Why I Watched 30 Hours of Morning Joe

By Gina Glantz

I started GenderAvenger, an online activist organization, to find ways to ensure that women are always part of the public dialog. In 2016, the public dialog will be dominated by presidential politics, an arena I know pretty well.

Undoubtedly, that accounts for my seeming obsession with Morning Joe’s coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Obsession is a strong term. I would prefer to be known as really, really annoyed. My annoyance started with a few chance viewings of Morning Joe where I spotted a notable lack of women political commentators. Was this a pattern or just a few one-offs?

To be sure that my annoyance was justified, I watched 30 (!) hours of the show. (12 hours the week of November 30th and 18 hours starting January 15.)

Here are the rules I created to assess gender balance on Morning Joe:

• I do not count Joe and Mika.
• Only individuals who discussed presidential politics are included. So, when Ambassador Wendy Sherman described the Iran deal without any mention of presidential politics, she was not included in the count, nor was Washington Post reporter David Ignatius when he did the same.
• Campaign “embeds,” reporters assigned to specific campaigns, are not included because they are not the choice of the show’s producers but rather the choice of the network.
• Political reporters such as Chris Jansing, Casey Hunt, and Halle Jackson are included, because they roam from campaign to campaign and are called upon for analysis.
• Andrea Mitchell, who hosts her own MSNBC show, is also included when she appears for the purpose of political commentary.

I did not count the minutes women spoke vs. the minutes men spoke, although I can say with some confidence that comparisons of time spent speaking would show an even more dramatic difference between male and female voices.

The Pattern Was Clear: Very Few Women Made It Into The Discussion Of Presidential Politics.

In December, Morning Joe went to New Hampshire and didn’t have one woman commenting on presidential politics — that in a state where 57% of the primary voters were women in 2008! Prior to the Iowa caucuses the show originated from Iowa where they did a bit better: three women, of whom one was the Des Moines Register pollster and another was the paper’s national political reporter. Unfortunately, back in the studio two days later (1/19), once again nary a woman commentator appeared when the presidential candidates, their statements, and their chances of winning their parties’ nominations dominated the conversation. (Find the particulars here (urls for previous posts with data)

I have never stopped at “annoyance”, so the GenderAvenger team put together a petition on Change.org][https://www.change.org/p/where-are-the-women] Boom! In three days almost 5,000 individuals had signed on.

And lo and behold, within two days of our public petitioning — and leading up to the Iowa caucuses — the composition of Morning Joe commentators around presidential politics changed dramatically.

• On Thursday, January 28, there were 36% women, which is 10 points higher than what we are accustomed to seeing.
• On Friday, January 29, there were more women than men! Overall: 8 men, 9 women.
• And, on Iowa caucus day on February 1, 9 out of the 22 folks in the discussion (40%) were women.

Election days are about excitement, disappointment, momentum, and expectations. Clearly, I am feeling some excitement and momentum.

I also have expectations. A three-day start toward a new ratio is great. The challenge is to keep it up so Morning Joe doesn’t backslide as it seems to have done today when three women made only cameo appearances among the 10 men who appeared. GenderAvenger will be watching and doing more than just counting the numbers. The fact is that male voices still dominate the conversation, so we will be looking for more air time for the women, as well.

Clearly, I can’t do it alone. This can’t be about personal pique. Certainly, Morning Joe shouldn’t be our only target. So I am excited that The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University will partner with GenderAvenger for a more complete look.

It is one thing for GenderAvenger’s Founder — me, that is — to stare at the TV and count. It is quite another for a renowned university center which focuses on women and politics at a major university to collect data on the same issue. That is why we are excited that Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) will ensure academic rigor and expand the count beyond Morning Joe to the highest rated morning and evening cable shows.

CAWP will not only count the number of men and women, but they will also look more deeply at representation and analyze their findings. The “Who’s Talking” project will launch in February and run throughout the election season.

GenderAvenger will share the findings and turn on our social media machine. We are hoping to find some shows that already reflect America’s voting population. And, when they don’t, if the Morning Joe response is an indicator, we can look forward to changing the face of presidential cable coverage.

Stay tuned.