Saturday, December 01, 2007

Regal? Coronation-By-Media Begins



regal: [ rg'l ] royal, characteristic of or suitable for a king or queen, especially in grandeur or magnificence [14th century. Via French< Latin regalis< reg-, "king"] - MSN/Encarta Dictionary

Raw Story has emphasized, in a headline at the website today, that an AP wtiter has used the word "regal" to describe Senator Hillary Clinton's demeanor after the situation with Leeland Eisenberg, who walked into a Rochester, N.H. Clinton campaign office and took hostages yesterday, was resolved by New Hampshire authorities.

"When the hostages had been released and their alleged captor arrested, a regal-looking Hillary Rodham Clinton strolled out of her Washington home, the picture of calm in the face of crisis," [the AP's] Glen Johnson wrote. "The image, broadcast just as the network news began, conveyed the message a thousand town hall meetings and campaign commercials strive for — namely, that the Democratic presidential contender can face disorder in a most orderly manner."

I asked myself the following, just because it's like me to question...

Did anyone from the AP ever call John Edwards or his wife Elizabeth Edwards "regal" on the day that they stood before America and had to tell them that Elizabeth' cancer had returned?

I checked. I mean, if I could think of a day when two people stood by looking mature graceful, serious, determined and strong, it was certainly Mr. and Mrs. Edwards.

The AP made no mention of their demeanor nor did they submit adjectives regarding the Edwardses' appearance that day at all.

When is an ordeal not an ordeal?

At the time Mrs. Edwards had made her announcement, the AP had quoted and properly placed in the article Hillary Clinton's statement about Mrs. Edwards:
“I admire her optimism and strength in the face of adversity, and I look forward to seeing them both on the campaign trail.”


...but the AP writers never commented on nor did they submit gushing adjectives about their opinion of Elizabeth's appearance...or John's demeanor. I would guess that's because good journalism tells you the facts and let you decide the rest for yourself.

Six months after Elizbeth Edwards' difficult public announcement, an AP writer referred to Elizabeth as "pit-bull."


Hardly a term to inspire the classic vision of a future first lady.

Hillary Clinton isn't in line to be a Queen and I think the AP writers, to say the least, went overboard, considering Senator Clinton merely stood vigilant and caring and hoped and prayed, as all of us did, that no one would be hurt in Rochester.

5 comments:

Barbara said...

This deification of Hillary is really pissed me off. UGH.

Jude Nagurney Camwell said...

Professional newswriters and their editors should know better than to inject the language of glorification into news reporting and still expect the critical public to view their efforts as professional fact-finding.

The 'regalization' of Hillary and 'pit-bullization' of Elizabeth are AP narratives that are unfair to and untrue about both women. Sadly, the pundits repeat these terms and narratives like mockingbirds once they see them in print.

Mark Wooding said...

I would have been impressed had she flown to New Hampshire to show her employees/volunteers that she would be there for them when they needed her. While walking out of her house to give a statement wasn't contemnible, neither was it laudable.

Chancelucky said...

"regal" may not be all that positive an adjective for some people. When it comes to politics, I rather think "pitbull" is much more of a compliment. It means someone who won't give up and who gets things done regardless.
Regall makes me think Nancy Reagan.

DaisyDeadhead said...

I don't think it makes Hillary look good at all.

I thought Edwards did best in the Iowa caucus debate.