Liberals had a problem when it came to State Senator Wendy Davis. They liked her and liked her pink shoes. And yet, some of these same folks had been outraged over a Washington Post story focusing on White House counsel Kathryn Reummler’s expensive taste in shoes. Why is it okay to report on Davis’ shoes but not Reummler’s shoes? The Daily Beast explains:
In the sense that Wendy Davis is a hero, her shoes are a symbol–a
talisman of feminism and political voice and literally standing up for
what’s right. Her shoes are legitimately part of the story of
filibustering for 11 hours, especially because they stood out. But
pointing out what women leaders are wearing when it has absolutely
nothing to do with the story is exactly the opposite–it undercuts the
leadership of women and quashes their voice.
What’s most interesting about this piece by Sally Kohn is what goes unstated. Kohn is a progressive activist so she is welcome to idolize Davis’ shoes all she wants. But why should the supposedly objective media take her perspective as their own?
Most people in Texas, including most women in Texas, do not support the unregulated abortion clinics and late term abortions Sen. Davis was defending. But the media seems much more interested in those sneakers and their potential as a “talisman of feminism.”
The fact that the major networks’ “reporting” is indistinguishable from the views of progressive activist Kohn says a lot about the networks. We’ve had gushing reports that lionize Sen. Davis to the point that her shoes are feminist symbols. This is political advocacy plain and simple and the national media has participated in it.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.