Well, when the standards for good journalism are the same as standards for campaign buttons, you’ll have a point.
in headlines, however, ISTM, they use one name. and “Clinton talks to RUssert tonight!” woudln’t be at all helpful.
What, pray tell, constitutes good journalism?
Well, firstly, this whole tendency is, it seems to me, much more pronounced in television and radio than in the print media and news websites. If you do a search for “Hillary” in Google news today, you’ll actually see that most of the headlines do, in fact, contain the word “Clinton,” which i think is a good thing.
Secondly, in the cast majority of cases, the context of the headline (e.g., “Clinton’s Senate Voting Record Criticized”, “Clinton Library Nears Completion”) will make quite clear who the subject of the article is (how often do you really see a headline along the lines of “Clinton talks to Russert Tonight”?).
Finally, even if it doesn’t, the subheading or the very first paragraph of the story will quickly clear up any confusion.
The Encarta definition of “shrewish” is
.
American Heritage defines it as
.
Merriam-Webster defines it as
.
As you can see, none of the definitions say that it is gender specific so I am correct in describing her as shrewish. Fred Thompson and Hugo Chavez are also ill-natured nad have quarrelsome ill-tempered dispositions so they can accurately be described as shrewish. Maybe instead of comparing her to a shrew I should have compared her to a weasel or a worm? How about a rat? Any other animals with negative connotations? Yeah, I don’t like her. I think Giuliani has the charm of a warthog and Bush is pig-headed, too. Don’t badger me. 
If the editor wanted the allusion to be along pugilistic lines instead of DV lines how about saying she is “on the ropes” or “facing a tough round” but she “isn’t down for the count” (god I hate clichés). But when the press keeps going on about her being the female candidate and the boys are hard on her they give an image of a weak woman who has been beaten down by a man.
I read the headline and can think of a couple ways that people will interpret it:
- The press is trying to portray her as weak. We must rally to her support!
- The press is showing that she is vulnerable. We must rally to attack while she is wounded!
The words give an image depending upon the reader. Her supporters will be outraged that she is being compared to a battered wife. Her detractors (especially the Coulter crowd) will be overjoyed that she is being put in her place.
If you really need a lesson in journalistic standards and ethics, i suggest a subscription to Columbia Journalism Review as a good place to start.
For me, i would simply like journalists to apply the same standards to all politicians, rather than using a familiar form of address (first name) for some, and a more distanced, respectful form of address (last name) for others. I think, for example, that the New York Times does a good job of this, referring to her as Hillary Clinton or Hillary Rodham Clinton at the first mention, and then Mrs. Clinton thereafter. Nary a reference to “Hillary.”
Yeah, if all she’s got is bruises, she’s hardly being abused, is she?
Oh, you’ll be lucky. Round here it’s all badger, badger, badger, badger…
That’s denotation. Connotation for that word is strongly female. “The Taming of the Shrew” – ring any bells? The appellation “shrew” in my experience is exclusively applied to women, not men.
Why do you hate freedom?
I guess the whole “NY Daily News” thing threw me off. Would you say it’s an example of good journalism?
Totally bogus. Remember Lamar Alexander? His posters said “Lamar!” while his press packets said “Lamar Alexander” or “Senator Alexander.” Call him Lamar on the street but not in the press.
Sen Clinton is doing it differently because she wants to scurry away from the Hillary Rodham Clinton moniker. She wants to be friendly now. The press is saying it how she wants.
And I’d imagine that usage of it to apply to a man would be greeted in a similar way to how calling a man a bitch would be received.
I think the word “shrill” is used in place of “shrewish.” Dennis Kucinich, for example, is sometimes called shrill even by his supporters.
As a liberal/conservative/libertarian/authoritarian, I will formulate whatever argument is necessary to disagree with a liberal/conservative/libertarian/authoritarian.
Much like chick, bird, bitch, biddy, pussy, cow, nag, dragon lady, cat fight (vs. wolf, weasel, pig- unless it’s in reference to an overweight woman… dog could be both, though it’s more like ‘you sly dog’ for men and ‘dog-faced’ for women).
I’m waiting to hear about a catfight between Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
They’d assume that the name-caller was either a rapper or a homosexual?
No, i wouldn’t. But just because so many media outlets fail to adhere to decent journalistic standards doesn’t mean that we should abandon the standards.
Which is exactly what they should do for Hillary Clinton.
Actually, you’re sort of making my point for me. The press is not there to patronize politicians, and nor should it be there to cater to their PR preferences. The standards the media uses in referring to politicians should be consistent, and should be independent of campaign slogans.
I feel like there’s some response I should give here, but I can’t think of what it might be.
Some setup for some internet meme, maybe some mindless flash video reference.
Grr. Why can’t I think of the proper fungus to go here, I just can’t return Malacandra’s set up without knowing that.
Toad-Stool Toad-Stool
hmmm… doesn’t look right…Oh well
No, if it was a man, we’d be picturing a schoolyard pile-on with a boy at the bottom. As it is, we’re picturing a schoolyard pile-on with a girl at the bottom. Where did all these single-assailant metaphors come from?