Presidential Advice

September 8, 2011
Obama
5 Comments

The good folks at Loop 21 asked “10 leading young voices,” what we would like to hear from the President in his jobs speech that would make a huge difference in the lives of young people in America? Never one to shy away from giving advice, my two cents:

“As conservatives have succeeded at demonizing public servants — especially overworked and underpaid teachers — the economic crisis has forced state and local governments to lay off thousands of teachers, first responders, and social service workers. I hope to hear President Obama speak about restoring the public’s faith in the role of government as an integral part of the solution, starting with challenging Congress to pass Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream bill that would help create more than two million jobs for teachers, police officers, firefighters, health care workers and education workers.”

Feminist trailblazers, Tiffany Dufu, L.Joy Williams, and Keli Goff also weighed in:

Tiffany Dufu, President of The White House Project:

“For a lasting solution, we need to create a pipeline of strong leaders. So I’d like to see the President allocate time, energy, and resources to train the next generation. President Obama built his 2008 campaign on grassroots organizing — now it’s time to harness the power of diverse groups of young women and men so that their innovations will help to bring us out of this recession into a thriving economy.”

Keli Goff, Contributing Editor for @theloop21:

“The Economic Cycle Research Institute has argued that at this point there’s very little that can be done to significantly move the needle on jobs before 2012. If that’s true, I think it would be really bold of the President to simply be upfront about it, and to position himself as the only grownup in the room. He could legitimately argue that he’ll leave it to Congress and the GOP presidential field to politicize the issue while saying that he’s going to shoot straight with us — no matter how much it hurts — and then focus on some of the other economic policy issues the fed has greater control of. While he’s at it, he can announce a tax credit for businesses that hire those from particularly disenfranchised groups, in addition to the tax credit he recently launched to spur greater hiring of veterans. Of course, neither scenario I laid out above will probably happen in this lifetime. But a girl can dream.”


L. Joy Williams, principal consultant at LJW Community Strategies, and co-host of “Blacking it Up!”

“Amidst the President’s speech, Americans need to hear the word ‘JOB.’ While arguably tax breaks and spending cuts are necessary elements in the overall plan to fix our economy, the 14 million Americans unemployed need to know how his plan will result in a job directly for them.”

Enough With the Excuses: “Men-in-Suits Mind-Set” Needs to Go

July 14, 2010
Media
1 Comment

How is it that the old boys network predominates on Sunday morning talk shows while just last week, the media mused about the “year of the woman” as conservative women prevailed at the polls?

“Women are still scarce on Sunday morning news shows,” wrote Erika Lovely for Politico, who cites soon-to-be-published research from American University’s Women & Politics Institute that found just under 14% of lawmaker guests on Sunday morning talk shows have been women. However, unlike NPR’s earlier piece this year called “Where Are the Women?” the Sunday show producers appear to have no intention of remedying the disparity. In fact, their reactionary responses remained defensive as they justified structural sexism.

It’s high time for Sunday morning news shows to take responsibility for their “men-in-suits mind-set” rather than blaming women who have been underrepresented and disregarded for decades. Still, producers continue to reject accountability for the lack of diversity, resorting to a laundry list of meaningless justifications, including our underrepresentation in Congress, time zone issues, and even diva-baiting Speaker Pelosi.

It’s disappointing to hear those sentiments echoed by Washington Post columnist Howard Kurtz. It is contradictory for him to say “I’m not in the business of inviting female politicians on the air” but then support “a bigger pool of female columnists, bloggers and talk show hosts.” Perhaps Howard Kurtz did not mean to privilege female columnists while disenfranchising female politicians — but the impact may override the intent.

Enough with the excuses. The mindset that “there are no good women” is too common and too casually accepted. While we celebrate when a woman triumphs over sexism, last week’s primaries did not signal equal representation for women in Congress, any more than today’s piece in Politico represents a tide turning on Sunday morning. These stats are not new.

While it’s a positive step forward that media outlets recognize the gender disparity on Sunday morning, there are qualified women available, and producers need to book them. The Women’s Media Center represents hundreds of experts available on every issue from beltway politics to foreign policy to financial reform. The solution is clear.

There will always be those who make excuses and point to the one woman on the four person panel as progress. View the Women’s Media Center award-winning video highlighting the gender disparity still widely prevalent in media:

Big Victories for Women Candidates Bring Big Questions

June 9, 2010
Politics
Leave a Comment

Female candidates won big last night, reshaping the political landscape. But what does it really mean for women?

From Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in California, to Tea Party survivor Nikki Haley in South Carolina, and Senator Blanche Lambert Lincoln’s surprise victory in Arkansas, today’s hot political topic is all about the rise of conservative women at the ballot box and their success in last night’s primaries. MSNBC celebrated the “Ladies Night” results, and today the women of America are left with a chance to reflect on how these races will affect our future.

Women currently hold a pathetically small fraction of elective offices — only 17% of seats in Congress. The good news is that a woman running for office is becoming more normalized (with the help of Women’s Campaign Forum, EMILY’s List, Emerge, Eleanor Roosevelt’s Legacy, Annie’s List, and others), but we still have a ways to go before it becomes “the norm.” But following a night where women comprised a mere 23% of winning candidates (47 of 204 winners), some of the media coverage is not in line with reality. As NPR notes in “A Super Tuesday for Women”, 1984 was the year of the woman — till they all lost in the general election.

While increasing the number of women in political leadership positions is good and necessary, the bottom line is that issues matter most. My feminist friends and colleagues will ultimately vote for what a candidate stands for, not their reproductive organs. Are these candidates representing the interests of young mothers, working women, and the growing number of senior women? If the result of “Ladies Night” is a new crop of women elects pushing a conservative agenda that would allow the government to interfere in medical and family planning decisions, refuse to reign in corporations, and even stop me from drinking a glass of wine when visiting Las Vegas — last night’s results do little to move me. We need more pro-equality leaders who aren’t afraid to stand up for our values. Sarah Palin is not Hillary Clinton, Jan Brewer is not Janet Napolitano, and last night’s winners still need to prove how they will represent the sentiment, values, and rights of women.

At the same time, while the policies and performance of all political figures should be subject to rigorous media critique, we cannot ignore that more women candidates ultimately still means more opportunities for sexist media coverage and political maneuverings. Sexism against any woman candidate adds an additional barrier for all women and girls who aspire to political leadership. I look forward to the day it will not be remarkable to have a woman running against another woman — for now, I cringe at the “cat fight” statements likely to come in the coverage of Senator Boxer vs. Fiorina. Last night, a guest on Chris Matthews’ show commented that it’s not easy to attack a woman. Not sure what planet he’s living on, but not only is it easy, it’s often accepted. No more. Sexism may sell, but we’re still not buying it.

The Women’s Media Center will continue to serve as a watchdog for sexist and biased attacks directed towards women candidates. In the midst of all the hype, some journalists and commentators are already using this opportunity to reach for their misogynist bag of comments.

We want to know: What have you seen or heard? Keep us on the loop as the midterm election season heats up.

Media Outlets Need to Take a Look in the Mirror

April 7, 2010
Media
Leave a Comment

National Public Radio ombudsman Alicia Shepard’s Friday report on gender disparity at NPR was more than a harsh wake-up call about stark inequality at one of the nation’s most respected news providers. Shepard’s report should serve as a lesson: if we want fair and accurate reporting, more media outlets need to take a good long look in the mirror.

“NPR listeners heard 2,502 male sources and 877 female sources on the shows we sampled,” Shepard writes. “In other words, only 26 percent of the 3,379 voices were female, while 74 percent were male.” The numbers worldwide are even more dire; the Global Media Monitoring Project’s latest preliminary report on international media found that just 19% of experts on news programs are women. This absence of female experts and commentators sends a silent but powerful message: women are less qualified than their male peers to provide information on the news. Beyond the inherent disrespect for our country’s female experts and the disconcerting example set for young women — not to mention the fact that women consistently attend college at higher rates than men — the country is robbed of diverse and comprehensive reporting it needs and deserves for a healthy democracy. The reality of issues cannot be reported accurately when half the population isn’t telling it.

I’ve heard the argument that, in the age of Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, and the swath of female hosts on NPR, women have already achieved parity in journalism. But the argument that fair media equals women hosting news shows while 74% of the crucial information used in reporting comes from men is a joke. While celebrating the achievements of our country’s greatest female hosts, we must fight for media justice that is richer, truer, and more democratic than counting the skirts on the evening news.

Shepard interviewed me about her findings; as I told her, it’s crucial to address the argument that women experts are somehow not available — or don’t exist — as justification for their absence in the media. Not only is this patently untrue, but organizations like Women’s Media Center work tirelessly to ensure that women experts are readily available for media on the issues of the day. Women’s Media Center is proud to run SheSource, a searchable database of hundreds of women experts in diverse fields. We send headlines to over 650 journalists three times a week highlighting experts who are particularly useful for top media stories, and make sure we remain available for media requests at all hours. SheSource undercuts the assertion that women experts don’t exist, or are difficult to find. They’re right here.

Our Progressive Women’s Voices media and leadership training program provides women experts in a range of fields with the skills needed to amplify their voices in today’s ruthless and lightning-quick media world. Having trained experts from Equality Now Director Taina Bien-Aime to Feministing‘s Jessica Valenti to Echoing Green Executive Director Cheryl Dorsey (named one of the top 20 leaders in the country by U.S. News & World Report), Progressive Women’s Voices provides real and sustainable support to women experts, ensuring that the public gets access to their knowledge and perspectives. (Calling all women who want your voices heard: we are accepting applications for the program this week. For more information on applying to Progressive Women’s Voices, click here.)

On the heels of a Newsweek article last month which aired the magazine’s own dirty laundry on continued inequality between female and male reporters and writers, Shepard’s report drives home what we at the Women’s Media Center and other advocacy organizations know to be true: gender inequality in media, even among the most respected news outlets, is very real. But it is not beyond us to correct.

Progressive media is frequently outspoken on issues of gender inequality, but too often but fails to address disparity in their own ranks. As full citizens of a democracy, women are entitled to an equal voice in the issues affecting their nation, their communities, and themselves. NPR and Newsweek have started stepping up to the plate. We’re asking: who’s got the courage to go next?

Washington Post TV Critic Showcases His Own Bias

March 23, 2010
Media
1 Comment

Update: In hindsight, I want to acknowledge an issue that frequently arises within and surrounding the women’s movement: an assertion that feminists elevate women by degrading men, and fight historic inequalities with demands for female rule. The prevalence of this complaint warrants greater public discussion, and in that spirit I want to address the comparisons I made between Christiane Amanpour and Jake Tapper, and affirm that this piece was in no way meant to undermine the career or values of Mr. Tapper. He is a prestigious journalist in his own right with a strong progressive background — anyone who names his daughter after suffragette Alice Paul is a feminist in our hearts and minds. (See a photo of Tapper with Alice on page 5 of this Alice Paul Institute newsletter.) We need to do a better job of welcoming and engaging male feminists; there are many more out there than we sometimes assume. The point of my piece, which has been shared by ABC, is that Tom Shales provided no substantiation for his strongly-worded argument that Christiane Amanpour is unqualified to host This Week, and no substantiation for why Mr. Tapper or Terry Moran would have been better for the job. In comparing the careers of Amanpour and Tapper, I was not seeking to subvert Mr. Tapper’s journalistic merit, but to demonstrate – with colorful examples, yes – that Shales’s claim was ungrounded and unfair.

Earlier: On Thursday, March 18th ABC News announced that Christiane Amanpour will host This Week, the network’s premiere national political news show, airing in the plum Sunday morning slot. Sometimes second, sometimes third in the ratings against stalwart shows Meet The Press and Face The Nation, This Week was until recently hosted by George Stephanopoulos, who decamped for Good Morning America several months ago.

The announcement was thrilling to those of us who follow politics and media, and not just because Amanpour is a fresh voice who brings decades of field experience and vast international expertise. It was also exciting because the Sunday pundit hours, while some of the most influential in American media in terms of impact on policy and politics, remain highly segregated. A 2007 Media Matters survey found that one in four guests was female and that white guests outnumbered people of color by seven to one. The hosts, of course, were all white men. Until now.

In a perplexing and misguided column in today’s Washington Post, “ABC’s Choice of Amanpour for This Week Has Critics Inside The Network and Beyond” the prominent television critic Tom Shales inveighs against the choice of Amanpour to host the prestigious show. He describes the 27-year broadcast veteran as “widely considered to be deficient,” raises questions about her personal politics, refers to ABC insiders thinking of her as a “celebrity interloper” and ultimately declares:

From many angles, it was a bad choice – one which could create so much consternation that [ABC News President David] Westin will be forced to withdraw Amanpour’s name and come up with another ‘nominee’ for the job. That would hardly be a tragedy – considering how many others deserve it more than she does.

To support his assertion that Amanpour is “the opposite of the perfect candidate,” Shales cites two formidable critics: a Facebook group against Amanpour and a conservative media think tank’s blog who he quotes as saying she has “the standard liberal outlook on the world.” This is a bland critique from a marginal source – why is Shales including this stuff in his assessment of Amanpour? Rather than examine her actual journalistic credentials – beyond considering her Facebook detractors, of course – Shales focuses exclusively on Amanpour’s Iranian ethnicity, noting that she has “steadfastly rejected claims about her objectivity” while slyly raising the issue of her possible bias against Israel. Naturally, an Anglo-Iranian woman is ethnically incapable of reporting Middle Eastern stories objectively.

Despite his argument that a reporter’s history directly informs her objectivity, Shales has been known to swoon over George Stephanopoulos, saying of his November departure for Good Morning America, “it’s unpleasant, a potential squandering of talents which are ideally suited to ‘This Week’” “Ideally suited?” It seems that Stephanopoulos’s resume, which includes campaign manager and Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton, doesn’t raise any objectivity flags for Shales.

Then again, his standards for the male candidates seem slightly more lax than those for Amanpour. After all, he can’t help but comment that either White House correspondent Jake Tapper or ‘Nightline’ co-anchor Terry Moran “would have made a better This Week anchor.” Really? Jake Tapper would have made a better anchor? He seems like a nice enough man, but compared to Amanpour he is a lightweight. In 1999, Tapper penned an unauthorized bio titled Body Slam: The Jesse Ventura Story, a book whose blurb on Amazon reads: “In every arena, Jesse Ventura puts a headlock on the competition–now he’s turning the country on its ear.” By that time, Amanpour had won 2 Peabody Awards – one in 1993, which stated “CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour represents the best of the profession” - and one in 1998 which stated “she reminds us of all that is good and great in television journalism.” In 2002, the same year Tapper did a story on Lynyrd Skynyrd for VH1, Amanpour won the Edward R. Murrow Award for Distinguished Achievement in Broadcasting, and had been a reporter for 60 Minutes for 6 years, and at CNN for 10 years.

Nothing against Tapper, but Shales’s assertion that he holds a candle to Amanpour – much less out-merits her journalistically – is just plain insulting to the informed public. Beyond her Iranian background and her gender, exactly what is Shales claiming against Amanpour?

It’s easy to make the argument that a journalist primarily known for international affairs is a counter-intuitive choice to host one of our country’s top national affairs shows. But ABC News President David Westin made the point that her perspective and experience are nothing but assets, and we agree. That’s why at the Women’s Media Center, we issued a statement supporting the choice of Amanpour and thanking ABC for taking an important first step in diversifying the voices heard on Sunday talk. But Shales’s beef with Amanpour steers clear of any reasonable concerns. There is no substance presented in his “body slam” of Amanpour – none of his inferred critiques hold up, mainly because he doesn’t bother to support them. So we have to ask, why does Shales go out of his way to characterize this much-lauded journalist as an insubstantial joke, “a bad choice” while supporting the talents and qualifications of Stephanopoulos and Tapper? Is one of America’s top TV critics damning a broadcast colleague because she’s not a man?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.