It's been independently proven that there is indeed media bias against Clinton. But another media reality is a campaign killer, especially heading into the general election. So if the traditional media won't cover you fairly on foreign policy, you simply have to create your own narrative on national security. That's what Clinton and her team have done since Friday.
Walter H. Shorenstein has put out a memo on the media bias against Clinton
(that I've seen and read), which is damning in its conclusive finality.
But nothing registered more intensely with me than this one fact revealed within
Foreign Policy Bias Against Clinton
When it comes to foreign policy coverage--perhaps the most important issue in the coming general election--the media monitoring group, Media Tenor, found that there was not a single positive story about Hillary Clinton and foreign policy in the month of February.
How is the the first viable female running for commander in chief supposed to combat this type of coverage? You provide the narrative yourself, which is what the "3 O'clock" ad was about, but also the cascade of flag officers all giving testimonials for Clinton.
ABC covers Obama on readiness to be president, but get a load of this example from Senator Obama:
"Look, I've lived overseas," said Obama. "I have family overseas. I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
"Lived overseas?" Did ABC challenge Obama on this "lived overseas" line? He was a prepubescent kid when he "lived overseas," so I'd really like to know what great bounty of knowledge he learned that makes it a resume bullet point for president. A woman with Obama's age and experience would be laughed out of the room for equating childhood doll playing years with being appropriate as presidential bona fides filler. But does Obama really want to bring up his committee assignments? He ducked out on his duty on the subcommittee on European Affairs that he chaired, not holding a single hearing. A woman pulling a political stunt like that would be laughed off the stage; not so with men.
The AP covered the bias
against Clinton last week, also quoting Shorenstein's memo:
In his memo, Shorenstein concurred with the Clinton campaign's assessment.
"I am absolutely outraged with the media coverage of the presidential campaign," Shorenstein wrote in the memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press. "This is the most important election in my long lifetime, and to quote one of my favorite movies, 'I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!'"
No major candidate can hope to win a nomination, let alone the general election in this country, without being taken seriously on national security. It's something I've been talking about for years, including being omitted from the Sunday shows, where women on national security matters rarely opine. It's built into the media bias that women are not as credible on national security as men. Clinton's strong turn into this subject, while directly challenging Obama on, not only his lack of experience, but his lack of interest in not even holding an oversight hearing on his foreign relations committee, is the only way she can get the subject covered. It has made the Obama team uncomfortable, but that's because once their candidate throws his Iraq speech card there's nowhere left for him to go.
But in the end, covering the candidates is about giving all sides to the story, including on foreign policy matters. When the guys get covered, with McCain out pacing Obama in coverage, but the one woman in the race does not get covered at all, the deck is clearly stacked in the men's favor. If you don't want to call it sexism, fine, but the facts are still the facts.