I normally don't have much beef with the reporting of Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, but a recent article of his made me give a facial expression so out of whack, only my mother could love it, and even then, she'd only be saying to be nice. The article was entitled, "Cecily Strong was wrong about Hillary Clinton's appearance being off limits," and it started off like this:
"Comedian Cecily Strong asked reporters to raise their right hands and make a pledge during her speech at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner on Saturday night. 'I want all the media to put their hands up and swear something this election season,' she said. 'I solemnly swear not to talk about Hillary's appearance because that is not journalism.'"
Not long after that, Cillizza added this:
"To a point, I agree with Strong. Hillary Clinton, by far the most high-profile woman in politics for, well, the better part of the last two decades, has been subject to more scrutiny (and analysis) over how she looks than any male politician over that time. And much of the coverage has not-so-subtly suggested that Clinton's appearance is the sole -- or at least the most important -- factor on which she should be judged. Which is wrong, obviously.
But the broader idea that Strong was pitching was some version of this: How a candidate looks doesn't matter at all, and reporters who spend any time writing or thinking about it are committing journalistic malpractice. To which I say: Wrong."
He closes with this:
"Now, I am not advocating the sort of coverage that Clinton has been subject to in the past -- where her appearance seems to be the ONLY thing many reporters are interested in writing on or commenting about. But I also think that comments like Strong's, which, I know, was just to make a point, also miss the mark somewhat. We know how a candidate looks and sounds is part of the overall equation for how voters decide whether to vote for him and her.
Given that, the right thing to do is to properly contextualize coverage of any candidate's appearance. It should neither be 90 percent of the coverage nor zero percent. How we look matters in ways measurable and not. A journalist's job is to understand how voters make up their minds, not pass moral judgment on whether they are doing it 'right.'"
Looks do matter to a certain extent, especially in the television age. Appearing confident, charismatic, and somehow trustworthy is important for a politician when he or she gives a speech, answers questions posed by the media, or debates a fellow candidate running for office. However, a journalist's job isn't to "understand how voters make up their minds;" it's to provide voters with worthwhile (and balanced) information about each candidate to help them make up their minds. How will a thorough analysis of Hillary Clinton's attire help voters make their decisions come election day? Why not, you know, actually research and provide these voters with informative stories about candidates' voting records, experience, positions on different issues, controversies, flip-flops (not the shoes), etc.? People can see how politicians look for themselves; they don't need "journalists" to spell things out for them and attempt to provide symbolic interpretations of their choice of clothing, when there could very well be none at all. If these "journalists" want to briefly describe each and every candidate's choice of clothing, while I'd personally find that to be quite boring, so be it. However, to go any further, they'd run the risk of appearing potentially biased ("So and so looked sharp and strong, while this other appearance appeared pale and weak"), extremely boring, and lacking much substance. The people can see how these politicians look with our own eyes; it's time for journalists to accept that and actually try being journalists - because if they focus too much on candidates' looks, they'll just appear to be lazy to the rest of us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/cecily-strong-was-wrong-about-hillary-clintons-appearance-being-off-limits/
"Comedian Cecily Strong asked reporters to raise their right hands and make a pledge during her speech at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner on Saturday night. 'I want all the media to put their hands up and swear something this election season,' she said. 'I solemnly swear not to talk about Hillary's appearance because that is not journalism.'"
Not long after that, Cillizza added this:
"To a point, I agree with Strong. Hillary Clinton, by far the most high-profile woman in politics for, well, the better part of the last two decades, has been subject to more scrutiny (and analysis) over how she looks than any male politician over that time. And much of the coverage has not-so-subtly suggested that Clinton's appearance is the sole -- or at least the most important -- factor on which she should be judged. Which is wrong, obviously.
But the broader idea that Strong was pitching was some version of this: How a candidate looks doesn't matter at all, and reporters who spend any time writing or thinking about it are committing journalistic malpractice. To which I say: Wrong."
He closes with this:
"Now, I am not advocating the sort of coverage that Clinton has been subject to in the past -- where her appearance seems to be the ONLY thing many reporters are interested in writing on or commenting about. But I also think that comments like Strong's, which, I know, was just to make a point, also miss the mark somewhat. We know how a candidate looks and sounds is part of the overall equation for how voters decide whether to vote for him and her.
Given that, the right thing to do is to properly contextualize coverage of any candidate's appearance. It should neither be 90 percent of the coverage nor zero percent. How we look matters in ways measurable and not. A journalist's job is to understand how voters make up their minds, not pass moral judgment on whether they are doing it 'right.'"
Looks do matter to a certain extent, especially in the television age. Appearing confident, charismatic, and somehow trustworthy is important for a politician when he or she gives a speech, answers questions posed by the media, or debates a fellow candidate running for office. However, a journalist's job isn't to "understand how voters make up their minds;" it's to provide voters with worthwhile (and balanced) information about each candidate to help them make up their minds. How will a thorough analysis of Hillary Clinton's attire help voters make their decisions come election day? Why not, you know, actually research and provide these voters with informative stories about candidates' voting records, experience, positions on different issues, controversies, flip-flops (not the shoes), etc.? People can see how politicians look for themselves; they don't need "journalists" to spell things out for them and attempt to provide symbolic interpretations of their choice of clothing, when there could very well be none at all. If these "journalists" want to briefly describe each and every candidate's choice of clothing, while I'd personally find that to be quite boring, so be it. However, to go any further, they'd run the risk of appearing potentially biased ("So and so looked sharp and strong, while this other appearance appeared pale and weak"), extremely boring, and lacking much substance. The people can see how these politicians look with our own eyes; it's time for journalists to accept that and actually try being journalists - because if they focus too much on candidates' looks, they'll just appear to be lazy to the rest of us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/04/27/cecily-strong-was-wrong-about-hillary-clintons-appearance-being-off-limits/
Comments
Post a Comment