Check out the story in Columbia Journalism Review on the emotional moment by Hillary Clinton that we discussed in class today. The story and video got huge play nationally, leading network broadcasts and getting Page 1A play in several papers. But interestingly it did not get much attention in New Hampshire, where the story unfolded and where the vote is taking place. Hillary Clinton downplayed the story today, as you can tell in this report on Fox News. So does the CJR story change your take at all? Was it underplayed or overplayed? Is the coverage sexist? Do some of you still think it was deliberate on Clinton's part?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This story was way overplayed as is the speculation that this helped her in New Hampshire. The idea that the crying was staged is not some underground conspiracy theory. It probably hurt Clinton just as much as it helped her.
I can't remember who said it in class, but I agree with whomever said that emotion is not necessarily always a bad thing. I appreciate a candidate who can allow themselves to let their guard down a bit and let us truly see how they are feeling. I felt the same way about Howard Dean's scream. It didn't seem as crazy of a reaction as the press made it out to be. I took it as genuine excitement that he was expressing over his campaign.
I do feel that much of the media coverage of Hillary's "moment" was a bit sexist, but I also think that it would be an even bigger deal if a male candidate had teared up. I don't think that women should be expected to shed tears, but I do think that when it does happen it is more accepted.
I think almost everything on the news today is overplayed, and this is yet another example. Deliberate or not, sexist or not, it was just one moment in what is going to be a long campaign, and it is time to move on!
The coverage of Hillary’s “Moment” compared to previous candidates’ emotional displays is definitely being handled along gender lines. The last emotional outburst that received this much media attention was Howard Dean’s post-Iowa rant. Whereas Clinton’s breakdown is being read according to her status as a female contender (and as some way of using wiles to earn sympathy votes), Dean’s speech was interpreted as simple, crazed aggressiveness. His outburst had no relation to his gender.
Post a Comment