Why is it only women?

Why has the New York Times considered Condi's dress size, fashion preferences and exercise regimen newsworthy but has never informed people of Bush's waist size? Or How about John Kerry's inseam?

Though we don't know Bush's waist size, the New York Times has stated that Condoleezza Rice is between a size six and eight and she has a "girlish" laugh. The Washington Post has also said that, when dressed professionally in black, she looks like a dominatrix.

Why is this news? The media gives the people what they want, even though journalism is intended to represent the truth. Dominant media outlets serve corporate agendas, reinforce cultural stereotypes, and limit political debate about women’s issues. The media bias and inaccuracy legitimize popular myths about women, thus distorting reality. The media is used as a tool by men in positions of power to reinforce their power and status by demeaning women in order to perpetuate our inherently patriarchal society.

Condi the Rockstar

Condi’s frequent trips abroad have changed the face of US diplomacy, making it more personal, and she is also all business, with less time for sightseeing or other cultural connections that other secretaries have taken part in. The power of Condi’s celebrity is hard to miss when she arrives, onlookers smile and shout, and children wave furiously. Condi has been compared to a "rock star" by Dick Morris and stated that she would be an unstoppable candidate for president in 2008. She is Rock-star big. “A major cultural figure, adorning the bedroom walls of innumerable kids and the covers of innumerable magazines. She is a very appealing person: poised, gracious, humbly smart, still markedly southern after all these years in other parts. And she is also into sports: a tennis player, an untiring follower of college and professional sports.”
All the hype about Condi's new rock-star persona is just because politics has lost its fizz. The journalists and correspondents are bored. The fact that the world can't take its eyes off her gives the media something to draw peoples attention to by focusing on her new persona instead of what she is doing for the country.

Laura Disapproves of previous White House Décor

Laura Bush, Drudge wrote, was dismayed at what she saw: Not only were carpets and furnishings fraying and in disrepair in the west wing and public areas, but the Oval Office was decorated in loud colors, red, blue, and gold. The east wing was cut up into small offices and had exposed electrical conduits. Many of the furnishings looked dated. Mrs. Bush also noted that the Lincoln Bedroom looked worn out.

The first lady was appalled at the way the Clintons left the White House and Hillary Clinton's gaudy, outdated taste in decorating.

Instead of focusing on real issues the media compares Laura and Hillary on issues of house keeping and decorating, which is not only pointless but also demeaning to women. Yet with media coverage of this type of situation drama is created. There is no story whatsoever but this type of information entertains people by creating drama. People will be interested in this ridiculous banter and it does sell sadly enough, unlike the real issues that affect Americans. Thus the media covers stories like this that only entertain and provides no real information. The media is not fulfilling its role to the people to rely information that is actually pertinent by focusing on these absurd stories.

http://drudgereport.com

Illegal immigration and Jesus?
Hillary voiced her opposition to a House measure subjecting illegal aliens and those who hire them to criminal penalties saying we would need a "police state" to round up illegal immigrants, and that "is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably Jesus Himself."
The quote has been taken out of context purposely by many on the right who try to paint her comment as evidence that she said immigration reform was anti-Christian. That's not what she said, and attempts to portray it as though she did are cynically partisan.
Also, it seems that there is a big distinction between her saying that you would have to have a “police state” to enact this legislation, and that they are trying to create a “police state” by passing this legislation. The first is what she actually says; the second is an interpretation intended to portray the comment as more extreme than it actually is. This shows that the media will mischaracterize actual events to make their points by distorting what was said by taking the clips out of the context of the actual discussion.