What’s in a Name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic Primary

• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011
• Author: Joseph E. Uscinski,Lilly J. Goren
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912910382302

Political Research Quarterly

64(4) 884 –896

© 2011 University of Utah

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912910382302

http://prq.sagepub.com

What’s in a Name? Coverage of

Senator Hillary Clinton during

the 2008 Democratic Primary

Joseph E. Uscinski1 and Lilly J. Goren2

Abstract

Throughout the 2008 Democratic primary, Senator Hillary Clinton, her supporters and advocates, feminist groups,

and commentators accused the media of sexist coverage. Was Hillary Clinton treated differently in the media because

of her gender? The authors attempt to answer this question by examining the forms of address that television

newspeople use to refer to the Democratic primary candidates. The authors find that newspeople referred to Clinton

more informally than her male competitors. This treatment stemmed from the gender of the broadcaster; males

show gender bias in how they reference presidential candidates. The authors conclude with suggestions for addressing

gender bias in news coverage.

Keywords

Hillary Clinton, primary election, news, gender bias

It does seem as though the press, at least, is not as bothered

by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the

comments by people who are nothing but misogynists.

Senator Hillary Clinton1

The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s

campaign.

Howard Dean2

Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is

the continued—and accepted—role of sexism in American

life, particularly in the media.

Katie Couric3

The troubling question is not whether race is defining

this campaign, but whether sex—or to put it bluntly,

sexism is.

Susan Estrich4

Throughout the 2008 Democratic primary season, Senator

Hillary Clinton, her supporters and advocates, feminist

groups, and commentators suggested she received unfair

news coverage because of her gender. While media orga-

nizations discussed this during the race, the charges of

“media misogyny” took hold. Subsequently, scholars found

evidence indicating that Clinton was in fact covered dif-

ferently than her male competitors (e.g., Miller, Peake, and

Boulton 2010; Carroll 2009; Carlin and Winfrey 2009).

But, was Hillary Clinton covered differently because of

her gender? If Clinton was treated in a sexist way, where

did this disparity emanate from?

Certainly many comments made during the primary

season indicate Hillary Clinton (HRC) was treated harshly

because of her gender. Table 1 provides a small sample of

nationally aired remarks by well-known television news-

people; these comments suggest overt sexism because

they portray HRC as a castrator, first-wife, b-word, psy-

chotic and murderous ex-lover, and she-devil. However,

these examples are anecdotal and therefore not sufficient

on their own to support claims of gender bias. Simply

looking at Table 1, it would be difficult to ascertain if

these statements were made because she was Hillary

Clinton or because she was a “she.” For example, HRC

endured a long history of criticism because in the minds of

many, she embodies not only a stereotypical (and negative)

1University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

2Carroll University, Waukesha, WI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Dr. Joseph E. Uscinski, 5250 University Drive,

Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA

Email: Uscinski@miami.edu