By NOW President Kim Gandy

The news lately has been a roller coaster of extremes — shifting between hope and injustice, success and tragedy, gain and loss. The only consistent aspect is the major role the media play in telling these stories, and the abuse of their power to shape the news.

The murder of Dr. George Tiller has altered the foundation of security in women’s reproductive health care. Dr. Tiller dedicated his life to providing full reproductive health care for women, including safe and legal later abortions, in his hometown of Wichita, Kansas. He did this despite the environment of hostility and menace that surrounded him, brewed up by the radical right. The outpouring of grief and appreciation seen at the many vigils and memorial ceremonies was a testimony to Tiller’s dedication to women’s reproductive rights and the momentous impact he had on the lives of women everywhere.

He was not unaware of the danger: Tiller wore Kevlar to work, drove a bullet-proof car, and had previously been shot in both arms by another anti-abortion terrorist. Still, Dr. Tiller knew that as one of the incredibly few providers of later abortions in the U.S., he played a crucial role in the lives of the women he served. The walls of his clinic were literally covered with letters from grateful patients.

At the good news end of the spectrum, on May 26 President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next U.S. Supreme Court justice. Not only would Sotomayor be the third woman to ever sit on the high court, but she would also be the first Hispanic. Sotomayor’s landmark nomination reflects a much needed step forward for representation of women and people of color in the three branches of government.

Unfortunately, the media has displayed many of its bad habits in covering these two stories. Some media talking heads took the Sotomayor nomination as an opportunity to unwrap their favorite stereotypes of Hispanics, women, and in particular, Hispanic women, while doing their best to ignore her impressive qualifications and accomplishments. At the same time, media coverage of Dr. Tiller’s murder has exposed some pretty ugly truths about the media’s handling of reproductive rights issues.

Unsurprisingly, right-wing blowhard Bill O’Reilly was one of the most vocal opponents and antagonists of Dr. Tiller. From the first time Tiller’s name surfaced on The O’Reilly Factor in early 2005, the show host brought up the doctor on 29 different episodes, typically including the blatantly false and inflammatory characterization of him as “the baby killer.” Hate speech such as this littered O’Reilly’s commentary: Tiller’s medical services were referred to as “Nazi stuff,” and Tiller had “blood on his hands.” On his radio show in 2006 O’Reilly appeared to begin a threat, only to catch himself: “And if I could get my hands on Tiller — well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes. Can’t do that. It’s just a figure of speech.”

Many have pointed to O’Reilly’s loathsome jargon as a possible catalyst for the murder. O’Reilly and those like him will claim that their hateful rhetoric is nothing more than free speech and has no bearing on the actions of the man who murdered Dr. Tiller. But make no mistake, hate speech of this kind sets the stage for those who carry out the dirty work of the anti-abortion movement.

Extremists like O’Reilly aren’t the only ones furthering their anti-women agenda. Mainstream news sources like NBC often repeat right-wing terms, such as referring to Tiller not as the OB/GYN he was, but as an “abortion doctor,” even an “abortionist.” The website Slate asked the question “Is it wrong to kill an abortionist?”

I probably don’t need to tell you this, but “abortionist” is not a real medical term; and this type of language diminishes health care professionals like Tiller, a highly-skilled and well-respected physician who used his medical training to lawfully assist women in dire need of medical treatment.

And he was murdered in public — not just to punish and halt Dr. Tiller himself, but to send a message to anyone who assists women in exercising their full reproductive rights. This was an act of domestic terrorism, and any terminology suggesting that Dr. Tiller may have had it coming is shameful. On the bright side, we applaud “CBS Evening News with Katie Couric” for calling Tiller’s murder a “hate crime” on its June 10 edition, comparing it to that day’s killing of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, apparently by a white supremacist.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has, of course, fallen under the scrutiny of a biased media as well. Portrayals of the judge in mainstream journalism range from ridiculous to offensive. First of all, her intelligence has been questioned in a way that it would be hard to imagine if the nominee were a white male judge with the same number of years on the bench. Race and gender have served as fodder for all kinds of implications and outright slurs.

At least three nationally-syndicated political cartoonists chose to use the image of a piñata to illustrate the GOP attacks on Sotomayor. The one that stirred up the most controversy ran in The Oklahoman — the cartoon, by Chip Bok, featured Sotomayor as a piñata offered up by President Obama (wearing a sombrero, no less) to a group of bat-wielding elephants. Not only are these cartoons distasteful and evocative of violence against women, they imply Sotomayor is Mexican, which she is not — her Puerto Rican background has been well publicized. Using a tired cliché as an all-purpose symbol for any Hispanic person is both lazy and insulting.

The media’s play with the interchangeability of women of color continued in the National Review‘s cover art portraying Sotomayor as South Asian above the headline “The Wise Latina.” These racist stereotypes — that Asians are “wise,” that all women of color can be ushered into any racial categorization of Other — are extremely offensive and, again, detract from the heart of the matter: Sotomayor is unquestionably qualified for the position.

So, what do you do with a candidate who is clearly experienced and qualified? Sotomayor’s conservative critics have referred to her as “too aggressive” and the media have been only too willing to pass along remarks from those like Lindsey Graham who accuse the judge of having a “temperament problem.” Sound familiar? While men are rewarded for being assertive, women with even an ounce of confidence combined with power are threatening, and are condemned for it — just look at Hillary Clinton. And a Latina? Well, she must be out of control! Especially when she’s menstruating, according to radio crackpot G. Gordon Liddy.

The other major diversion from Sotomayor’s obvious eligibility is the claim of “reverse racism.” Reverse racism — an oxymoron, since the systems that oppress cannot be simply reversed, and certainly not by a single individual — has been attached to Sotomayor for her outspoken belief that her experiences as a woman and a minority, two classes of people who often experience discrimination and undue hurdles in life, might just bring a perspective to the bench that is understandably missing from most white men’s field of view.

Indeed, the media seem to be having a field day critiquing successful, powerful women (especially when they’re women of color) and providing rhetorical cover for the anti-abortion movement. This is a critical time for feminists to speak up, to call the media to task for their words and images, to demand better from the people who inform and entertain us — because the daily barrage of media messages that most of us consume shapes how we think about each other, ourselves, the world and our rights.

That’s why NOW just re-launched our successful Media Hall of Shame. Since its founding, NOW has noted the impact that media have on women’s everyday lives and on our ability to achieve equality. Throughout the years NOW has organized numerous actions and campaigns aimed at the media — my first was a series of broadcast license challenges in 1979 back in Louisiana. Early in 2007 we began analyzing and writing about the media’s sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and other women politicians. We also pointed out how gender stereotypes were used to demean male candidates.

As the attacks on Clinton continued relentlessly, NOW’s work on the topic grew into our first Media Hall of Shame. We went on to highlight racist and sexist offenses targeting Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin, and we even gave out “awards” to the worst of the worst at last year’s NOW conference.

After the election, it was time to expand the scope of the Hall of Shame to cover not just politically-focused media, but all kinds of media content, like primetime entertainment programming, commercials and music videos. We came up with a whole new look and feel for Version 2.0 of the Media Hall of Shame, and I’m really excited about its launch last Friday.

On the Media Hall of Shame website, you’ll find regular posts about hostile, ignorant and biased comments we’ve observed in the media. Readers can rate each item on our “Misogyny Meter” and see which ones are leading the pack as the most despicable. Links to contact information for the offenders will be available so you can write them and express yourself. We may even post positive examples of media behavior from time to time and ask you to write letters of thanks that request more responsible, inclusive content that shows respect for all women.

With the stories of Judge Sotomayor and Dr. Tiller in the news, and the next big story just around the corner, we have our work cut out for us. But demanding justice from the media is part of the work we love so much. I hope you’ll join us!