A First Name Basis
Illustrated by Afrah Khan
Sitting around the television on election night November 2024, I was struck by the tension in the room. The faces of Kamala Harris and her opponent alternated on the screen, alongside percentages creeping toward the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. There’s an electric thrill to watching the results roll in, but this moment is not a singular event. It’s the culmination of months, even years of campaign messaging, heated debates, and public scrutiny. This election by virtue of what was at stake, the first female presidency, amassed widespread attention. However, it does not tell a unique story. In fact, when you look closer, this election reinforces an all-too-familiar narrative, the undeniable truth that the media is steeped in gender bias. The media’s coverage of the 2024 Harris presidential campaign was sometimes implicit, but often explicit in its biases; creating barriers between the Harris campaign and American voters that are all too easy to ignore yet are once again, undeniable.
To understand the disparity in media treatment along the gendered lines of men and women in politics there are three key non-partisan comparisons I have examined. First, the difference in how the media framed Kamala Harris versus Joe Biden, two members of the same administration and party. Second, the similarity between the treatment of Kamala Harris and that of Hillary Clinton in 2016. Two women who vied for the same office, the highest office in the land, both undermined by persistent biases. Lastly, I will highlight the experience of other comparable women in various elected positions, across the partisan aisle. Together, these analyses paint a grim picture: the media is creating and proliferating gendered narratives that disadvantage women, hindering their chances of electoral success.
Biden Versus Harris: A Tale of Two Narratives
During both his 2020 and 2024 campaign, Joe Biden was consistently framed as a seasoned statesman, a leader with decades of experience, and a steady hand to guide the nation. Media outlets frequently highlighted his foreign policy achievements and his role in restoring alliances during his post-Trump presidency. For instance, The Associated Press described Mr. Biden’s efforts to strengthen global partnerships as a testament to his consistently strong leadership and dedication to public service. The Associated Press also describes the American-Afghanistan exit as a strong move to fulfill a great American promise, and they similarly laud Mr. Biden’s ability to rally allies in support for Ukraine and crediting him for Ukraine's maintaining of sovereignty. The Associated Press once again reports that Mr. Biden’s relationship with Israel and his handling of the Middle Eastern tension that surrounded Israel at the time was well done, and that Mr. Biden has a plan on the brink of fruition. The German Chancellor claims Mr. Biden knows “exactly what he’s doing” and has ensured “the U.S. is playing its role in the world;” thereby positioning him as a stabilizing force during uncertain times. These narratives painted Mr. Biden as a reliable leader, emphasizing his long-standing political career and commitment to diplomacy as contributing to his overall image of strength.
In contrast, Kamala Harris faced a markedly different portrayal. Rarely cited was her role as Vice President, extensive background as a U.S. Senator, and as an Attorney General. Media coverage often questioned her readiness and authenticity, failing to accurately credit her with the administration's successes while being quick to blame her for its failings. An analysis by The Times noted that Ms. Harris ran a campaign based on emotional appeal rather than substantive policy proposals. However on the official Harris campaign website there were no less than 13 policies proposed on a variety of issues. Coverage from The Atlantic observed that Harris’ accomplishments, such as leading the administration’s initiatives on voting rights and immigration reform, were often overshadowed by narratives focused on perceived missteps. In fact, The Times criticized the Harris-Walz campaign’s stances on economic issues meanwhile Ms. Harris was a part of the administration that saw a 46th record high in the S&P 500. Further, The Times condemned Ms. Harris as not being bold enough and failing to “seize the moment”. This discrepancy contributed to a narrative of Harris as less capable and relatable compared to Biden.
Kamala Harris also faced intensified scrutiny, with reports often focusing on internal campaign challenges and her public appearances. The New York Times detailed tensions within Harris’ campaign team, suggesting a lack of cohesion and strategy. This fuelled skepticism about her ability to lead, while simultaneously criticizing her track record as a prosecutor as being not progressive enough. Additionally, Fox News questioned her commitment to supporting Israel as a sovereign state, disregarding the Biden-Harris administration's track record of support for Israel. The Wall Street Journal highlighted how Ms. Harris held a critical role in addressing immigration from The Northern Triangle yet the media has often failed to credit her impact in addressing the root causes of immigration. This rhetoric amplified the perception of Ms. Harris as being underprepared and unable to meet the demands of the presidency.
A key aspect of the media’s portrayal of Kamala Harris was the use of coded language and dog whistles, harmful language that is only apparent to some, that have gendered connotations; benefiting men, while crucifying women. Words like “ambitious”, a quality celebrated in male politicians, were often used in a negative context to describe Ms. Harris, implying she was overly eager and power-hungry. In contrast, BBC portrayed “Biden’s 5 decades of ambition” as a laudable dedication to public service. This double standard extended to the tone of coverage, as seen in The New York Post, which downplayed Ms. Harris’ policy initiatives and contributions to the administration, while praising Mr. Biden’s achievements. These implicit biases in the media’s language cultivated a perception of Ms. Harris as less electable, further marginalizing her candidacy.
Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton: History Repeating Itself
The Times notes that the closer a woman gets to the top, the more dislikable she becomes. This is clearly demonstrated in the parallels between Kamala Harris in 2024 and Hillary Clinton in 2016. Both women faced relentless scrutiny over their authenticity, leadership style, and even their personal lives. Ms. Clinton’s loss is attributed in part due to the infamous email scandal. The Times describe the approach of journalists in this scandal as vultures with an appetite to air Ms. Clinton's dirty laundry. Similar server incursions against male candidates for various races have been treated with a dignified level of cautiousness, and candidates privacy has justly been respected. Similarly, Ms. Harris faced a barrage of stories focusing on minor missteps, often amplified to overshadow her significant accomplishments. CNN even went so far as to deem her a “nearly invisible vice president.”These criticisms were not reflective of what other VPs received. Both Ms. Clinton and Ms. Harris were also subjected to a unique level of personal criticism. Clinton’s “likeability” was endlessly debated, as if her qualifications weren’t endorsed by figures as reputable as former President Barack Obama. In fact, Vox reports that likeability is a non-issue for voters when considering male candidates, therefore insulating them from this level of scrutiny. Ms. Harris faced similar scrutiny, in the form of a dog whistle in regards to her “cackle,” likening her to a witch. These narratives reinforced the idea that women must fit an impossibly narrow mold to be considered viable candidates. The most damaging similarity, however, is the media’s role in shaping public perception. Research consistently shows that negative coverage of female candidates affects voter attitudes, often leading to the belief that these candidates are less competent or electable. By repeatedly highlighting perceived flaws while minimizing successes, the media primes voters to see these women as risky choices.
Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley: Both Sides of The Aisle
The issue of gender-biased media coverage is not an issue that impacts only a single party. Women across the political spectrum suffer from biased media coverage and this represents a systemic problem in how female leaders are portrayed and perceived. Republican Nikki Haley provides a clear example of this During her 2024 presidential campaign, Ms. Haley faced sexist remarks from both opponents and the public at-large. Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy dismissed her qualifications, and CNN’s Don Lemon stated that Haley, at 51, was “past her prime” for a presidential candidate, remarks that have not once been made about male candidates of the same age. Similarly, Sarah Palin’s 2008 vice-presidential campaign faced a barrage of sexist media coverage, with outlets focusing on her appearance, family choices, and even motherhood, trivializing her candidacy in comparison to male counterparts. Amy Klobuchar faced headlines that sensationalized her management style and personal quirks, such as using a comb to eat a salad, which were leveraged to paint her as unfit for leadership, an angle rarely taken with male candidates. While Amy Klobuchar topped the rankings for worst boss in the senate, Ms. Klobuchar was ahead of six other female senators. The top seven worst bosses in the senate were all women, but readers should be sure that the rankings in question are surely racked with bias. These instances demonstrate that sexism in political coverage is not limited by ideology but is instead a pervasive issue across the political spectrum. Women, regardless of their political affiliations, are often judged by a harsher standard that undermines their qualifications and perpetuates harmful stereotypes.
Conclusion
Ultimately readers need look no further for proof of gender bias than the headlines, seemingly every national media group seemed to be on a first name basis with Ms. Harris. This incontrovertible fact reveals a very simple example of gender bias, as explained by Glamour. The 2024 presidential election was not just a contest between candidates; it represents a litmus test for the media’s ability to uphold fairness and justice. Ms. Harris’s campaign highlighted how far we still have to go in dismantling gender biases that pervade our political system. As voters, we must demand better from the media and ourselves, ensuring that future elections are not marred by the same inequities. Because when we allow the media to dictate the narrative, we all lose, not just the candidate in the headlines.