TIME’s own James Poniewozik, a self-described “dude,” lays out the “archipelago” of charges of media sexism in the coverage of Hillary Clinton. Worth the read. An excerpt:
The critique is a kind of rhetorical island-hopping, trying to connect the demonstrable to the arguable to the unprovable to the far-fetched. To wit:
* Many commentators said and wrote flat-out sexist things about Hillary Clinton. Therefore
* Commentators who were tough on Clinton (or obnoxious about her), on subjects that did not blatantly involve gender, must also have been motivated by sexism. Thus
* Straight-news coverage that challenged Clinton probably also derived from the same sexism. Hence
* Positive coverage of her opponents was either directly or by default also the result of sexism. (The “Would the media have said _______ about Obama if he were running against a man?” argument.) And finally
* All that coverage, taken together, was enough to deny Clinton the nomination.The question is how far on that archipelago you’re willing to go.
Then he examines the merits of each island claim.