Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Split Screen: Shirley Chisholm, cropped out of history -- Azza Cohen - The Contrarian
https://contrarian.substack.com/p/split-screen-shirley-chisholm-croppedPhotography can shape public perception of candidates. Continually showing a woman candidate alone makes it look as if she doesn't have support.
Fascinating reporting.
In 1972, U.S. Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.) made history as the first Black woman to run for a major party's presidential nomination. Her candidacy represented a pivotal moment in American politics. Close your eyes and picture her. Do you see her alone at a podium or commanding a crowd? If you've struggled to recall such images, there's a reason.
When analyzing the photographic record of Chisholm's groundbreaking campaign, I discovered three patterns of visual sexism that deserve our scrutiny: the persistent use of isolating close-ups, unflattering camera angles, and technical choices that failed to properly render her skin tone. This visual sexism didn't just document her candidacy—it also shaped how America perceived her campaign and the campaigns of women who came after her.
. . .
Seven Minutes: If She Can’t See It, She Can’t Be It
Perhaps the most egregious example of visual erasure came during the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Despite being a legitimate candidate who had amassed delegates, Chisholm received just seven minutes of coverage during the entire convention broadcast. For comparison, McGovern received over two hours of airtime, while even non-candidate Senator Ted Kennedy was given a full 30 minutes for his speech. Most tellingly, Massachusetts Gov. John Volpe—a Republican who wasn't even running—received 15 minutes of coverage, more than twice what was allocated to Chisholm. This disparity wasn't merely a reflection of political standing; it was a construction of it, actively diminishing the first Black woman to seek a major party's nomination.
Communication scholar Shawn Parry-Giles has documented how this type of structured invisibility in political coverage creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: Limited visual presence leads viewers to perceive candidates as less viable, which justifies further limiting their coverage (Parry-Giles, 2002). Seven minutes wasn't just insufficient, or a mistake; it was actively delegitimizing.
. . .
When analyzing the photographic record of Chisholm's groundbreaking campaign, I discovered three patterns of visual sexism that deserve our scrutiny: the persistent use of isolating close-ups, unflattering camera angles, and technical choices that failed to properly render her skin tone. This visual sexism didn't just document her candidacy—it also shaped how America perceived her campaign and the campaigns of women who came after her.
. . .
Seven Minutes: If She Can’t See It, She Can’t Be It
Perhaps the most egregious example of visual erasure came during the 1972 Democratic National Convention. Despite being a legitimate candidate who had amassed delegates, Chisholm received just seven minutes of coverage during the entire convention broadcast. For comparison, McGovern received over two hours of airtime, while even non-candidate Senator Ted Kennedy was given a full 30 minutes for his speech. Most tellingly, Massachusetts Gov. John Volpe—a Republican who wasn't even running—received 15 minutes of coverage, more than twice what was allocated to Chisholm. This disparity wasn't merely a reflection of political standing; it was a construction of it, actively diminishing the first Black woman to seek a major party's nomination.
Communication scholar Shawn Parry-Giles has documented how this type of structured invisibility in political coverage creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: Limited visual presence leads viewers to perceive candidates as less viable, which justifies further limiting their coverage (Parry-Giles, 2002). Seven minutes wasn't just insufficient, or a mistake; it was actively delegitimizing.
. . .