Media Study: Black and Hispanic Lawmakers Drowned Out by Their White Counterparts

Posted by on Aug 26, 2013 at 11:08 am

Yet another case study of liberal media racism. Maybe if  Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Nancy Pelosi weren’t such blabbermouths their co-workers of color could get a word in edgewise.

The authoritative Political Research Quarterly has just published a study that finds white female House and Senate members get over twice the coverage of black female politicians and four times that of Latinas in the House.

The result, said Georgia State University’s political science professor Sarah Allen Gershon, is that Latino and black women House members are getting the shaft by “slanted coverage” and “media bias,” making it much harder for voters to size up the minority politicians.

“African-American and Latina congresswomen continue to face an uphill battle in seeking the attention of the mainstream media,” said Gershon. “The disproportionately small amount of coverage received by these women may limit their ability to communicate their messages and activities, thus hampering their efforts to build electoral support.”

The study looked at the newspaper coverage of 22 white female lawmakers, 11 blacks and five Latinas. The unnamed white women received an average of 22 newspaper stories each in 2006, the year studied; African-American women House members received 10 stories and Latino congresswoman five. The study suggests that coverage hasn’t changed much in seven years.

The study also found that the limited coverage of African American and Latina women was more negative than for whites.

At the same time, whenever a Sheila Jackson Lee opens her mouth she says something really stupid, so a lack of coverage could be a blessing in disguise.

2 Responses to “Media Study: Black and Hispanic Lawmakers Drowned Out by Their White Counterparts”

  1. Tuerqas on 26/26/13 at 11:52 am

    “At the same time, whenever a Sheila Jackson Lee opens her mouth she says something really stupid, so a lack of coverage could be a blessing in disguise.”

    Ain’t that the truth. Could it be that they get less coverage because they contribute less, or their contributions are so pointy that the majority tends to ignore them?