With Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Wall Street Journal nearly complete, it appears that some of the WSJ’s employees are already anxious to impress the man who’ll be signing their paychecks.
On Meet the Press, a massive roundtable of six media guests were discussing the week in politics when the subject, predictably, turned to Hillary Clinton showing a very modest neckline on the Senate floor a couple of weeks ago. The WSJ’s John Harwood was eager to defend Robin Givhan’s now-infamous piece about Clinton’s “cleavage on display.” From MTP:
HARWOOD: I’m going to defend that column too. When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil, OK?
I’ve listened to the clip a couple of times, hoping to understand what on earth Harwood is talking about. I’m afraid I’m lost. Or, more realistically, Harwood is.
First, Harwood is absolutely convinced that Clinton was “aware of what she was communicating by her dress.” And what, pray tell, does Harwood think might that be? What secret communique does Harwood believe Clinton was trying to send out to the political world by showing a quarter-inch of cleavage during an all-night debate in which Clinton spoke before dawn?
And second, are we really going to have to endure another campaign cycle about Hillary Clinton’s “calculating” ways? It’s a tired cliche that never really worked in the first place.
From a Media Matters piece, which ran in February:
Media frequently portray Clinton as “calculating” or overly ambitious, motivated by political considerations rather than conviction. These assertions are rarely accompanied by actual examples or support. For instance, on the January 29 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, Wall Street Journal national political editor John Harwood described Clinton as “very politically cautious and calculating.” Similarly, Hardball host Chris Matthews has called her a “calculated politician.” Conservative media figures have also joined in. On the January 31 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh said of Clinton’s political tactics: “She’ll lie. She’ll change her mind. She’ll say whatever she has to say.” And in a February 1 column, National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg claimed that “everyone understands that Clinton takes positions on issues based on political calculation.”
As evidence, these conservatives pointed to … nothing in particular.
Nevertheless, in his MTP comments, Harwood embarrassed himself. To hear him tell it, Clinton went out of her way to wear an outfit that would communicate some kind of mysterious message that the media would pick up, as some kind of baffling strategy that only Harwood seems to understand.
As Digby put it:
Does he seriously think that Hillary Clinton dressed herself that morning and looked in the mirror and said, “I’m gonna show off my fabulous ta-tas today?” Did Ann Lewis and Mandy Grunwald suggest she wear that little black number so some desperate-for-material fashion writer in the Washington Post will write about her cleavage? Or maybe he thinks she held a focus group on how much boobage she should show or had a secret poll done on the effect of cleavage on braindead members of the political press corps.
I wonder which it is. There was no real follow-up on the program, except for NBC’s Andrea Mitchell concluding, “Sometimes a blouse is just a blouse.”
Let’s also not lose sight of the big picture here. The premier Sunday political news program in the country hosted a detailed discussion with high-profile political reporters from prestigious news outlets about a presidential candidate’s chest. They did so shamelessly, as if it were normal and expected.
It’s only July 2007, and the media is already humiliating itself with campaign coverage that can only be described as pathetic.