Congo women who came to hear US Secy of State Hillary Clinton. Image by Janine Zacharia

Last night wasn’t a shining spotlight for three male journalists on “Washington Week in Review”. Gwen Ifill was off.

Nor was the week a glowing one for male journalists generally — at least not in their coverage of Hillary Clinton and women’s rights abuses.

Atrocities against women in the Congo carried little interest with the guys, who make up the majority of onscreen journalists. (Note, most women bloggers weren’t interested either.) I’ve tried to help you with the story.

I’m a regular “Washington Week in Review” watcher, and all I can say is thank goodness for the journalistic integrity of Bloomberg News Janine Zacharia, who walked the extra mile for Hillary, in the old boy’s network, last night.

This is tough talk from me, but this week male journalists get the big thumbs down in my playbook, for doing nothing to articulate international women’s issues. Feature stories on women were lost to boy-babble about Hillary’s ‘meltdown’, senior moment, and hormonal imbalances.

Under pressure to join them in a bit of Hilllary-bashing last night, PBS style, Janine Zacharia stood her ground, defending exactly what happened in the now infamous Hillary comment.

Had anyone just looked at the video, instead of jumping all over the Secy of State, they wouldn’t have made two retractions about what the questioner really meant, addressing Mrs. Clinton. He spoke in English and he definitely insulted her.

The question: We’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country — the interferences from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, and what does Mr. Mutumbo think on this situation?” (via NYTimes, who also disowned the buzz on Aug. 13)

If the questioner didn’t speak English, and didn’t know what he was saying, he shouldn’t have addressed Hillary Clinton in the first place.

The questioner lives in the Congo, where women have no rights to speak of. They are nearly the legal property of their husbands, which is why they are raped at random and used as weapons of war.

Why was this event not a live example of paternalistic smugness in action, Congo style — rather than Hillary having a feisty meltdown. Why not take the questioner at his word, that he was merely reflecting the values and attitudes of his society?

I noted to my friend last evening that it’s an interesting moment in American media, when Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal speak favorably about Hillary’s trip to Africa, and the liberal media are jumping all over her disposition, rather than the story, even on PBS.

My question “Washington Week in Review”: “Why did you focus on this incident last night, rather than the other events of Secretary of State Clinton’s week in Africa?” Did listeners really need to hear ‘your take’ on that news conference moment? This is not why I watch PBS.

So much for journalistic purpose and standards. Thank you, Janine, for not taking the bait last night, and telling the story exactly as it happened. Anne

Read the WSJ’s Weekend interview: The Hillary Doctrine