Sensationalist media coverage can’t look past Megyn Kelly’s gender

Tuesday night, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had an exchange that has taken over the news cycle.

The interview included statements such as “you are fascinated by sex and you don’t care about public policy” and “listen, it’s not about me, it’s about the women and men of America.”

While contentious and at times amusing, would these two minutes of interview have been such a story had both parties been men?

Consider how involved women are in the presidential campaign and its coverage. In 2016, there are more women behind the microphone reporting on the campaign than ever before.

Beyond each presidential candidate’s press corps, there are women providing commentary, hosting major political shows, serving as campaign managers, moderating debates, and even creating the news by running for president.

However, the story that comes through the screen is not a focus of that woman’s professional skills, talents or pithy commentary, but around her gender.

What did she wear? Was her hair too severe? Is she likable? The conversation after a debate isn’t on Trump’s tie but on Clinton’s pantsuit.

No matter what side of the aisle she is on — or even on what side of the screen — a woman is never just a national media figure but an explicitly female national media figure.

MORE STORIES FROM THE HILL:

How will we heal our divided nation? Time to think post-2016 election

Surprise: Megyn Kelly gives Hillary Clinton a birthday present

Forget the fence — E-Verify shuts down illegal immigration’s magnet

This year’s media coverage should be a banner year for women, but how can we claim success if the conversation is still gender, persona, clothes? We are breaking through the glass ceiling of the industry in number and resume but the conversation is trailing decades behind.

If Gingrich had the same interview with Rush Limbaugh no one would create the story of him-versus-her.

Women are saddled with the topics of sex and appropriateness and strain under that weight every time they make it to the table.

Kelly, and others, represent that women can drive the political dialogue in ways we could not have 10 to 15 years ago, but when push comes to shove she still gets called out because she’s a female. After all, this is not the first time in the 2016 campaign cycle her gender has been part of the story:

Whether we like it or not, media is feeding the beast; there is entertainment value to a conversation between a political host and a political figure without gender becoming the foundation.

The media industry has an opportunity to bridge the gap between who is reporting and the discussion on why they are there.

We have come a long way, but there’s a marathon left to go. With more remarkable women on-air and in the executive suite across the media industry, it is clear positive change is happening. Let’s continue to focus the conversation on what is being reported and celebrate inclusion without making it the story.

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.