Super Tuesday Media Musings, Part I: Why Media Forced Edwards Out of the Race
I've kept mum on my dog in the presidential race because as the director of a non-profit women's media justice group, I don't feel comfortable endorsing political candidates. And with the brilliant Rebecca Traister writing about primary season media coverage through much the same lens and with the same attention to detail I tend to, I haven't felt the need to weigh in on media bias in campaign coverage as much as I would normally have; there's only so much time in the day, and with folks like Traister on the case -- and with WIMN's Voices bloggers such as Shireen Mitchell, Veronica Arreola, Michelle Garcia and guest blogger Avis Jones-Deweever regularly offering their own important insights about the highly problematic pitting of race against gender, feminists against feminists, Blacks agains Latinos, and Black women against themselves in recent months -- I've felt less of a need recently to do my usual monitoring of biased, double-standard-laden, obnoxious, substance-free horse-race election coverage.
But there are two quick primary-season-related elements of discussion that I haven't seen make it into the public debate -- and so, on the eve of Super Tuesday, I offer the following thoughts (part I below, part II -- in which I remind media not to be so shocked that all feminists don't think alike -- in the next post):
I. In which media find some things more inexcusable than ovaries and dark skin
I believe that the primary (pardon the pun) reason the Democrats are left with only two contenders to choose from is because corporate media -- threatened by the only top-tier candidate whose campaign was staunchly anti-corporate, populist and, horror of horrors, consistently against media consolidation -- crafted a narrative around John Edwards as a non-viable also-ran from the get-go, a narrative that hobbled his fundraising, limited his reach and became a media-fulfilling prophesy.
Until the summer of 2007, I couldn't understand why Edwards was generating scant media attention, and why what little attention he did get was mostly dismissive. After all, consider that John Edwards looks in every way like the politico media have always annointed as Their Guy: a charismatic and wealthy white man with politician hair, a smile made for kissing babies, Baptist beliefs and even a family story rife with overcoming tragedy pathos built for headline-making drama. Meanwhile, just as head-scratchingly, the same media that typically treat female politicians like little girls playing dress-up and subject politicians of color to racist screeds and reflexive dismissal were getting all hot and bothered imagining a Clinton-Obama race for the Oval Office... and telling America that this wasn't only possible, it was the most probable outcome.
How was it, I wondered that throughout 2007, Hillary Clinton (dubbed the front-runner from the moment she dipped her toe in the electoral waters) and Barack Obama (seemingly recruited to run by the press as much as by Dem leadership) were generating the kind of journalistic ink that female politicians and leaders of color rarely receive? Though they have absolutely suffered their respective shares of those dusty old media biases (from headlines about Hillary's cleavage, marriage and tear ducts to queries about whether Barack is "Black enough" and whether America "is ready" for an African American president), both of these non-traditional candidates were treated as the only serious contenders vying for the Democratic nomination. Having written about and monitored double standards in media coverage of female politicians for the past decade, I just couldn't figure out why media were so roundly willing to get over their collective baggage to elevate to such political heights a white woman who calls herself a feminist and a Black man who calls himself a progressive. These are, after all, the types of candidates media usually do their utmost to squelch.
Then I heard John Edwards debate the Democratic contenders at the Yearly Kos convention in August, and it became clear. Faced with a candidate who was taking a hard line against the corruptive influence of corporate capital over political leadership and legislation, who was refusing to accept lobbyist money, and who was speaking out against media consolidation, all of a sudden it didn't matter so much that Edwards had the ethnicity, the genitals, the bank account and the religious pedigree media look for when deciding whom to endorse. His anti-corporate, pro-populist rhetoric was far from the stuff of media-happy soundbites, so much so that corporate media were willing to partially suspend the race and gender biases that the industry usually uses to torpedo the political ambitions of women (of all ethnicites) and people of color.
At the risk of being redundant, I want to be very clear: I'm not saying that journalism in 2007 and 2008 has not been riddled with sexism or racism; clearly, these long-standing ideological scourges have filtered into reporting, commentary and punditry in both explicit and implicit ways. But the overall seriousness and validity with which the Clinton and Obama campaigns have been covered in corporate media has been a groundbreaking, historical shift. I just wonder if this shift would have happened if not for an industry-wide discomfort with a white, male candidate considered even more of a threat than people who look and sound like Hillary and Barack.
By the way, if you're based on a college campus or are active in a community group and would like to delve deeply into issues related to media coverage of women in politics, Women In Media & News, the non-profit women's media group I direct, offers a multimedia presentation called, "Condoleezza Rice is a Size Six, and Other Useless Things I Learned from the News: Challenging Media Misrepresentations of Women." I can't imagine a better season for this talk... contact WIMN to inquire about scheduling a lecture.
This post originally appeared at WIMN's Voices: A Group Blog on Women and the Media , a project of Women In Media & News, the national women's media analysis, education and advocacy group. To send WIMN blog tips or to organize a lecture, email info [at] wimnonline [dot] org. To subscribe to WIMN's free media alert list, see the Action Center at http://www.wimnonline.org/action/.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
What you hypothesize is quite possible, Ms Pozner. And I'll admit that, as an Edward's supporter, I was very frustrated by the consistent lack of media attention his campaign got.
BUT ... I also have a Journalism degree (yeah, I know ... that and $5 will get me a vanilla latte at Starbucks, these days). ;-) I left the Journalism field decades ago (to get a real salary), but have to admit ... a story involving a set of potential historic firsts, such as the first female and/or black candidate, *would* be a major draw. The subject matter would have inherent interest and many articles would almost write themselves.
I agree that there was a media conspiracy, but I am not so quick to write off the possibility that it may have taken the form of lazy journalists flocking to focus on what they perceived as a "more colorful/i
This is so true. I supported Edwards in 2004 when the Dems picked the unelectable stiff Kerry, and I support him in 2008 when once again the Dems are on the brink of nominating one of the candidates chosen for us by the corporate media - unelectable Hillary or unelectable Obama. Democrats say they want someone who isn't bought and paid for with corporate donations, but they fell for the "American Idol" coverage of Hill and Barack and didn't pay attention. Very, very, sad. I'm still hoping for a miracle, that Edwards will be drafted at the convention by delegates who want to WIN in November.
The corporate media rigged the election. It wouldn't work if people were aware of it. So this piece is welcome. I hope you (and others) will hammer away at this.
The media gives us our only choices--the same old center-right bs --Now in NEW! and IMPROVED! packaging!
it's awful.
I've been yelling this to the top of my lungs all year.
Where were these stories all of 2007? I saw another one last week after Edwards dropped out about how the media didn't give him a fair shot.
Where were they when it mattered?
Ms. Pozner, your piece is spot on. I can hardly wait to read part II.
Edwards was placed in the "first tier" by the media from the beginning. While it's regrettable that he was forced to drop out, we lost other candidates of substance before that: the "second tier", who got nary a mention in the media most of the time. Even when they spoke on the most substantive issues.
Who will work for campaign and election reform, publicly funded elections? Surely not any candidate who gets elected after raising and spending stupendous amounts of money. It would question their legitimacy, and the very legitimacy of the office of the President.
the media have given short shrift to most of my choices. they were, in order, kucinich, richardson, edwards, clinton, and if she doesn't win, possibly obama. when the media get to covering issues in a meaningful way and accurately naming the candidate names behind each policy, then we stand a chance of hearing from the kuciniches and pauls. as it is, people for the most part need an internet connection to access real news.
Edwards was trying to be honest with the American people and tried to craft his message that the people whose back breaking labor built this country no longer have a voice. The problem is no one likes to think of themselves as poor but the reality is the middle-class or the working-class (as it should be called) really is the working poor.
Every day we go and toil for stagnant wages as the market continued to grow over 14,000 in October, then after the crash everyone of the financial talking heads says there is now real value in the market as if we are players in this house of cards we call an economy. The truth is most of us are nothing more than a pain in the back-side of the person assigned to handle our 401k or 403b accounts set-up through our means of employment. To them we are just a number in an employee account and after the larger accounts are taken care of we can get back to you, in the mean-time you can put a request in at our on-line interface. Give Me A Break.
The problem is the working class has no voice, and they have no representation in politics or in the financial interest of this country. If they did we would be more concerned about fair-trade then we are of free-trade.
The working class can be identified as the small fish in the large sea of few big fish and the parasitic financial services sector who chew us up and spit us out for loads and commissions and move on to the next and hopefully bigger meal. Don't believe me, do some research and see who owns the Federal Reserve, it isn't the United States Government it is a private Corporation. And of its top 10 secret members only 3 are Americans and they are #'s 7, 9, & 10. Ask yourself who benefits from growing deficit spending and an unchecked foreign policy. I will give you a hint it is not the working class !!!!!
Senator Edwards was the one authentic candidate in the race, and the media's dismissive attitude was troublesome.
As in the prior race, when the media focused attention on which candidate one would rather have a drink with, rather than which would govern better, the public's interest was not served.
Very interesting. John Edwards came out pushing a bolder up a corporate mountain. He needed the very people he wanted to eliminate. He may have done better to expose his anticorporate leanings later in the process, after all, this is a fixed corporate process.
John Edwards was and is my candidate.
I'm a NYC, educated, white-collared, white woman, who was able to cut through the THICK MEDIA AGENDA they have been laboriously trying to shove down our throats. They said that his base was white, blue-collared, males from the South. Well, I'm sure there a lot more American citizens like myself who KNEW that John Edwards was the candidate for ALL AMERICANS.
His fervent, anti-corporate message, was SO VERY REFRESHING and NEEDED after the highjacking of our government by the Powerful Special Interest Groups who happen to be financing both our remaining candidates' campaigns.
John Edwards was the invisible candidate for the majority of the population, who do not pay too close attention to politics and unaware of the Media manipulation.
The only time he would get any attention, it would be either negative or insulting.
We, the American people have lost, and CORPORATE AMERICA has WON "AGAIN".
As long as John Edwards' name is on the ballot in November, he will remain my ONLY candidate.
I'm so sorry the American public never had a chance to find out what a great leader they would have had in John Edwards.
What a sad country we have become.
JOHN EDWARDS in '08
People in America still think we live in a Democracy. Please look up the definition of Fascism. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
If Obama and Hillary were not running, then the MSM would have been forced to deal with Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, Biden and Edwards--IMHO, a good thing! That they did not is only testimony to the power the Corporate Media exercises over our political process. What's worse, in its way, is the total lack of comprehension and outrage among even astute posters and other Bloggers here on HuffPo. The Bloggers are either too afraid to tackle the issue and threaten a possible high paying pundit gig with MSNBC or the New York Times, or they have terminal one-issuitis and are incapable of seeing the bigger picture.
As for posters here; they seem to have bought the Media line and chosen up sides like good little soldiers, each hoping that their candidate will be the second coming, provide all the answers, do all the heavy lifting, kiss it and make it all better. And they seem to genuinely relish beating hell out of each other while ignoring the real problems we need to face.
Look, the Easter Bunny is on unemployment and the tooth fairy has been outsourced to India. America's problems are Systemic! No one person will change it. The Robber Barons in Norris' "Octopus" were small fish compared the the Corporate Sharks that feed off us today. And if we continue to hungrily rise to to the Candidates the MSM throws to us like so much bloody meat, then we swim in these waters at our own peril. At some point we will need to remember the power of our numbers or be consumed.
You're playing the same game! Only two candidates? Mike Gravel is still in it! Where's the media coverage on him?!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
