Unless something happens that kills a lot of white people Thursday, the newspapers know their front pages will be completely devoted to her Friday morning. With that in mind, I can understand some editors choosing to show other images from the most buzzed about portions of last night’s proceedings this morning, since they’ll be going full-Hillary two days later.
And historic as her official nomination may be, the roll call count is a pretty silly bit of theater in my opinion and not really news per se–she became the de facto candidate when she got a statistical lock on the delegate count back in June, after all. It’s her acceptance of it that’s the real moment that will be remembered and chronicled.
No. I believe he is doing just that very thing. While I know for a fact subconscious sexism does indeed exist there is not solid evidence that it is the cause of the affronting act.
The reality is, Hillary did not appear on stage. The former 2-time POTUS, widely regarded as one of the best in the modern era, who is on deck to be the first First Gentleman, gave an incredible and rousing speech for the DEM nominee. This was the main news. Because while Hillary has been given the nomination, she must in fact accept it.
As I stated above…if on Friday morning all the headline pics after her acceptance speech are of Bill, or Obama, or Trump; then I am on board with sexism being the issue. Until then, I think this was merely the main photo opportunity put to best use for the front page news.
Sometimes a cake is just a cake. But some people just have to find offense and slight in everything. Good luck with that.
Reasonable people might differ on what constitutes “solid evidence” in this case. Perhaps it was intended as a plausible assertion rather than a scientific proof?
This is relevant if the story is about convention speeches as opposed to the nomination itself. If its about the nomination itself, then it is not quite so relevant.
I disagree. Bill Clinton gives a lot of speeches and they’re usually really good (he is a good speaker). Bill Clinton giving a well-received speech is not really news. It’s happened dozens of times already this year.
There will be only one Democratic nominee for the presidential election this year, and that is Hillary Clinton. It is clear to me that Hillary Clinton getting the nomination is bigger news than Bill Clinton giving a well-received speech.
@beschizza offered a criticism of US media’ reporting on the nomination. Reasonable people can disagree that the criticism is justified. But it is not reasonable to dismiss the criticism by using the ad hominem argument that the criticizer is just looking to take offense at everything.
If you disagree with the criticism, then by all means state your case. But please try to use a valid argument instead of telepsychoanalyzing your interlocutor and employing the results as an ad hom.
Edit:
Alternatively, you are accusing the OP’s author of “having to find offense and slight in everything.” Do you have “solid evidence” on which to base this accusation? (Hint: using the OP as evidence is circular reasoning/begging the question.
I have to agree with you, especially after learning that she wasn’t on stage. If she was on stage then it would have been totally bizarre.
And as I pointed out, Huffpost featured Bill and didn’t even have a headline about Hillary above the fold. And their editorial group is probably the last people one can accuse of sexism.
I think there’s a difference between illustrating a story that’s about Hillary Clinton with a picture of a powerful man with a close connection to Hillary Clinton and illustrating a story that’s not about Hillary Clinton with a picture of a powerful man with a close connection to Hillary Clinton. Like one is more sexist than the other.
I agree that HuffPo should probably be excluded from the roundup if it is there. (I only skimmed the “roundup” part of the OP.)
That is a good point - but, HuffPost (which wasn’t in the round up, it was something I looked into, curious how someone would do it “right”) didn’t even have a head line about Hillary getting the nomination. So while a Bill pic is important for a Bill headline, why wasn’t there a Hillary headline? It mentions her and the nomination in the article of course, but it isn’t center stage. Certainly this would be an example or sexism then?
Again, not in the roundup, but I figured if anyone put Hillary front and center it would be them. And they didn’t. Sexism probably didn’t have anything to do with their reason. Probably.
I think it’s worth unpacking the difference between “sexism” and “patriarchy.” Like the difference between “racism” and “white supremacy,” one is about a particular, biased point of view while the other emerges from structural cultural forces that are often invisible to those within it. The editors of those newspapers who chose the pic of Bill to illustrate the historic event last night – the nomination of a woman as a presidential candidate of one of the 2 default parties – are probably not sexist. But they are certainly operating within a framework of patriarchy that says it’s okay to put a picture of a man there rather than a picture of the nominee…whether or not Hillary was physically in the building, and even though the nomination was a historic paradigm-shift in the patriarchal system itself.
Just as black police chiefs don’t make much difference in the white supremacist system that sees blacks disproportionately targeted by police (hell, there were black police officers enforcing apartheid in South Africa), the presence of women in the newsroom does not necessarily indicate that the organization has transcended structural patriarchy. That the Huff-Po editorial board is made up of women means they are probably not sexist. But since they work within a patriarchal system that values men over women, we shouldn’t assume the content on Huff-Po is automatically not filtered through a patriarchal lens.
I have another theory about why Bill was on those covers. The media has shown itself to be extremely biased, essentially shilling for Hillary all through the primary process. Now that she’s the nominee, and an extremely unpopular one, the media will try to associate her more and more with Bill, for whom many people still harbor great fondness. In other words, they’re going to try to sell them as a package – Vote for Hillary and get 4 more years of Bill!
If my theory is correct, expect to see a lot more photos of Bill, or Hillary with Bill. U.S. media is a sophisticated control system that works to set up deep subconscious associations. Watch also for Bernie Sanders to all-but-disappear from coverage entirely.
Which occurred AT THE DNC Convention. And who was the main speaker at that convention? Bill, of course. Why would a newspaper print a file picture of HRC when they could print a picture of something that actually happened at the event they are reporting on?
