The political horse race analogy went too far.
The lead editorial “No photo finish for Clinton” in Thursday’s Tribune played off Hillary Clinton’s loss in the North Carolina primary and tied it to the fate of Eight Belles, the horse that was put down after breaking her front ankles in the Kentucky Derby.
This was the beginning paragraph:
“The only filly in the crowded field crossed the finish line second, but the fans who’d bet on her still had one last gasp of hope. Perhaps some fortuitous technicality would disqualify the first-place finisher. But things got worse instead of better. We’re talking about Eight Belles, who was euthanized Saturday after almost winning the Kentucky Derby. But we’re thinking about Hillary Clinton.”
Notwithstanding the playful, even clever, writing of the editorial, it was wrong, I believe, to use language that conflates the presidential race and the sad need to euthanize a female horse, ending with this sentence: “There’s no reason to wait until August to put Clinton, and the rest of us, out of our misery.”
It made me queasy. The imagery would never have been used if the linkage between the two events was not gender. You cannot imagine using a similar analogy about race in the case of Barack Obama or about age when referring to John McCain.
More Top Picks Best Dip Belts For Weighted Dips
The editorial was also on the main page of the Tribune Web site with other political news until late morning, and nearly 100 readers commented, with a few calling the analogy “dumb” and “tasteless.” Another described it as “assaultive language.” To be fair, there was no groundswell of indignation among readers. “The editorial elicited a lot of debate about the Democratic campaign,” said R. Bruce Dold, editorial page editor. “Most of the critical response came from readers who thought we were unfairly pushing Hillary Clinton out of the race before it was over.”
A dozen or more complaints from readers claimed the editorial was sexist. Are they overreacting, or just being politically correct? I don’t think that’s the issue here. The passions of this extended campaign season have been strong, even with nearly six months to go before the election. It’s a free society. People express themselves with strong language — always have, and hopefully always will.
All the same, the point of an editorial is to state a forceful opinion in the name of the Tribune. No one wants to read on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand opinions. It is fair game in editorials to say it’s time for a candidate to get out of the race for one reason or another. Dold said: “We want to write editorials that are provocative. This one went right to the edge. I understand that some readers thought the analogy was insulting to Clinton. That wasn’t the intent.”
There are times when comments about candidates from readers and from those who write for the paper get so vitriolic that to publish them in print or online encourages an escalation that goes beyond the pale.
With the Democrats fielding the first really viable black and female candidates for the presidential nomination, the major current of gender and race has run through this campaign for the Democratic nomination. Whether in photos or stories or caricatured political cartoons, a sense of unfairness, especially toward Clinton (who energizes both those who love and those who detest her) has been a percolating theme.
This is how one online reader expressed her feeling, not just about the newspaper:
“The Tribune has hardly been hospitable to Hillary over the length of this campaign. You seem to have hit a new low in terms of Hillary bashing political cartoons. Your bias now is not shocking, yet is still deeply unpleasant. What you fail to grasp is that this is still, in some fashion, America and that Hillary can run as long as she wants to. Most of us can feel the misogyny at work here in the U.S. and definitely at the Tribune …”
Most comments stuck to the issue of whether Clinton should drop out of the race. The readers promoted their own views and their candidate. Others, however, said it points to the Tribune’s support of Obama. Obama, the hometown candidate, has received a great deal of news coverage in the Tribune, and early on I thought it was too uncritical. I think that has evened out since the race became more heated. As for editorials, the Tribune did endorse Obama over Clinton in the Illinois Democratic primary, but it has not made a general-election endorsement yet and has historically supported Republicans.
The editorial was reflective about one obvious danger. “This galloping metaphor violates a rule of Journalism 101: Don’t cover a political campaign like a horse race. Readers [and voters] are better served by a studied examination of the issues than by a continuous update on whose nose is currently in front.”
Another rule of Journalism 101: Refrain from mixing politics, gender and tragedy in the same extended analogy.
———-
Timothy J. McNulty is the Tribune’s public editor. His e-mail address is [email protected]