Two events this week have brought out the strong undercurrents of sexism in America, and both were in relation to university sports.

First, radio host and first-class asshole, Don Imus, made sexist and racist remarks about the University of Rutgers women’s basketball team, who made it to the national championship game this season. Media Matters has been covering the story thoroughly all week. Today the NYT announced that the Rutgers women are going to meet with Imus. I hope that they do not accept his apology, but instead call him on his history of racist remarks, and ask him to resign.

Second, at the University of Minnesota, three football players were accused of raping an 18-year old woman. They were jailed for a few days, and released today without being charged, though the case is still under investigation. I withhold judgment on whether or not they are innocent, but the problem I have is that the immediate response of the university’s athletics department was to express complete support for the players, while the victim-survivor received no public support. This is a very similar case to that involving Duke lacrosse players last year. The woman in that case also lacked support from the mainstream media, which subjected her to a chill effect. We should not let this silencing happen again… sign this petition to the University of Minnesota administration and board of regents, calling for them to stand up for women’s rights to be heard.

Let’s raise some questions by drawing connections between these two events. Why are women’s sports teams allowed to be treated like dirt in the MSM, while men’s teams are sanctified? How does this inequality of public concern relate to the “double standard” by which women are judged in the patriarchical aspects of our society? (The “double standard” is, on the one hand, putting women on a pedestal when they conform to a certain fetishized image of how they should behave, while on the other hand, treating women like dirt when they do not conform to this image - raping them, calling them ‘hoes,’ not listening to, let alone amplifying, their voices in the public sphere (’keep yer complaints in the sphere of the home, wifey’), etc.)

For the past week, CNN’s coverage of Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria has been heavily biased against her. Read watchdog Media Matters’ in depth coverage. And tell CNN to shape up

can you write about “Michelle [Malkin]’s positive impact as a journalist”? Oh right. On the blog of the year. The fact that anyone on earth thinks Malkin is a journalist terrifies me. Powerline calls Malkin’s critics “generally unhinged”. Maybe some are, I don’t know, but criticizing Malkin doesn’t seem anywhere near as unhinged as arguing that the internment of the Japanese was a good thing.

tbogg, via atrios, has more.

I heard Lowell Bergman on Fresh Air tonight, which was interesting. But what was really interesting and perhaps frustrating about the interview was how insular the view of Washington he had was. There was some discussion about the Libby trial. Bergman’s biggest issue about the trial is how reporters are being asked to testify, and especially how Judith Miller went to prison protecting her source.

This was a discussion about the relationship between the White House and the media, but what was missing was a mention about how the White House absolutely played the press for chumps during the run up to war. Sure the administration has contempt for the press and certainly doesn’t trust them, but Bergman (at least in this interview) seems to be so smart and insightful but completely blind to the facts of this case. These sources wanted to be confidential not because of fear of losing their jobs. They were “off the record” so that they could get a hit piece in the press without looking bad. Before that the White House used the carrot of access and exclusives to get the press to uncritically print the absolute crap about Iraq that the White House wanted out there. This wasn’t the pentagon papers. Now the legal ramifications of the subpoenas is something that I can’t speak about, but the way the press completely abdicated there responsibility in the run up to war has to be a part of this discussion.

Glen Greenwald has a positive take-away. I think that the left-wing blogosphere is doing something that was missing until now…giving the media push-back from the left. The reason the noise machine has been so successful is that for whatever reason there has been no way for the left to organize a response. Rush has been able to talk to millions about whatever bs story he wants to harp on which leads to a significant flurry of complaints directed to the media. For whatever reason right-wing lunatics manage to get booked on the big tv shows, get quoted in major media, etc, etc and they quickly take control of the dialog. I think the left on the internet is reaching a critical mass that is actually starting to be able to influence the discourse. The media is still being directed by the noise machine, but this story shows that left wing bloggers (the ones that count, not little pointless ones like this one) are actually able to influence the dialog. Lets hope that this trend continues. If we can get the “Pelosi Plane” story out of the news…

Paula Zahn Tonight:

He’s called the party’s new golden boy. But will Sen. Barack Obama’s smoking habit hinder his campaign?

Wow. Paula Zahn is like, the bestest journalist ever.

House Sergeant At Arms Bill Livingood, who oversees security at the Capitol and has served both Hastert and Pelosi, said it was he who had recommended that Pelosi fly home nonstop.

“I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue,” he said in a statement that had to be one of the most restrained issued all day.

Ok? Does that settle it?

More

John wonders why this is news. My theory is that these kinds of stories, and then hikers on Mt Hood, etc become news on the 24 hour networks is the they are “high margin”. They are very inexpensive to cover (most of the work is done by local news) and they must generate pretty good ratings. The fact is that 24 hour stations don’t have the money or resources to cover real news because real news doesn’t deliver the same ROI as fake news. They can cover anna nicole with a helicopter shot from a local news station and some file footage. To cover where all the missing money went in Iraq is dangerous and expensive, and still might not generate the kind of interest this story will.