2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCHALLENGING SEXIST LANGUAGE: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
http://wisewomenforclinton.com/challenging-sexist-language-open-letter-new-york-times/We are an organization of thousands of women who enthusiastically support Secretary Hillary Clinton for president. Our members know very well her qualifications, experience, hard work, policies, concern for issues important to all Americans, trustworthiness, kindness, and graciousness.
That is why we were appalled to read a story published in the digital edition of The New York Times on Monday, originally titled Presidential Candidates Gear Up for a Busy Labor Day, in which reporter Ashley Parker referred to Secretary Clinton as a politicians-wife-turned-politician-herself who spent the summer hobnobbing with celebrities. In two demeaning, sexist sentences, The Times dismissed Secretary Clintons extraordinary accomplishments, including her Yale law degree, the decades she spent working for the poor and underprivileged, her eight years as a senator from New York, and her four years as secretary of state (in addition to her eight years as first lady).
By attempting to delegitimize the secretary or depict her as a frivolous party-hopper, The Times has done the candidate a grave disservice. Secretary Clinton is a hardworking candidate who has been campaigning, honing policy, and doing voter outreach for more than a year. That she spent some of August undertaking traditional fundraising, as have her predecessors, is not surprising given the requirements of running a campaign. We would venture to guess, however, that if the Clinton campaign were cash poor, The Times would be the first to point a finger of doom.
And while the wording of the article, and the bias it revealed, angered us, the surreptitious editing that followedperhaps in response to tweets and emailswithout any mea culpa from the editors, only exacerbated the problem. As this NewsDiffs log of the various incarnations of the story shows, the original version, posted before 9:00 am, remained on nytimes.com virtually untouched for eight and a half hours. Most readers internalized that story, flaws and all. It wasnt until after 5:00 pm that the online post was significantly revisedwithout a time stamp or editors note of explanationnow calling Secretary Clinton a veteran politician but leaving the hobnobbing comment intact. The current live draft, released after midnight, became the above-the-fold lead story in Tuesdays print edition. The hobnobbing characterization was gone, but the writer could not resist a snarky assertion that Secretary Clinton made nice with the news media on her airplane yesterday, as if she somehow owed them something...more
MADem
(135,425 posts)They've sold themselves, irreparably, to the wing nuts and tools of our society who are intent on greed, profit and power. They should be ashamed.
That would, of course, take insight.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)is in order. With draw subscriptions & ads and put our money where we are recognized on our merits.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They should NEVER "edit" their copy without admitting to it, first off, and second, telling us what they changed.
And they should stop being sexist pigs, too--that shit is so mid-20th Century.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Politico's On Media reporter reamed her for writing articles, twice apparently, about herself instead of Romney when she was with his campaign. "I cannot remember the last time I went to the gym." Most reporters don't need that kind of kick in the pants.
This ain't about you, Parker http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/this-aint-about-you-parker-118292