Pile On Pack Journalism

I saw this article by Rebecca Traister on Salon.com about the willingness of a group of angry white men to denounce Hillary Clinton after she lost Iowa. She makes a valid point that these pundits are unfair to Clinton, but Traister treads a fine line between journalist and columnist/activist. If she does claim to be a journalist covering politics, she should be careful not to use the rhetoric of a candidate. It was Clinton herself that said the same thing about an old boys' club attacking her during a debate in October, 2007. The first time Clinton didn't get a positive response, but after the New Hampshire primary the media turned Clinton into a victim, and it's amazing to see the pack journalism that's happening today. The pack mentality is exactly what Traister is criticizing, yet it's exactly what happened-- this time-- in favor of Clinton. It's what Clinton first called "pile-on politics," yet she is so adept at using the media that she was able to resurrect this idea.

Maureen Dowd had this to say in a column today: "Yet, in the end, [Clinton] had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim, both of Obama and of the press. Hillary has barely talked to the press throughout her race even though the Clintons this week whined mightily that the press prefers Obama."
It's not that she's a woman that I have a problem with, but that she seems to be willing to do just about anything to get elected. Is she liberal or conservative? Is a realist or an idealist? I don't know, because I don't think she says anything without an ulterior motive. Of course this is nothing new from politicians, but I'm sick of it, and she seems to epitomize it. I could respect her for having smart political strategies (part of me does, in truth) but it seems like such a transparent act to get elected that I can't get over it.
"Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink," Dowd said. "The people from Hope are arguing against hope."




Here's the letter I wrote on Salon.com in response to her column:

Getting ahead of ourselves

The press certainly did jump rather quickly to denounce Clinton, which could have been their desire to discredit a woman. I would not put it past idiots like the tv pundits.

However, it is more likely that Brokaw was right to say that they were backing a cadidate early by falling in love with Obama. After Obama's speech at the Iowa caucus, journalists were all over him. Andrea Mitchell said it was the best speech by a politician since Bobby Kennedy. Obama certainly can be an inspirational figure, but the difference between a journalist and a columnist or pundit is that a journalist is not supposed to pick sides. This is why Ms. Traister would be wise to describe herself in other terms than a journalist. I believe there are exceptions to aspiring to objectivity, but politics certainly does fit that category. Otherwise, call yourself a blogger, a columnist, but not a journalist.

In the case of this article by Traister, it is not only unfair, but borderline bigoted to say that black people were allowed to vote 50 years before women. Because of Jim Crow laws African Americans were prevented from voting long after the women's suffrage movement. One should not talk about which minorities have suffered the most, but should share in a common history to prevent it from happening again.