WOMEN, THE MEDIA, 2016, AND 2020

WOMEN, THE MEDIA, 2016, AND 2020

by Ruth A. Sheets

May 30, 2019

At the beginning of the 2020 campaigns, it is necessary that the media, all the media cover female candidates with respect and honesty.  They deserve at least that much.  They are all , at least as qualified as the men in the group of candidates.  They should be judged by their proposals and their ability to address the needs of this nation.  NO mention of their hair, cute or otherwise.  There should be no comments on their perky outfits, whether or not they are perky.  They should not be told their voice is too strident or harsh.  Few people have a harsher , more strident voice than Donald Trump. 

In the 2016 election, most of the media covered nearly every one of Donald Trump's words and lies, but called them everything but lies.  Cameras focused on empty podiums while awaiting the mega (or MAGA) star.

In the interest of “equality” and “fairness,” they did cover Benghazi and emails when discussing Hillary Clinton (except, of course when Mr. Comey was inappropriately chastising her and after her mention of some of Mr. Trump’s followers being a “basket of deplorables).  Mr. Trump was shown shouting, yelling and egging on crowds with his lies and half-truths with no identification of those comments which were lies.  Perhaps the reporters and newscasters thought that would take up too much time.

Hillary had pneumonia, like many Americans each year, but was instantly described as unfit, not healthy enough, not strong enough, etc.  Mr. Trump dictated a note supposedly from his doctor describing him as the healthiest person ever to run for president, a man who could live to be 200.  That was shown over and over.

Mr. Trump was allowed to loom over Ms. Clinton in debates instead of being forced to stay at his own podium with the threat of ending the debate.  Mr. Trump is a bit taller, so for a lot of people, he seemed bigger, stronger, manly enough to be president, while poor pathetic Hillary Clinton just stood there trying to present her “ridiculous” platform.

Mr. Trump was and still is proud that he does not read and it is reported that he does not listen very much either.  Hillary Clinton was and is well informed about the world and the issues that directly impact the nation.  That fact was mentioned a few times, on MSNBC, but even more rarely on mainstream or other cable media outlets.     

Benghazi was thrown in Clinton’s face often as though she had gone in and single-handedly killed the Americans there.  Isn’t it interesting that Mr. Reagan and his Secretary of State were not held responsible for the more than 200 Marines killed in Lebanon in the 1980s, or George W. Bush not held responsible for 9/11, attacked embassies,  or the extreme recession of 2007?  But Hillary Clinton is forever associated with and blamed for Benghazi.

The private emails Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over to the government was the other issue.  If it was such a big deal, why is Donald Trump’s family allowed to keep private servers?  Why is Mr. Trump allowed to have an unsecured phone?  Oh, they’re men and Republicans.  As we are learning lately, Republicans don’t have to abide by the law, any law.

Hillary Clinton was blamed for her husband’s infidelities while the people who accused Mr. Clinton and led to his impeachment were cheating on their wives.  Mr. Trump was not blamed in the media for the way he treated his wives over the years either.  It was like a joke.   Boys will be boys!  And, the women are always responsible.   

Detailed plans for improving conditions for all Americans were laid out by the Clinton campaign, but what was covered concerning them, she told coal miners they would be losing their jobs and that everyone had a responsibility to help them find quality jobs.  That was seen as a slap in the face for miners and other white working men.  Mr. Trump shouted that he would keep coal mining jobs and he would make coal great again.  Miners are still losing their jobs, but there is no strong federal program to help them.   Coal is a losing proposition, but Mr. Trump had no clue.  Ms. Clinton did.

The media was markedly unfair to Ms. Clinton in 2016.  More than the media led to her electoral college defeat, but media coverage definitely tipped the balance.  Already the female candidates running for the 2020 election are receiving comments about their hair, their clothes, the way they walk, their voices, and on and on.  The “b” word has also been employed.  (Maybe the “b” means brilliant, brave, balanced.)  I have heard no similar comments about the men.  Of course, conservatives and Republicans make disparaging comments about male candidates, but mostly political, not gender or appearance related.

In 2016 we expected more from journalists, but got garbage and a pathetic childish president who “hates” the media OK, that’s not exactly true, though, every time Mr. Trump says something disparaging about the media, he laughs because he knows what the media did for him and what he thinks he can make them do for him again in 2020.

Unless some serious changes in the media are made related to the women in the race, 2020 will be a repeat of 2016.  With Russia helping out, Mr. Trump could be allowed to trample any candidate, particularly women who might run against him.  That would be bad for all of us.

The Media and Negativity

by Ruth A. Sheets

Recently, I heard on the radio that Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is planning to run for a third term.  The news reader had to immediately remind everyone that last year Mr. Menendez had been on trial for bribery.  After she reviewed aspects of the case, she said the prosecution had dismissed all charges.  Wow!  Announce someone running for office, someone who has served his state for more than a decade and the only thing you can say about him is that he had been tried for bribery with dismissed charges?  What about that he supports health care rights for all, stands for voting rights, and has helped numerous New Jersey citizens in a variety of other ways.  A quick personal story would have been effective.

This news item made me realize what media's role is in our politics and it's not good for our democracy.  It is the, Remind everyone of the candidate's negative attributes.  What is gained from this negativism toward certain candidates?   

During the 2016 election, it took months for someone in the mainstream media to call Mr. Trump's prevarications "lies."  I understand it is hard to imagine a presidential candidate lying so openly, but that's what he was doing.  It is interesting that we were not constantly reminded what Mr. Trump was saying was replete with falsehoods.  Why didn't the media do that? 

From reporters, we learned nearly everything we needed to know about Mr. Trump's positions, or at least those at the moment.  We learned very little, if anything about those of any of his opponents, even in the general election, but we sure did learn their negative attributes and what Mr. Trump thought of them.  The mainstream media and others kept us well informed of these.  Why?

We heard over and over that Hillary Clinton had something "not quite right" with her emails and she was chastised by the FBI director Mr. Comey, yet he neglected to report that many others in high government positions were doing the same.  He also neglected to mention that frequent hacking of systems in Government may have meant Ms. Clinton's arrangement was not the worst thing she could have done.  The media covered "the email scandal" word for word, day by day, so everyone was primed when Mr. Comey came back and said he had found new emails, just before the election.  The media covered this, and in shocked tones before anyone found out the emails were ones the FBI had in its possession for months, maybe years. 

More disturbing, Mr. Comey neglected to talk about Russian interference in the campaign.  Even though the FBI was aware of it, he just couldn't bring himself to mention it.  The media let this pass.  It was hinted they all thought Ms. Clinton would win, so it wouldn't matter.  Uh huh.

What is going on?  We yell at Facebook for its permission giving political organizations access to member data and selling ad space related to the election to Russian trolls.  Yes, Facebook needs to answer for that, but the media at all levels needs to answer for its conduct in the previous election cycles.  Where were they? 

I don't remember a definition of the "free press" including amplifying negativity around some candidates while dismissing real problems of integrity on the part of others. 

Some of the media has jumped on the bandwagon of the Russia investigation, but is that as big an issue as Mr. Trump's next tweet, especially if it is a negative comment about someone whose politics or actions he doesn't like?  Already, NPR is being sustained by corporate sponsors who have their own agendas.  How much is this support determining what is covered on NPR's programs?  There is no way the support of the small listeners can match the money available from corporations.  The negative digs inserted into reports on candidates or public actors can influence citizens' voting response, after all, NPR . . .! 

I use NPR as an example, but it is happening everywhere in media.  Whatever one may think of Senator Menendez, he did not deserve the negative comments delivered at the time of his pre-announcement for running for office again.  Media actors need to examine more carefully where their loyalties lie.  They should be with truth, justice, and the American way, but I suspect these are not always their guiding stars. 

Do we have any indication that things will be different in 2018?  Not that I can tell.  Money is the medium.  We have allowed corporations to become enormous and have told them their money is speech in any capacity they choose, so unless the "free press" reports as a "free press" without the influence of money, we are in big trouble.

I am not commenting on Mr. Menendez's appropriateness for running again for the Senate, but if every time his name is mentioned, we hear the bells of "do you know what he did?" we are diminishing our political process.  I get it that "if it bleeds it leads," but there was no blood in Mr. Menendez's pre-announcement.  Why did NPR or any other medium feel it needed to make some?
 

To NAP or NOT TO NAP

by Ruth Sheets

The media and transportation officials are hot now to do a “gotcha” on Air Traffic Controllers. It is like a rerun of 1981 when the ATCs tried to get a good contract and President Reagan shut them down (in the interest of public safety, of course). ATCs work under conditions most people could not begin to do and they have more lives in their hands every day than any other workers I can think of.

Instead of a acknowledging that the reason Air Traffic Controllers might fall asleep on duty is not related to character flaws or incompetence, they are suspended or fired when it happens. That leaves fewer people to do the job and puts more people at risk. When it is suggested that a brief nap might help relieve fatigue and stress, our Secretary of Transportation blurts out that they are not being paid to nap and that it won’t happen on his watch. 
 
I guess the word “nap” sounds wimp-ish, and if one just “bucks up,” one won’t need that baby rest. Words like “overwork” and "poor scheduling” sound like whining and can easily be dismissed as the complaints of the lazy.

Taking a brief refreshing nap during an already scheduled break could significantly increase alertness, but "if anyone finds out . . . " Maybe we could begin with such a simple, elegant, FREE partial solution to this challenge, but I suspect someone will be receiving a large paycheck to “study” the situation and will give the exact same “nap” a grown-up name like “temporary withdrawal from environmental stimulus,” that is, if anything is done at all.

There is always a rug to shove the problem under, and it will stay there despite the current “concern,” until there is another incident, or worse, an accident, due to overwork and poor scheduling. Of course, it will be the Controller’s fault.

Peace,
Ruth