In defense of Wasserman-Schultz and other powerful women

If you’re one of the 30 million people who follow CNN on Twitter, you have probably read the news of my congresswoman, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, announcing her resignation as chair of the Democratic National Committee.  You might also know about her “unfair” practices against the Bernie Sanders campaign as well as her role in the DNC-Wikileaks scandal. 

While her resignation is interpreted as an “I told you so” moment by Bernie Bros, the occurrence should shed some light on a much more daunting issue.

{mosads}Women in power are at a clear disadvantage in the media and it is time to have some dialogue on this.

Look up my congresswoman’s credentials and you will find a multitude of accomplishments.  She took over as chairwoman of the DNC only a year subsequent to the “biggest loss of seats in either party since the Great Depression” and helped the party win the White House.  Wasserman-Schultz led the Party out of $24 million in debt after President Obama won his second election.  Wasserman-Schultz wrote the EARLY Act that was signed into law in 2010 to prevent young women from developing breast cancer.

Wasserman-Schultz takes action on issues that matter. Helping our first black president win a second term and saving young women’s lives are efforts that are commendable.

Where was the media when she attained all of that?

Instead of hearing about her feats in public service, we listen to a rancor of ad hominem attacks. 

Greg Gutfeld and Monica Crowley, of Fox News Channel, spit low-ball attacks on her hair.

Where’s cable news when retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn retweeted an anti-Semitic message on his Twitter?  How about the time Donald Trump said he loves war?  Or when New Gingrich received $1.5 million to lobby for Freddie Mac?

These are all men who’ve been in the public eye for ages yet prominent outlets gave them a pass on these controversial issues.

This pick-and-choose reporting assures Americans that it’s okay to be a lieutenant general and post hateful rhetoric but it’s not okay to be a congresswoman and serve the best interests of your political party.

Would a woman be reprimanded for speaking her mind, even if it’s not offensive?  Yes.

Everyone was really quick to chastise Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her comments on Donald Trump last week.  But he can say he loves war and many will ignore.

An even better example that explains this asymmetrical reporting is the Clintons.  Former President Bill Clinton can get away with hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees but Hillary Clinton receives criticism for wearing a yellow jacket that she wore at a debate.

This is leads me to my final comparison of this phenomenon: reporting on (soon-to-be former) DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz versus RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. 

My congresswoman scheduled six debates for the Democrats whereas Priebus confirmed 12 of them for the Republicans.  There were three Democrats at the time of scheduling compared to 17 Republicans.  If both parties anticipate two-hour long debates, then individual Democratic presidential candidates receive a lot more airtime than that of the Republicans. 

Not only did Wasserman-Schultz grant Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley more room to discuss their policies than Reince Priebus did for his own party, but she also received scrutiny for it.  I don’t see any criticism against the GOP chairman for this.

It is time for fair reporting.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is only the most recent of many women who suffered from this double-standard in coverage.

This is not an excuse for her actions.  But the media is not excused either.

Noah Levy is a rising sophomore at American University. He lives in Rep. Wasserman-Schultz’s Florida district.