Hillary Clinton Political Cartoon
Some of the biggest headlines to come from the attack in Benghazi were those that rang out from January 23, 2013 when Hillary Clinton executed one of her last responsibilities as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. On that day Clinton testified for a lengthy 11 hours in the congressional committee hearings regarding responsibility for the attacks that occurred in Benghazi in 2011. In a two-week time frame following the hearing, the media published upward of 93 articles that featured the words “Clinton” and “Benghazi” (Harp 198). With Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Senator, former first lady, and presidential hopeful, she stood in the spotlight for almost twenty years. So what makes this coverage any different? As Dustin Harp put it in Women’s Studies in Communication, “Analyzing coverage of Clinton during the Benghazi hearings helps articulate the ways in which gender played a role in the recent discourse.”
Commonly, Hillary Clinton has been described as “countersterotypical” to political gender norms. In fact, her “cold-heartedness” and questions surrounding her ”authenticity as a human being” have lead many to characterize her as a 21st century Lady Macbeth (Harp 199). However, news coverage took a different angle for this particular event.
The media reflected on her display of emotion and heightened the gender stereotypical jargon that guides the approval of decision makers in international relations. When analyzed, 80 out of the 93 articles regarding Clinton and Benghazi overwhelmingly narrated Clinton’s sadness and questioned her capability as a politician as a result (Harp 197). On CNN she was described as “chocked with tears” and USA Today rendered her “near tears.” Even the Washington Post mentioned she was “blowing her lid.” In Clinton’s case, the focus on her sadness and anger intertwine with past studies finding that news coverage focuses less on what women say and more on how they convey it (Harp 200). As Harp discovered, women are more likely than men to be paraphrased rather than quoted. Could this have enhanced her assumed fault for the attack in Benghazi?
On the contrary, other media texts denounced the sexist nature of the Benghazi hearing coverage. The New York Times described Clinton as “professional and authoritative…in the witness chair,” and MNSBC reported that she displayed “absolute confidence” (Harp 201). Clinton’s 70% approval rating spoke to her already well-established reputation.
Gallup Poll on Hillary Clinton’s Approval Ratings
The reports on Clinton’s testimony in the committee hearings not only continued to shape her public profile but also her credibility among fellow politicians. Later in October of 2015 National Public Radio host Ari Shapiro and journalist Carrie Johnson talked through Hilary Clinton’s testimony and unveiled both Republican and Democratic approaches to Clinton’s use of her personal, private email server while conducting State Department affairs. Washington State Democrat, Adam Smith remarked that anything found in Clinton’s emails from that point on lacked substance to change the Benghazi attack. Meanwhile, Republican Trey Gowdy emphasized Clinton’s total weakness in security and failed strategy in Libya.
The ambiguity circling how Clinton handled the hearing and conducted state affairs is a reflection of the “mismanaged message” stemming from the attacks in Benghazi. Though uncertainty around Hillary Clinton’s role in the attack is not the only reason the situation in Benghazi has misled its followers.
Next time…
Harp, Dustin, et al. “Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Hearing Coverage: Political Competence, Authenticity, and the Persistence of the Double Bind.” Women’s Studies in Communication, vol. 39, no. 2, Apr. 2016, pp. 193-210. EBSCOhost.
House Committee Members Grill Hillary Clinton on Benghazi. All Things Considered, 22 October 2015. Accessed 30 October 2017.
