Michelle Burwell

JRN. 421 midterm

There will always be that age old question: Does society shape the media or does the

media shape society? Analysts have constantly sought to determine whether violence and

struggle in society has led to a predominately violence-encrusted media, or whether a media

which seems to be disproportionately crime heavy, has resulted in an increase in violence in

society. Now, with traditional societal roles changing and more specifically the elevation of the

role of women in society, it has become important to analyze how the media is assisting in the

shaping and degradation of these roles. In the United States 2008 presidential election there has

been both a female presidential hopeful and now a female vice-presidential running mate. But

society can no longer ignore the ways in which the media treats these powerful women figures.

The question has now become: Does society shape the way in which the media covers these

female candidates, or does the media shape the way in which society views these female

candidates?

As the election nears and the U.S has transitioned from having a female presidential

hopeful, Hillary Clinton, to a female vice-presidential running mate, Sarah Palin, there has been

continuing debate as to whether the media coverage of women in politics (or women in power

positions in general) is fair and unbiased. The mainstream media has treated coverage of

powerful women in a unique way and the 2008 election serves to be an interesting case study.

The American media has been accused of focusing too much attention on Hillary

Clinton’s emotional breakdowns and Sarah Palin’s overwhelming responsibilities as a mother.

Many people have come to consider such characteristics as negative aspects for women who

possess so much power. Society has voiced the ideas that they don’t want a president who cries

while negotiating with terrorists and they don’t think a woman who is busy changing diapers can
find time to discus foreign policy. But the question becomes, has the media stirred these ideas

into political conversation, or do we still live in a day where the women are still expected to play

the tradition gender role of women and the media is simply commentating on the conversations

taking place around them?

On October 6, 2008, The New Yorker published an article on Sarah Palin titled “Alaskan

Tropic.” The article discussed Palin’s recent purchase of a tanning bed for her state mansion in

Juneau, Alaska. Though the article itself was not particularly biased one way or the other, it was

the entire topic that is troubling. It seems hard to believe that any media network would find the

purchase “newsworthy” any day of the year, nonetheless on a day that is rapidly approaching the

day of election.

The article stated “Obama supporters seized on the news, arguing that private tanning-bed

ownership is evidence that Palin isn’t the folksy hockey mom she claims to be, while Republican

partisans pointed out that she bought the bed secondhand from an athletic club, and, moreover,

that tanning is a reasonable activity given Alaska’s sun-deprived winters.” The author of the

article, Steven Kurutz, continues by posing the rather intuitive question (sarcasm implied), “One

wonders if a Palin Vice-Presidency would result in an indoor-tanning renaissance, or mark a

period of industry deregulation (Kurutz, 33)”

And while the magazine focuses on Palin’s beauty habits on one page, it devotes the

entire adjacent page to Barack Obama’s difficulty with connecting to Appalachian voters. The

story on Barack Obama discusses his views on gun-safety laws, faith and gay marriage. The

article discussed issues with substance, and issues which had a real chance at persuading voters

one way or the other.

 Everything from Palin’s clothes, reading glasses and high heels has been critiqued by the

media. And while this is to be expected, it isn’t to be overdone. In a Sunday edition of the

Washington Post a headline read “Sarah Palin’s Unassertive Fashion Statement.” Robin Givhan,

author of the article wrote, “Her clothes are unpretentious, but they are also unremarkable. They

have nothing to do with Fashion (Givhan, M01).” However, we don’t expect powerful men to be

particularly astute to fashion trends, yet we expect precisely that out of powerful women. Is this

the double standard society has set, or a double standard set by the media?

Givhan then continues by alluding to the prevalent theory that seems to be radiating

throughout society which is that women cannot possibly have the time to be mothers while

simultaneously playing a major role in national politics. Givhan writes, “The hair, which has

been highlighted, teased and scrunched, is a standard-issue, mommy-is-in-a-rush style. Since

motherhood has been laid out by her campaign like one of the pillars of national service, the

mop-top hairdo is practically a battle scar (Givhan, M01).”

And the Washington Post is certainly not the only news outlet that has paid particular

attention to the extensive duties Sarah Palin has as a mother to five, the youngest being a

newborn with down syndrome. It seems as if every news organization wants to place a bet on

whether or not Palin can possibly succeed as both a mom and a politician. It seems as if they are

just waiting for her to go in sane so they can say in sync ‘We told you so.’ But is it fair to place

all the blame on the news organizations, or are media outlets simply provided the forum on

which society can voice their concerns.

In an article in The New York Times, titled “A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers,”

author Judi Kantor wrote “With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as

the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument
among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice

presidency, and whether she is right to try (Kantor).” Kantor went on to quote several working

moms who seemed divided on the question of whether or not Palin could be both a mom and

politician. One women stated, “You can juggle a BlackBerry and a breast pump in a lot of jobs,

but not in the vice presidency.” Still another woman stated, “A mother of a 4-month-old infant

with Down syndrome taking up full-time campaigning? Not my value set (Kantor).”

The point is not that such debates are taking place in society. The point is that the

mainstream media is giving people a national platform for the debate when at the same time

Barack Obama and John McCain’s dual roles as father and politician would never be seen as

questionable simply because they are male. Though it is evident that society, and especially

women in society, are fueling such debates, is it ethical for the media to provide the fire-pit?

In a National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast titled “Palin Candidacy Sparks Wave of

‘Mommy Wars,’” NPR hosted a round table discussion with moms and career women. It was the

media outlet that posed the primary question for the debate: “Should a mother with a large family

of young children be vying for the number two position in politics (Chideya, NPR)?”

Farai Chideya, host of the discussion, seemingly steered the conversation by asking, “Do

you think the issue is not whether or not a women has a job and she’s a mother, but what job that

is (Chideya, NPR)?” Would she have posed this same question if the candidate was a man with

children? We hear very little from the media about Barack Obama having two young kids while

at the same time running for the presidency. But is it the media’s fault for instilling these notions

in the minds of listeners, or do we simply live in a society which still believes it is the primary

responsibility of the woman to take care of the children, making it natural for such discussions to

take place?
 In a December 2006 article of Extra!, titled “ Career Women, Go Home,” author Keely

Savoie writes that she believes the media has always had a peculiar interest in the general story

of women in the workplace. In the article, Caryl Rivers, professor of journalism at Boston

University said, “It’s intriguing to me that the more women achieve . . . the more the media sends

the message that [we] are not suited for it (Savoie).”

Savoie went on to cite several poorly researched studies published in prominent news

outlets regarding women and their ability to handle both a career and family as well as a career

woman’s ability (or lack of ability) to keep her husband happy. Savoie wrote, “Every few years,

there comes a big high-profile article that declares, for one reason or another, that the feminist

goal of equality between the sexes has finally been revealed to be a misguided social experiment,

concluding that we, collectively, can now happily return to our regularly scheduled gender roles

(Sovoie).” This seems to be precisely what is happening in present day media. For a while the

media was placing political women on a pedestal, congratulating them for breaking the mold and

paving the way for other female politicians, but now they are second doubting their strength and

saying ‘But are you strong enough to lead.’

And the media makes it nearly impossible for women with power to reveal any sort of

emotion, whether it’s a hard-line emotion or an empathetic one. While Hillary Clinton was still

in the race to become the Democratic nominee for presidency, she was attached by the media and

society for being too weak when she was seen tearing up in an interview. But when she appeared

to be too tough she was called a “feminist,” a word that, whether intended or not, often has a

negative connotation.

In an online article of The New York Post, Hillary Clinton was ridiculed for tearing up

during an election stop. The article pointed out that it was an event that “targeted women
voters,” in a not so subtle effort to allude to the possibility that the tears were staged solely for

election purposes. The author, Geoff Earle, goes on to state, “But there were enough similarities

between the two near-crying jags that some skeptics wondered whether the whole thing was

contrived (Earle).” It appears as if Clinton simply couldn’t win. If she is too tough she is seen as

emotionless and if she tears up the media (and society) question her sincerity.

And in an article from Media Matters for America, the organization printed some of the

transcripts from Glenn Beck’s, a commentator for both CNN and ABC news, syndicated radio

show. Beck stated on a March 2007 broadcast, "Hillary Clinton cannot be elected president

because ... there's something about her vocal range. There's something about her voice that just

drives me -- it's not what she says, it's how she says it. She is like the stereotypical -- excuse the

expression, but this is the way to -- she's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean? After

four years, don't you think every man in America will go insane (Media Matters for America)?"

And as appalling as it seems that a mainstream media host was able to say this on his radio show,

it becomes even more appalling that not many people seemed to question his choice of words,

and still more were saying the exact same things. When Hillary takes a hard line stance on an

issue she is called a “bitch,” but when Barack Obama or John McCain takes the same sort of

stance, they are revered for being tough politicians who hold their ground and will refuse to

negotiate with the enemy. The sort of language used by Beck only serves to digress from the

progress we’ve made towards true equality for women.

But finally, as has been analyzed throughout the paper, the all encompassing question is

whether the media is implanting these notions of woman inferiority and gender roles in the

minds of society, or if society itself has embedded this notion into media discourse. While it is

apparent that the mainstream media has innate biases towards powerful women, and often
commentate according to a double standard for men and women, there are also specific actions

of prominent people that seem to allude to the fact that it is society that is still stuck in this notion

that different genders are to play different roles, regardless. Even the McCain himself has played

the “super hero” role for Palin, the “damsel-in distress.”

In Katie Couric’s last interview of a series with Sarah Palin, John McCain is seen sitting

at Palin’s side. Though the questions are being directed towards Palin, McCain seems to jump in

when he feels he needs to perhaps “come to her rescue.” When Couric asks Palin about the

answer she gave a journalist a couple days prior which seems to be bear a striking resemblance

to Barack Obama’s foreign policy rather than that of her own running mate, John McCain,

McCain twiddles his thumbs nervously waiting for his chance to talk as if Palin simply can’t

hold her own. Couric then asks Palin, “Are you sorry you said it governor?” McCain quickly

jumps to her rescue stating firmly, “Now wait a minute. Before you say ‘Is she sorry she said it?’

This was a “gotcha” soundbite… She was in a conversation with a group of people, talking back

and forth. Well, I’ll let Governor Palin speak for herself (Couric Interview).” It was only then

that he realized the seemingly “protective” role he was playing, as if Palin were fragile and could

break at any moment.

So, yes, while the media appears to be clearly participating in gender bias discourse, it is

an attitude that is still prevalent in society as well. It’s almost impossible to tell whether society

is fueling media discourse or vice versa, but one thing is certain; until gender bias ideas and

vocabulary is out of the media, it will most certainly be a part of society. Media shapes the

minds of readers, viewers and listeners and thus it is the role of the media to practice responsible

journalism that works to cure society not instigate it.

 Works Cited

Chideya, Farai. “Palin Candidacy Sparks Wave of ‘Mommy Wars.’” National Public Radio.

Sept. 9, 2008.

Couric, Katie. CBS Evening News with Katie Couric [transcript of interview with John McCain

And Sarah Palin]. Sept. 30, 2008. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/30/evening

news/main4490788.shtml?source=search_story>.

Earle, Geoff. “ Hillary Clinton Cries Again.” The New York Post. Feb. 4, 2008 <http://www.ny

post.com/seven/02042008/news/nationalnews/hillary_clinton_cries_again__899752.

htm.>

Givhan, Robin. “Sarah Palin’s Unassertive Fashion Statement.” The Washington Post. Sept. 28,

2008. pg. M01

Kantor, Jodi and Swarns, Rachel L. “A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers.” The New York

Times. Sept. 1, 2008.

Kurutz, Steven. “Alaskan Tropic.” The New Yorker. Oct. 6, 2008. pg. 33

Media Matters for America. “CNN's, ABC's Beck on Clinton: "[S]he's the stereotypical bitch."
 Mar. 15, 2007.

Savoie, Keely. “Career Women, Go Home.” Extra! Nov./De. 2006.