Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns

With Hillary Clinton a serious contender for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, Falk’s book is timely, but with a definition of “media” narrowly limited to a few newspapers, it is also problematic. Johns Hopkins communications professor Falk may have missed an opportunity to press an interesting issue—she fails to address whether newspapers staffed with women editors and reporters in key positions show less bias than newspapers run by men—but her book is still of value. After reviewing the presidential campaigns of eight women starting with Victoria Claflin Woodhull in 1872, Falk posits that journalists and editorialists frequently treat women candidates differently than they do men. Women presidential candidates receive less media coverage than their male counterparts and are often portrayed as “unnatural, incapable and unviable.” As Falk also observes, women’s images are more readily emphasized and thereby tarnished—homemaking skills (or the lack thereof) and physical appearances receive more attention than their political strengths. Such media coverage has short- and long-term consequences, according to Falk, the most deleterious being that this allegedly biased media coverage may discourage women from attempting to win electoral office at any level. (Feb.)