political campaigns

Soundbites to Solutions Conference – Post #1

A full house. The panelists have gathered. Pat Mitchell, co-chair of the WMC’s board and President and CEO of The Paley Center for Media, is introducing. Mitchell notes, “You cannot escape the fact that the media is full of examples of the kind of stereotyping about women that we had all hoped had disappeared in the ‘enlightened’ 21st century. I think the same can be said about race.”

Carol Jenkins, President of the WMC, notes that the media was totally unprepared for the first woman, the first man of color, and now the oldest man(!) running. ”What they took as their solution was to embed pundits. But those pundits’ opinions have blurred the facts,” says Jenkins, noting that we’re here today to sort out the soundbites and get to the solutions.

Marie Wilson, President and Founder of The White House Project, reminds us that you can’t be what you can’t see. The WHP’s focus on studies of the media–remember that one that found male talking heads outnumber female talking heads 9 to 1?–shares the WMC’s mission of getting more women in the media.

Dori Maynard, President of the Maynard Center for Journalism Education, asks that our intent today be on understanding each other. To that end, there will be instant polling of the audience, to find out who is in the room, and what participants think. The responses will be a catalyst not only for the panelists, but also for a report that will be prepared following today’s event.

Commence instant polling! Here’s the breakdown from the first few questions:

(The racial breakdown appeared on the screen way too fast – I didn’t get it, sorry!)

The audience here is 91 percent female and 8 percent male (1 percent other). 51 percent of those here make over $100,000.

And now, the clincher:

Did the media demonstrate an ability to accurately report and inform across the fault lines of race? 81 percent say no. Across class? 76% say no. Across gender? 92% say no. Across age? 68% say no.

Next up: the panels. The first one this morning will focus on politics (”Candidates, Campaigns, and the Politics of Bias,” and the second will focus on media (”How the Media Influence and Reflect Political Realities”).

I’m getting ready to live blog today’s conference, From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry, and the Press in the 2008 Elections, jointly sponsored by the Women’s Media Center, The White House Project, and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education. The crowd is gathering…Stay tuned!

Note: I’ll also be posting over at Majority Post.

For those of you here in NYC, join me tomorrow from 9am-12 for a stellar event, and one whose theme I will be touching on, actually, during campus talks this fall. The event: “From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry, and the Press in the 2008 Elections.” Sponsored by the White House Project, the Women’s Media Center, and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, the event is free of charge, and open to the press and the public. But seating is limited. To register, click here.

For those of you nowhere near NYC, there’s a chance I may be live blogging part of it (wireless pending), so come back tomorrow for the scoop.

My Courtney has been writing up a storm! Her latest:

A letter to Hillary on her campaign’s end
A piece on keeping youth voters engaged in the political process

Ok, now I, too, have been feeling sad as the next Hillary supporter about our gal’s loss. But are there really going to be Hillary supporters out there sporting t-shirts with “NObama”? I have a hard time believing it. And if I see one, you better believe I will have something to say.

Do check out Gail Collins’ thoughtful oped in today’s NYTimes, “What Hillary Won,” and Bob Herbert’s too (thank you Catherine!). I’m moved by them both. Herbert reminds us not to overlook the wonder of this moment:

“Racism and sexism have not taken their leave. But the fact that Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, and that the two finalists for that prize were a black man and a white woman, are historical events of the highest importance.”

Indeed, we should not overlook this moment. Nor should we take it for granted. Doing a search for this t-shirt just now made me crazy. I found SO much anti-Obama propaganda online — xenophobic stickers, racist cartoons, and worse. As of today, I stand with Obama. And we have so, so much work to do.

Part of our work, of course, is to continue to analyze the impact of race and gender on this campaign. And I hope those of you in the area will join me at a forum on June 17th, “From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry and the Press in the 2008 Election,” from 9am-noon, sponsored by The White House Project, The Women’s Media Center and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education. The forum is free of charge and open to the press and the public and will take place at the Paley Center for Media, 25 West 52nd Street (Between 5th & 6th Ave). Register here.

This morning I’m pleased to bring you another rockin guest post from Virginia Rutter, sociology prof at Framingham State College, who is, in my estimation, quite nice. And a sassy writer to boot. Enjoy! -GWP

It Isn’t Nice, by Virginia Rutter

“It isn’t nice.” That is how I explained my extremely negative response to Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair article on Bill Clinton and to TP’s press interviews this week. It isn’t nice to go around speculating about people’s sex lives (at least in public), but TP did. It isn’t nice to speculate about their health either. TP did.

Todd Purdum dedicates his first several paragraphs drawing tawdry atmosphere—we get the whiff of “Air Fuck One” that whisked Bill’s attendant “motley crew” to a wedding last summer in Paris. This sets the tone. And then for balance, there’s a line or two about, oh jeepers y’all, I’m not saying there is any evidence of philandering. Golly, I just want to tell you that some of Clinton’s old staffers worry about it. And then more paragraphs of tawdry atmosphere.

(1-800-CALL FOUCAULT is how my friends in the English department respond.)

One of the nice things, to me, about leaving behind the 1990s was leaving behind this kind of pants-sniffing political story telling. (Is that a not-nice thing to say? I’ll ponder that.) Remember, the story telling we have this decade is about the big lies we know about – on the economy, the war, on civil liberties, not little hypothetical lies we heard someone say someone said something about. That’s just not nice.

But here is what was pathetic: In interviews, TP is all like, I wasn’t insinuating anything about Bill Clinton’s behavior. The facts I am reporting are about how some Clinton staffers are worried about some people who are talking and thinking it might be possible that maybe Bill is, has, or will mess around. The news: someone feels anxious thinking about sex.

(1-800-CALL FREUD is how my friends in the psychology department respond.)

In interview after interview, TP keeps to his message, I repeat I am not insinuating about Bill’s sex life, I have no information about that. Sounds (ironically), a little bit like “depends upon what the definition of is is.” That’s soooo 1990s. That’s not nice—wasn’t then, isn’t now.

Here’s the deal, TP: write your “sleazy” story whatever way you want, whatever way your editors will tolerate or goad you into. If you can tolerate not being nice, and it passes muster in your business, go ahead. And, if you do it in the service of asking the hard questions, about financing his foundation, his livelihood, well, reasonable minds can accept that. But don’t also be pathetic.

And that brings me to the health stuff. The TP anxiety report extends the apprehension among well meaning FOBs about the psychological impact of his heart by-pass surgery. Makes you cranky. Impulsive. Changes your personality. No doubt big medical interventions, similar to a trauma, influence–or have the odds of influencing–state of mind. But if you are going to speculate about that, some other facts in evidence merit consideration—aka speculation—too. What else could influence Bill’s state of mind and make him irritable or impulsive? Let’s see, there’s the trauma of the 2000 election, the doubledarktrauma of the 2004 election, the traumatimesinfinity that has been the Bush administration. You could say, well we should all be a little irritable (aren’t we?)—but as irritable as the regular folk are, think about this happening when the party and the government are your baby.

And then there is the issue of gender. Just like there are no good gender scripts available for a woman in a powerful position and how best to respond when people market a nutcracker in her image (and the like), there are equally no good gender scripts available for a man in a powerful position to respond to this kind of treatment of the woman he loves.

What I mean by gender scripts is that nearly all women—whether feminist or not—are raised with ideas about delicacy; nearly all men—whether a former president or not—are raised with ideas about protectiveness. What can give a person irritatsia is when the scripts are uncertain. Bill Clinton is a feminist man who has forged a partnership with a woman who is his equal; he has given real support to her. He hasn’t been perfect. But the gender trap in this situation isn’t his clinging to old ideas of male privilege, it is not having a way to reconcile all those expectations about gallantry with the expectations Bill has bought into about equality in his marriage. And if you are a man reading this you may recall times when you have felt damn irritable, maybe even sometimes reactive, when it seems impossible to get it right.

From the look of Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair piece, it seems impossible for Bill to get it right. Turns out it is impossible for any of us to get it right. Including TP. And I think that understanding that is being nice.

NCRW Plenary – Post #7

Ok, it’s Q&A time—generally the best part of any panel IMHO. And here we have Sandi Morgen taking the mike, expressing deep frustration about the “down tone” of this panel. We have an African American running for President, people! Applause. Says Morgen, “Women’s organizations that take a down tone right now are not helping to build the coalition that we need right now to build.”

Kim Gandy responds, asking for recognition that it’s only been a few days, and that there’s a group of people who are hurting out there (HRC supporters), and in a little bit of mourning—just as it would be in the case of the reverse. She calls for an understanding of that. And then she references a column she wrote last night about her daughters who were too young to pay attention to the 2004 election, but who were engaged in this one. Says Gandy, “They saw a woman and an African American run against each other for President. For them, forever, that’s what a Presidential election is. That’s who runs for President. My daughters will grow up never knowing a time when only white men could be considered serious candidates for president. And that is truly groundbreaking.”

Interesting convo about race and gender follows….Feminism’s uncomfortable history with race….How did women of color make their choices in this election?….An audience member says that Frederick Douglas was the only one of all the people at Seneca Falls to truly address a human rights agenda and frame women’s rights as human rights….

Ok, I’ve got to sign off. ‘Til tomorrow!

NCRW Plenary – Post #6

Marie Wilson, The White House Project, who has a history of being a good trend predictor, predicts that this is the cutting edge of the women’s time. (Agree? Disagree?) Snippets:

“This election has been research on the hoof, if you will.”

“Things have changed permanently because of HRC’s run. To begin with, we’ll never have to poll the question ‘would you vote for a woman president?’ again. Because they did!”

“If HRC had come out of the gate talking about bringing people together, it wouldn’t have worked for her. It worked for Obama. But HRC had to come out ‘tough’ and ‘competent.’ She got into fierce mode—‘I will fight for you.’”

“The sexism in America came flat out. So now at least you can talk about it. That’s always a step forward.”

“Because of HRC, three-year-old women are talking about politics.”

“We need research. The Humphrey Center in Minnesota is doing research now on a new women’s political movement, and that we need to do much more.”

NCRW Plenary – Post #5

Diana Salas, Women of Color Policy Network at NYU, is working to teach young women of color about how to influence policy and become “research advocates,” teaching them, in other words, to collect data in ways that are truly representative. Snippets:

“We need to frame our issues in terms of a human rights agenda, and human development—the notion everyone has the right to live in dignity.”

“The abortion rights message has not been working for women of color.”

“We cannot ignore the issues of women who are too young to vote.”

NCRW Plenary – Post #4

Kim Gandy, National Organization for Women, reminds us that 16% is not great, but that we are moving steadily. However, we’re moving not because some critical mass has been reached in society but rather because there are women like those here who have been funding and running campaigns.

Gandy notes that women’s unemployment is rising faster and our median earnings are falling faster (esp single mothers) than men’s, and it’s affecting us longterm, in terms of savings. This demographic, this one that is hurting most, is going to be the one to decide this election. Whichever candidate can reach out to them is going to win.