Over the weekend, the New York Times published a piece on 2020 and the chance that the Democrats might have a choice of 50 or so female candidates among a field of about 137. Will the Democrats again nominate a woman for president?
Note that in its “deeply reported” piece, the writers struggled to avoid “sexist tropes and gendered thinking” — and they want you to know it.
My NYT team just published a piece about whether a woman will win in 2020. We deeply reported the piece – 3 dozen+ interviews w/ Dems voters, officials etc – and talked at length about best ways to write the piece to avoid sexist tropes & gendered thinking https://t.co/oYNIWS3MBM
— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) January 5, 2019
Examining the reasons for Clinton’s loss in 2016 is important subject matter/context for in 2020 race. But we won’t let 2020 Dem coverage be All About Hillary. One of the most important paragraphs in today’s story is this:
— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) January 5, 2019
— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) January 5, 2019
Hmm … like we keep saying, just about every poll taken regarding who Democrat voters want to run in 2020 features white men in the top three spots: Joe Biden by a wide margin, then Bernie Sanders, and then newcomer Beto O’Rourke. Why should we assume the Democrats would place their chances in the hands of Stacey Abrams, a black woman?
People sometimes find political coverage/angles to be overblown or out of bounds. I think about coverage this way: attempts to probe and illuminate issues and dynamics that are real and have impact, even if unwelcome by some, and present them accurately & thoroughly.
— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) January 5, 2019
Recommended
Constructive comments on today’s story and other coverage are welcome. We read the feedback & we digest it, and we respond – Lisa Lerer’s “On Politics” newsletters regularly engage with reader reaction. Feel free to email me directly at [email protected]. https://t.co/oYNIWS3MBM
— Patrick Healy (@patrickhealynyt) January 5, 2019
Well, he did ask for constructive comments. Did the Times succeed in avoiding gendered thinking in its piece about all the women potentially running in 2020 and if they have a chance?
You failed at the title
— Val Town (@valerienmiller) January 6, 2019
The premise of the piece is gendered thinking.
— (((Werewolf Bar Kochba))) (@dickius) January 5, 2019
I have an idea. Don’t write the piece about the viability of women candidates.
— John Northington (@northingtonjwb) January 6, 2019
You wrote a piece about gender and you say that’s not gender thinking? Really? ??♂️
— James Lillian (@stoic_4u) January 5, 2019
maybe you should have considered not writing the article in the first place. The question itself was is gendered and sexist.
— I made you say moist (@Corbinburnsin) January 5, 2019
and yet the whole premise was a sexist trope. condescending and stupid. good job!
— Barry Hammond (@hammondbarry667) January 6, 2019
Hmmm….since you had to work so hard to justify your piece, it's safe to say it's most likely sexist AF.
— TQC (@EnGardeGo) January 5, 2019
The fact that you feel the need to defend it immediately says all we need to know.
— Mychal Harrison (@Magic_Mych) January 6, 2019
Like firefighters!
— Walter (@WaltersUndies) January 6, 2019
That you asked, "Will a woman win?" kind of shows you missed the point. It's also hilarious that you want a pat on the back and a cookie for making an effort to treat women equally in this story but again you failed at that because you asked the question around gender to start.
— Capitán Colombia (@dannyboi965) January 5, 2019
Well, good for you. I hear clapping yourselves in the background.
— Mike Cranny (@MikeCranny) January 5, 2019
When we stop seeing articles that debate the electability of someone primarily based on presence of a penis or a vagina, then we will have made some progress.
— Bob Haycock (@Broncosclass85) January 6, 2019
I find this entire conversation to be annoying. I look for ability to lead, experience in leading, experience in understanding problems of our country & the world, ability to communicate. Period. Not gender.
— charlotte mann (@pelha) January 6, 2019
Antiquated thinking in even heading out to "deeply report" this story. How about waiting a while to see if and how gender even surfaces in the campaign? Disheartening to find this story in the @nytimes
— melissa Ludtke (@MelissaLudtke) January 6, 2019
Sorry, but this article was a waste of time. There's too much going on RIGHT NOW to spend journalistic resources on an article that doesn't really say anything. I learned nothing from reading it.
— KC Murphy (@klcmurphy) January 5, 2019
Thanks for "deeply reporting" a bullshit topic. How about deeply reporting policy proposals and evidenced based analysis of them?
— Bob Cawley (@Bibcilly) January 6, 2019
How about you worry about who has the best policies and skills navigating the DC sewer instead of worrying about the shape of the candidate's genitals.
— TheAltThug (@ThugAlt) January 7, 2019
It's frustrating to see so many blaming Hillary's loss on sexism instead of realizing she just was a poor candidate and ran a lazy campaign. Blaming her loss on sexism is easier but it hurts women candidates running in 2020. No one demanded a woman candidate after Kerry's loss.
— Askew (@lapared) January 5, 2019
Gosh thanks Patrick. We really need this hyperbolic, distracting, useless garbage as substitute for real news. I especially like how you all treat women as some alien concept when it comes to high office. Most helpful. As if you didn’t do enough to deep six Hillary.
— Eileen339 (@eileen339) January 6, 2019
In case you didn’t know, a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters are still upset with the New York Times for “sinking” Clinton’s campaign by reporting on her email scandal.
This piece is effectively trying to measure how effectively the NYT trashed all women through its sexist Clinton coverage. Apparently you’ve convinced some people that a woman cannot win. That’s disappointing. You’re responsible.
— Reunite children with families, believe women (@vhutcheon) January 5, 2019
This story coming from the NYTimes is embarrassing. It's like R. Kelly producing the documentary about his sexual assault allegations.
Why hasn't a female been elected president? Maybe because your paper ran story, after story, after story, disparaging the one that tried.
— Putin's Bitch (@Putins_Bitch) January 6, 2019
You failed. The premise of the article is sexist. There is no puzzle.
A female candidate already won, despite your harmful "but her emails" BS and "FBI sees no Russian collusion" lies.
Instead of writing this crap, how about focusing on candidate experience and policy?
— ProgressNow (@ProgressNow00) January 6, 2019
You people suck. Just stop the sexism.
— Bob (@dennyl64_bob) January 6, 2019
Some good points:
The problem is that speculative stories like this do so little to serve the public. Political journalism (polls and pundits) focuses too much on predicting outcomes and not enough on substantive information offered in accessible forms. Many just tune it all out.
— Melanie Sill (@melaniesill) January 5, 2019
You didn't 'deeply report' information or fact. You 'deeply reported' speculation, which is no different than shallowly reporting speculation.
— Justin Redalen (@Justinredalen) January 6, 2019
The only way this is fair is if you now do a truly deep dive into the GOP and women if Haley announces.
— …..you can do this……. (@pogocrafty) January 5, 2019
Obligatory:
When will all 50 of the other genders get to be president??
— scotty c (@kyndbrah) January 6, 2019
Related:
New York Times’ Sarah Jeong says endless conservative tantrum over media bias is a paranoid fantasy https://t.co/0ho0dTwqma
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) November 14, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member