2nd in our If Only series:
IF ONLY… Media Cared about Sexism One One-Hundredth Thousandth as Much as They do Racism.

On September 8th of this year, the New York Times ran this story on the front page of their business section: “MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat.”.

Femisex was thrilled to see this headline and learn of the Olbermann and Matthews demotions; we have cheered about it on our site and in our columns. But… that Times article still sits on my desk, deeply troubling to me.
Why? Well…. When I initially read the piece I was overwhelmed with disbelief. Could it be? Was it possible? Could it be that this feature-length piece on the booting of this Dufas Sexist Duo did not ONCE mention the word SEXISM? How could that be?

To Quote my favorite Seinfeld line of all time:
“Oh it be!”
It be indeed!

In REFUSING to mention Olbermann’s and Matthews’ sexism, the New York Times sunk to a new disgusting low, showing itself as determined as a man pursuing an honor killing to deny women their justice due. Who is worse, I ask? The man who wounds one woman with his knife or millions with his words?
The reporter on this story Brian Stelter and his editors gave readers this nut graf:
(btw dear readers, a nut graf sums up the article for readers; this is a common journo term.)
-----------from NY Times:
“After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregory would anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.”
------------------------------------------
This nut might, and I emphasize MIGHT, have worked if it had quickly widened to cover the many charges of sexism leveled at both Matthews and Olberman during this election cycle. But to my UTTER astonishment the Times refused to so much as broach the topic or mention the S word, despite the fact that Matthews and Olbermann engendered DEEP disgust amongst millions of women with their sexist rants against Senator Clinton. (When FemiSex called the Olbermann show to ask if Keith Olbermann would apologize to women for his suggestion that a male take Hillary into a backroom and punch her lights out, his assistant snickered at me and said, “That’s so NOT going to Happen!)

How it is possible for the Times to REFUSE to mention that multiple (I repeat, Multiple) national women’s organizations denounced Matthew’s OVERT sexism and
sent a formal letter of complaint to Steve Capus the President of NBC News? How is it possible that reporter Brian Stelter and his editors at the Times DID mentioned letters of compliant sent by the McCain campaign to NBC new division re biased coverage, but DID NOT mention the outrage of women across the country to Matthews and Olbermann’s sexist rants and remarks? How could this be?

Appalling, astonishingly appalling! And yet….Oh it Be!

The Times REFUSED to take IT out!

Now folks let’s go back to a Times article I’d earmarked but have not written about: Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage.
This item ran way back in June of this year, AFTER Clinton was officially out of the race-- The Great “White Bitch” (per the NYTimes) finally subdued.
Here is the lede sentence in that story:
---------------------------------
“Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a ''Media Hall of Shame…''
----------------------------------------
--3rd graf:
“Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of {sexist}criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network's overall coverage was fair.”
-----------------------------------

Note the words the Times used re MSNBC: “a particular target of criticism.” Also note: the 3rd graf of this story—a story on sexism in the press--went straight to MSNBC and Mr. Griffen, the mastermind of the sexism behind Olbermann and Matthews.

In this story the Times pictured Olbermann and Matthews as exemplars of the sexism that so many had complained about, to the tune of boycotts against MSNBC.

Thus the Times themselves set a precedent of acknowledging that charges of sexism have been leveled at MSNBC, and the Dufas Duo, Olbermann and Matthews. Yet somehow this was NEVER mentioned in the story in September about their demotions??

Sloppy reporting? Absent editing? Or, something more sinister? And Yes, my dear readers—Sinister is the word. If a surgeon commits a grievous act of omission it is just as liable as an act of commission.

The remainder of this article turns into a typical Times story on sexism…DENY, DENY, DENY.
See no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil…so long as it is about sexism.

Phil Misogyny-Griffen of MSNBC blames the victim, as does wimpy-bawling toddler Olbermann who whined he’s just a “whipping boy” of sexism. (Olbermann, it seems is a tower of anchor cowardice, per a prior Times story, that intimated Olbermann was fraddycatted away from the Republican convention b/c someone might harm him! Could u image this guy covering a war story or anything beyond a neighborhood bodega potato crisp sale? Te he)

Now...Contrast this DENY, DENY, DENY SEXISM….with the fashion in which media is on the eagle-eye look out for racism… just a whiff, imaginary or not and…it’s ALL about racism, … see ALL evil, hear ALL evil, and speak ALL evil. Just the mention of Obama and pretty much anyol’ thin’ at all at isn’t positive as a bright shinny penny and Whap, the media has got you over their racist barrel, verdict IN.

To support the See no sexism thesis of the Time piece, Mr. Stelter quotes lots of folks who say…naw, no sexism, what sexism? and Stelter fails, UTTERLY fails to shine the light, even a laser-width beam upon the riotous SHOUTS of sexism leveled against the Times from their own readers.

But we do get this very telling quote from Nicholas Lemann, dean of Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University:
-------------
''I have not had a lot of regretful conversations with high-ranking media types and political reporters about how unfair their coverage of the Hillary Clinton campaign was.''
Among journalists, he added, the coverage ''does not register as a mistake that must not be allowed to happen again.''

-------------
I’ve been in a room with Mr. Lemann as he worked the crowd; he absolutely gravitates to male conversations. This is an anecdotal observation but…my guess, a relevant one. I was sorry Nick could not cough up his own thoughts on the issue, but not surprised. Femisex adds that Mr. Lemann has Clearly LIMITED his conversations on this topic, because Mr. Lemann there are many many many female writers and editors (journalists, Mr. Lemann) appalled at the Mistakes made and who are VERY determined not to let this happen again!

I want to leave you with this quote from another nice Old Boy Denier quoted in the Times article, Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review.
''She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries,'' said Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review. ''She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician, and she was covered that way.''
-------------------------------------
Oh Rem, DEAR Man, Great example. Can we talk about sniper fire?? Can we talk PLEASE about the coverage Biden has got about his sniper fire lie episode compared to Clinton’s? Biden’s got a long track record as well, Rem, but it includes a penis—which evidently means that Magic Get Out of Press-Jail FREE card!

Update: To be fair before we published the above, I wanted to check in with Mr. Rem Rieder and ask if, given the Joe Biden snipper fire fib, he still felt Hillary’s tough coverage was brought on by herself. Mr. Rieder had not heard about the Biden Fire-Fib Flap. Hmmm, FemiSex thinks that say a WHOLE heck of a lot!
http://www.now.org/issues/media/011708nbcletter.html

Link to Biden fib:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/30/unlike-clinton-biden-gets-pass-s...

(A Side Dish note: below the Olbermann /Matthews demotion story ran this Headline: “Readers See Bias in US Weekly’s Take on Sarah Palin.”
The article had a picture of the controversial US Weekly cover replete with a BOLD FONT Dek of “BABIES LIES & SCANDAL.” That Dek targeted Ms. Palin, pictured holding her newborn son. A prior issue of US Weekly on Obama ran this Bold DEK: “WHY BARACK LOVES HER,” along with a beaming picture of Michele and Barack in an embrace. The Times opted not to run that cover alongside, for comparative value, say.
Hmm, what a contrast that might have been! What a good way to make the story work. What editor could resist that great visual set up? Turns out ...a lot... when bias would so easily jump out.)