NYT Public Editor: Dowd "Went Over the Top" in Clinton Coverage

In an article on media sexism in the Democratic primary, NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt singles out Maureen Dowd's columns as deserving more scrutiny:

Peggy Aulisio of South Dartmouth, Mass., said, "A real review of your own stories and columns is warranted." I think so too. And I think a fair reading suggests that The Times did a reasonably good job in its news articles. But Dowd's columns about Clinton's campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, Kristol.

While arguing that many complaints about Times' coverage "reflect a shoot-the-messenger anger," Hoyt concludes that complaints about Dowd in particular were justified: "She, I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season."

Read more about anti-Clinton sexism in the media here.

Comments

[JJeff88]

Is this all these people have to do with their time?

[abby4ever]

Apparently.

[naschkatze]

I am not a Clinton fan, but I think Dowd treats a lot of her subjects this way. She's done it to Obama also. She's just a very sophomoric writer. Amusing, not.

[thundermummy]

The NYT has many problems besides Dowd, mainly too many gasbags as columnists and piss poor reporting. Just look at the HuffPo look into McCain's supposed Admiral promotion. The NYT had fallen from journalistic grace many years ago.

[teron678]

Why are we still beating this dead horse ... can we focus on something else .. plz ...

[personalpolitical]

Yeah, and Taylor Marsh and Paul Krugman didn't do the same to Obama? Waaahhhhhh, this blame the media crap is getting old. Why focus on one person on one side when there were plenty of pro-Hillary columnists that obsessed over trashing on Obama. At least Dowd's stuff was generally founded in reality, she just said what most people knew but the MSM would never say.

[frustratedinohio]

Female rivalry is just as prevalent and just as powerful as sexism. It's why women don't support other women. It's why Hillary is despised by some women. It's the main reason we have not yet had a female president.

[StoutHouse]

I think many people, especially Hillary's most ardent supporters, fail to acknowledge that such language was deployed in direct proportion to Hillary's own increasingly negative campaign. Her pandering, her 3 a.m. fear-mongering and her slippery obfuscations on the trail (to say nothing of her plainspoken, demonstrable lies about Bosnia, Northern Ireland, NAFTA, etc. ) soured op-ed columnists like Dowd against her. Justifiably so in my view. So they attacked her where they could safely do so -- in their own non-objective columns.

Yes, sexism played a role in this primary race, but not a decisive one. Or if it was decisive, I would argue that it worked in Hillary's favor. After that million dollar tear in New Hampshire, Hillary came back with a vengeance, propelled in part by voter indignation and a seething hatred for Chris Matthews and his ilk.

Either way, Dowd was no easier on Obama ("Obambi," as she called him, or "Barry"), as any regular reader of her column will tell you.

[roshni]

Exactly - Hillary more than deserved what she got.

[Tommygun264]

It pains me to see such a strong, intelligent, capable woman painted as the hapless victim who only came in second because of sexism. If Hillary Clinton had emerged from the primary season as the Democratic party nominee, her supporters would bristle at the suggestion that anyone but she was responsible for her victory, but she did not win the nomination, so now a fraction the same supporters insist that someone else is responsible for her second place showing. I guess some women can have it all.

[NotMcCain]

Concern about bias (of all kinds) in news stories is legitimate.

Criticizing OPINION pieces for bias? ROFL!

Are they going to talk about the PRO-Hillary op-eds, too (like the NYTs....en­dorsement, Tom Friedman's slanted op-eds in her favor, on and on and on....)

Hillary lost for 3 reasons, none of them "sexism". She lost because of (1) overconfidence; (2) mismanagement and poor planning ("We don't need to win caucuses!" "We'll win by Super Tuesday!") and (3) underestimating her opponent.

[SouthFloridaDem]

Actually, Maureen Dowd has become as ridiculous as Ann Coultergeist. I don't find her writing in the least bit clever or interesting. It's down and dirty bashing with cutsey name-calling. I stopped reading her long ago. I prefer mature, thoughtful writing.

[bmermaid]

I agree completely & very well said.
I would add that anyone as biased as those 2 is not a journalist, but rather a commentator at best, and we have too many of those.

[Tom95134]

"... not a journalist, but rather a commentator at best,..." And that is why you find DOwd's column on the Op-Ed page. It is clearly opinion.

[cheshirecat831]

Dowd is a columnist on the Opinion Page of the Times. Did you miss that part? She won a Pulitzer but I suppose that means nothing to you.

[allison]

Agree totally.

[liz]

Me too! She is bratty, and refuses to take responsibility for her adolescent rants. I have a 16-year daughter who is just as into her own hair and would write a more bitchin' column for way less money.

[vocalist]

Ditto.
Dowd was never a great writer, her attack columns are the ones made her so polular. Has not written a book except cutting and pasting her own columns, then calls them a book and goes on to promote them. I also stopped wasting my time on those. What I think, Hillary Clinton would be just fine, but the little ones running after their fifteen min fame will be destroyed by the fault of their own.

[partyofone]

Marueen Dowd is wonderful, but it does take some intelligence to get her humor and asides. The wink wink to the knowing.

It does not surprise me that Hillary supporters don't get it. They are so accustomed to distortions, pandering, spin and lies, the truth wrapped in humor is just to much to comprehend.

[SouthFloridaDem]

For the record, I'm not a Hillary supporter. And wink wink to you, too, but a whole lot of really intelligent people don't care for Dowd. It's a preference thing, you know? I'm sure you have preferences.

[TheSecularist]

Maureen Dowd's column is not only clever, interesting, and well-written, it is informative. Her well-written, clever, and entertaining column is one of the best features of the Times.

[SouthFloridaDem]

Oh come on, you can troll better than that!

[savagetiger]

Sorry, why do I care?

[SanityClaus]

Wah wah wah!

Dowd is an equal opportunity offender. She made repeated snide comments about O in dozens of her columns, labeling him "Obambi" and relentlessly feminizing him with phrases like "diffident debutante.­"

I don't think she's a sexist, I just think she's smug, narcissistic and ultimately, tiresome.

[luvobama]

Spot on, Mate.

[mediamarv]

Me too!

[abigail1]

what you said.

[gladys46]

co-sign!

[snarkopolitan]

YESSSSSSS!

[JimR]

Yup, I'll go along with that.

[ohiodem250]

Is it still sexism if a woman trashes a woman? Or is that just a woman-on-woman crime?

[jupitor]

This is a dead story! One for the History books to look at. It's time for us to move on now!

[crossoverwriter]

Women are entitled to hate other women.
I am an older white woman who cannot stand Hillary Clinton. Not because she's a woman, but because she lied, played the race card, flip-flopped, pandered, seemed very narcissistic.

[Transcendentobserver]

Sorry crossoverwriter, hate is not an emotion which can be rationalized, and certainly not justified. Your rationalization in this post borders on pathos.

[frustratedinohio]

You would hate any powerful woman. It's female rivalry. Yes, it's jealousy. Subconscious jealousy. You're the victim crossover, because it hurts you most of all.

[misswilliams]

Get over it, she lost and not because of sexism! What a pack of sore losers.

[joeyhegele]

Something tells me when the racist attacks against Obama begin, you will not be so high and mighty. It will be the flippant attitudes of the Obama supporters around the country that will turn people against Obama, rather than any Republican attack ads.

[jupitor]

Well than that would be new news and worth looking at joeyhegele. but this has been beten to death now! It's time to move on! if they go after Obama, we'll talk about it when it happened. Just like we talked, talked, talked, talked, talked, about this! It's done, over, move on. we accomplish nothing by rehashing it every couple weeks.

[TrueIndy08]

the racist attacks have already begun! And truthfully, I believe they will pull us together and make us stronger..­.

I am sick of the RETHUG fearmongering to win elections.­.. they need to learn to win on issues, bc after these past 7 DISASTROUS years, simply being a white male is not going to win the election..­..

So yes, let them bring on the racial campaign..­. Mr. Obama has supporters of all backgrounds, we will be ready to combat the status quo!!!

[thundermummy]

Something tells me you are going to be proved wrong.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

Truer words were never spoken....

[ObamaSeeChange]

Where have you been? Obama has suffered and nobly survived internet, chain/robo letter, and whispered 'word of mouth" racist attacks from day one!

[lexicoscott]

lol, "misswilliams" I didn't realize the article was written by Clinton. It states it was written by: "CLARK HOYT" a single individual. Not plural, as in many as you state "losers".

Seems to me your holding a grudge against the losing team. Very funny.

[abby4ever]

I hope you aren't a judge. For you seem to jump to conclusions on the most scanty evidence.

[Justsaynodeal]

And I have never seen such sore (so called) winners. Could that be that the fat lady hasn't sung yet and won't until roll call at the convention? Must make you nervous since the race itself was nearly 50/50, and it was the SDs that put O over the top, and anything can happen in two months. Just look at O's senior moment last week, and just look at how he reads everything from his cheat sheet when he should know his policies and be able to talk about them without notes. Clinton could do that! Just look at how he is gonna flip-flop to curry support from different interest groups. He is as phony as a $3 bill and more inexperienced than any candidate in recent history.
Even #43 had experience as a governor!

[ohiodem250]

Kind of funny, but have you seen the $3 dollar bills they're making of Obama? They show him with a turban on. I work at a restaurant and a customer showed it to me and I chuckled to humor him a bit. Then he said, "That's pretty good, isn't it?" "Yeah," I replied, "except the turban thing." "What do you mean?" he shot back, as if I asked him how to find the sky. "He's not a Muslim." "What do you mean he's not a Muslim?" still flabbergasted. I guess some people just can't let go.