Currents

SALSiBXISTEB

Let's Talk About Sex(ism)It's by now understood that sexism, in someform, lodged itself into the gears of this electioncycle from the very start. We saw it with HillaryClinton, who endured the press's inane scrutinyof her demeanor and appearance, her "cackle"and her "cankles." And we saw it again withSarah Palin, whose looks prompted a differentsort of "bodily lit-crit," as one journalist

described it—she wasAlaska's hot governor, andaccording to CNBC'S DonnyDeutsch, totally beddable.

The resulting furor-unleashed largely byfeminists of the old guard-prompted some in thepolitical establishment to seea Fourth Wave of feminismpowering up from the ashesof'08. Bill Clinton, appear-ing on The View in lateSeptember, called sexism a

"subconscious" and thereforealmost "insidious" presencein the press. Howard Deanhas called for a "nationaldiscussion" of sexism.

Do we need such a discus-sion? Mayhe. But amid all theknuckle dragging, there wasevidence of real progress.

In an interview withNewsweek, Géraldine Ferrarewho in 1984 became the firstwoman to appear on a majorpartj' ticket, reminded usthat when she was in the sex-ist crosshairs, she "couldn'tspeak about it." Her remarkslent credence to the ideathat a diversity of criticism isalways preferable to silence.

Liberal feminists likeGloria Steinem and EricaJong wrote op-eds condemn-ing the passing of the torchto an unworthy heir (Palin),but even they seemed takenaback hy the rise of a secondwoman to the national politi-cal stage—one who fell shortof Clinton on substance, butwho more skillfully tradedon her image. And while thelabel "hockey mom" wasn't—to them, at least—a qualifica-tion for office, it showed howfar we've come in the questfor self-representation. (HadFerraro tmmpeted her moth-ering skills, she would havebeen hooted off the stage asnot serious enough.)

Also advancing theconversation was pushbackfrom women writers whosaw the feminist outrage asan overreaction. E. J. Graff, atSlate's XX Factor, observedof Palin: "Madame Governorreally shouldn't be treated asa full-employment program

12 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 Illustration by Jacqui Oakley

'Here at our end of the forty-year war, there are no Norman Mailers.Only pollsters.'~Thoma5 Frank, lamenting the packaged interpretationof poütical coverage since the 1968 Democratic National Convention

for female pundits." KathaPollitt, writing for TheNation, questioned theimpulse to fish for answersin a single person, with adeadpan reminder not to

"forget that op-ed staple.What Does This Mean forEeminism?" Over-attentionbred self-indulgence, theywamed, and risked dumbingdown the discourse itself.

Their warnings matchedthe attempts by mainstreamnewspapers to draw dis-tinctions between journal-ism and punditiy AfterThe Washington Post wascriticized for writing aboutClinton's cleavage and TheNew York Times got knockedfor parsing Clinton's "cackle,"the Times's Katharine Q.Seelye reported the news,with a headline that read inpart: EDITORS ADMIT ER-RORS BUT NOTHING MORE.

It was a guarded assessmentof the criticisms leveled atthe press, but valid in itsqualification—that the egre-gious comments originatedlargely from pundits. Morerecently, Anne Kornblut inthe Post warned the pressabout making knee-jerkrecalibrations, insti'uctingreporters covering Palin toinstead contemplate "what isfair game now by comparingit with what was fair game"when Clinton made her po-litical debut. Such responsesmay have been mild, but asdigestible critiques, theyopened the door to a conver-sation of what was equitablecoverage and what wasn't.

The best illustration ofthe interplay between where

A Little Something forYour TroubleSince January 2007, as the shrinking of our newsroomscontinued apace, some 2,700 journalists accepted buyoutsand moved on. Here is a list of the financial terms ofasampling of those buyouts. For a fuller list, go to cjR.org.

I PAYMENTS HEALTH CARE OTHER

Bradenton Herald (Florida)• Two weeks of pay for every year of service, maximum

of twenty-six weeks' pay• Health care subsidized for three months

The Buffalo News• Two weeks of pay for every year of service, for up to

one yean minimum offer starts at about $60,000• No health benefits

Los Angeles Times• One week of pay for every six months of service, for up to

fifty-two weeks• The most recent offer provided medical coverage for that

time span

The New York Times• Three weeks of pay per year (up to 104 weeks) for

employees with at least eleven years of service• Eight months of health coverage for employees with eleven

years of service• Flat amount (between fifteen and thirty weeks of pay) for

employees with fewer than eleven years• Four months of health insurance for employees with fewer

than eleven years

The News Tribune (Washington)• Two weeks of pay for every year of service up to

thirteen years• Three months medical at the employee rate; employee can

buy a full year of medical by foregoing two weeks' severance• Outplacement counseling by a private firm

The Philadelphia inquirer• Two weeks of pay for every year of service; maximum of

forty weeks of pay• Money (and any left-over vacation) could be placed directly

into an IRA

The Wall Street Journal• "Early retirement package" offered to longtime senior

reporters and editors: one-and-a-half times salary• Benefits until eligible for Medicare or get new job

-Megan McG/n/ey

HARD NUMBERS

'Ti'i 'J^ÊS of networkevening newscast

coverage (ABC. CBS. and NBC)of the Democratic NationalConvention, the week ofAugust 25-29

minutes of eveningnewscast coverage

of the Republican NationalConvention, the week ofSeptember 1-5

minutes of eveningnewscast coverage

of Sarah Palin. the week ofSeptember 1-5

m minutes of eveningnewscast coverage of

Dan Ouayle's selection in 1988.during convention week

percent of campaignstories dealing with

the financial crisis the week ofSeptember 15-21

4 ^ percent of campaign• J stories dealing with the

economy as an issue, the weekbefore

4 percent of Americans whohave ever posted their

own news content, includingvideos or photos

7 percent of Americans whopost comments about news

stories, even on occasion

áLÍ\ percent of AmericansO U who say they do notfeel overloaded by the amountof news available

percent of Americanswho say they do feel

overloaded

percent of Americanswho consider themselves

news-grazers, getting theirnews from time to time ratherthan at regular times

P ''' ^"t of people agedeighteen to twenty-four

who said they get no news on atypical day

Sources; The Tyndall Report. Projectfor Excellence in Journalism

COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW 13

we are and where we thinkwe should be in this debateover sexism, is anothercomment fi-om Ferraro inthe Newsweek interview: "Inever thought we'd have theopportunity to see anotherwoman go through it, thissame election cycle, after thepress had been put on notice."Ferraro fi-amed the campaigncoverage as a series of op-portunities that the press hadfiubbed. But even encased ina criticism, the word "oppor-tunity" rings optimistic—onemight even say that it takes apage fi-om a discussion that isalready in progress.

—Jane Kim

Ties ThatBUndFOR NEARLY THIRTY YEARS,the editors of medical jour-nals have relied on publicdisclosure of researchers'conflicts of interest to alertreaders to the possibilityof bias in published stud-ies, especially when they

are funded by the medicalindustry. It has been welldocumented in medicalliterature that the outcomesof industry-funded researchtend to favor the sponsors'commercial needs.

In recent years, journal-ism has followed suit. Manymedia outlets have begunrequiring reporters to reportthe industry ties of quotedexpert sources. The Associa-tion of Health Care Journal-ists puts disclosure at the topof its statement of principles.But some reporters still omitthis basic information aboutthe clinicians and researcherswho generate medical news:

• A New York Times firont-page story on lung-cancerscreening, by Gina Kolata,led with the claim—basedon a study in the presti-gious New England Journalof Medicine—that "millionsof lives could he saved" bygiving smokers annualCT scans for lung can-cer. Earlier this year. TheCancer Letter, an investiga-tive weekly, revealed that

the study had been fundedin part by a nonprofitcalled the Foundationfor Lung Cancer: EarlyDetection, Prevention &Treatment, which, in turn,was wholly funded by theVector Group, the pai*-ent company of tobaccogiant Liggett & Myers.The Times covered therevelations of the tohacco-industr>' link with anotherfront-page stor>'.Wall Street Journal re-porter Melinda Beck's col-umn touting the benefits ofvitamin D didn't mentionthat her most prominentlyquoted source, the execu-tive director of "the non-profit Vitamin D Council,"worked for an organizationwhose primary corporatesponsor manufacturedvitamin supplements,including vitamin D.Steven Sternberg of USAToday allowed the presi-dent of the National Osteo-porosis Foundation to voiceskepticism about risksfixam Merck's Fosamax, apopular osteoporosis drug.

LANGUAGE CORNER DIAGNOSIS MURDERED write LanguageCorner@cjr.org

"DIAGNOSED" HAS BEEN in the news a lot lately Both Ted Kennedy and RobertNovak have been "diagnosed" with brain tumors, and maiiy articles discuss children

"diagnosed" with autism or the rash of obese Americans "diagnosed" with diabetes.That usage is not healthy. "Diagnosed" is a transitive verb and should he applied to

the object of the diagnosis—the disease—not the patient, as in "The doctor diagnosed abrain tumor." Adding the preposition "with" to make it passive is not a cure.

Somewhat surprisingly, dictionaries have not kept up with people's usage. Nomajor dictionary lists as its first choice the use of "diagnosed" to apply to the patient.Only the New American Oxford Dictionary comes right out and endorses it, as asecondary meaning: "(usu. be diagnosed) identify the nature of the medical conditionof (someone): she was finally diagnosed as having epilepsy/20,000 men are diagnosedwith skin cancer every year."

Perhaps the best prescription is from Gamer's Modern American Usage: "Thisidiomatic syntax is too common to be called erroneous, though a careful writer willstill avoid it in formal writing."

One way to avoid it is to say, "The doctor gave ber a diagnosis of breast cancer." Ifthat sounds too clunky, well, cut out "diagnose" entirely and write: "The doctor toldher she has breast cancer."

—Merrill Perhnan

He didn't tell readers thatboth the president and thefoundation took moneyfi*om Merck.

• A story by David Brown ofThe Washington Post abouta study plajang down therisks fi-om drug-elutingstents failed to mentionthat the study was fiindedby Boston Scientific, Cor-dis, and Abbott Vascular,all makers of such stents.

• Reuters's Julie Steenhuy-sen didn't mention thatthe Harvard researcherbehind a recent studysuggesting that Novartis'sFemara protects againstbreast-cancer recurrenceworked as a consultant forNovartis among other ma-jor pharmaceutical firms.

• Hilary Hylton of Timequoted Jessica Kahn ofCincinnati Children's Hos-pital dismissing the sideeffects of Merck's human-papilloma-virus vaccine(Gardasil), but failed tomention that Kahn hadbeen a paid speaker atMerck-sponsored events.

• Melissa Healy of the LosAngeles Times questionedthe comparable efficacyof generic drugs to theoriginal product, but didn'tnote that one of her mainsources received consult-ing and speaking fees froma host of brand-namemanufacturers.

These examples are notisolated instances. A recentsurvey by University of Min-nesota journalism professorGary Schwitzer found thathalf of 170 stories about med-ical studies quoted expertswith ties to manufacturerswith a stake in the outcome ofthe research. Only 39 percentof those stories—thirt\'-threeout of eighty-five—reportedthose ties.

—Merrill Goozner

14 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008