- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
- Obama takes aim at ‘corporate deserters’
- Dick’s Sporting Goods lays off 478 PGA golf pros
- Senators: Cease-fire must allow Israel to defend against rockets, tunnels
- Sierra Leone doctor fighting Ebola catches disease
- Iraq welcomes Russian fighter jets, helicopter gunships into ISIL fight
- John McCain laments: Obama’s ‘self-pity … is really kind of sad’
- GOP offer to fix VA gives $10 billion in emergency funds
- Paul Ryan offers to repair U.S. economic safety net with a single grant stream
- Kim Jong-un builds bond with Putin: $250M Russia-backed addition to key port opens
‘Gender bias’ did in Clinton?
Question of the Day
It’s not her honking laugh, political baggage or pantsuits.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the Democratic nomination for president because of “gender bias” in the news media, according to a Johns Hopkins University analysis that found the New York Democrat has attracted marked press discrimination.
But so has the rest of a rare sorority - eight other women who have run for president over the decades. The research also found that journalists have favored male politicians over their female counterparts for 136 years.
“Ninety-two percent of Americans say they would vote in a presidential election for a qualified female candidate from their own party,” said Erika Falk, a communications professor who led the study.
“Asked if America is ready for a woman president, 55 percent said, ‘yes,’ a figure that has been steadily rising since the middle of the 20th century. So where is our woman in the White House?” she asked, citing recent figures from CBS News and New York Times polls.
Along with Mrs. Clinton’s current treatment in the press, Ms. Falk has analyzed the news coverage of an octet of female presidential hopefuls, beginning with Victoria Woodhull in 1872 and ending with Carol Moseley Braun in 2004.
“The most striking finding was that women consistently got less coverage than male candidates in the same race, and that did not improve over time,” she said.
The gents, in fact, got twice as many stories and their stories were 7 percent longer - a trend Ms. Falk said could ultimately dampen the political aspirations of women fearful they would be “held up for ridicule and scrutiny.”
The tone of the stories also came into play - along with stereotyping. Male candidates received much more “substantive coverage,” with 27 percent of it focusing on their policies and issues, compared with 16 percent of the stories about the women.
“Stories about female candidates emphasized their physical appearance and families. For the women, there were three times as many physical descriptions - references to clothing or age - as their closest male competitor. Women were also stereotypically portrayed as more emotional and their professional titles were more likely to be omitted from stories,” the study said.
Similar forces are at work in the 2008 campaign, with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois garnering more prominent news coverage than Mrs. Clinton. When both candidates announced their intention to run in 2007, for example, Mr. Obama was the subject of 59 major newspaper stories, compared with 36 for his rival, Ms. Falk said.
Other research echoed the phenomenon.
Far more Americans believe that the press coverage has favored Barack Obama than they think it has favored Hillary Clinton. Nearly four in ten (37 percent) say that in covering the Democratic race, news organizations have been biased toward Obama while just 8 percent say they have been biased toward Clinton,” said a study released Thursday by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.
Ms. Falk has compiled much of her findings in the new book “Women for President,” released in January. She also advises future “Madame Presidents” to get tough and plan accordingly.
“They have to tailor the strategies to overcome this bias,” she said.
About the Author
- Inside the Beltway: Just a little media protection for the White House
- Some federal help for old American battlefields: $1.3 million to spruce them up
- Inside the Beltway: Frugal-phobic Congress offers 828 spending bills
- It's grim: 911 Commission warns terrorism has entered 'a new and dangerous phase'
- Inside the Beltway: The evolving White House deflection strategy
Latest Blog Entries
- A startling 20 percent of Democratic lawmakers already endorse Hillary Clinton for president
- Hey food police: calling obesity a 'disease' is actually a health risk
- Cheese and an 'enhanced experience': White House goes showbiz on the State of the Union address
- Cruz calls it a 'circus': the State of the Union spectacle begins
- Half of American fans say God and 'supernatural' forces are in play during sports events
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Evidence shows Russia firing artillery into Ukraine: Pentagon
- Norway expects imminent 'concrete threat' from ISIL terrorists 'within days'
- PRUDEN: The Democratic-wannabe mice under Hillary Clinton's feet
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- Algerian plane diverted due to storms, second aircraft: 116 missing
- ISIL captured 52 U.S.-made howitzers; artillery weapons cost 500K each
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq