Media attacks on Kamala Harris follow a grim pattern

At the same time, Americans are more likely to get their information from social media and are less critical of those sources, creating an environment in which the credibility of gender and racial statements about Harris is less important than their virality.

Misogyny in the media

Around the world, female leaders such as former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, British Prime Minister Theresa May (and, oh yes, just briefly, Liz Truss), New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin have been the subject of misogynistic portrayals in the media.

Many may remember Gillard’s opponents posing with signs reading “Ditch the Witch,” watching edited videos of Ardern’s answers to misogynistic questions, or the international uproar Marin faced after, in the words of Fox News, she “went viral with a raunchy dance video…”

Hillary Clinton, the last (and first) female presidential candidate of a major party in the United States, faced a similar media environment that adopted the misogynistic statements of her political opponent.

Despite the protection afforded by her privileged and powerful position, the media seemed only too happy to respond to Trump’s calls to “lock her up” with a series of investigative reports on the Clinton Foundation, her tenure as Secretary of State, and her character.

As a black woman and South Asian, Harris may face greater harassment than Clinton, Gillard, Ardern or Marin, all of whom are white and live in white-majority countries.

The term misogynoir, coined by gay black feminist Moya Bailey, aptly describes a “certain type of hatred directed against black women in American visual and popular culture.”

In the past, Harris’ opponents have called her “aggressive,” “angry,” and “mean,” and suggested that she was successful as a DEI candidate because of the novelty of those identities rather than her qualifications.

The recent media coverage of Harris continues this rich tradition in an environment where a second Trump administration poses a serious threat to American democracy.

The consequences of bias

Biased media coverage has real-world consequences: it discourages women and marginalized groups from entering politics for fear of online harassment and countless prejudices.

A report by the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership and Women For Election in Australia found that 66 percent of women surveyed view online harassment as a barrier to running for political office, with a further 46 percent saying bias against candidates from marginalized backgrounds is an additional barrier.

Young politically active people also consider workplace safety – that is, spaces free from violence, misogyny and other forms of discrimination – to be crucial for their commitment to a political career.
Long before the assassination attempt on Trump, the personal safety of political candidates was a central concern.

The perception of politics as hostile and unsafe (also referred to as “toxic parliaments” in a new book published last week by the ANU’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership) further undermines trust in political institutions and deters young people from pursuing political careers.

While young women and other minority groups cannot rely on Secret Service protection when running for local office, their politics are just as vitriolic—and far more accessible—than those of the Oval Office.

The conditions under which Harris received the nomination are also important.
With an aging president whose poll numbers are far below those of his opponent, a turbulent domestic economy and much-criticized support for Israel’s war against the Palestinians, Biden’s passing of the baton to Harris is reminiscent of the “glass cliff” phenomenon, in which women are promoted to leadership positions at “particularly precarious times” – such as in times of crisis or when the likelihood of failure is high.
These conditions are important because they will be inextricably linked to Harris’s candidacy for president and will feed into countless explanations and justifications for the success or failure of her campaign.

Progress or just a signal to women?

If Harris loses in November, the Trump administration is expected to implement and accelerate policies that undermine the rights of women and minorities on issues such as abortion, immigration, education and voting rights.

The success of this agenda will have far-reaching consequences for the United States and its allies, not to mention that it will mobilize illiberal governments around the world to implement populist, anti-human rights agendas.
But even if Trump fails and Harris becomes the next US president, it is clear that the gender and racial confusion in media coverage is not a blip, but a feature of our media landscape.

Both media conglomerates and everyday keyboard warriors impact gender and racial biases among voters. At the very least, reporters should be held to minimum standards to do better.

Beyond the reporting, the events of recent years have exposed the weaknesses of the American democratic system.

Whether Harris succeeds or fails, she faces the enormous burden of simply holding the line, not to mention preventing regression in a variety of areas, from society to the economy.

It will be a decades-long task not only to patch up the cracks, but also to design and build a system that is fairer, safer and more accessible to all.

But who is up to this task if not women?

Jack Hayes is a PhD candidate in the Department of International Relations, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs, Australian National University.

Dr Elise Stephenson is a multi-award-winning Australian gender researcher and entrepreneur and Deputy Director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at the Australian National University.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info.