I hate to even bring this up again--I think we've hashed it out more than sufficiently--but I have to critique the right-wing response to the Schuster incident. On Hannity's radio show today (yes, solon listens to this smut in the car and, yes, I have presented a very convincing argument likening it to the legal definition of porn... more on that later), Sean compared Schuster's comment about Chelsea Clinton to Keith Olbermann's previous accusation that Bush was "pimping out" General Petraeus. Olbermann faced no consequences for his statement and Schuster was suspended. Hannity claims, quite fervently, that the difference lies solely in MSNBC's partisan nature and not any issue of gender or sexism. Because men are pimped all the time, I guess. At least Republican men.
I fully realize that Hannity does not speak for the right wing in its entirety, but I've heard this floating out there and it needs to be addressed.
9 comments:
The porn metaphor for these talk radio types is spot on. It is a good thing, though, to listen to them. One must know what these people are doing.
Hannity is of course parroting Talking Points here, we know this because we troll multiple Right Wing personalities, web sites, and television programs. Talking Points designed specifically to dampen down the growing apprehension that MSNBC has been doing hit jobs on Hillary Clinton for a long time now.
To dampen this apprehension is important, because said apprehension threatens Their erroneous claims that: A)The television media is left wing; and B)Hillary Clinton is left wing.
As for the argument itself. One difference is, that prostitutional language was and is appropriate with respect to David Petraeus. The Rhetorical Situation called for it. Everyone knew what Petraeus was going to say before he said it. It was what the Republicans had been saying. The surge is working but we need more time. The Bushies wrote his speech for him, for God's sake.
Then, after Petraeus's speech, Bush comes out and says he can understand people criticizing him, but smearing a Patriotic General, that's just un-American.
Uncomfortable with the statement, Bush pimpied out Petraeus? Fine. We'll amend it to say, he pimped out the Uniform.
There seems to be a fallacy of composition on the MSNBC "hit jobs" comments. If one person says something negative about Clinton, you argue that its the entire network. You fail to account for a definition of a "hit job" and fail to discern how many arguments against her constitute a "hit job."
This morning and this evening, Chris Matthews stated Hillary is in position to be the next President. Is this a hit job? This whole nonsense is just too silly without developing some way to impartially state when there is a "hit job" on a candidate. Pat Buchanon stated she would be the nominee-- is this a hit job?
Then, let us discuss this a bit.
Harrogate hopes he is not sincerely being accused of basing his claims on a person saying "something negative."
An emblematic moment for Chris Matthews' patterened treatment of Hillary Clinton was in the aftermath of the last GOP debate on that network.
Remember Romney's line, Bill Clinton in the White House with nothing to do, that was something he didn't want to imagine?
During the "analysis" Matthews played that clip no less than six times, going on and on about what a moment that was, and excitedly encouraged Olbermann, Scarborough, Buchanan and the rest to join him in talking about it.
For the next week Hardball got naked and rolled around in that soundbite.
Now, Harrogate asks you, what is the Rhetorical Effect of this behavior if not to legitimize what Romnye said--More, to creaqte the sense that he said something really, really substantial. The responsible thing to have done would have been to say, what a low and petty comment by Romney, is this the best he can do in response to a question about running against Hillary Clinton?
Now. Matthews's "apology" for innocently stating that the only reasons she's even in the race is because her husband fooled around, as you likely know, wound up not an apology at all, but rather a Promotional for the network because of his big caviat about how he "loves politics," "loves politicians." Meanwhile his long record of misogyny, not only towards Hillary Clinton but with respect to a slew of other female personalities (including, Harrogate might add, Right Wing personality Michelle Malkin) goes on going on.
You point out, he recently said "Hillary is in position to be the next President"--to signify what? Harrogate has been saying the same exact thing about McCain (except Harrogate is right), but more than a factual statement, it is a lamentation.
Matthews is arguably the face of the network and so it is here that Harrogate begins. He eagerly awaits your rejoinder.
Studies that attempt to "expose" the liberal bias in the media suffer from a problem in method, especially as it relates to 1) questions of definition-- what is liberal, what is conservative, and 2) what is the threshold for a bias-- one story? one more liberal than conservative? two? three? etc., 3) lack of context; 4) neglect the viewer's mindset or their frame of reference.
With this in mind, examine the "case against Hillary" in the "media." You make no attempt to discuss how we could discern what "bias against Clinton" or "misogyny" is? You make no attempt to establish a impartial criteria to judge this? You make no account of how viewers interpret a study? And you make no account of context of the story.
For example, you attempt to make the Romney clip "representative of Matthew's position." Yet, for the past week, he proclaimed repeatedly that she would win Penn. and discussed her political ability to establish contacts. So now we have a problem in methodology: for as many times as you can find a negative clip, someone could find a positive clip. At best, you are left at arguing a question of degree, that your clip is "harsher to her" than my clip is "better for her." But this still leaves us in a position where we do not know anything.
Further, it does not equate to misogyny. Certainly some people on MSNBC dislike Clinton (Tucker, Morning Joe). However, they do not dislike her because she is a woman. They may dislike her as a politician or a person or because of her beliefs or policy positions, but not because she is a woman. Also, if a few people dislike her, then you cannot say that the network dislikes her-- you cannot reach that conclusion.
Matthews may be the face of the network but he is only one part of the network. And he does not qualify as the entire "media."
Maybe the Truth is not that people are making up the idea that there is widespread, and unprovoked, media bias against Hillary Clinton. Maybe the Truth is closer to this: Obama's True Believers Refuse to See it.
But no matter, it is all anecdotal and example-based, of course. Harrogate rendered an example (actually, two, counting the apology for saying she owes her political success to being cheated on/promotional with respect to Matthews), because he holds that example to be exemplary of what he has personally witnessed Matthews doing for months.
You are of course right that nobody can replicate all comments that have been made on NBC or any other network. But many of us are noticing the network's personalities smearing her with regularity.
And again, who cares if Chris Matthews predicted she would take PA or that she has good organizational skills? Harrogate has said similar things about John McCain. Harrogate in 2004 said Bush would win and that he is a clever politician. Was this a pro-Bush statement?
The tie in you make with false claims of liberal media bias is strange, seeing as how those claims are after all false. Such claims fall apart, for example, before the drumbeat runup to Iraq. In case anybody gives a damn about that.
Harrogate has never claimed the reverse: that the Media is broadly conservative, because he knows that would be a silly thing to claim also.
It is not to further conservatism that television personalities denigrate Hilllary Clinton. They do so in honor of convention. Comments like Romney's are parroted, accepted as amusing truisms.
They are certainly never challenged.
I had fully planned to stay out of this particular exchange, and for the most part, I will. I do want to address one statement made by Megs. You write
"However, they do not dislike her because she is a woman. They may dislike her as a politician or a person or because of her beliefs or policy positions, but not because she is a woman."
While you may be right about the particular reporters you cite, I think we have to recognize that there are people out there who hate Hillary Clinton for the simple fact that she is a woman a power. There are probably an equal number of people who hate Barack Obama because he is a black man in power. I think you're right, Megs, that Harrogate hasn't offered the definition of misogyny that he is using when he critiques the media for its misogynist treatment of Hillary Clinton. Harrogate, put up or shut up--give us a definition. By the same token, however, you and Solon have repeatedly (rightfully so) commented that Obama has received racist treatment by the media and the Clinton campaign, yet neither of you offer a definition of racism. Why? Because most of us reading and blogging on this site understand what you mean--just as we understand what Harrogate means when he uses the term misogynist.
On a somewhat different, but related note, I personally have no problem with the idea that Schuster was trying to express in his comment about Chelsea Clinton. I do, however, have a problem with his word choice. Obviously MSNBC, in all of its "liberal" glory, cannot afford to buy its reporters dictionaries and thesauri. He could have chosen a better word to express his opinion that Chelsea Clinton is being manipulated by her mother for her mother's benefit (as it happens, I think Chelsea Clinton deserves more credit than that, but I digress). Further to compare the statement made about "pimping out" General Patreaus to "pimping out" Chelsea Clinton is like comparing apples and oranges. Why? Because for a man to be "pimped out" doesn't have the same sexual connotation that it does for a woman. It is the equivalent of calling a man a whore; it doesn't have the same meaning that it does to call a woman a whore. I'm all for holding public individuals accountable, but can we hold them accountable in such a way that doesn't bring sex or race into the mix?
m:
Thank you for that post. As you know (and no doubt find somewhat amusing), Harrogate is fighting this fight as one who is not the best equipped among our circle to engage the multi-dynamics involved in Gender Discourses.
It is not, as they say, Harrogate's wheelhouse.
Thus, your suggestion that Harrogate provide a definition of Rhetorical Sexism or Misogyny (outside the banal quoting of a dictionary), Harrogate isn't brave enough to attempt, at least not this day.
However, Harrogate did recently offer up a post in which he asserted that using gendered language to denigrate is part of what he complaining of. And, he linked to Shakespeare's Sister as a better authority on this topic; you are encouraged to follow the link, as it were, and draw thine own conclusions.
MAJOR DISCLAIMER!!!!!!
Um... solon mistakenly posted comments as me last night. So if the comments in this strand sounded surprisingly unlike me, that's because they weren't!
Thank God! I was starting to wonder what happened to you and that perhaps Solon had taken over your brain!
Post a Comment