Media Attacks On Kamala Harris Tend To Follow A Bleak Pattern

Scrutiny of Kamala Harris highlights persistent themes of sexism, racism and conspiracy theories, echoing attacks faced by other women leaders globally.

Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. And while she will not be the Democrats’ first woman nominee, nor the first person of colour, she faces the compounding challenge of being both.

She will be subject to a highly combative and partisan media landscape, against an opponent who pushes political rhetoric to the extreme.

The crucial question remains whether the media can fairly assess her qualifications for office. The answer could profoundly impact women’s political participation — not only in the United States but globally.

Sexist, racist, transphobic: Past media treatment of Harris

The media coverage of Harris to date reflects the US’ s deeply partisan landscape, with Democrat and Republican voters consuming and trusting in two nearly inverse news media landscapes.

While mainstream media begins to reckon with Harris as the presumptive nominee (The New York Post referred to Harris as the first ‘DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] President’, so we’re off to a predictable start), previous scrutiny, particularly during her past campaigns, highlights persistent themes of sexism, racism, and conspiracy theories.

These media onslaughts echo attacks faced by other women leaders globally.

In the 2020 US election, analysis of online discourse of women politicians (78 percent of which was directed at Harris) found that women faced three familiar narratives.

First, sexualised narratives (that Harris “slept her way to the top”). Second, transphobic narratives (insinuating that Harris was secretly a man). And, third, racist or racialised narratives (whether Harris was suitably Black or Indian enough, or even whether there was legitimacy to her citizenship and therefore eligibility for the Presidency).

It’s important to note that while online commentary is not media reporting, the distance between the two has blurred in recent years.

As the line between “reporter” and “influencer” becomes less distinguishable, high-profile Republican commenters continue to post unfounded aspersions, such as Harris “isn’t black…[but] part of the delusional, Democrat DEI quota”.

Typically, these narratives then seep, largely unquestioned, into a range of traditional news and social media channels such as X, Donald Trump’s Truth Social, Facebook, and political segments of conservative news programs.

In this environment, misinformation and disinformation thrive.

Americans are simultaneously more likely to turn to social media for their news and are less critical of these sources, creating an environment where the veracity of gendered and racialised statements regarding Harris is less important than their virality.

Media’s history of misogyny

Women leaders worldwide, such as former prime ministers Julia Gillard in Australia, the UK’s Theresa May (and oh-so-briefly, Liz Truss), New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern and Sanna Marin in Finland, have all endured misogynistic media portrayals.

Many may recall Gillard’s opponent posing with “Ditch the Witch” placards, watched video compilations of Ardern responding to misogynistic questions, or the international furor Marin faced after, in Fox News’ words , “going viral for [a] raunchy dance video…”.

America’s last (and first) major party woman presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, faced a similar media environment that took misogynistic cues from her political opponent.

Even with the protections offered to her in her position of privilege and power, the media was seemingly only too happy to respond to Trump’s calls to “lock her up” with a series of investigative reports into the Clinton Foundation, her tenure as Secretary of State, and her character.

As a Black and South Asian woman, Harris may face more harassment than Clinton, Gillard, Ardern or Marin, all of whom are white in white-majority countries.

The term misogynoir, coined by gay black feminist Moya Bailey, aptly describes a “particular brand of hatred directed at Black women in American visual and popular culture”.

In the past, Harris’ opponents have already referred to her as “aggressive”, “angry” and “mean”, and suggested she’s a DEI nominee successful for the novelty of those identities rather than her qualifications.

Recent media reporting of Harris therefore continues this rich tradition in an environment where a second Trump administration poses a grave threat to American democracy.

The consequences of bias

Biased media reporting contributes to real-world consequences, deterring women and marginalised people from entering politics due to fears of online harassment and myriad biases.

A report from the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership and Women For Election in Australia found that 66 percent of women polled considered online harassment a barrier to running for office. Another 46 percent said bias against candidates from a marginalised background was an additional deterrent.

Young politically engaged people also see workplace safety — meaning spaces free of violence, misogyny, and other forms of discrimination — as crucial to their engagement in a political career.

Long before the attempted assassination of Trump, the personal safety of political candidates has been a key concern.

The perception of politics as hostile and unsafe (also known as “toxic parliaments” in a new book launched by ANU’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership last week) further erodes trust in political institutions and discourages young people from pursuing political careers.

Young women and other minority groups do not have the Secret Service protecting them when they run for local office, but those politics remain as vitriolic — and are far more accessible — than the Oval Office.

The conditions in which Harris obtained the nomination also matters.

With an ageing President polling much lower than his opponent, a turbulent domestic economy, and the highly criticised support of Israel’s war on the Palestinians, Biden’s passing of the baton to Harris recalls the “glass cliff” phenomenon whereby women are promoted to leadership at “particularly precarious times” — for instance in periods of crisis, or where the chance of failure is high.

These conditions matter, as they will become inextricably tied to the story of Harris’ run for president and embedded into any number of explanations or justifications as to why her campaign succeeded or failed.

Progress, or just holding the line for women?

If Harris loses in November, Trump’s administration is slated to implement and accelerate policies that undermine the rights of women and minorities on issues including abortion, immigration, education and voting rights.

The success of this agenda will have far-reaching consequences for the US and its allies, not to mention galvanising illiberal governments world-wide which are implementing populist, anti-rights agendas.

Yet, even if Trump fails and Harris becomes the next US President, it is clear that the gendered, racialised mess of media reporting is not a blip, but a characteristic of our media landscape.

Both media conglomerates and everyday keyboard warriors have an effect on gendered and racialised bias among voters. Reporters, at least, should be held to minimum standards to do better.

Beyond reporting, the events of the last few years have revealed the vulnerabilities of the American democratic system.

Whether Harris succeeds or fails , she faces an enormous burden to simply hold the line, let alone prevent regression along a host of domains from social to economic.

It will be the work of decades to not only patch up the cracks, but to envision and build a system that is fairer, safer and more accessible for all.

But who is up to the task, if not women?

(Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™)