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

[GeoLee]

Having known Clark Hoyt when his career put him in Wichita, I think he is on target and I trust his view. Yes, Dowd tends to be pretty much a snarly columnist, but one only had to hear her talk one time on television about the Clintons to feel the intense hatred and disgust she felt particularly about them. Words on paper followed by words heard and tone of voice tell a lot. That is why I am happy to see columnists from time to time on televisoin­..we get the body language and voice to verify fairness or not.

[pottery]

Maybe she went over the line, a little. But, did, does anyone object to her calling Obama, Bambi?

Besides, most of her commentary seemed spot on. She wrote about the passive way Clinton was using her gender like the time she claimed the "guys" ganged up on her.

[foxflood]

I disagree, and people did cover the Bambi thing, like Gawker, for example. Gawker's done a great job pointing out that she's around the bend on gender in general---accusing men of being too feminine while emasculating them, and angry at women for being too masculine, like Clinton.

[NTO08]

She has some serious issues to deal with...

[foxflood]

And I don't think she was spot on. I think she was way off base most of the time, and way out of line. She's become the new Anne Coulter, ostensibly of the left, but really, not so very different.

[DocWylie]

It's almost too sad to watch.
What was perhaps once a respected newspaper having become so generally irrelevent that many if not most thinking newsreaders would prefer to gather their news from those pesky upstart blogs, than waste their time on the drivel masqurading as "news" or "opinion" at the Times.
And poor Clark having worked so hard to now find himself rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic.
Must be REALLY, REALLY frustrating, to be getting so desperate to write something, ANYTHING to gain back some relevence.
Well keep trying Skippy, this sure wasn't it.

[mergina]

What goes around comes around.

[rzan]

That is exactly why Hillary lost.

[ishok]

I love Hillary. Hillary is a strong woman. Hillary is a great candidate. Hillary is so smart. Hillary ran a good campaign. Hillary is not a racist. Everyone who doesn't support Hillary is sexist, including Maureen Dowd. Iran should be OBLITERATE­D...Mauree­n too... and Barack and Michelle Obama...an­d their supporters. Hillary is not rich and "elite" ...that money is Bill's. Hillary isn't really married to him anyway. Chelsea has grown to be a smart woman like Hillary. The press should leave her (Chelsea) alone she hasn't done anything as a working surrogate on the campaign trail to deserve what they have done to her... asking her questions and all. Monica was five years younger than Chelsea today when she seduced Hillary's play-husband. Hillary can't catch a break... frankly, I believe her Bosnia story but the press conspired to make her out to be a liar with "trick" editing.
Therefore I've decided to back Bob Barr for President.

[funnyguy]

By your reasoning, everyone who doesn't support Obama must be a racist. So we're all either racists or sexists, great.

Bob Barr deserves people like you.

[rooks]

Rethink posting please. Should I laugh or cry?

[Dustee]

I thought it was a fair discription of what went on in the primary - I thought it was pretty funny.

[darthmaul]

NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt here is a reality check just for you. If you have BIll Kristol on your editorial staff, then you have bigger problems then Dowd. This guy is a neocon nutcase, who has never made a correct call in his life. The fact that you have him on your staff is a disgrace an reflects poorly on your judgment. Focus on the "low hanging fruit." if you want to do some self-examination.

[lotuslike]

YES!!!

[hrayovac]

Get a little tougher, folks.
It is understood when you read an opinion column that you will get opinion. Not fact, not news, not enacted legislation, not a paid for media blitz nor propaganda (in that it is clearly understood to be merely subjective), not a religion and not an order of any kind to do anything at all about it. It functions to elicit a reaction..­.if it is well enough written. As such, there is nothing "wrong" with Dowd's opinion of Hillary. It is her own and doesn't indicate there is any crisis afoot. As for me, I found her thoughts to have a ring of truth to them and we sure need to hear more ringing. Whereas Kristol is dishonest with both himself and the reader, he similarly does no damage to democracy as we know it...that'­s HIS opinion. If you are afraid people thinking, we've already lost the facility to "self-examine," darthmaul.

[darthmaul]

I have no problem with reasoned opinion, but we have to have the ability to make judgment calls. I'm sure there is a place for Bill Kristol's opinions, but it's at Fox News, not the NY Times. You say yourself that Kristol is dishonest with both himself and the reader. So I ask the question, why give him a platform to spew his nonsense? At least if he was on talk radio, or Fox he would be "preaching to the choir" so to speak. Having him on the editorial board of the NY TImes gives him a platform, and a veneer of respectability that is neither deserved nor merited.

[motu]

exacto!

[imsosure]

Watch the whole thing when you have time but at least fast forward to 1:07:20 thru to 1:22:00.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[AJ39]

Maureen Dowd was over-the-top in her vitrol toward Hillary. Sometimes she's really funny and witty, but often she just sounds bitter and mean, very mean. I thought she was funnier until she began appearing on TV talk shows.

She's so mannered. Really spoils the effect.

And if the NYT is going to criticize Kristol and Dowd (deservedly), why let Frank Rich off-the hook. I 've ceased reading him.

[BubbaC33]

In 2000 and 2004 Dowd, Frank Rich, and others in the MSM went out of their way to attack the Democratic nominee while giving a pass to W-Bush. The lies told about Gore and Kerry hurt each campaign to a point that winning became almsot impossible. And Dowd was a big part of that effort.
As far as I am concerned, Dowd is as unethical as Matt Taibbi, who actually admitted to hating the Clintons. Neither has nay idea about wriiting in an unbaised manner, especially Dowd.

[NTO08]

Ah, for the days when columnists didn't seem enamored of their own written word...Dow­d and company engage in onanism.

[Rigagli]

I think the NYT employing Bill Kristol was over the top like Stallone in '87.

[mvpeach10]

Maureen Dowd hates Hillary Clinton, and used her poison pen to discredit Hillary's campaign. Shame on Maureen Dowd. Dowd has done a real disservice because Barack Obama is an inexperienced, swaggering opportunist who leans so far to the left that our economy will suffer under that type of leadership if he should win the election Hillary was the far better candidate, balanced and experienced, but Dowd's hatred of her colored her ability to be in least bit fair. Dowd should be writing for the National Enquirer, not the NYT.

[lotuslike]

'inexperienced, swaggering opportunist'??? Wow...kind­a sounds like YOU are the hater here.

[TerryFL]

.

I will stipulate to your opinions on Obama and Dowd for this post. However, even the most strident supporter of Mrs Clinton has to admit that their campaign was a train wreck. It is almost impossible to blow a 52-17 % lead in national polls 90 days prior to the first primary without shooting a sitting Supreme Court Justice. She had the money, the momentum, the best operatives, a popular ex-president for a husband, the media savvy, and the Washinton know-how. Yet, she was beaten by a first term African American Senator from the Midwest (hardly the Democrat's favorite region). Mrs. Clinton's campaign, or lack thereof, cost her the nomination. At the end of the day, she has only herself to blame.

.

[olivia]

It would be wonderful if the press would be scrutinized and attacked even one percent as much over the way they helped sell America the war.

Or over the way they are NOT REPORTING ABOUT THE WAR at all this summer.

I didn't hear H & B complaining about the press at all until she was losing this nomination.

It's disingenuous.

[TerryFL]

.

Sexism is like the weather. When it is August and Hillary has a 52-17 % lead over Obama, the talk didn't center around sexism, but "inevitability" (her campaign's word ). Later, when the cold fronts moved in, so did the waves of sexism. By February her campaign was smothered in an avalanche of sexists columns. Yeah, it was all the fault of anti- female crowd who ruined her bid. Since she is a "victim" perhaps we could set up some sort of fund to make reparations.

.

[Melissa]

I laughed when a read Dowd's columns. She came across as a jealous old witch.

[kcam44]

jealous of what? Hillary?

[granamica]

I laughed when I read Dowd. She came across as funny.

[PennP]

I believe she's already done it. It's called the "Pay Back Hillary's Loans to Herself and the Hell with the Small Businesses She's Stiffed Across the U.S.A" fund. The law says you have to limit yourself to giving no more than $2,300, which may be difficult, but bite the bullet. Remember, she's hurting even more.

[atp2007]

What was more sexist than discussing whether Hillary had 'balls' during the campaign as if not having testosterone was fatal to her quest. The extolling of having balls came not from Dowd or the NY Times ( a paper I never defend), but from Hillary's own supporters and backers. And Hillary just stood there and laughed it up like she agreed that balls were the most important thing to have, especially when you are knocking a few shots back with the boys at the bar.

[whamtwo]

I'm a long time Dowder but some of her columns did go over the line.

[CAskeptic]

Agreed