December 10, 2017

Press Mostly Ignores Gloria Steinem’s Howler: ‘Trump Lost by 10 Million Votes’

At the Massachusetts Conference for Women on Wednesday, so-called “feminist icon” and late-1990s Bill Clinton apologist and enabler Gloria Steinem made a big deal out the fact that she never has and never will call Donald Trump “president” — to her, he’s the “harasser in chief” — while claiming that Trump “lost” last year’s general election by “10 million votes.” The vast majority of the establishment press is ignoring Steinem’s virtually illiterate remark. In one noteworthy instance, the Associated Press either ignored the obviously noteworthy “10 million votes” claim or deleted it in a subsequent revision to an earlier report.

Steinem’s “10 million votes” remark has been reported at Bustle.com and New England Cable News, and has been sharply criticized by Matt Vespa at Townhall.com on Saturday. That’s it.

Steinem explained how she concocted her “10 million votes” fantasy in a mid-August Facebook post:

SteinemOnTrump10millionVotes0817

Steinem’s illogical nonsense demands that a presidential candidate must achieve a popular-vote majority to “win,” because her definition of the margin of defeat compares a candidate’s votes to all other votes.

Therefore, as seen below, Hillary Clinton also “lost” in 2016 — by 4.8 million votes (vote totals obtained here):

2016electionSteinemsRules0817

Likewise, Bill Clinton, who failed to achieve a popular-vote majority in either of his presidential election runs, “lost” by Steinem’s illogic in 1992 and 1996 by 13.7 million and 1.5 million votes, respectively.

Someone should send Ms. Steinem one of those “Math Class Is Tough” Barbie dolls which appeared briefly in the early-1990s.

As to the Electoral College having its basis in slavery, suffice it to say that Steinem is as bad at history as she is at math.

Saturday afternoon, Fox News published the following tweet which mentioned the “10 million votes” howler:

FoxTweetOnSteinem10milVotes120917

There’s only one problem: The link at Fox’s tweet, which goes to an Associated Press article at Fox’s website, currently has no reference to Steinem’s “10 million votes” statement. That same unbylined AP item is at dozens of other news sites, none of which contain any reference to that statement. The story is primarily about actress Meryl Streep’s Thursday statements at the conference, and only refers to Steinem in a single sentence in the second-to-last paragraph.

The AP appears to have intended that its subscribers replace a Wednesday item on Steinem’s appearance with the Thursday item currently seen at Fox. When a user searches Google News and clicks on many of the items containing Wednesday’s headlines (either “Gloria Steinem calls President Trump ‘harasser in chief’” or “Steinem takes shot at President Trump at women’s conference”), he or she gets taken instead to the same Thursday story seen at Fox.

That Wednesday AP item is still at a few websites. Though it also has no current reference to Steinem’s “10 million votes” statement, it may have had one in an earlier version. We’ll probably never know, because, as I noted several weeks ago, the AP has become far less transparent, and “better” at flushing old or revised stories down the memory hole.

Despite no visible evidence of Steinem’s “10 million votes” statement in any current AP story, it seems unlikely that Fox would have posted the tweet seen above while linking to a story not containing it. (A FoxNews.com search on “Steinem 10 million,” not in quotes, found no evidence that the story is present elsewhere on its website.)

Regardless of whether the AP ever reported Steinem’s “10 million votes” claim, the fact remains that it is not reporting it now. A prominent conservative or Republican women making a similarly stupid and ignorant claim would not get the pass Steinem is receiving, but would instead be mercilessly and prominently ridiculed.

The AP’s failure to report Steinem’s howler is consistent with the press’s history of preventing Steinem’s most provocative and controversial statements from becoming widely known. After all, she’s a feminist “icon”  who must be protected. What follows appears to be the most obvious example.

This so-called feminist “icon” flushed her feminist credentials down the toilet in March 1998 when, in a New York Times op-ed, she defended Bill Clinton against the charges which eventually led to his impeachment later that year.

The link to that op-ed in the previous paragraph was found in a public library database. That’s because I couldn’t locate it at the Times, which  is protecting Steinem. Here’s how.

In 2010, the Times published a highly selective excerpt from that 1992 op-ed. That six-paragraph excerpt, with the title changed from the original “Feminists and the Clinton Question” to “Why Feminists Support Clinton,” purged not only Steinem’s horrible attacks against Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, and Linda Tripp, but also her laughable assessment of Willey’s and Jones’s then-known allegations against Clinton.

Steinem’s original bottom line concerning Willey and Jones in March 1998 was: “It’s not harassment and we’re not hypocrites.”

That was sheer horse manure then, and is even more obviously so now.

Steinem’s original 1998 op-ed appears to be no longer accessible at the Times’s website; at the very least, it is not readily accessible. Searches on its published title (“Feminists and the Clinton question”), the 2010 title (in case the original title carried on was the same), its opening seven words (“If all the sexual allegations now swirling”), and on “Gloria Steinem Bill Clinton” failed to list that original op-ed in their results (all searches were done without quote marks). The final search just noted returned about a dozen letters to the editor responding to Steinem’s now-inaccessible op-ed — but not the op-ed.

Recalling Steinem’s now-virtually hidden bottom line is important, because of what the UK Guardian reported in late November:

Steinem said she did not regret writing the New York Times article in the first place.

“We have to believe women. I wouldn’t write the same thing now because there’s probably more known about other women now. I’m not sure,” she said on the red carpet of an annual comedy benefit for the Ms Foundation for Women, of which she is a founder.

“What you write in one decade you don’t necessarily write in the next. But I’m glad I wrote it in that decade.”

So defending a Democratic Party president with a demonstrated, proven history of sexual assault and harassment (as seen by that time in court documents and voluminous evidence gathered by an independent prosecutor), even to the point of denying that the harassed and assaulted accusers were not harassed and assaulted, was okay then. But attacking a Republican president as “harasser-in-chief” over a litany of aired but unproven charges is okay now. This is how easy it is for a bogus “feminist icon” to get rehabilitated by a friendly establishment press.

The Times clearly wants readers to believe that its 2010 Steinem excerpt fairly represents what she wrote in 1992. It clearly does not — and it doesn’t want its readers to find out otherwise.

Cross-posted, with possible revisions, at NewsBusters.org.

Share

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.