turn on TV I see women anchors & women pundits. The little beauties on all the cable networks, as well as people like Rachel Maddow, Alex Witt, Campbell Brown, Gloria Bolger, Donna Brazile, Bay Buchanan, Kelly Ann Conway, Judy Woodruff, Monica Crowley, and so on...
There are no shortage of women writers, as this magazine can attest, and no shortage of women bloggers. Just as there's no shortage of female lawyers, doctors, and businesspersons.
These people act like it's 1905 or something.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 5:09pm
misogynists, antisemites, it's a haters ball at the Nation today
Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008
Gosh Mask....I believe you are right...this is unmistakably Johannes Rolf!
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 5:14pm
These people act like it's 1905 or something.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/9/2008
They don't want equality.....they want it all! We asked to disbelieve our eyes and ears, and futhermore, believe the argument that these headliners control and frame the political debate in this Country. This rag has numerous articles about control of content at the top....not the bottom as the ruination of the media. Lots of hypocrisy flowing today. Last time I checked, producers are considered higher up the foodchain than the talking head headliners. Just doesn't wash. Same baloney we got from Clinton supporters - sexism is the reason she didn't get the nod. This article by Melber is an oblique but apparent stab at trying that argument again.
Posted by OneVote at 06/09/2008 @ 5:23pm
utterly absurd Nation liberal dogpile.
...Fox news dames (Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Gretta Sustern), Michelle Malkin, Arianna Huffington (actually a smart, broad intellectual), Paula Zahn, Rita Cosby, Katie Couric... Headline News always immaculate wide grinners. NY Times got skirts up their jewish wazoos
.. Apart from lacking spark and creativity women don't really put out very well on the late night sweat routines. There's such thing as a man's way with words -- largely gone. Hillary Clintom shamed womanhood, but femininazi robots press on.
If any woman as an indivudual has anything important to say, it would probably get heard. If a whining female wannabe wants to get her action affirmed in order to advance some weird thong agenda for babies -- maybe to protect them -- no no.
Posted by jones at 06/09/2008 @ 6:25pm
"There's such thing as a man's way with words" -
just unbelievable, whattaloadofcrap.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 6:41pm
smiley, smiley emule!
I can always spot 'em. Maybe you can't.
Posted by jones at 06/09/2008 @ 6:57pm
OneVote
you on board with that nazi holocaust denier?
you should be ashamed of yourself. for the woman hate too.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 7:36pm
Do you think that women are oppressed in America?----Posted by KSP556 at 06/9/2008
No, not like abroad in 2nd or 3rd World countries. That's hyperbole.
However, there are still "guys" out there who think it's their job to tell women what they can or cannot do when they become impregnated.
So it's far from perfect either.
Posted by Mask at 06/09/2008 @ 8:25pm
holocaust denial is idiotic, since the perps themselves never denied their crimes, but documented them carefully.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/09/2008 @ 8:53pm
OneVote, Not all feminists, but a lot of them, are not interested in what's fair and right, but only in what furthers their own ends. A lot of them have a "to hell with men!" attitude.
Something we sometimes forget is that most women in America do not describe themselves as "feminist." This is not because they're not strong believers in women's equality, but because the rhetoric of some of the movement's leaders thoroughly turns them off.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 9:22pm
Mask, I happen to know women who think abortion is murder, plain and simple. It's not phlegm that a doctor is extracting from an impregnated woman's body; it's an actual living organism.
I'm against the criminalization of abortion and would rather leave the choice up to women myself. But there are those on the choice side who demagog the issue and show no awareness of the fact that the issue is a morally complex one. For some, abortion IS a sacrament, a ritual symbolizing women's "emancipation" from men and the familial structure.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/09/2008 @ 9:28pm
More than color/ gender, the key issue is allegiance. How is it not a single network or major big corporate media mouthpiece agreed with the consensus of counterparts in France, Germany? Not to mention --
opposition as high as 90% in Spain and Italy
82% of Hungarians
79% of Danes
87% of Turks
52% of British people oppose war, while 29% of people support it
Answer: corporatocracy, open/legal corporate/government collusion
Posted by winyahn at 06/09/2008 @ 11:41pm
The political media has become very influenced by the blogosphere, which is where it finds seeds for information, ideas, soundbites and attitudes. The Obama campaign was so effective in pushing its sexist slurs and mysogyny in part because it dominated the blogosphere with a small army of paid bloggers who blanketed the Internet with slurs and misinformation about Clinton and praise for Obama.
His campaign is continuing that blanket-the-Internet-blogs-and-forums strategy, and people can observe it in action if they pay attention in the next few weeks.
Obama has set up an "Internet War Room" to push the perception that he "has never been a Muslim" and attack people who try to post that he was. A team of bloggers will form a rapid response internet "war room" to track and respond aggressively to online discussion of his religion, what they refer to as "internet Slurs". Specifically, they will promote the Obama campaign narrative that "Mr. Obama has never been a Muslim".
Barack Obama was registered as a Muslim in the Catholic school he attended in Indonesia. His campaign changed its statement that Obama "was never a Muslim" to "was never a practicing Muslim" after the investigative reporter in the LA Times story linked to below found out Obama was registered as a Muslim in that Catholic School in Indonesia. Presumably, they aren't expecting that someone will appear with documentary proof that he was a fully practicing Muslim overseas. But his campaign is still pushing the "never was a Muslim" version to the public, denying he was Muslim at all (practicing or not) and it is not being challenged on the contradiction between its statement and his registration as a Muslim in Indonesia.
Now the Obama campaign hiring a bloggers to go out and blanket the Internet with the snow job version "never been a Muslim".
LA TImes Story on Facts About Obama's Religion in Childhood (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/bal-te.o... )
During the Democratic Primary season, what we saw was that the Obama campaign paid bloggers to argue with and criticize Clinton supporters who were on blogs and forums, and blanket the Internet with slander and anti-Clinton invective, rumors and Obama campaign talking points during the primary season, posing as real readers and forum bloggers, instead of as campaign workers. During the time this army of bloggers were attacking Clinton, sometimes even with profanity and other abusive language, Barack Obama was running on a platform of "new politics" and accusing Clinton of running a negative campaign.
Posted by AsperGirl at 06/10/2008 @ 08:10am
AsperGirl
Obama attended school in Indonesia, a country where most of the world's muslims live, from age six to eight. if he was registered as a muslim it was likely because his mother's husband was muslim.
I don't know what religion was practiced in that household and neither do you. what you are posting is an ill disguised smear. nothing more.
get used to saying president Obama.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 08:57am
Something we sometimes forget is that most women in America do not describe themselves as "feminist." This is not because they're not strong believers in women's equality, but because the rhetoric of some of the movement's leaders thoroughly turns them off.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/9/2008
I am a strong believer in equality for women. I just don't buy the argument that "men controlled" media is the reason for Clinton's defeat. She (and her Party) are the reason.
Campbell Brown interviewed Gloria Steinem ( a Clinton supporter) last night and asked her point blank what specific instances of sexism contributed to Clinton's loss of the nomination. Steinem's response, paraphrased, was that there were many instances of sexism....but she did not name one specific instance. Brown asked her again.....and still no specific response. Again, we get the complaint, but no evidence, and no specific remedy. This is political opportunism that exploiting divisiveness that cut to the bone has nothing to do with women's issues and equality.
Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2008 @ 09:01am
Ever been to the Nordic countries?
These societies are matriarchal and yet they don't resent men being men. You don't hear all this feminist nonsense spouted off for commercial and political opportunism, or just plain anger and the search for a scapegoat.
Posted by OneVote
this is just plain nonsense. you don't even know what a matriarchy is, never mind being equipped to discuss it intelligently.
this blog has been dominated by losers, who cling to their outdated concepts of masculinity to cover their inadequacy.
Most modern anthropologists and sociologists assert that there are no known examples of human matriarchies from any point in history, and Encyclopedia Britannica describes their views as "consensus", listing matriarchy as a hypothetical social system.wiki
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:07am
you on board with that nazi holocaust denier?
you should be ashamed of yourself. for the woman hate too.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/9/2008
What I hate is political opportunism and lies. Is placing the United State's interest ahead of Israel's in any way indicating that I am siding with Ahmahdinejad's version of the holocaust?
Despite the effort at suppression of truth and reasoned discussion by Zionist hawks for Israel, the inordinate influence of Israel on the politics of United States is well known. I place the interest of the United States ahead of Israel's. That makes me a Patriot -- not a Jew hater.
Posted by OneVote at 06/10/2008 @ 09:15am
OneVote
I did not accuse you of that. read it again. I accused you of siding with an obvious anti semite.
also try to respond to my points. like the matriarchy bit for instance.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 09:40am
the inordinate influence of Israel on the politics of United States is well known.
this is merely another way of saying it's all the jews' fault.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 10:09am
I love your posts....really. Great material for a serial killer weirdo in my next novel. Keep it coming, dear. The dialog just writes itself. Makes my job easier. Thanks.
Posted by alaskadiva
this is a gift that keeps giving
laughs
please stick around.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008 @ 11:22am
"And in the five decades since the women's movement began, 97% of science, 92% of literature, and 100% of economic Nobel Laureates still are men."
Posted by KSP556
hmm?
50 years versus 50,000 years?
yep, everything's equal now.
stupid chicks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008 @ 2:09pm
"Great material for a serial killer weirdo in my next novel."
Posted by alaskadiva
I suppose they let anyone "write" novels these days.
-----------
laughs
please stick around.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008
You probably consider that poster a great admirer of yours - someone who "really appreciates your posts."
Posted by KSP556 at 06/10/2008 @ 3:42pm
"Great material for a serial killer weirdo in my next novel." Posted by alaskadiva
I suppose they let anyone "write" novels these days.
---------------------- laughs
please stick around.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/10/2008
That must be one of the posters who "really admires your posts," a member of your vast "following" in Blog Land.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/10/2008 @ 3:48pm
hmm?
50 years versus 50,000 years?
yep, everything's equal now.
stupid chicks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008
----------
Spare me that horseshit, please?
Homo sapiens didn't come on the scene until around 40,000 to 30,000 BC, so your figure is ludicrous on its face.
Women were around just as long as men. They breathed the same air, looked at the same sun, had similar experiences to men. The difference is that they fulfilled the role of childbearer, nurturer, and caretaker while the men went out and did various things to provide for the family.
Like it or not - it probably drives you nuts - but men have totally dominated intellectual history, and they've continued to dominate some 4 decades after the advent of second wave feminism.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/10/2008 @ 6:09pm
KSP666...
You've missed the point of feminism entirely.
How many ideas over the last 20 centuries were originally 'conceived' by women... and 'taken credit for' by the men in their lives? WAY more than you think, big guy...
How many wars were started and 'enabled' by women?
How many exemplary female intellectuals have there been in the last 20 centuries that could not get past the sexism in their own home to voice their opinions and shape the structure of society... and then... of those few that made it into the publishing,scientific, political and marketplace spheres... how many of their voices were heard through the patriarchal static...
I find your posts to be contradictory and virtually meaningless.
Posted by ttr at 06/12/2008 @ 10:55am
Thank you ttr- I was thinking the same thing.
Posted by jro555 at 06/12/2008 @ 11:54am
How about class, folks?
How many 'pundits' were working class or represented the working class at least (i.e. union people...)
Answer: Almost none - less than blacks, gays or women.
Posted by ElyDog at 06/12/2008 @ 12:54pm
I'm seeing a rehash of arguments for and against equality for women that have circulated for 50 years in the USA. If we look at other countries, we can more easily see that cultural attitudes prevail over legality. In 2007 in China I met women whose parents still pick their husbands for them and favor male children over females. This despite the communist government's efforts to give married women equal rights and educational opportunities. In Afghanistan a father can sell his daughter to the Taliban if his crops fail. In Egypt a woman can be arrested for prostitution and her "John" used as a witness against her. In the USA, our grandmothers not only had no voice in politics, but they could not even obtain a divorce from a brutal husband in most states. They could not own property or get credit in their own names. Their husbands could take over any property they had before marriage. They could not obtain birth control or even advice about contraception in many states. Public health nurse Margaret Sanger was jailed for teaching women how to limit the size of their families and protect their health. Even rape victims could not get a medically safe abortion. Widows could not get jobs outside their home, so they took in boarders or laundry to feed their families. Single women were limited to 3 career choices -- nursing, clerical work, or teaching (mostly low-paying jobs). Yes, we have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. Many young people -- both male and female -- do not understand the terrible injustices that the women's movement was trying to correct. Despite much improvement in the laws, we still have to deal with the cultural assumptions that men should lead and women should defer to them. Just look at the men who were hollering for Hillary to quit even before all the primaries had been held! (Would they ask a sports team to stop playing as soon as it appeared they couldn't catch up to the opposing team?) This may not rise to the level of sexism, but it certainly affirms a double standard -- we just expect more from women than we do from men. And there are still lots of men who are eager to put women down, and also some women who vent their anger on other women because they don't dare express anger toward men. From Sensocrat, Santa Barbara, CA
Posted by SENSOCRAT at 06/12/2008 @ 4:47pm
(Would they ask a sports team to stop playing as soon as it appeared they couldn't catch up to the opposing team?)
poor example. in a championship series best of seven, they stop playing when one team has won four games.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/13/2008 @ 08:36am
TTR, Sorry, but I don't buy this "women have been oppressed over the ages" bullshit.
Over the centuries there have been clearly defined divisions of labor and societal roles. Whether you or any other feminist likes it or not, Nature has decreed that it is the female who gives birth, breastfeeds her young, nurtures her children. Women get pregnant, not men, so naturally over time it has been the women who have stayed at home rearing children, and men who have ventured outside to support the family.
You can believe, if it makes you feel better, that women have achieved the same things as men intellectually in history, but I'm afraid that just wouldn't be accurate. Whether you look at law, medicine, literature, the sciences, philosophy, men have made the greatest inroads and contributed the most.
It's striking how certain people accept prevalent notions without actually thinking about them.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/13/2008 @ 08:50am
hmm?
50 years versus 50,000 years?
yep, everything's equal now.
stupid chicks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/10/2008
----------
Spare me that horseshit, please?
Homo sapiens didn't come on the scene until around 40,000 to 30,000 BC, so your figure is ludicrous on its face.
Women were around just as long as men. They breathed the same air, looked at the same sun, had similar experiences to men. The difference is that they fulfilled the role of childbearer, nurturer, and caretaker while the men went out and did various things to provide for the family.
Like it or not - it probably drives you nuts - but men have totally dominated intellectual history, and they've continued to dominate some 4 decades after the advent of second wave feminism.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/13/2008 @ 08:55am
The New Double Standard By Marty Nemko
Organizations such as the National Organization for Women have helped women enormously. So much so that many men, including me, feel that men are now subjected to a double standard that results in their being treated unfairly.
For example, when few women are in a lucrative profession, for instance, computer science or engineering, most universities and large employers install reverse discrimination policies to avoid organizations such as NOW tarring them with the dreaded epithet, "sexist!" Yet, where is NOW's and the media's outrage when women are overrepresented in a desirable career such as pharmacist? Where's the outrage over the fact that only men must register for the draft, the obligation to risk getting one's head blown off?
Another example of the New Double Standard: Leading women's advocates have, with little substantiation, made statements about men that never would be tolerated if said about women:
"As far as I'm concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene." (Germaine Greer, in in an invited address at the Alert! Conference.)
"All men are rapists and that's all they are." (Marilyn French, author of the feminist classic, The Women's Room, in a People magazine interview.)
"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." (Former congresswoman Barbara Jordan)
None of those leaders suffered significant reprisals. In contrast, consider what happened when Harvard president, Lawrence Summers, in an internal brainstorming meeting, in response to a request to be provocative, merely hypothesized, with multiple qualifications, that innate differences might partly explain why more men are in science. That statement, especially when opined in a private meeting, is not only less devastating to women than the above statements are to men, substantial research supports Summers' hypothesis. Yet, a national firestorm led by NOW ensued demanding Summers' firing, and Harvard's 762-member Faculty of Arts and Sciences issued an unprecedented and career-devastating vote of lack of confidence in Summers.
This establishes a new double standard: you can, without reprisal, viciously denigrate men without substantiation but dare you make a milder statement about women, your career is eviscerated. That double standard will make academics, leaders, and the media think 10 times before saying something negative about a woman, but not about a man. That will immeasurably hurt how men are treated today, and in future generations.
Here's an example even more devastating to men. When women were underserved in the health arena, a decade-long media-supported hue and cry ensued that continues unabated, resulting in enormous research and treatment attention to, for example, breast cancer. Yet, even though men die 5.3 years younger than women, and die earlier of each of the 10 leading killers, led by sudden heart attack, when was the last time you heard of a Sudden Heart Attack fundraiser or corporate initiative, let alone a postage stamp with the profits going to research, which is the case with the unprecedented breast cancer stamp?
Similarly, women's organizations promulgate the broad and long-false statement that most medical research is conducted on men. Academia and the media promulgate such assertions without the normal vetting, ignoring definitive contradictory evidence. For example, PubMed, which indexes the 3,000 leading medical journals, from the 1950s to present, contains 42 articles on women's health for every one(!) on men's health. Where's the outrage about that injustice? Where's the outrage that women needn't register for the draft, and if they volunteer, will never be placed in direct combat? Perhaps Warren Farrell is right: "Men are the disposable sex."
Posted by KSP556 at 06/13/2008 @ 10:34am