"I want all the media to put their hands up and swear something this election season. I solemnly swear not to talk about Hillary's appearance because that is not journalism."
The year is not even half done and we already have some great candidates for the dumbest news columns of the year. Last week, the
New York Times and Michael Barbaro put out on one of the stupidest puff pieces in recent memory, where it was
claimed the country "craves a relatable eater in chief" after "eight years of a tea-sipping president." So vote for Jeb Bush because of his eating habits and Paleo diet?
Today, Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post feels the need to devote thousands of words coming to the defense of superficiality. His point of disagreement is with comedienne Cecily Strong's admonition to the Washington press corps that Hillary Clinton's appearance should be off limits.
Her line divided the room more than anything else uttered that night. There was wild cheering from some sections of the crowd. (Remember that lots and lots of people in attendance are not journalists before you start bashing the "lap dog media.") There was silence from other sections of the audience ... But the broader idea that Strong was pitching was some version of this: How a candidate looks doesn't matter at all, and reporters who spend any time writing or thinking about it are committing journalistic malpractice. To which I say: Wrong.
For literally decades, Hillary Clinton has been subjected to constant coverage by a bunch of media Heathers that dissect her
hairstyle, her
clothes, whether she
wears makeup, and even her damn
glasses. If you think this sort of thing has an edge of sexism, well you're not the only one. But don't worry, according to Cilliza he doesn't want to scrutinize her appearance in the bad way. He wants journalists to have the ability to "properly contextualize coverage of any candidate's appearance." However, he spends so much time justifying judging a candidate on superficial reasons, he never asks whether the media should be? Or whether the end-effect is to cause the sexist coverage Cilliza is very careful in trying to distance himself from, but in the end can't.
More below the fold.
Here's Cilliza's own words:
The idea that appearance -- the appearance of competence as opposed to pure attractiveness -- doesn't matter just isn't borne out in life. If looks lead to snap judgments -- or at least first impressions -- in, literally, every other aspect of life, it seems counterintuitive that the appearance of a candidate wouldn't matter in politics.
That's especially true in the modern era of politics in which two things are true: (1) Television is king, and (2) voters are less and less engaged in the actual policy platforms of the candidates.
Here's the problem with Cilliza's argument. In any other part of life, we would call the people who think this way assholes. If my decision to hire a woman for a job is based on her appearance (i.e., she's hot) and I take into account another applicant's appearance as part of a "contextualized" judgment because I find her appearance worthy of criticism, not only am I an asshole. I would be a sexist asshole. So, in essence, Cilliza's argument boils down to an appeal for serving the lowest common denominator. Because nowhere in Cilliza's column does he explain
why it should matter beyond saying people are superficial. And the unmentioned gist of his justification is that he and the other jackals in the press are forced to be this way.
But is that true?
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says evaluation of women on their looks is driven by news media, not voters. "What is just absolutely amazing is how pervasive this is and how true it is even for women reporters and the degree to which even if women try to develop just a uniform for the job we can't seem to get off this topic," she says. In focus groups, "I haven't heard anyone mention her hair or her makeup for probably a decade. It's not the voters driving this at all. They could care less. It is reporters. It is both male and female reporters."
Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, says politicians of both sexes get evaluated on their looks, but women face closer scrutiny.
The fact the media buys into this idea is part of some of the bigger problems with the nature of modern news. Instead of just telling us what happened or explaining a policy, event or idea, reporters and news producers feel they have to construct a narrative. They want to tell us a story instead of relaying facts. So reality is shaped and molded to be more exciting, to tug more at the heartstrings, and be packaged as emotionally manipulative bullshit. And when the facts aren't there to tell the story the media wants, the public ends up with wild speculation in an article full of weasel words, or an appeal to superficiality where column space is devoted to diets and a person's hair instead of the content of their actions.