We heard positive feedback. We also heard feedback that we were too focused on gender and that Times coverage of Hillary Clinton in 2016 played into the double standards that the article explores. As politics editor, I'd like to address those points. But first, the story:
-
Show this thread
-
13 replies 15 retweets 38 likesShow this thread -
7 replies 16 retweets 47 likesShow this thread -
Are we too focused on gender? I don't think so. Sexism and double standards are very real in politics -- many women face harsh judgments about ambition, looks, personality, likability, while many men do not. (Though some men do; likability was an issue for
@tedcruz with voters.)73 replies 21 retweets 101 likesShow this thread -
Exploring these dynamics is the point of this story. The fact that an unprecedented number of women are running for president, and that President Trump has a history of making sexist comments, makes the story even more timely.
17 replies 15 retweets 55 likesShow this thread -
As for the criticism of the Times, it could be summed up with this:
14 replies 7 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Patrick Healy Retweeted Sam 🧬
Patrick Healy added,
12 replies 7 retweets 69 likesShow this thread -
When I covered Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2007-08, I wrote a story describing her laugh as a "cackle." I was reaching for a description; it's one I regret as sexist. I learned from the experience and I’m mindful about it now, when making coverage decisions.
111 replies 34 retweets 254 likesShow this thread -
Some readers think we had double standards for Clinton in 2016. I see it differently.
506 replies 11 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
We covered both Clinton and Trump aggressively. We wrote tough stories about Clinton, from her handling of State Dept. email to many other subjects; so did many newspapers and media. We broke tough stories about Trump's treatment of women, his racist language, his taxes and more.
604 replies 14 retweets 37 likesShow this thread
But...her emails... You've learned absolutely nothing.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.