Gender doesn’t tell the whole story for Clinton coverage

[Commentary] Gender bias in public life is so pervasive that, to borrow legal parlance, the burden of proof should probably rest on those denying its influence, not asserting it. Yet while bias is entrenched in virtually everything, that fact doesn’t always explain surface-level disparities in how we treat the sexes.

“We have reached an instructive moment in 2016’s presidential election,” Rebecca Traister began a column in New York Magazine’s “The Cut.” She juxtaposed news media enthusiasm for Vice President Joe Biden to enter the race with skepticism about Hillary Clinton’s chances to win it. Candidates with matching credentials, but media coverage tilted in the man’s favor. An advantage clearly based on gender. Traister’s widely circulated column goes on to note that the vice president and former Secretary of State share a striking number of policy achievements and blemishes: “it would be hard to find two contemporary Democrats whose weaknesses reflect each other so precisely, yet who currently enjoy such vastly different reputations.” She cites their similar records on Wall Street, criminal justice, and the Iraq War, among other issues. “The point is not to tally up flaws,” Traister explains, “but to recognize how those flaws are absorbed, understood, and overlooked in one candidate but not another.” Specifically, in this case, via media spin.