Introduction
The Democratic Party primary elections were a hot topic for any political savvy media house. Two candidates were facing off to make history. One was the possibility of the first-ever female president for the US, while the other option was the first-ever black president. As such, coverage of the two challengers in the name of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton was a sensitive issue. This forms a rich area of study on the media and gender. Therefore, I have developed the following research proposal on media coverage of Sen. Clinton’s feminine characteristics affect the outcome of the 2008 Democratic primary elections.
Proposal
Global population statistics show that women are the majority but the least involved in politics or other leadership roles. In fact, in the US alone, women occupy 5% only of all political positions (Thimmesh & Jones 2008). Is it because they are better suited for other roles due to their feminine characteristics? While this question has dogged the few women involved into challenging their fellow women into abandoning that position, the scenario indicates the extent of the problem and even announces the continuation of the long and hard-fought battle of the sexes. The fights have been evident on many occasions, but last year’s Democratic Party primary elections highlighted the intensity of the war. There was a general mood in America that Hillary Rodham Clinton, an experienced senator and a former First Lady, could easily wrench the party presidential ticket from a rather “rookie” male, Barrack Obama. To the shock and joy of some, the “unthinkable” happened; Clinton lost amid purported backing from all-female Democratic Party members. With little proof, fingers were hastily pointed to the media for having orchestrated her flop. As such, the paper will seek to indulge the voters, male and female, who would have otherwise voted in Clinton had the media not convinced him/her not to.
In this paper, therefore, I trace the popularity of Clinton before the primaries and how she was portrayed by the media. According to Thimmesh & Jones (2008), Clinton was touted by the media to be the best First Lady the US ever had after Elena Roosevelt. Why then the change in attitude? This is important as it would help us in concluding the pivotal factor that could have triggered the change in attitude by the media, who by then accentuated her character as a career and a family woman was. Invariably, it would seem ungrateful of Clinton and her supporters for accusing the media of giving her coverage, while it is the same media that had worked out her popularity as a First Lady and even after. However, the media concentrated much on her feminine side than on her political side. Internet Blogs and media houses openly commented on her dress code as a woman. Many media houses lambasted her for wearing trouser suits instead of skirt suits. How does this fit into the political viability of a person? While addressing this question, the paper will research any records of Clinton’s negative aspects published by the media.
These results were announced amid allegations that the media portrayed Clinton in a bad light as compared to her challenger. Gallup Poll, which conducted numerous polls prior to the nominations, carried out a poll on how the public perceived the media coverage of Clinton, Obama, and McCain. Results indicated that 56% of Clinton’s Democratic supporters felt that she received negative media coverage (Jones, 2008). So we ask ourselves, would this not have earned her a sympathy vote? Or else did the media succeed in convincing the public that Clinton was not fit for the job through the negative coverage? Or simply put did Clinton lose because she is a woman?
According to Thimmesh & Jones 2008, women are traditionally relegated to handling minor roles in society such as caring for the family and domestic chores. While this may be viewed to exist in traditional societies more so in Africa, there is a fear among scholars that the situation is the same in the US, only that it is not explicitly implied. Some analysts accused Clinton of attempting to play masculine too much in a bid to demonstrate her leadership capabilities and hence win the heart of voters. Crystal Hoyt, assistant professor of leadership studies at the University of Richmond, describes this situation as a double bind, where women have to portray themselves as masculine enough to lead while at the same time feminine enough to be likable. He says that women leaders “need to show a certain level of femininity to be liked, but if they show too much, they will be perceived as an ineffective leader.” In realization of this, the media thus devoted their coverage of Clinton in exposing her feminine side, dwelling on her suitability as a woman rather than a leader.
Conclusion
It is apparent that the media gave coverage to Clinton in a different manner from Obama’s. To some extent, Obama received much of his coverage pegged on his eloquence and marvel at how he executed his campaign and his ability to break records in raising campaign funds. On the other hand, Clinton was covered in her ability as a leader and as a woman. The same that men occupy the majority of job positions elsewhere, so do they in the media. Thereby, the chances of finding fault with a “woman” or objectification of Clinton was very high, thus having a negative opinion in the eyes of the voters.
References
Study sheds light on reaction to Hillary Clinton’s emotional moment, (2008). Web.
Jones, J. (2008), Public says media harder on Clinton than Obama, McCain.
Laura, P. and Jackson, H. (2008), Media analyst sees racism, sexism in election coverage. Web.
Thimmnesh, C. and Jones, D. (2008), Madam President: The Extraordinary, True and Evolving Story of Women in Politics, (New York; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).
Hooks, B. (2000) Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics, (Boston; Pluto Press).