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

[LisainNYC]

What a stupid new mem the MSM has gotten a hold of.

Dowd also mercilessly skewered Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky affair/impeachment. Was that sexist as well?

[verlaine]

Maureen Dowd is a ravishing, drop dead gorgeous woman who is wasting her talent with a newspaper column. With her stunning good looks, Dowd should be making action movies playing Wonder Woman, Bat Girl, the Bionic Woman, and Emma Peel. Maureen should put down her pen and slip into some skintight blue jeans, or leotards, or a catsuit and start beating up bad guys.

[michelv]

Uuum, which Maureen are you talking about? She is in no way Wonder Woman or a bionic woman like gorgeous. She is beautiful, but it's the kind of beauty that comes with a droopy but velvety face, flabby but luscious underarms, saggy but scrumptious bosom, like melting ice cream. Add to all that a scrawny and whiny nasal voice, and you get the picture. She is no chickadee to be stuffed in a pair of skintight jeans. She needs to be dressed up with mature sophistication, which she already does. She is no tequila to be downed with a quick shot. She is aged velvety wine with intoxicating aroma that has to be savored slowly, ceremoniously, and even cerebrally.

Oh, me so horny

[rzan]

Are you one of those people who just adores women?

[EarthToZoey]

"like melting ice cream" hahaha

[DonDavis]

New York Times’s Public Editor Seeks ‘Castration’ of Maureen Dowd
http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=1952

[thatvisionthing]

What, Dowd didn't gloss over everything that could possibly pertain to Hillary as a woman? She perceived and reported? Whoa, what a concept. You usually can only find that level of awareness now on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Sad comment on the MSM.

[joeinvt]

Forgot to mention Obambi.

[thatvisionthing]

Obambi! I remember! And doesn't that sound just like a guy who'd cave on FISA? Thanks Maureen.

[thatvisionthing]

In the column where Dowd called him Obambi, she called Clinton Wonder Woman and said he needed to toughen up to best her. Ouch that sexism!

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/opinion/06dowd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[joeinvt]

She also didn't gloss over Gore, Dean, Kerry, Edwards, and each of their wives. It is sad that the NYT provides a forum to this pathetic, unbalanced, and genitally fixated woamn.

[Jackalheadedgod]

She struck the right cord with me.

Cheers,
JACK

[Akimbo]

I couldn't agree more. I'm normally a big fan of Maureen Dowd – she's a fine writer – but her coverage of Hilary Clinton was consistently so negative, mean spirited and skewed that I stopped reading her for the duration of the campaign.

I couldn't help but wonder why she she had this personal vendetta against a woman who was just trying to make a difference. It's no wonder more women don't enter politics when you see media coverage like this. Who needs the grief?

[johnnynyc]

Why the vendetta?

Bob Somersby over at dailyhowler.com has the theory that the media's "Irish Mafia" which includes Matthews, Williams, Dowd, Noonan, Barnicle, Buchanan, Russert et al will never forgive Bill Clinton for not being too upset about getting caught with Lewinsky.

Seeing how they treated him and anyone connected with him, including Gore and Hillary, it's hard to argue with his theory.

Read the archives on his site. He's been detailing the actions of these people for years now.

It's an Irish-Catholic thing.

[OhReallySheSaid]

Maybe its us HRC dems who are finally growing tiresome of trying to make nice and help you guys this Nov. You sore winners even booed us at the Gore speech in MI, it was so immature even BHO chastised you guys for your own shortsightedness. Why do you think he's meeting with HRC backers? $$$$. Your fundraising dropped last month and matches almost McCain's puny haul. Read the tea leaves. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for us 51% dems to check out and say see ya!

Yes, it is tiresome to hear from HRC dems who outvoted BHO dems after Super Tues. by over 500,000 votes.

Yes, it is tiresome to hear from HRC dems that while the press was hyping the BHO juggernaut, BHO proceeded to lose Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, then West Virginia by 41, Kentucky by 35, Puerto Rico two to one and South Dakota by 10. That last one your guy was supposed to win.

Maybe it is also tiresome to hear that the CBS polls show over 30% of the electorate will be using race as a factor to vote. And those are the folks that are admitting it publicly! And the Economist, who never bought into the BHO hype, says that if just 25% of HRC dems swing to McCain in the pivotal states, it's over.

You guys need some lessons on manners before your rudeness defeats BHO.

[SRaley]

Check your numbers and try again.

[generaldelivery]

I checked her numbers and they're right on.

[thatvisionthing]

Obama needs Clinton money? I thought it was the other way around, that she was staying in to leverage him into paying off her $10 million campaign debt. Where was all the HRC $$$$ then? Didn't all you people go to -- say it with me -- "HILLARY . CLINTON . DOT . COM!" Also, when you add in the caucus delegates (Texas was both primary and caucus), Obama won Texas, at least 98 total delegates to her 94. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/7/235959/3326

[thatvisionthing]

Obama needs Clinton money? I thought it was the other way around, that she was staying in to leverage him into paying off her $10 million campaign debt. Where was all the HRC $$$$ then? Didn't all you people go to -- say it with me -- "HILLARY . CLINTON . DOT . COM!" Also, when you add in the caucus delegates (Texas was both primary and caucus), Obama won Texas, at least 98 total delegates to her 94. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/7/235959/3326

[StephenS]

You're right about Texas! Clinton had over 100,000 more people vote for her in the primary. But Obama had a much higher percentage of his primary voters vote for him a 2nd time on the weekday night of the primary. So many more that the caucus part essentially had the effect of throwing out the votes of 400,000 Clinton supporters.

[MrsPeel]

It is tiresome to read practically the same posts so close together.

[strifeknot]

"Maybe its us HRC dems who are finally growing tiresome of trying to make nice and help you guys this Nov. "

This is the most transparently dishonest thing I've ever seen on this website.

[OhReallySheSaid]

Yes, it is tiresome to hear from the people who voted along with the 51% of democrats who supported HRC.

Yes, it is tiresome to hear from HRC dems who outvoted BHO dems after Super Tues. by over 500,000 votes.

Yes, it is tiresome to hear from HRC dems that while the press was hyping the BHO juggernaut, BHO proceeded to lose Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, then West Virginia by 41, Kentucky by 35, Puerto Rico two to one and South Dakota by 10. That last one your guy was supposed to win.

Maybe it is also tiresome to hear that just yesterday CBS polls shows over 30% of the electorate will be using race as a factor to vote. And the Economist, who never bought into the BHO hype, says that if just 25% of HRC dems swing to McCain in the pivotal states, it's over.

Maybe its you and your hype that we HRC dems should be growing tiresome.

[NYed]

It's tiresome to hear from frustrated Republicans who read about Obama's increasing lead in the national polls.

It's tiresome to have to point out the new polling in the swing states where Obama is ahead already.

It's tiresome for the Republicans to have an opponent who actually fights back.

It's tiresome to hear the little piggies squeal now that they know their days at the public trough are almost over.

It's tiresome to read comments from Republicans pretending to be Hillary supporters.

It's tiresome to watch McCain go after the Evangelicals. John, they know about your ADULTERY.
How can they vote for someone with the morals of an alley cat?

[Belisarius]

Well if you can't win you can still get even. Looks like the Clinton enemies list is being passed around to their close friends.

So it's gender bias when an ace female columnist criticizes a female public figure? Clintons' ditto heads are as robotic as Limbaugh's.

[keclxivq]

Why does the New Crok Times have any readers left? They have been disgraced so many times before and after 9/11. Planting stories for the Bush Administration. Rallying the country to go to war with Iraq due to all the complete and accurate intelligence (some of which they made up themselves). Allowing these reporters to resign instead of damning them for the lies they knowingly put forth. And they were once called "America's Newspaper". Another bunch of liars and scum. Of course they do enjoy rolling all over the money they rake in. I wonder how much money our intelligence people pay these reporters to lie. Lucky us. We get to pay to get lied to and we also have to pay for the newspaper in order to read the lies.

[zenobiadarcy]

This is getting out of hand. Now wit has to be politically correct. Leave Maureen Dowd alone. She is a wit. I bet no one was complaining when she dedicated most columns to the corruption of Bush and Cheney and Rove. Get those names off of the hall of shame. They can find few particular examples so instead of looking at the person's history someone like Barnacle is put on this list for one comment. Look at the man as a whole. I think this is disgraceful that these people are being used for this hall of shame and the person as a whole who has a history is ignored. More shameful.

[phoenics]

So - when Obama wins, is the MSM going to address all of the racism and xenophobia that got flung at Obama on a regular basis?

I'm just curious.

It must be a slow news cycle when all the MSM can do now is point to sexism as the reason Hillary lost when I don't believe that's the case. As a woman, that's definitely NOT what made me turn away from her. It was her own behavior - launching race missiles at Obama and throwing the kitchen sink at him, dividing the party (thank goodness we are on the mend) and then her Kennedy slip was about the last straw for me. It's because of her actions, her race-baiting that the GOP got the 'go-ahead' to attack Obama racially with little remorse because she did it first. As a woman and an AA, I just found that deplorable.

Yes, Hillary was discriminated against sexually, however, she could have overcome those obstacles had she run a more respectable and less self-entitled campaign. Obama overcame (mostly) the racial missiles launched at him and he did that by simply rising above it and sticking to the issues. Hillary instead turned to a negative campaign.

It's their campaign styles that won this for Obama, imo. It was the fact that his actions backed up his message of change, while Hillary showed that with her in office, it would be more 'politics as usual'. That is what lost her the nomination.

[mengwise36]

So you bought Obama camp's propaganda, good for you.

Obama won because:
1. He is more liberal than Hillary. At least that is how he positioned himself. So the liberal core voted for him.
2. He is black. So the blacks voted for him.
3. He talks a good talk of "change". So the young people voted for him.
4. MSM was behind him. So people like you bought his propaganda and voted for him.

And at the end of day, he still did not win the popular vote.

[qwr]

I think he did; or at least, I haven't heard any proof that Hillary won the P vote. When the caucus states give reliable numbers, then we will know.

[kayfacefl]

O' kay, enough anger. It has been three weeks since Hillary left and it is time to take your anger some where else. You remind me of a dear friend. Her husband left her 15 years ago and to this day her anger still eats inside of her. It has ruined her life and as a friend it has been difficult to watch.

P.S. Your argument that at least she won the popular vote, very subjective and not a very good argument. Regardless of the Caucus states the truth is Barack took back the lead the final primary night in June by beating her by 25,000 votes in Montana to her 10,000 win in South Dakota. Oh! unless you count Michigan and give him "0", which we would all have to agree is plenty fair.

.

[thatvisionthing]

So, you bought the Hillary camp propaganda? Sad for you.

Obama won because he attracted people. Hillary lost because she repelled people. And the thing about her winning the popular vote is a canard. It doesn't count the caucus states and it doesn't count any votes at all for Obama in Michigan where he was not on the ballot. He was not on the ballot because he honored the DNC's request that candidates not participate. Hillary also said she would honor that, but she did not.

At the end of the day, Obama won the popular vote and the delegate vote. Ask Geraldine Ferraro: Hillary was as lucky to be a woman as Barack was to be black. Her experience started with being some man's wife.

[fantanfanny]

Mengwise36­...and at the end of Nov. he STILL will not have won the popular vote!

[phoenics]

There is no popular vote - as having one would discount caucus states.

I stated my opinion and talked about what MY thoughts were. You can disagree with me, however trying to cast me as some idiot who bought propaganda won't cut it. I made my choice on my own - EVEN WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING that hillary had to deal with sexist coverage in the beginning (back in January). I HATED that. But then she turned and started with racial baiting (as an African American woman I KNOW what that looks like even if the MSM (and YOU) didn't).

After the SNL skit, the MSM turned and went after Obama. After that, Hillary had to make MAJOR gaffes (Bosnia lie, Kennedy) to get the MSM to even hold her to task (which they barely did). Reverend Wright got more biased and racist coverage than Hillary and her assassination comment. They were too busy trying to extend the 'fight' for ratings, when it was mathematically over.

Even after all of THAT, had she won, I still would have voted for her. You cannot say the same. All you can do is throw around insults about how I bought into propaganda, all the while SPEWING the silly propaganda that Hillary's campaign MADE UP in the first place.

Like it or not, the Democratic Party has rules that mean we elect due to delegates. Bill Clinton won that way, as did Kerry, Gore, etc.. Now, only after Hillary lost is it an issue.

[michelv]

That is all baloney! I agree that sexism was perhaps only a small reason why the MS trashed her. But the MS did amplify and distort as mistakes many of her actions or statements, while routinely giving Obama a free pass. I think one reason was that the MS does not like the Clintons. They have been around too long, they are stale, they are old news, and man of the MS members have had personal run ins with them. Obama gave them something very new to blab about. Without a shadow of doubt, they overtly rooted for the guy bringing novelty to their programs. After all, it's good for ratings, o it's good for their pockets too.

[jsinclair]

What's the definition of "sexism" in an Op-Ed piece anyway?

Is Dowd's nastiness toward Hillary "sexism", but her nastiness toward Bill is just "opinion"?

There's sexism, sure, but that's not why Hillary lost. Can a woman candidate be mocked WITHOUT it being called sexist?

And if not, but a man can, isn't THAT sexist?

[thatvisionthing]

great comment

[Tomlastliberalleft]

I like Maureen. I enjoy her view and opinion. What pisses people off is she can express herself so well and that gift draws fire these days from the forces on the right who hate any considered opinion which does not glorify the new Bush order. As far as her need to throttle the Clintons, well, as time went by and we had a better understanding of them her opinion has been shown to be more than justified and accurate. That the NYT has morphed into something difficult to read without a barf bag is a real pity. We have few newspapers left that are worth doing anything with other than liquid spill control or bird cage sanitation. The only recourse now is to search out many sources and do your own distillation because the newspapers are not willing to perform that task as their role in the MSM becomes marginal.

[jhamm1]

By the standards of too many biased editors who essentially resent Maureen Dowd for selling out her home state more than anything else, the process of "going too far" amounts to assessing and describing Hillary Clinton as she actually is.