I don't know about most of you, but I am ready for Tuesday to get here. Not only am I ready to find out who our new President and Vice-President will be, but I am ready to find out who the new State's Attorney in my home county will be.
Like I said the first day of class, I am not from Chicago; instead I am from a small town about 120 miles south of here called Flora. It is in Clay County and our entire county population is just under 15,000. I know most of you came from towns that alone quadrupled that, but the fact is, it's a small county with an even smaller voting pool. I'm not going to go into detail about how I or my family plans to vote for the presidential race--its really no one else's business, is it?--but I will say how we are viewing our State's Attorney's race.
Again, it's a small county and EVERYBODY KNOWS EVERYBODY. Again, I will stress, it is true that everybody truly does know something about everybody else. But the race is between two female candidates (one running as an Independent and one running as a Democrat), and the Democratic candidate has absolutely been slandered by the "press".
For years, a "newspaper" has been printed in our county simply known as The Disclosure. As creepy as it sounds, it is an underground operation written and published by a couple out of their basement. I have used quotes to when calling it the press and a newspaper because this is nothing more than a horrible tabloid--aimed at slandering the well-known people in our community.
Whenever I go home, my parents can typically tell me another horrid story about how so-and-so was ridiculed and maliciously attacked on the pages of this paper. I wish I could put up a link to it, but of course it does not have a website.
What is really sad is that not only are the things printed pure libel, they are so far from the truth it is almost comical. The Democratic candidate, however, has been the subject of several stories and her name has been tarnished because of this "paper." Not only has she been attacked for her political history, she has been constantly questioned how exactly she rose up the ladder to the place she is now. It is a common thought not to believe anything printed by the Disclosure, but with any tabloid, some people do believe there is some trust in the stories.
So then what should the Democratic candidate do? Should she take out ads in the county's actual newspapers disputing the slandered story, or does she not address it at all? It has been a constant slippery slope for this candidate and it has been heart-breaking for her family to endure.
In an election year that has seen a rise in the power of political women (Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton), why do people still print things about women that men never have to deal with? I don't believe I've ever heard John McCain being criticized because he has gained some weight and his suits don't fit him very well or that Barack Obama's hair looks "right." Honestly, being a woman who has been faced with male criticism, I am proud of Palin, Clinton and the Democratic State's Attorney candidate for taking the higher road and helping pave the political way for other women who are just as capable of holding these highly coveted positions.
I just hope in the Election of 2012--when we are the journalists covering these national campaigns--we remember how silly some of the coverage was and we try to rise above it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
A libel suit could put a little paper right out of business. Guilty or innocent, the legal costs would be great.
What I wonder is why female journalists give into this, too. I would be interested to look at the bylines of the stories about Palin's hair or Clinton's pantsuits to see if only male reporters are saying these things. I feel like so much of the press has commented on the appearance of the female candidates that it can't be just men. If women are reporting on these things too, my next question would be why. Shouldn't they be the ones fighting sexism in journalism?
I feel for women politicians who are not only under pressure for their policies, but also for their appearances. I guess it's just more proof that women have not achieved real equality with men. When I was reading some tips about interviewing, I was shocked that most of the websites I visited said that women should always wear skirt suits, not pants suits. I read all about how employers are less willing to hire a women who wore pants to an interview. It's just crazy.
It's interesting to look back at this post after the election. A week after the election I was picking AP stories for The Daily Illini and there was a story about how Michelle Obama's fashion sense was that of the modern Jackie O's.
The writer was a woman. Quite frankly if I was her I would've told my editor to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. Hope that isn't too vulgar, but clothing should be the last thing taken into consideration when it comes to elections unless somebody is wearing a stripper's outfit on international flights.
Post a Comment