Sexism has always been rife in newsrooms across the world, but this morning I read something that to begin with, I thought was sexist, and now, I’ve decided isn’t. James Fallows at the Atlantic writes this morning about Katie Couric’s effectiveness in interviewing Sarah Palin. One of the things he points out is that Couric, as a woman, was able to perhaps more effectively take Palin to task, because she didn’t have the whole “I’m a man you’re a silly woman” danger getting in the way.

Couric deserves better ratings for the CBS news based on the steely relentlessness of her questions. Unlike Charlie Gibson, and unlike Joe Biden in a (possible!) future debate, she has no background complications of the older white man bullying the younger, attractive woman. She was a professional woman who has clearly earned her position grilling someone whose bona fides she cleared doubted.

I’ve not followed Couric on TV much, but after reading Fallows’ commentary I decided I should tune in more because he’s right: Her gender did make her more effective in challenging the Republican VP nominee. And God knows, that’s what this country needs right now, more than anything. People who can show Sarah Palin up for whatever shortcomings she has, without being shot down for sexism or class prejudice or whatever else the Republicans have up their sleeves, no matter how misplaced those bullets may be.

Matt Davis was news editor of the Mercury from 2009 to May 2010.

13 replies on “Couric’s Palin Q&A More Effective As A Woman”

  1. Yes, because women can never be sexist… You’re either not thinking this through (quelle surprise!), or congratulating your team for having trixier propaganda than the enemy.

    Happy Cat Friday, Matt! You gonna be at Roots?

  2. I think the post, and Matt, are right on. Of course women can be sexist. How is that the issue? Much of Palin’s appeal is in how feisty and relatable she is. Well: Women can relate to being condescended to by older men. Happens all the time. So “Charlie” Gibson looking down his nose at her scans as bullying; Couric’s equally aggressive questioning does not.

  3. I guess I was just a little baffled by the point of the post.

    Was it “Couric’s Palin Q&A More Effective As A Woman”? Cuz that’s pretty obvious…

    Was it “Her gender did make her more effective in challenging the Republican VP nominee. And God knows, that’s what this country needs right now, more than anything”? Is that really what this country needs right now, more than anything? Really???

    Alison, your reply is far more coherent than Matt’s post. I mean, read the first sentence of what he wrote. It’s shit writing expressing shit thinking, and the habit of Merc editors to back up Matt when he does something stupid isn’t doing anyone any favors.

    I’m off to Roots now. Perhaps Matt will out me and get his long promised revenge…

  6. “Was it ‘Couric’s Palin Q&A More Effective As A Woman’? Cuz that’s pretty obvious…”

    Yes, I think that was the point. Obvs, OK, but does that mean it’s not worth noting? When was the last time we had a viable (ish) female VP candidate, 1984? I think this conversation is worth having. And for the record, I support Matt when I think he’s right.

    Tk… Have you ever been a waitress? I could be wrong on this, but I tend to think there’s a world of being-talked-down-to that most (white) men will never experience. Get called “sweetheart” often?

    /drunken Blogtown comment.

  8. “I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what it means.”

    Disagreed. The point didn’t occur to me & my little brain until someone else pointed it out. I’m glad someone did.

  9. I for one am appalled every time I see a liberal interviwer grab Palin’s ass or tell her to make coffee. If I see it again, and if it is occuring to other females as well, I will begin to suspect this behavior is the policy of clearcom and that a case could be made that they are a sexist organization.

Comments are closed.