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

[MinerSam]

Dowd is a psychotic Free Associating in public who is yet to face that she is an incest survivor, and most likely associated Monical Lewinsky with her as yet not faced problems..

[veracity]

Tempest in a tea-pot!

The media and NYT whip up a little pseudo-scandal to say "our token librul lefty female commentator was _over the top!_ snarking on poor little ol' Senator Hillary"

- when in fact neither Dowd nor Hillary are in the least bit "librul", except that every so often Senator Clinton will do something for some children in need of medical care. (But don't ask her to confront the HMOs and Big Health co's about 30% profits and 30% paper-pushing margins.)

The funniest thing about Dowd's snarky columns on Senator C. is that when it comes to entitlement, ruthlessness, conniving, hubris, and more entitlement... it takes one to know one!

for a hillarious example of Dowd getting a dose of her own "cheap pop psychology" treatment, 236.com is a blast. (but, alas, just the tip of the iceberg of endless depth of conflict and pyschodrama still to be examined, lol)

http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/24/though_process_flowchart_maure_7327.php

[MinerSam]

In reading your remarks about Senator Clinton I am reminded of a period in history when the Know Nothings prevailed. That did not mean they knew what they were talking about.

[mcnairbo]

I heard a rumor that a photo exists in a secure vault of Maureen Dowdy smiling.

[The5thW]

Times columnists have a "mail it in" timidity and horse race-hack-too clever by half slant that rarely informs. Completely predictable. Dowd used belittling language on Obama continually--the Rovian "Barry" insult and the conciet of questioning his manhood, AND PEOPLE WHO WENT INTO DEBT FOR "HILLBUZZ" AND "WHITEY" SLIME MORE TOXIC THAN ANYTHING IN ROVE'S PLAYBOOK, have the gall to whine about Dowd, and the Clinton endorsing Times.

[AdamNauseam]

Maureen was simply giving us entertaining and spot-on analyses of the not-very-likeable candidate. The NY Times lead editorials regularly excoriate the President of the United States, because he deserves it. We don't call that anti-male. For some reason, when Hillary is criticized it gets called sexist. Which is in itself anti-feminist. The woman has some really bad characteristics. To say we can't ridicule her for it is itself sexist.

[Darsan54]

Adam lives up to his name. The difference in Bush/HC criticism is people criticized what Bush did while they criticized Hillary for being her. They didn't attack her policies or proposals, but made fun of her being a woman. That's why many of her supporters are so angry.

[ntmessage]

So where was the noble Mr. Hoyt during the obvious over the top anti Clinton despicable Dowd smear regurgitation sessions that lasted many, many months? Nice update to hear that the horse got out of the barn. Objective news coverage at its best I suppose.

[THISTLE]

Maureen Dowd is Chris Matthews in a cheap dress, she is so jealous of Senator Clinton.
The latter has accomplishment, fame, lots of money, a husband who was President of the
United States, a lovely accomplished loving daughter. Dowd has a little column she writes,
and she is a disgrace to the great paper her column appears in.
Dowd is one of the lonely angry women who attack another woman who has everything Dowd
does not have and could never have. Dowd is a hag, she is more and more sounding like
Coulter - maybe she is hoping MSNBC will hire - her as still another hack/hag spewing her
bile. Her non-stop attacks on Senator Clinton border on the pathological, and her being on
her knees to St. Obama are beyond pathetic.

[JohnTalbutt]

How can anyone disgrace "the great paper" whose lies ( obvious to anyone who knew anything about Iraq) were quoted in Congressional committees to justify the occupation of Iraq.

[Jiovanna]

You've made good points about the questionable character of Ms. Dowd. I've met her face-to-face and have heard her speak in-person on a few occasions, however, I think she's conflicted or, perhaps, confused about womens' roles in the world. I also agree with you that she maybe jealous of HRC. And she's sounding more like Coulter all the time. So why, one ponders, does the NYT's consider her their left-wing columnist doll? They may need to re-think their position. If I recall, Dowd never went to journalism school and could use a few lessons. She should start by listening to one of the few great interviewers left: Diane Rehm of NPR. Diane even surpasses Tim Russert!

[MonicaL]

Little Miss Wrinkle Face tried everything she could think of. She laughed, she cried, she threatened, she demured, she wore the boxing shorts, she played the prom queen. She implied Obama was Muslim, she claimed he wasn't as far as she knew. She had phones ringing at 3AM and she ate hot peppers in Texas. But most of all, she -- unbelievably -- behaved with even more narcissisism than her big lug of a husband (unbelievable that any human could outdo BILL'S narcissisism). She clung to the race when she had no chance, hoping to hurt Obama in any manner.

And now, it's time to write columns about how she was treated unfairly? Gimme a break.

[veracity]

Well said, MonicaL !

As much as I despise Dowd for sneering, snarking, and trashing on Al Gore all through that long, critical summer of 2000, there is nothing in her snarking at Senator C. that was 'over the top' or out of hand!

Really, the woman wanting to be president, _claiming_ 3 AM CRISIS MANAGEMENT qualifications, - saying that she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.... when the videos show the first lady _& her daughter_ getting flowers from a local schoolgirl? What kind of hubris and narcissism is that!

IN fact, that was what was so fun reading Dowd's columns on Senator C - when it comes to narcissism, snark, entitlement, and more entitlement, IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE!

[spaceman3838]

a little late for that dowd is a jerk plain and simple i dont respect her work and how she keeps a job writing garbage like that is amazing

[Kim445588]

I think this constant disection of everything people said (to justify Hillary's loss), is more sexist than anything that actually occurred with any consistency.

She lost. People seeking the presidency lose for all sorts of stupid reasons (see Kerry).

[mcnairbo]

Yeah! Don't talk about it people. I'm for Obama and what we need to concentrate on now is calling anyone who criticizes Obama a racist.

[MGhamma]

She went over the top?!#? Ya, maybe if you're a smurf.

[Veri]

Maureen Dowd's opinion does not count. Good point that she is a columnist and not a reporter. You want true sexism?

Maureen Dowd is not hot. Well, to me at least.

[casey70]

She is an equal opportunity insulter...I'm with her. Besides, she is a columnist¦ not a reporter.

[mcnairbo]

You're with her right up until she takes after Obama.

[richfam]

Its strange because most dowd columns are about man bashing (and books). I think she really hates Bill and was taking it out on Hill. Lets face it, a man could never get away with her writing at the times if he attacked women the same way.

[DHFabian]

Opposition to H. Clinton is due to her policy priorities and agenda. No politician should be above all criticism. "It's the issues, stupid." Many oppose Clinton's stand on the issues. The Clintons are solidly conservative, advocating Republican goals, from increased militarism to repealing the New Deal to supporting NAFTA. It is irresponsible --indeed, downright anti-American -- to continue supporting "tax relief" for the rich, at the expense of common good programs, such as the infrastructure (watch those bursting dams and crumbling levees!), aid to our neediest, salvaging our health care and education systems, etc. The policies H. Clinton has supported since before B. Clinton's administration clearly show that she is a solid conservative corporatist. Indeed, on military and social issues, the Clinton's are to the right of (Republican) Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, modern history's most conservative Republican presidents.

Are we better off than we were before the "Reagan Revolution"? No, most are either just treading water or have already sunk. In this land of opportunity, we have only a fraction of the jobs we need (thousands outsourced, at our expense). In this Land of Freedom, with declining crime, we imprison a greater portion of the population that ANY other nation. Most of us are one step away from losing everything, and there is no social safety net.

Opposition to Clinton is based on the policies. Obama, too, is a corporatist, but we at least hope for marginal improvements.

[spaceman3838]

opposition of hillary from dowd is not about policy, its about something very petty, not sure what but its got to be petty

[Friendofthecause]

How typically American to cheer for the underdog -- in this case, Obama-- and to boo the stronger, tougher guy, which was Hillary Clinton, and then, once having successfully bashed Clinton's candidacy to smithereens, to tout her as so graceful, the real winner...

There is no question that every kind of bias was used against Hillary Clinton, much of it by women like Maureen Dowd. Everything from Clinton's "chipmunk cheeks" to the style of her clothes to the "pimping of her daughter" was tossed into the bin of this rampant sexist show. The media would not touch Obama in like manner, for, as we all know, it's perfectly okay to hate women, particularly older ones -- AND to be sexist, but it is NOT to be racist. If you are racist, you had better hide it, because right now in this country that is the biggest evil.

Of course, racism is wrong, like sexism, but why did so many people have to be so "pure" about Obama and so indecent about Hillary?

This country is a lot more racist than it has, so far, let on, regarding Obama's candidacy --Its real face may be revealed in November when every prejudiced joe and his mother comes out to vote -- against "the Black dude that might get into the White House."


Lastly, no one, not Hillary, not Obama, not any candidate should be dissected the way Hillary Clinton was. Let's scrutinize candidates with perspicacity, but also decency.

[Marmann]

I'm a woman and would be very proud to live to see the first female president, but not one who lies about "dodging snipers," not one who claims to have the support of the "hard-working white people," one who displayed her own incompetency by running her campaign in the very same way Bush has run this government, into the ground financially, not one who consistently and loudly had nothing but praise for McCain throughout the primary season while she attacked Obama, and CERTAINLY not one who told the world that she's hanging in the race just in case Obama is assassinated.

There are a lot of very intelligent, very capable women in this country who would make excellent presidents because they would run for the right reasons. Hillary Clinton ran because she felt/feels entitled.

If I were Obama, I'd tell her to shove her campaign debt. Instead, he's trying to help her pay it. He has displayed grace and dignity throughout this campaign, while she was stuck in the gutter. She's a fake and a fraud and a liar.

It's not sexist to point out obvious character flaws, freely displayed by the candidate, because these are flaws, in my opinion, that aren't acceptable in either a man or a woman.

To ignore them simply to put a woman in the Oval Office is what is sexist.

[Jiovanna]

I wouldn't be so quick to judge HRC. Just wait till the book comes out about BO; then, tell us how he isn't a fake, a fraud, and a liar? Americans are so naive! To be continued...