We have documented over and over and over and over and over and over again how the media persist in running stories about a supposed lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton – despite the fact that she is winning by a large margin and has energized the Democratic Party. This narrative is the zombie frame that refuses to die.
Just days after Vanity Fair incredulously wondered, “Has Hillary Outstayed Her Welcome?” – a truly nonsensical rhetorical question about a candidate who won her last primary by double digits – the Economist has published an equally dreadful and sexist piece. In it, they refer to Hillary as a “grand dame,” using the terrible headline “Unloved and Unstoppable.”
They describe her, throughout the piece, as “not mesmeri[zing] on the stump…icily controlled…hectoring…scandal-dogged, distrusted and divisive, a workaday campaigner with a style and résumé at odds with her party’s humor…not ideal.”
They go further: “Her oratorical weaknesses contribute to Mrs Clinton’s reputation for shiftiness.” All of this in the first seven paragraphs.
But worst of all is that she is “unloved.” Her supporters back her “with less obvious enthusiasm.”
She is, they assert, unlikable.
Promoting the piece on their Facebook page, they lead with her being “scandal-dogged, distrusted and divisive,” and describe her as “the archetypal establishment creature.” Creature.
The Economist joins the ranks of media who should be ashamed of themselves for publishing unsupportable narratives about Hillary embedded with sexist tropes.
(Photo: Hillary for America)