A sorority? Says who?

Being a female college student, the word "sorority" was bound to catch my attention. I quickly became puzzled once I read who was in this "elite sorority" the New York Times wrote about: Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and ... Nancy Pelosi? My roommate for the semester worked in Rep. Bachmann's office for the last three months so I feel I know her more than the average Tennessean. Granted, I probably just know what kind of coffee she drinks and what her son's name is, but that's still something, right? From my little knowledge of these women, I do know that it makes sense to group Palin and Bachmann together. The confusion starts when you link Speaker Pelosi with them. The New York Times published an article highlighting the ways in which these three powerful women were alike. The biggest common denominator was the fact that they are all mothers of five. Two questions crossed my mind when I read. First of all, who gave the author the authority to call these women a sorority? Secondly, why does it matter? Where is the news value?

The article is relatively short but there are no voices in it other than the author. Leisl Shillinger does quote Bachmann a couple times but only from public speeches, not private interviews. She also compares Palin and Bachmann to a 1997 film “Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion.” It all seems like opinion to me as she casts them in roles from the movie:

But on the triumphal dais in Minnesota, Sarah and Michele (above) shrewdly took turns in the Mary role, and took care to magnify their common ground.

She does not have any outside sources supporting this idea. Therefore, it ends up being simply her opinion. She writes:

... The three belong to what may be the smallest, most exclusive clique in American politics.

Says who? This is fine if it was an opinion piece and had some news value to it. However, it is in the Style section of the New York Times, not the op-ed section. While I believe the Style section of a paper has a little more leeway in what they write about, I still think it should have news value. The definition of this "clique" and  is summed up in one sentence:

The admission requirements are beyond most women, and all men: members must be prominent players in the United States political arena and must have given birth to not one, not two, not three, not even four — but five children, something that presumably gives them more in common than they might like to admit.

The fact that Pelosi, Palin and Bachmann all have five kids and are in prominent positions of power does not qualify as newsworthy. This is not timely information: their children are not newborns. While the three women are prominent figures, they have done things that are of much more value in the political world than the fact that they have children. There is no conflict in this article and there is nothing bizarre about raising children. Although I personally enjoyed reading this article because it sparked my interest, I do not thing it is newsworthy. It, therefore, makes me question whether the New York Times is settling for eye-catching, attention-holding articles about less important things rather than hard news stories. I believe this is a sign of the times: we are more into entertainment and gossip than things that really matter.

Comments

[Mimi Perreault]

Kim very interesting perspective on this NYT story