The second most troubling thing to emerge from the Democratic presidential primary this year was the eruption of media sexism, or perceived media sexism, in the treatment of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

A genuine feeling of grievance about unfair, biased, and unequal treatment has emerged not only from the campaign itself, but from her mass of supporters, independent third parties, and even from the direction of people affiliated with her political rivals and enemies. Emerging early on in the debate, it never went away, and in the case of certain commentators and journalists, worsened as the contest continued. Although Clinton herself never addressed it directly until the very end of the campaign, it hit so close to home and contained such a portion of truth that it served as an organizing principle for thousands of her supporters, who, in an underground grassroots movement largely ignored by the media, wrote it on blogs, in listservs, and talked about it within the safe and sympathetic zone of woman-to-woman conversation, wondering how the same reporters and pundits who had shown such lazy, unthinking deference to George W. Bush as he openly lied to the nation for eight years about matters with the gravest of international consequence could endlessly criticize Hillary Clinton for campaign errors of comparably little weight.

We heard about it. We all know about it. Despite their weight, the charges themselves were the second most troubling thing. 

Far worse was the deafening silence with which this outcry was met.

---- 

One of the best things about American journalism is that it is very self-reflexive.

American political reporters, since they are certainly not in it for the money, are a largely idealistic lot that wants our democracy to work, and they understand the value of their craft as a part of that process. Journalism training and indeed, the entire ethos of the industry (even under the current economic pressure) instills in most people in the system a genuine commitment to professional ethics, the most important of these is fairness - a studied openness to all viewpoints, regardless of personal stance. 

In most industries, conferences are usually about technology and marketing. But in journalism, industry get-togethers have a very strong component of self-critique: in seminars, reporters and editors question themselves: are we covering our community well? Are we representing all viewpoints?… a continual professional review that also happens in the web of journalism academia.

For example, here is the mission statement of USC’s Annenberg School for Communication: 

Every human advancement or reversal can be understood through communication.
The right to free communication carries with it the responsibility to respect the dignity of others, and this must be recognized as irreversible.

In an industry so openly committed to representing and documenting the experience of the public in its entirety, one would think that a charge of widespread sexism towards a pioneering female political figure would be taken seriously. One would think that media outlets from CNN to Rolling Stone, now that her campaign is over, would be going through a serious self-review, questioning themselves about the veracity of the charges, looking at the available evidence, and comparing what was said about Clinton to what might have been said against a comparable figure in a similar situation – say, the treatment of John Kerry in the 2004 primary. The evidence is easy to find, easy to review, and in many cases has already been well-documented. 

But none of that is happening. In fact, the silence is chilling. As if the charge of sexism wasn’t really anything to worry about.

It is something to worry about. Above and beyond the political trajectory of the Clinton campaign itself, the possibility that some of the most powerful people in the media – the men and women who cover and comment on presidential campaigns – have a bias against a group that represents more than half the population, but is still struggling to attain even a basic threshold of representation in government, is a very serious matter. Whether future organizing and political efforts by this group of people will be met with more misogyny and poison, and how to remedy and prevent that – these are serious matters as well. But most important is whether the media has the courage and idealism enough to confront these charges, examine their own work, and wipe their lens free of bias, for the great and honorable goal of achieving the “human advancement” of shared
political power between women and men. 

Honesty and humility are always a great deal to ask. All but the most preternaturally self-confident of human beings can deal with such serious criticism without going on the defensive. But sexism, like racism or any other prejudice, is something that is passed on subconsciously through our culture – hardly something for which one individual can be at fault. Prejudice is extremely hard to extricate from one’s subconscious, but it can be counteracted if is brought to the surface and seen clearly.

And this can be done. Witness the amazing example of Barack Obama getting through an entire primary with no instances of unfair treatment by the media on account of his race. In a media environment dominated by whites, this is a huge milestone that took decades to achieve – conversations, honesty, dialogue, and most of all, a scrupulous commitment to fairness and justice within American journalism itself.

It is my hope that we will see a day where sexism and stereotypes of female political figures are also only vaguely remembered, and that women in politics can act with the full range of public actions as do their male counterparts. I know that everyone who ventures out there every day to do the work of covering politics feels the same way.

The media can cross that distance with honesty, or, to phrase it differently: with some great investigative reporting on itself.