Another day, another bombshell story about inappropriate behavior, often sexually charged, by a man in power against a woman without power. What is clear is that after the reporting about Harvey Weinstein by The New York Times and The New Yorker the floodgates have opened.
The New York Times is one of many news organizations keeping a running tally of the allegations and the fallout and it is clear that new stories will continue to emerge.
The revelations have raised many questions about the tone of coverage of this difficult topic. I addressed some a few weeks ago here. But there are still more questions. How should the story be covered? Who should be talking about this issue?
It appears that viewer R. Harris takes umbrage at the all-female panel convened on PBS NewsHour last Friday, so far as to suggest ”journalistic misconduct…The four-member, exclusively-female panel discussion of gender issues—exemplified by the female anchor’s statement 'I think we can all agree…' – was an iconic representation of the sexist bigotry that defines the PBS Newshour.”
It is not clear from the communication whether R. Harris is male or female so forgive my use of just the last name of this correspondent, I mean no disrespect.
Does Harris think it is wrong to have an all-female panel? It is not clear. I would argue that redressing the gender imbalance on TV news panels is a worthy goal in general.
But these women had good reason to be convened for this discussion, not because of their gender but because of their expertise. Megan Twohey was one of the reporters who broke the Harvey Weinstein story; Lin Farley is credited with coining the term sexual harassment; and the work of both Lynne Bernabei and Jocelyn Frye focuses on women’s rights.
Did Judy Woodruff actually say, “I think we can all agree?” Agree about what? Yes, she did, but Harris has left out some context. She was responding to Lin Farley’s suggestion that one of the best ways to combat sexual harassment in the workplace is to aspire for gender parity. Here's Ms. Woodruff’s full response: “That’s something that women have been saying should be the case for a very long time. I think we would all agree that should be the way that it is right now, but it’s not.”
Did Ms. Woodruff reveal a bias? Maybe. But Woodruff’s success and impeccable reputation comes from a lifetime of work in a profession that was notoriously hostile to women when she entered it. Should her “opinion” be interjected in a conversation on the air? There’s a difference between unfounded “opinion” and observations based on reporting and experience. In this case, I would give Ms. Woodruff the benefit of the doubt and suggest that what she engaged in was the latter.
Speaking of context, one other note from Harris: “Further, the continued use of the prejudicial animal-based term 'predator' to characterize all offending males, further exemplifies the sexist bigotry in rhetoric of the Newshour and its selected panelists.”
The term “predator” was used twice by panelist Megan Twohey. Once with regard directly to Weinstein, she said, "He kept continuing to act as a predator.” And, secondly, in response to a question about the difficulty of getting the women to talk on the record for her story, Twohey said, “It’s really hard, in large part because there has been a system that has allowed sort of predators to continue acting largely unchecked.” Twohey (and her colleagues) have reported extensively on the repulsive and reprehensible behavior of Mr. Weinstein for which the term “predator” seems apt.
The outpouring of stories about sexual harassment in the last month, and more importantly, the repercussions that have befallen many men because of their behavior has cracked open a conversation that is charged and has triggered reflexive responses across the board.
I’m sorry that R. Harris was not satisfied with that particular conversation on NewsHour. I disagree with the criticisms leveled against the segment but welcome input from viewers. As far as this particular topic is concerned, I am sure this is not the last word. I look forward to continued coverage on NewsHour and encourage viewers to continue to share their thoughts.
A SAD REMEMBRANCE
This is a tough week for all the family and friends of Gwen Ifill, at PBS and beyond. It is hard to believe that it has been one year since her passing. What would she have made of this last year of politics? What are the insights that she might have provided to the audience? How her love of politics would have infused her astute and profound reporting.
It is fitting that her alma mater, Simmons College, announced this week that they will be naming a new college after her, the Gwen Ifill College of Media, Arts and Humanities. Her colleagues at NewsHour also paid tribute this week in remembering Gwen's Take, and this wonderful excerpt of an interview with her dear friend and fellow journalist Michele Norris.
Posted at 10:30 a.m.
