Hitting The Media’s Glass Ceiling
Harriet Miers may have broken through glass ceilings on her way to a Supreme Court nomination, but President Bush’s “work wife” has a long way to go with gender stereotyping in mainstream media coverage. Need proof? Compare news coverage in the days after her nomination with coverage this summer of the John Roberts nomination:
ROBERTS : “A career that had been marked by distinguished and relentless advancement.†(LA Times, 7/25/05)
MIERS: “She’s not somebody who is a gossip.†(AP, 10/4/05)
ROBERTS: “Brilliant but self-deprecating, earnest but not humorless.†(Boston Globe, 7/21/04)
MIERS: “She never misses a birthday.” (LA Times, 10/4/05)
ROBERTS: “Exceptional intellect. Exceptional temperament. A conservative judicial philosophy.†(LA Times, 7/25/05)
MIERS: “She makes a wonderful sweet potato pie. Many marshmallows.†(AP, 10/3/05)
ROBERTS: “Disciplined, self-assured and performance driven.†(Chicago Tribune, 7/24/05)
MIERS: “She would look at you blankly if you mentioned the name of a designer.†(Bloomberg, 10/4/05)
MIERS: “A pit bull in size 6 shoes.” (New York Times, 10/3/05)
ROBERTS: Sorry. No word on what size shoe John Roberts wears.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
31 Responses to “Hitting The Media’s Glass Ceiling”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
No matter how frightened Dems are of an alternate pick, they should just go for it. This is the wrong woman at the wrong time.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:42 pmThese are quotes from the people the reporters talk to, not quotes from reporters. One of them is from her sister, and another contrasting her with the “pit-bull” quote (i.e. “never misses a birthday” = she’s nice too). I’m not seeing the issue here.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:48 pmWhile that could be the case, number 2, the point is that this type of reporting has no place in the media’s commentary about someone who could be one of the most powerful women in our country. Not surprisingly, Fox’s comparison of her sense of style to Condi’s is just as regrettable. Move on, media.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:53 pmNY Daily News yesterday had whole segment on how poor harriet’s shoes aren’t as cool as condi’s boots. what’s that have to do with her views on, i dont’ know, civil rights, assisted suicide or the separation of church and state?
October 5th, 2005 at 3:58 pmAnd the other thing could be that, no one has such Roberts-like things to say about Meirs so they have to say something else.
October 5th, 2005 at 3:59 pmYou mean there’s still sexism in our society?
Well, I’ll be…
October 5th, 2005 at 4:01 pmI would assume Roberts wears Right-Wing Tips…
…thankyouverymuchbesuretotipyourwaitress….
October 5th, 2005 at 4:07 pmThere is a rumor that indictments are about to drop in the Plame case, kids! Check Americablog. Sorry TP!
October 5th, 2005 at 4:21 pm[…] Think Progress » Hitting The Media’s Glass Ceiling […]
October 5th, 2005 at 4:26 pmI hate this kind of crap. By no means do I think Harriet ought to be on the Supreme Court, but why is it important to report on her sweet potato pie? Come to think of it, why does Georgie know her shoe size? Does he know Laura’s shoe size? Or the twins’?
October 5th, 2005 at 4:36 pmAt DKos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/5/16712/2466
No shite kids… these are rumors, but credible rumors. We aren’t talking Tom Flocco or that kind of crap.
October 5th, 2005 at 4:47 pmJohn Roberts argued before the Supreme Court many times and was highly respected, even by those who disagreed with his politics.
Miers was the presidents staff secretary, and a lottery commissioner.
John Roberts is qualified for the job, Miers is commically unqualified.
If Miers even came close to Roberts in terms of resume, I’d be outragged by this media coverage. As it is, I find her nomination a joke and so does the media.
October 5th, 2005 at 4:50 pmFunny! I needed that!
October 5th, 2005 at 5:26 pmThis nomination sets a very bad precedence.
October 5th, 2005 at 5:30 pmSome questions to the group:
1) Is running the country just some kind
of joke to the Cheney administration?
2) Now that the ABA (I think) has been eliminated
as raters of nominees, is there no standard whatsoever?
3) What happens if a supreme has to recuse in all
cases involving the Cheney administration?
4) Wouldn’t you think someone as unqualified as
Miers SEEMS to be, would be petrified to
go so far over her head in such an important role
or is she so unqualified that she doesn’t know?
Ask any Right Winger if Clinton had appointed someone with credentials similar to Miers what would they have said…
October 5th, 2005 at 5:32 pmHer nomination being a joke or not, can they stick with issues that disqualify her instead of reporting her shoe size?
This is the kind of frivolous reporting you’d expect in fashion magazines. My interest in her fashion sense in on par with whether or not Monica swallowed.
October 5th, 2005 at 5:33 pmRobert,
They would be saying she must have given him a blow job, but since Bush is in the closet, more likely that’s how Roberts was chosen…
October 5th, 2005 at 5:35 pmWell Lesly,
Have you noticed that America seems to have the
October 5th, 2005 at 5:37 pmdepth of a fashion/gossip magazine?
Maybe someone out there has put together a timeline that displays such things as:when was mier elected to the whatever in texas and how long did she stay in office?
October 5th, 2005 at 5:58 pmHow long did she run the state lottery?
How long was she the president of the Texas Bar?
There are other questions that need to be fitted in and I think that there appears to be inconsistancies that might just be clarified by examining these potential incons as part of a timeline.
billjpa
What little is known about Miers suggests she is a political operative with some extreme views if not extreme qualifications. In a nutshell, Miers probably fails the “Three Strikes Test” for the Supreme Court:
X Dubious Qualifications
X Extreme Views
X Proven Partisan Operative
For the full story, see:
“Miers Fails the Three Strikes Test”
October 5th, 2005 at 6:13 pmMama said if you can’t say something nice about someone, then don’t say anything.
October 5th, 2005 at 6:19 pmWho is being discussed here - an applicant for the job of office secretary?
Does this woman have any credentials, experience or capability in the rule of law? Of course not. She is a run-of-the-mill attorney, who made her way to the top, and she is probably good to her mother.
How does that qualify her to make decisions of law that will affect the entire nation?
This is no place for a crony. And for the other women he was said to have considered, this is neither a place for an extremist.
I think George has flipped out. I think the pressure is too great.
Marie,
I think they are trying to be too clever.
October 5th, 2005 at 6:37 pmThere should be no question that this person
lacks the record for this job.
It is, in fact, an insult to the institution
that she would be nominated.
A serious question to the American contributors of this website.
How can you be nominated to be a United States Supreme Court judge? If you have never been a judge, at any other leval of the judiciary system.
In Britain, you can’t just become a high court judge, or a Law Lord. if you havn’t been a judge, of high repute and with a number of years of practice behind you.
It just beggars belief that you can get to such a lofty position. Without first having to serve as a recognised judge, at a lower leval.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:21 pm#24, Nick, You are far too logical — you can see things so clearly from across the pond.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:41 pmMany of us also would have expected a nominee who would at least have had some experience in interpreting federal law vis-a-vis the Constitution.
But that’s so passe` with Bushie in the White House — cronyism is the byword.
Brace yourselves. Next it’s Bush’s valet for Secretary of Commerce, and the White House chef is slated for the head of the FDA.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:57 amIs it certifiable time yet?
If he’s drinking again, or really never stopped and is mixing it with antidepressants, we may end up invading Montana or worse.
Thank’s for that one Nancy, glad I moved from Montana. When I lived there many of us use to think we should cecede from the nation, declare war, surender and then ask for federal aid. Guess it doesn’t matter where we live with the nut case in, no one is safe….It is looking better with all the court cases coming down, just wish they would hurry up, before he gits this Miers in. Latest polls 62% against the war…This Miers should not pass the comitte, but probably will……Blessings
October 6th, 2005 at 8:53 amIf Clarence Thomas can be a supreme court justice, anybody of average intelligence can be a supreme court justice.
October 6th, 2005 at 9:30 amGreat post, Christy! I’ve been following all the coverage, yet still completely missed this until you pointed it out - and I was a Women’s Studies major!
October 6th, 2005 at 10:36 amI am having a hard time figuring which comparison is more apt: Bush as Caligula, or Bush as Nero. Probably a combination of the two.
And in answer to the question of how someone with no obvious experience can be elevated to a position they would appear to be completely unqualified for, well, Bush would fall into that category, and look how well his presidency has gone so far.
October 6th, 2005 at 7:13 pmI heard a ver batim of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton today and it’s like he knew this day was coming — he wrote explicitly against this sort of presidential aciton.
October 6th, 2005 at 8:36 pmThe link I attached is to a PressEthic, a blog run by a class I’m in at NYU. I discuss this post, so I thought you might be interested in checking it out. Thanks!
October 6th, 2005 at 11:12 pm