As news of the Democratic Party regaining the majority in the House of Representatives spread, so did calls to replace the woman who lead the victory. But the criticism was not coming from new progressive first time winners in the House.
Those calls came mostly from career politicians. Mostly White male career politicians who backed Senator Chuck Schumer’s retention of his Senate leadership position and current male House leadership.
Backed all existing leadership… except for the woman at the top.
The discrepancy did not go unnoticed, especially after the group leading the charge released a letter signed by 14 men and two women. The House veterans on the letter were mainly comprised of members of the Blue Dog Coalition of conservatives within the Democratic Party.
But the double standard of House members unequivocally supporting male existing leadership while calling for Nancy Pelosi to step aside for “new blood” is not the only double standard at play. Nor the only one getting called on their appearance of sexism.
Media coverage has also been slanted. And The New York Times just got called out for it.
David Nir, political director at the Daily Kos posted The New York Times coverage for Paul Ryan’s nomination to be Speaker versus their coverage of Nancy Pelosi’s Wednesday nomination.
My god. This is just so typical of the @NYTimes. Pelosi won *more* votes and had *fewer* “nos” than Ryan in 2015, but Ryan won “overwhelming support” while Pelosi had “significant defections” pic.twitter.com/nWeHsupIEW
— David Nir (@DavidNir) November 28, 2018
Nir was not the only one. And eventually The New York Times adjusted their headline and their intro for their article.
WOW. The Times *completely* changed its headline & intro. pic.twitter.com/d6jWEYw0ts
— David Nir (@DavidNir) November 29, 2018
So what was the issue? Rachel Maddow broke it down on her show.
Watch the video here.
— Friends of Nancy Pelosi (@FriendsofNancyP) November 29, 2018
When Paul Ryan was nominated for the Speaker position by the GOP, he got fewer yes votes—200—and more no votes—43. But The New York Times touted Ryan as he “won overwhelming support of his colleagues.”
Meanwhile, Pelosi’s 203 to 32 vote was couched in a disclaimer that she fell well short of the votes needed to become House Speaker. So why such different coverage by The New York Times?
People think they know.