Women in politics: the coverage and the non-coverage

Catholic New Times, Feb 29, 2004 by Sharon Fraser

There's been a lot of coverage in the mainstream media about Belinda Stronach's campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party. A lot of the coverage has been about ... well, about the coverage.

Many of the reporters, editors and pundits are aware that they're covering Belinda differently from the other candidates in the race. And it seems to me they've decided not to stop, but they're writing so many stories and columns and editorials on the subject of their coverage, they want, at the very least, to let us know that they know they're doing it.

Lately, I've noticed an addition to the usual nudge-nudge, wink-wink coverage: many of the pundits are exclaiming, ever so virtuously, "Lord knows, we need more women in politics." The unspoken/unwritten implication is: "But not this woman."

This is not a new phenomenon. On the other side of the political spectrum, for ten years, the very media which are responsible for covering national politics pronounced the NDP "irrelevant" and "marginalized." It happened to be the 10 years when Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough were successive leaders of the party.

I came to believe that if McLaughlin and McDonough had spoken with the tongues of angels and had performed acts of charity and social conscience worthy Of Mother Teresa, there would have been a loud ho-hum from the Parliamentary press gallery.

But the NDP has a new leader now and when Jack Layton sneezes, the national media say, "God bless you." Suddenly, the NDP is "back in the game," "renewed," "revitalized." Or could it be that they are seen to have a "real" leader again? (Not only that, there are now pictures of him with a former leader--Ed Broadbent, the last "real" NDP leader the media paid attention to.)

There's a lot of lip. service paid to the idea of having women in politics and there are seemingly heartfelt questions as to what would encourage more women to participate. The usual explanation given for why we need more women in politics is, "Women do things differently."

And therein lies the rub.

Whenever someone says, "I want to go to Ottawa to do things differently," I say, "That won't happen."

Politics in Ottawa is media-driven and if you try to do it differently--either consciously or because that's just the way you are--you fall off the media-radar and before you know it, you're irrelevant and marginalized. If you're youthful and blonde and rich, you might not be ignored but the very nature of the coverage will see to it that you're irrelevant and marginalized.

Surely this is why the media coverage of women is so often controversial--or missing in action. And surely this is the conundrum for women: either accept the narrow definition that's already been determined or accept that although we need more women in politics, we will continue to face coverage that says, "But not this woman."

Sharon Fraser is a writer in Halifax and editor of rabble.ca