Monica Lewinsky is making a comeback, just in time for the 2016 election. The increased focus on Lewinsky could negatively impact Hillary Clinton’s potential presidential campaign—reminding voters of a polarizing time in America, when her husband faced impeachment charges for lying about an affair to the American people. Combined with the recent Clinton email scandal, the reminder could spell disaster for the Hillary campaign. Yet, examining Lewinsky’s comeback in a larger context points to issues other than political corruption. Coverage of Lewinsky up to this point has focused mainly on the Clinton family’s role in making her the “most humiliated woman in the world.” But the case needs to be considered from a new angle, namely the media’s role in perpetuating sexism, which could have implications for the 2016 campaign, only the second election with a major, viable female candidate.
Lewinsky’s reinvention began in June of 2014 with an article titled “Shame and Survival” in Vanity Fair. In the article, Lewinsky blamed her experiences on the modern “culture of humiliation.” She draws parallels between her case and instances of cyber-bullying and slut-shaming, calling herself “possibly the first person whose global humiliation was driven by the Internet.” She wants to “burn the beret and bury the blue dress,” so that she can help other young people who find themselves victims of public shaming.
Lewisnky’s advocacy on the issue continued in March 2015, when she gave a TED talk called “The Price of Shame” in which she argued more explicitly that hers was a case of internet harassment. “Granted, it was before social media,” she said, “but people could still comment online, email stories, and, of course, email cruel jokes.” For the most part, she has reclaimed her identity, transforming herself into an advocate for young people. Her TED Talk may have even earned her a position on The View.
Lewinsky is shifting the focus from sex scandals and political corruption to a more populist, relatable, and uncontroversial issue: cyber-bullying. It’s an important issue to discuss, and Lewinsky’s crusade has earned it much-needed attention. Furthermore, Yet, to fully understand the significance of Lewinsky’s case, it’s important to not only look at the public-driven phenomenon of Internet-shaming. After all, Lewinsky is right to point out that her case differs dramatically from other cases of cyber-bullying: the case wasn’t driven by social media, but rather by news media. Yes, her public humiliation was partially fuelled by the Internet, after the scandal initially broke online on the Drudge Report. But columns, news articles, and traditional journalists also jumped at the opportunity to essentially bully a 25-year-old woman.
While this claim may seem hyperbolic, looking back at the kind of coverage Lewinsky received—from traditional news sources—is shocking. Amanda Hess, a staff writer for Slate, recently wrote an excellent piece exploring New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s coverage of the scandal. Hess points out that while initially Dowd was sympathetic towards Lewinsky, her opinions soon shifted. Before long, she referred to Lewinsky as “the girl who was too tubby to be in the high school ‘in’ crowd.” She wrote, “It appears that there’s one thing Monica has immunity from: brains.” When she ran into Lewinsky in a New York restaurant, Lewinsky’s exact meal was documented: “veggie appetizers and chicken tandoori.” This bullying didn’t occur on Facebook or Twitter, wasn’t carried out by misguided, hormonal teens. It was published in the New York Times, and earned Dowd a Pulitzer Prize.
Public feminists also condemned Lewinsky. In 1998, The New York Observer published a conversation between several Left-leaning writers and editors, called “New York Supergals Love That Naughty Prez.” In the conversation, Nancy Friday, a trail-blazing feminist writer, said that Lewinsky could “rent out her mouth.” Erica Jong, a second-wave feminist novelist, pointed out that Lewinsky had stage-three gum disease. Katie Roiphe, author of The Morning After: Fear, Sex and Feminism said, “the thing I kept hearing over and over again was Monica Lewinsky’s not that pretty.” These conversations weren’t carried out on social media or by Right-leaning, sexist newscasters—this isn’t Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut. This bullying was at the hands of self-proclaimed feminists.
In light of Lewinsky’s reinvention, some of her former tormentors have apologized. Erica Jong recently said, “If I ever said anything critical about [Lewinsky], I’m sorry, because women have a tough time when they get famous for anything sexual. People are cruel, and I’m glad she survived it. It’s a terrible thing to have to survive—and I have far more empathy now.” Feminist icon Gloria Steinam wrote, “I’m grateful to [Lewinsky], for having the courage to return to the public eye.”
But Lewinsky’s comeback and these apologies are covered by the same media outlets that initially villainized her, and many refuse to take the blame for their role in her humiliation. Maureen Dowd recently wrote a column on Lewinsky where she characterized her own role in the scandal very differently, “My columns targeted the panting Peeping Tom Ken Starr and the Clintons and their henchmen, for their wicked attempt to protect the First Couple’s political viability by smearing the intern as a nutty and slutty stalker.” Still, her inherent bias against Lewinsky is clear. In her TED Talk, Lewinsky compared her case to the case of Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers freshman who committed suicide after an intimate moment with another man was streamed online. Dowd describes this comparison as disingenuous and pretentious. Although similarities between the cases are genuine, Dowd is correct in saying that there is one major difference between Clementi’s case, in which his roommate bullied him, and Lewinsky’s. While Dowd writes, “[Lewinsky’s] bullies were crude strangers in person and online who reduced her to a dirty joke or verb,” she’s wrong—Lewinsky’s bullies included New York Times columnists—that is, Dowd herself.
Almost every article draws parallels between the Lewinsky case and cyber-bullying, but ignores the role of media in her demise. Sometimes, the articles seem internally conflicted by this diagnosis—simultaneously arguing that while the Internet caused her humiliation, it could also be a safeguard against a similar situation. A recent New York Times profile on Lewinsky described her case as one of typical cyber-bullying, but also quoted Clay Shirky, a journalism professor at NYU who said that while the scandal would have in some cases been more biting if it happened today, social media would have also given rise to more truly feminist coverage of Lewinsky: “If it happened today, I think the consensus that she deserved to be thrown under the bus would be considerably weaker…And the key thing that’s changed is not information — there were credible press reports about Cosby for years, just as Clinton’s denial was ridiculous on its face — but the ability to coordinate reaction.” Jessica Bennett, a columnist for Time, similarly argues, “Today Lewinsky would be likely to have defenders: there are simply more avenues to push back against a singular media narrative; and we have a new language with which to talk about it.”
Comments like these suggest that Lewinsky’s humiliation wasn’t truly a traditional case of cyber-bullying. Rather, traditional news outlets had a monopoly on coverage, and their bullying was considered journalistic—this wasn’t internet-shaming in a typical sense, it was news outlet-shaming, which is more problematic. Under the guise of journalism, legitimate media outlets participated in the culture of humiliation, without the Internet as a check on their power. Nowadays, as several articles point out, this kind of coverage would not be tolerated; people would take to Facebook and Twitter. As the New York Times profile points out, there would probably be an “#IStandWithMonica hashtag”. While it may have fanned the flames, the Internet isn’t responsible for Lewinsky’s humiliation. Furthermore, to characterize her case as a public-driven case of shaming, rather than acknowledge the inherent bias in news that influenced or even caused her public shaming, is a disservice to the future of journalism. As we turn to the 2016 election, it’s important to consider the media’s role in perpetuating outdated and prejudiced ideas. Lewinsky’s case was clearly driven by sexist views on female sexuality. The media needs to be held accountable for its shameful history. Looking forward, at the 2016 election in which several female candidates may run, this is even more important—will Hillary Clinton fall victim to the same news outlets that claimed Lewinsky?
The hope is that, with rising awareness of sexism in media and the rise of alternative Internet news sources, there are increased motivation and means to call out sexism. The Huffington Post reported on the double standard applied to Clinton’s emotional state, after media outlets reported that she became emotional during the Benghazi hearings: “if a man cries, it’s an honest show of emotion. If a woman even chokes up, she is a weak little girl who can’t be trusted in a position of power.” However, traditional media outlets, which hold a considerable amount of power despite the rise of alternative news, continue to object to any accusations that their coverage will differ for a female candidate. In 2008, accusations of sexism in news coverage did not lead to any major changes in traditional media, although a 2008 article in the New York Times pointed out that, despite the unchanging views of news outlets, the view is still somewhat widespread: “The perception that sexism tainted coverage of the Clinton campaign — a view expressed on Internet postings and in conversations among women — appears to be gaining ground more in political circles than in the mainstream news media.” Again, the rise of the Internet is responsible for this new awareness. In the last eight years, the Internet has only become further ingrained in our culture, which make a difference for Clinton’s campaign, allowing voters to call out traditional media. And some news outlets, including Slate and The Huffington Post, and even the New York Times, despite Dowd’s coverage, seem to be aware of the media’s history of sexism. But, the Internet also polarizes news sources—conservative readers don’t read Slate, and aren’t exposed to the kinds of conversations that might call out sexism in the media. Even if there’s a venue for progressive thoughts on Clinton’s campaign, it might not have the reach that’s needed to impact the election. Yet, even if these conversations aren’t far-reaching yet, they’re still important: Lewinsky’s case offers a glimpse of the media’s shameful history of sexism, and her comeback suggests that it is possible for public opinion to shift.