Amy Klobuchar's 'surge' proves media still has a 'woman' problem

[question everything]

After the Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire, The New York Times asked 10 of its opinion writers to score the candidates’ performances. The hands-down winner: Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

But you wouldn’t know that from news reports. Across print, digital, broadcast and cable, coverage of the debate overwhelmingly focused on the battle of the bros: Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and former Vice President Joe Biden. Klobuchar barely merited a mention. The Times itself treated her as a footnote, declaring in a front-page article that “there were no standout moments” in a debate that might be Klobuchar’s “final” chance (though the next day it belatedly noted her “Klomentum” — on page A27).

When Klobuchar finished strong, with a third-place finish closing in on the top two winners, news outlets trumpeted her “sudden surge” as a “big surprise.” Actually, no, it wasn’t. It was a failure of basic news reporting.

(snip)

The coverage they do get tends to be more negative: Northeastern University School of Journalism last spring analyzed almost 1,400 news articles from mainstream outlets and found that “female candidates running for president are consistently being described in the media more negatively than their male counterparts.” Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising. News coverage decisions are overwhelmingly made by men, who lead the vast majority of newsrooms. Women make up two-thirds of journalism and communications grads, yet men write or produce 63% of all news coverage, according to the Women’s Media Center. On television, male journalists outnumber female journalists by almost 2 to 1. On Twitter, male political reporters ignore female reporters altogether; they retweet fellow male journalists three times more often than they retweet female journalists.

(snip)

Back when former secretary of State Hilary Clinton was a presidential contender, coverage by mainstream news outlets was relentlessly gendered. She was “unlikable.” She was an “angry woman.” She had “cankles.” She was “shrill” and “castrating” and reminded men of their “nagging wives.”

You would think the media has learned since then to scrub the sexism from its prose. It hasn’t. Witness descriptions of Klobuchar as the “boss from hell,” and Warren as “unlikable” and a “moralizing scold.”

More..

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/14/amy-klobuchars-surge-shows-gender-inequality-sexism-media-men-majority-column/4754230002

[RhodeIslandOne]

1. But I hear she's the media's darling.

[apcalc]

2. The MSM-why I quit watching TV.

[jimfields33]

3. Msnbc has way more women then men. Probably double at least including panels it's more.

[blm]

4. Previous debate in Iowa was won by Warren with Amy right behind and media ignored

their victories. NH was a good bit better for media noticing Amy’s win, but......still.

Sad display by media pundits in general. As usual.

[judeling]

5. High Heals and Bacward

We wot ever get over that I fear.