New York Times Right-Wing Sex Columnist Maureen Dowd Is Censured

Last November, I wrote to the public editor of The New York Times about the sickening behavior of one its star op-ed columnists, Maureen Dowd:

Mr. Hoyt,

I am well aware that opinion columnists in The Times are granted  more leeway in their writing than reporters. Even so, tomorrow's Maureen Dowd column on the sexual roles of the major Democratic candidates for President is well beyond the pale for a family newspaper, and for any paper of national repute that claims to be a major voice of the republic.

Her explicit and wholly imagined "account" of the sexual motivation behind how the candidates behaved in a televised debate brings nothing but shame to the Times, and betrays the newspaper's long-held responsibility for public discourse. Her two-bit "analysis" of a specific sexual fetish as the reason for the candidates' lively give-and-take during the CNN debate coarsened that discourse and the reputation of The New York Times.

How can a paper like The Times continue to run these strange sexual imaginings week after week and refer to them as political coverage? What a disgrace.

Sincerely,

Tom Watson
Mount Vernon, NY

I got no response - until Sunday. As Greg Sargent at TMP said, "it was pretty gratifying to see that Times public editor Clark Hoyt weighed in yesterday with a piece aggressively attacking Dowd's coverage of the Dem primary." Hoyt's attack on Dowd was tough, to the point, and stingingly effective - how can her letter of resignation not be on editor Andrew Rosenthal's desk this morning, after the thorough ethical knee-capping her own paper delivered?

Dowd's columns about Clinton's campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism, right along with the comments of Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Tucker Carlson or, for that matter, Kristol, who made the Hall of Shame for a comment on Fox News, not for his Times work.

"I've been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years," Dowd responded. She said nobody had objected to her use of similar images about men over seven presidential campaigns. She often refers to Barack Obama as "Obambi" and has said he has a "feminine"management style. But the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton - in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1 - left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.  

Over the course of the campaign, I received complaints that Times coverage of Clinton included too much emphasis on her appearance, too many stereotypical words that appeared to put her down and dismiss a woman's potential for leadership and too many snide references to her as cold or unlikable. When I pressed for details, the subject often boiled down to Dowd.

[snip]

Politically correct is never a term one would apply to Dowd’s commentary. Her columns this year said Clinton’s “message is unapologetically emasculating,” and that she “needed to prove her masculinity” but in the end “had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim.” In one column Dowd wrote, “She may want to take a cue from the Miss America contest: make a graceful, magnanimous exit and wait in the wings.”

“From the time I began writing about politics,” Dowd said, “I have always played with gender stereotypes and mined them and twisted them to force the reader to be conscious of how differently we view the sexes.” Now, she said, “you are asking me to treat Hillary differently than I’ve treated the male candidates all these years, with kid gloves.”

Aulisio, the reader who wanted a review of Times coverage, asked if a man could have gotten away with writing what Dowd wrote. Rosenthal said that if the man had written everything Dowd had written over the years and established himself as a sardonic commentator on the sexes, “I’d say the answer is yes.”

Of course, there is no such man, and I do not think another one could have used Dowd’s language. Even she, I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.

That folks, is utter editorial slaughter - the destruction of the columnist's reputation within the halls of the very newspaper she writes for (and it did no good for editor Rosenthal's rep, either). But, as Digby said so well, Dowd had it coming - and for a long, long time:

...the question isn't whether she should have treated Clinton any differently. It's that her entire worldview is toxic, both culturally and politically. She uses explicitly sexist and homophobic imagery that favors traditional authoritarian leadership to explain politics. She gets away with it because she has a rapier wit and is a physically beautiful person, thus insulating herself from the kind of criticism others would receive for writing this crud. But in truth she's a walking anachronism, more like a character in Mad Men than a modern sophisticate.

She is considered by many to be the top political columnist in the country (and her columns are often the most emailed articles in the Times.) Certainly she is Village Royalty. And that is undoubtedly one reason why people like Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson felt that it was perfectly acceptable to say the things they said during this campaign. She's their misogymuse.

It's long past time Dowd was called on this by someone other than filthy bloggers like me. This is a decent start, but until people realize that her "twisting of gender" is anything but benign good fun, we're going to be stuck battling this nonsense back no matter what kind of appendages our candidates might (or might not) be sporting.

This is a welcome development in the nation's leading political newspaper. As long-time commenter Bruce B. says, Dowd's behavior toward Senator Clinton was "despicable."

UPDATE: As Bob Somerby notes, Hoyt gets results. But what a take down!

Comments

[Pat Johnson]

Maureen's sick psyche, emblazoned across the NYT twice weekly, shows a hidden perverseness that is breathtaking in it's scope.

Her belittlement of people exposes her own neuroses that have gone unchecked for several decades. Standing behind her Pulitzer Prize has apparently given her the authority to spew forth her hatred of others with immunity.

She writes for her own amusement, much like you would discover in a teenager's diary and is overpaid for these puberty filled observations. Something tells me she always did this. The girl who no one chose to sit next to at lunch.

A grown up version of "Mean Girls".

[bruce b.]

I love to tweak TW for wrong predictions, so it is only fair that I (and others) praise him for being timely and well ahead of the curve in exposing Dowd's insane vindictiveness towards Clinton. Thanks, Tom, for reminding us be reprinting that excellent letter, and for the well-stated posting above.

Dowd's excuse that she was simply refusing to treat Clinton any "differently" than she has treated male candidates is prima facie mendacious. As Hoyt points out, 28 out of 44 columns this year -- 63% -- were "gender laden assaults." Can Dowd please point out which male candidate was subjected to this?

TW is right. Dowd should resign.

[Judith]

I hadnt read the colume Tom referred to in his letter - Dowd doesnt interest me - but one brief glance at it was enough.

Maybe she should have a monthly column and take her time and think about it. My guess is that it isnt hatred on her part, she just doesnt have much of anything to actually say.

The sad part is that she may be the link for some of the older Times readers who find comfort in the same old stuff she writes. Her references are pretty much the same as they have always been, and some pople find comfort in the repetition. Like seeing the same movie again and again because you know what is going to happen.

Her movie would be Halloween with Dowd holding the knife. Yick, one viewing really is enough.

I think that if you just stop reading her completely you will be happier and have better digestion.

[Judith]

oh, ps -

Tom W, your letter was perfect.

[bruce b.]

Judith, as an "older" Times reader (over 50 -- does that qualify?), I think my take on Dowd is typical. She DEGRADES the quality of the Times Op-Ed pages, which are supposed to have intelligent commentary, not meandering and nasty pyscho-sexual gossip.

Please, don't pin Maureen Dowd on us old folks.

[Judith]

I see your point, bruce b. I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my comment - I consider myself an older reader as I meant long time reader. Not an age thingie as I am very very young and since you cant see me you will just have to take my word. BUT, I was reading the arts and leisure section before I was ten. No, I didnt understand it but I did read it - that and the book reviews. Great stuff in those days!

I do think that her "long time yet young readers" take comfort in her repetition though and I whenever I am forced to read her I see the same old shite. I also believe she hires young kids to pick up her gossip from Gawker type sites to try to mix in the same kind of nasty sexual snideness you will find in the comments there to try to appeal to a young audience - but again, the shtick remains the same.

Lastly - No, I do not consider over 50 old though I do applaud you on learning the difficulties of travel on the internet highway. Hope they make the roadsigns big enough for you to read (KIDDING!)

[bruce b.]

Judith says:

Lastly - No, I do not consider over 50 old though I do applaud you on learning the difficulties of travel on the internet highway. Hope they make the roadsigns big enough for you to read (KIDDING!)

Actually, they often don't. I especially find my iPhone vexing, often impossible to read the text (and the expansion is too annoying).

Some Web sites are impossible to read. And that's just the text -- not to mention the idiotic content.

But since my first browser was Mosaic and my first email address Compuserve, you don't really have to welcome me aboard. :-)

[AnninCa]

I don't like her style much, but I was more interested in the prosaic way the NY TIMES went about determining if they were biased or not. Search for key words? That's a fairly superficial approach. There was a bit of discussion about polling stories. There was no discussion about the angles used in discussing Hillary's wins versus Obama's or the approach on his gaffes versus hers.

I guess it was OK to settle for looking for the most blatant sexism, and Dowd sure fits that bill.

[HenryFTP]

Dowd suffers from the failing that many of us have, an exaggerated sense of self-importance. In her case, she thinks she's Dorothy Parker, whereas in reality she's more like Dorothy Kilgallen. The irony being, of course, that had she stuck to being Dorothy Kilgallen (i.e. not given up being a reporter while doing a column, and believing herself a cultural arbitrer instead of an observer), she might have been OK. In a better world, the Times would have figured out by now that promoting reporters to become columnists on the Op-Ed page makes them insufferably full of themselves (would you prefer to read an Anthony Lewis story or an Anthony Lewis column?) -- but as long as the Sulzbergers are running the show they'll keep showcasing their pets in that prime real estate.

Would you rather be reading a Digby column twice a week in that space or a Dowd column?

[Judith]

Henry, be fair here - she has a comment column in the NY Times, that isnt exaggerated sense of importance like bloggers often have - it IS important. That is why people talk about her. Her stuff gets read and commented on our she wouldnt have the column.

and bruce b - wow, I give up. You are old!

Ha.

[bruce b.]

... and the first email newsletter ("prehistoric blog") that I read was @NY, written and edited by Tom Watson and Jason Chervokas, a highly literate and entertaining, if sometimes sensationalistic, weekly that covered the nascent "Silicon Alley" and made celebrities out of people like Jack Hiddary and Scott Kurnit.

[tina oiticica]

Hello? We are all old enough to be called old by the young. I am fifty-five, soon to be fifty-six. The point is that Maureen Dowd acted like a chavinistic sow with total impunity dueing the campaign. My dislike for her and for Bill Maher started kinda at the same time: when Ron Paul was hot.
She's pretty and fit; however, her acerbic 'tude fits her in the category of "mal-baisée" in which she wanted to fit Hillary.

[Tom K]

I can't believe anybody takes MoDo seriously enough to be upset by her.

[CATHERINE]

Tom,
I saw this from the Times Public Editor this weekend and I thought, "yea for him". I think Maureen Dowd is an embarrassment to the paper and I completely agree that a guy writing that stuff about Clinton ABSOLUTELY wouldn't have gotten away with it. And you don't have to be a Clinton fan to dislike the cheap shot stuff that gets printed weekly in that column.

Thanks for writing to the Times earlier - hopefully your letter may have influenced him to take a closer look at her garbage.
Catherine from "The Field"

[CATHERINE]

Tom,
I saw this from the Times Public Editor this weekend and I thought, "yea for him". I think Maureen Dowd is an embarrassment to the paper and I completely agree that a guy writing that stuff about Clinton ABSOLUTELY wouldn't have gotten away with it. And you don't have to be a Clinton fan to dislike the cheap shot stuff that gets printed weekly in that column.

Thanks for writing to the Times earlier - hopefully your letter may have influenced him to take a closer look at her garbage.
Catherine from "The Field"

[Judith]

Hey Tina - take it up with Bruce - he is positively bragging about it.

By the way, calling a woman a "sow" - is that an old people thing?

Oh man, I am Baaaaad. :-)

[bruce b.]

Judith said:

<< Hey Tina - take it up with Bruce - he is positively bragging about it. >>

Judith is right. I'm gonna start the OFLF: The Old Farts Liberation Front.

By the way, I'm willing to bet that those morons in the Obama camp who are pushing "The Great Seal of Obama" and who, as TW described in another post, believe that there is an "Obama brand" that "transcends politics" are a bunch of 30 something and 20 something types. This is New Economy gibberish. Anyone who has been around the block a few times knows better.

I am offended whenever people talk about politicians as "brands." Can you imagine "the Lincoln brand" or "the Roosevelt brand"? This is a symptom of cultural degradation.

And while I'm being the local curmudgeon, I am also offended by that idiotic and elitist Moveon.org ad where the young yuppie mother doesn't want to "give up" her perfect little baby Alex for the war. What about the mothers with sons and daughters who are actually fighting this war -- and getting their legs blown off? That ad is the strongest argument for a draft.

[Ralph]

Dowd is supposed to use humor to scratch at the truth behind the spin. She has been able to use this method of opinion writing with gusto when going after the Bushies. But for some reason she gets caught up in the most superficial garbage about how women swoon over Rummy 'cause he's tough and eagle eyed. She has been a complete embarrassment for the Times since Hillary Clinton started her run for the White House. It's just amazing to me that she's taken seriously at all. When she appears on the Sunday shows her whole schtick fall flat. Please, please, NYT, get rid of her now. Let her spew her inane analysis where intelligent journalism is not important. Fox news maybe?

[Susie]

" In a better world, the Times would have figured out by now that promoting reporters to become columnists on the Op-Ed page makes them insufferably full of themselves (would you prefer to read an Anthony Lewis story or an Anthony Lewis column?) -- but as long as the Sulzbergers are running the show they'll keep showcasing their pets in that prime real estate."

I think also of Friedman, who was an excellent reporter once upon a time, and now look.

On the other hand, I'd suggest the page is better than it was in the days when the Times was using it to put executive editors out to pasture. I still remember the burblings of James Reston in his dotage, and of course the ineffable Abe Rosenthal. And Anthony Lewis is way better than Flora Lewis.

"By the way, I'm willing to bet that those morons in the Obama camp who are pushing "The Great Seal of Obama" and who, as TW described in another post, believe that there is an "Obama brand" that "transcends politics" are a bunch of 30 something and 20 something types. This is New Economy gibberish."

That talk is driving me crazy too. The candidate could stop it if he could, so he must like the idea.

[Judith]

heehee Susie, I heard about the "Obama" branding thing the same day I saw a headline on Yahoo about "Tyra"'s branding. It is the PR people lauding themselves. Kinda like the pundit talk shows where they talk to each other about how wonderful it is to be a pundit talking punditry to other pundits.

as the wise captain said in Palin's "Around the world in 80days" - they arent making the world smaller, they are making the people smaller.

[bruce b.]

I am trying to figure out if there is a legal and ethical way to have "Alex" taken away from this woman, who is obviously dangerous. Placement in a Chinese orphanage, just to take one example, would be vastly more humane treatment for the kid.

I and the other activists of the OFLF would appreciate any suggestions.

[Dawnelle]

Right On Tom!

no more need be said

[Linda]

So what if they did a big takedown? They still send her regular paychecks, and the checks still clear. She takes up space on the op ed page of the New York Times, which beats writing on the wall. The shame of being dissed by your own paper doesn't even matter here--we are in the post-shame age, where being embarrassment at being called out is for chumps.