home
RSS
October 24th, 2012
08:15 PM ET

Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones

A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.

After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.

We thank you for your comments and feedback.

 


Filed under: No Category

soundoff (376 Responses)
  1. Kimberly

    Are you #%(&)#$Ing kidding me, CNN? really? really?

    October 24, 2012 at 20:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  2. duchessladygeek

    Seriously? Like hormones don't drive men's votes – and all war has been completely rational?

    Newflash CNN – no human is hormone free, and frankly, I don't think estrogen is causing the most damage here...just sayin'

    October 24, 2012 at 20:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • peggy waldron

      Apparently CNN will say and do. anything to re-elect our failed....so called leader.

      October 26, 2012 at 00:40 | Report abuse |
    • heapinhymen

      CNN removed the story and wrote "some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN." Now I am confused, when did CNN instate a policy of editorial standards? They've proven themselves a left-wing rag for the last four and a half years, why would they want to change now? Well there is the Romney is going to win thing and the poor ratings that being a one-sided "news organization" will earn a station.

      October 26, 2012 at 03:39 | Report abuse |
    • R.K.

      CNN is nothing but a junk tabloid, and has been for years... I stopped watching a year and a half ago for that reason, and deleted my iphone app yesterday because of this story – absolutely NO integrity! I am embarrassed for CNN, the stories they choose to cover and the "angle" they take on their stories. It doesn't take a genius to know what absolute crap CNN is pumping out on a regular basis, but this story really takes the cake.

      And BTY, CNN, everyone knows that poor Anderson Cooper is constantly getting thrown under the “cheap news for thrills and ratings bus” all the time... Is he so desperate to keep his job that he won't stand up for credibility and integrity? WOW. WAKE UP OR GET OFF THE AIR CNN!

      October 26, 2012 at 09:28 | Report abuse |
    • Richard

      If CNN is deliberately trying to run their network into the ground, it is all too obvious. Hurry up and get it over with, would ya?

      Disgusting.

      October 26, 2012 at 09:36 | Report abuse |
    • Miss Information

      After this story, ANYONE associated with CNN has lost ALL credibility. Too bad Candy Crowley just hosted the presidential debate. I'm willing to bet no one from CNN will ever be asked to do that again...

      Candy, during the debate, ALMOST got me to start watching CNN again... Glad I never actually did, I would have been sick to my stomach as usual, apparently. I hope she leaves the network, if she doesn't she is supremely limiting her future in believable and credible reporting.

      October 26, 2012 at 09:55 | Report abuse |
  3. Suzanne

    This is offensive in its claims. CNN, stop covering useless information that perpetuates discrimination. The idea that any woman is "more religious" while ovulating is ridiculous. Feminine views on religion and politics don't change every few weeks. Our values do not drift due to hormone surges. Printing this crap ought to be beneath you, but apparently, by CNN standards, this is worth covering. Shame on you.

    October 24, 2012 at 20:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Catherine

      Thank you! This reads like an "Onion" article. CNN, you should be ashamed. There's a reason CNN is going under- your shameless lack of integrity. This sort of "journalism" will serve you well in your future reality television industry.

      October 25, 2012 at 04:18 | Report abuse |
    • EA

      Catherine – You're totally right – "Onion" article all the way!

      October 25, 2012 at 21:21 | Report abuse |
  4. jherad

    Anyone remember when CNN wasn't terrible?

    October 24, 2012 at 20:28 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Lenny-t

      Yeah, I remember. That was back when they were a tight, disciplined, bunch of tough reporters led by Ted Turner. I remember their excellent coverage of the first Gulf War. They sey the standard back thenm. Now they are bloated, top-heavy, and just another make-believe news channel

      October 25, 2012 at 08:30 | Report abuse |
    • Hillcrester

      The cable TV service is even worse. Blitzer and Foreman, along with Burnett, seem to for the sensational: drilling down, seeibg who's lying, etc. Plus melodramatic Lemon. Their array of political commentators and consultants is the best, however.

      October 25, 2012 at 13:18 | Report abuse |
  5. mariaprama

    I think the accreditation agency may need to take a loot at U Texas at San Antonio. I am not sure these researchers know the different between a dependent and an independent variable. And I'm not even a social scientist. Preposterous. Why did CNN even post it?

    October 24, 2012 at 20:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  6. pianofan

    I would so totally for anyone whose name was outlined in pink!!!!

    October 24, 2012 at 20:49 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. lissakay

    This post has been removed because it "did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."

    When in the blue heavens has CNN ever had editorial standards???

    October 24, 2012 at 21:57 | Report abuse | Reply
  8. ien

    Didn't meet editorial standards, hm? Where were you in your cycle when you made that decision, I wonder?

    No, I suspect you thought it was an interesting piece of research to look at but you panicked over the blowback.

    In fact, it's rare to see news coverage of this election in which women's reactions to the candidates are NOT sexualized in one way or another. The fact that women's hormonal cycles are more or less regular make them easier to study than men's, so it's worth looking at. Just because you suffered a bout of belated editorial correctness doesn't mean the campaigns aren't going to be looking hard at this kind of research. So what's wrong with the rest of us, and women voters in particular, getting to look at the same information? Doesn't mean that the conclusions are valid, doesn't mean they're bogus. But if you publish it, publish it. Unfortunately, your retraction is the news.

    October 24, 2012 at 22:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Julie058

      Ien: The point was that "this kind of research" wasn't adequate. So, of course nobody is "looking hard" at it. Not in any real consideration, anyway. This "research" showed a blatant lack of understanding of the female body/ as well as hormones in general. It was unfounded in the extreme, which is why CNN aptly chose to remove it. The only reason anyone would "panic" over reading this article was at the idea that a news source would publish something so bizarre and offensive.

      October 25, 2012 at 09:13 | Report abuse |
    • Brian R

      Except the study was done by women.

      October 25, 2012 at 12:39 | Report abuse |
    • EA

      Brina R – Like that matters! Kind of a simple take on it don't you think? And who knows if it was all women working on the study.

      October 25, 2012 at 21:19 | Report abuse |
  9. Michelle

    The article was offensive. Shame on CNN!

    October 24, 2012 at 22:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. priscilla

    Fail. Serious Fail.

    October 24, 2012 at 22:32 | Report abuse | Reply
  11. CAS

    Ms. Landau is an excellent journalist – period. Her piece was balanced, provocative, fresh and well researched. Any attacks on her character or her reporting skills are completely unwarranted. She presented a controversial study, which she obviously had exclusive access, and she explored its merits with numerous academics. To insinuate that she should not have published this piece is preposterous – this is what we journalist do... we shed light on views, people and conflicts to inform and enlighten the public. Some may find the study and its conclusions offensive – fine – but to call into question the integrity and intelligence of Ms. Landau is crossing the line.

    October 25, 2012 at 01:08 | Report abuse | Reply
    • anaqin

      i read the article and in no part of it was mentioned that the research was 'controversial'. it was presented, as any research would, in a rather "this might be true" tone, plase don't patronize me.

      the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended. i am not offended by the writer. i am offended by the writing presented as if it supported the research.

      October 25, 2012 at 01:38 | Report abuse |
    • The Editor

      "the study is offensive, the writer should've written it in a different style then people perhaps might not be offended."

      I ONLY WANT TO HEAR THINGS THAT FIT MY LIBERAL, "EVERYONE IS EXACTLY THE SAME", WORLDVIEW! *Sticks fingers in ears* LA LA LA LA, LA LA LA LA

      October 25, 2012 at 09:01 | Report abuse |
    • arm542

      CAS – You bring up a valid point. Ms Landau may have offered a well-researched, provocative viewpoint in her article. She is employed to search out and bring forth stories for the greater public to latch onto or call into question. While she certainly has every right to publish this article, she is also perpetuating the same conversation around women that has existed for hundreds of years. We still think that women are ruled by their emotions. I can tell you whether I'm ovulating, not-ovulating, on my period, or straight out devoid of any reproductive system – my beliefs and my opinions are not ruled alone by my hormones, emotions, or "feelings." Of course there's a correlation, of course. But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns. "Men are rational, logical thinkers. They are not ruled by their emotions or hormones." What we need to see from intelligent journalists like Ms. Landau (and yourself from what I read) is a change in the conversation surrounding women and of what we are capable in the public, social, and political spheres. Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged. In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information. The conversation needs to change, and I do believe journalists, news outlets, and governments should be called out and challenged for perpetuating mindless stereotypes and biased material. This view of women, as chosen by the few, needs to be challenged by the many.

      October 25, 2012 at 12:02 | Report abuse |
    • Eve

      Bravo @arm542! A great explanation of why this article is so offensive and a great response to all those who are building straw feminists for themselves to fight in the comments.

      October 25, 2012 at 14:38 | Report abuse |
    • Haris

      @arm542

      "But you would never see an article about male hormones and male voting patterns."
      Try again hun. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/how_the_presidential_race_between_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_could_be.html

      Now tell me, how many men do you see getting their panties in a bunch over there in the comments section? Compare that to all the women going hysterical here. Seems like women are far more emotional than men doesn't it? In fact, if you look at the comments closely, you will see a lot more open mindedness towards the study from men.

      "Science and facts are not absolute truths and should be challenged"
      "In fact, scientific facts and arguments are guided by the "hormones" of the very researchers providing us with this information."
      Oh boy, you just make this too easy.

      October 25, 2012 at 15:12 | Report abuse |
    • EA

      @Haris: How's your relationship with women? Something tells me not so hot.;)

      October 25, 2012 at 21:25 | Report abuse |
  12. anaqin

    they took out the post.
    pathetic neanderthals belong to the cavemen age.

    i wrote my protests on my facebook and post it to FEMEN as well last night because i was so furious at how such belittling and patronizing writing can find its way to news. id on't expect much from CNN, being a corporate news network and all but this article is a direct insult to women and humanity in general.

    October 25, 2012 at 01:31 | Report abuse | Reply
  13. Linda in Arizona

    Got so much blowback you had to remove the "story", eh, CNN? "Editorial standards of CNN"? Thanks for the laugh.

    October 25, 2012 at 02:42 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. JJ188

    For the love of God I hope my tax money did not go into this. What a waste of money.

    October 25, 2012 at 05:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. Jack

    Moods affect choices.
    Hormones affect moods.
    Women have predictable hormone swings due to periods.
    So do men, cause testosteron levels are higher at waking up.
    Its all logical and nothing new, but i guess we dont like it being thrown in our faces like this.
    Dont really care, cause elections are way too much focussed on affecting voting behaviour anyway, instead of just telling what you plan to do and actually do it. But dont you guys think they will use this information anyway if they can?

    October 25, 2012 at 07:08 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Julie058

      Jack – your simplistic statements are true. However, I fail to see the how a "mood swing" could be powerful enough to make a woman change her choice for leader of the free world back and forth depending on her cycle. We aren't breeding bunnies in a cage. We are human beings with higher-order thinking. This whole "study" was based on a hyperbolic idea of women, and then biased toward proving that idea. And failed.

      October 25, 2012 at 09:18 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Dont think you needed to insult me with 'simplistic'.
      I dont think women would go back and forth, but it might make doubters decide a certain choice. I dont see how you could steer that into a specific direction with a gain for your election results though. But im sure if you could, it would be used, regardless of cnn keeping the article up or not.
      I cant read the article now, since its gone. Not going to look for it either, cause its not at all interesting to me. What is interesting is the reactions this thing got.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:39 | Report abuse |
    • The Editor's Editor

      LEARN ABOUT APOSTROPHES. THEY MATTER.

      October 25, 2012 at 11:17 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Learn about caps. They matter too.

      October 25, 2012 at 11:20 | Report abuse |
    • Elaine

      So where is the study on how men's hormones affect their vote. I am post menopausal, so my hormone levels have dropped, but guess what? I still vote the same way as I did ten years ago! I still support the same issues and supporting the environment and education doesn't make me feel "sexy".

      October 25, 2012 at 12:38 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Don't know if there is one Elaine. Surely we don't want to have researchers do things in equality, because we like that better? If they would examine male voting behaviour early morning and in the evening, you would find a correlation and significant result either. But is that such a big deal? It's logical.
      I am pretty sure that if you would research voting behaviour and amount of urine in the bladder you would find a corrrelation too. Does that mean the lvl of urine determines your choice? No, but in some cases it would influenze the result yes.

      October 25, 2012 at 14:04 | Report abuse |
  16. Kristin Rowe Meche

    This was a specious argument, whose validity was back-pedaled within it's own original text. Shame on CNN for ever letting this kind of garbage get out under their banner. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.

    October 25, 2012 at 07:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Julie058

      Agreed, Kristin! I don't understand how this story passed any standards in the first place... in fact, when I was first sent the link, I thought this was an article from The Onion! It seems there were people involved who knew that this "study" shouldn't have been posted, as it was based on a hyperbolic generalization of women and then geared in extreme bias to prove its own bizarre notions. CNN isn't escaping some responsibility for this just because they removed the article after getting called out.

      October 25, 2012 at 09:21 | Report abuse |
  17. Marco

    Disgraceful and you call yourselves the world leader in news? Why do you people peddle such trite and focus on stories that best belongs in the pages of a supermarket tabloid...no wonder that more and more people are looking elsewhere for the news.

    October 25, 2012 at 07:20 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. discgolfur

    I guess now I am blocking CNN as an online news source... did Rupert Murdoch buy the network?

    October 25, 2012 at 07:55 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. htye

    is cnn about to implode? something just does not seem right with this company, not just online, but on cable too!

    October 25, 2012 at 08:18 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. John

    Sounds like 298 women on their period were offended by this article :DDDD

    October 25, 2012 at 08:21 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Julie058

      A lot more than that. And we don't need to be on the rag to be offended by this "study" I seriously thought this was an article from The Onion when I clicked the link! What the hell is going on with CNN??

      October 25, 2012 at 09:22 | Report abuse |
    • EA

      @John – You sound like a very handsome charmer! (right!)

      October 25, 2012 at 21:37 | Report abuse |
  21. AtlCoug

    Who needs this study? Just watch the last presidential debate from CNN and see how the women track lines went up each time Baby Daddy was talking.

    October 25, 2012 at 08:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  22. The Editor

    "This story did not meet the Politboro of Liberal Political Correctness's strict standards, and has been removed. Thank you for your understanding, comrades. CNN"

    October 25, 2012 at 08:57 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Julie058

      Haha, really cute. Except the article has nothing to do with "political correctness", and everything to do with perpetuating a false and hyperbolic idea of women using a faulty and biased "study".

      October 25, 2012 at 09:24 | Report abuse |
    • The Editor's Editor

      Obvious Troll Is Obvious.

      October 25, 2012 at 11:16 | Report abuse |
  23. Jeff

    I'm sorry that real life and biology hurt your feelings!

    😦 !!

    October 25, 2012 at 09:02 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. Just Me

    Another blow to women's equality! Way to go, CNN!

    October 25, 2012 at 09:04 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jeff

      Sounds like it's that time of the month!! 😦

      October 25, 2012 at 09:08 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Nothing is equal.

      October 25, 2012 at 10:43 | Report abuse |
    • EA

      @Jack. Thanks for reminder. i just learned a lot from you today (LOL)

      October 25, 2012 at 21:39 | Report abuse |
  25. Walknot

    Odd, So many take offense to this article yet have no problem with people telling then to "Vote with your Lady Parts".

    October 25, 2012 at 09:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. Lynn

    There is so much wrong with this study and story I just don't know where to begin. But it begs the sarcastic question...what about men who take meds to regulate their hormone levels or men who take viagra? Come on CNN, thought you might have better journalistic standards than to let this story slip through the editorial cracks...obviously not! Seriously offended by this story and all it implies.

    October 25, 2012 at 10:08 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. @PurpAv

    CNN has standards? Who knew?

    October 25, 2012 at 10:54 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. Illusions

    I guess this does go along with team Obama's "Vote with your lady parts" Campaign pitch.

    October 25, 2012 at 11:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. John Smith

    CNN has hit a new low with this article. Where are the editors that let an article like this be printed. I suggest that CNN start random drug testing its writers and staff

    October 25, 2012 at 12:12 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. hostdude99

    CNN Editorial standards? LOL. Funniest thing I've heard all morning.

    October 25, 2012 at 12:14 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. ostara321

    "After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN."

    LOL. Which part? It was all pretty equally terribad.

    October 25, 2012 at 12:26 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. Anthony Hoskins

    So much for freedom of speech. I bet the Inquistion is *grilling* Kristina Driante even as we speak.

    October 25, 2012 at 12:58 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. noteaparty4me

    The driving force for many, especially white males, is race. And for many, especially white males it will always be race then gender. CNN removing a post for "standards": is a joke. I am also noticing the overwhelming amount of Romeney surrogates on CNN prime time shows. I guess with reports of his money issues surfacing free air time is in order. John McCain on payroll? But white men have to stick with the very white Romney.

    October 25, 2012 at 13:12 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. childpleaze

    @arm542 – thanks for your thoughtful and civil response to @CAS. Btw, there are studies on the supposed impact of testosterone and male voting patterns. I found a brief post on one here:

    http://utahdatapoints.com/2011/09/does-a-candidates-testosterone-level-affect-voters/

    October 25, 2012 at 13:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. slackerPTAmom

    Why don't they run a study on how men with and without erectile dysfunction vote? Or run a study on how bald men vote – they have more testosterone than more hirsute dudes.

    October 25, 2012 at 13:49 | Report abuse | Reply
  36. Steve

    Ok, I'm confused... a woman writes an article about women's issues, and you guys get all up in arms because it's a touchy topic? Sheez! talking about cowardice. I could see if a man wrote it. I could see that something like this article would cause all kinds of troubles..... Well, rest assured– your cowardice does not prevent the rest of the internet from seeing what you're too afraid to retain.

    October 25, 2012 at 13:53 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Steve

      Oh.... I forgot– not only was CNN's article written by a woman– the study she discusses was performed by a woman asst professor at Texas U, San Antonio, in the marketing dept. Turns out this Durante is a specialist on this general topic. Her list of research publications is rather impressive! Strikes me that the problem here is one of PC..... CNN– you disappoint.

      October 25, 2012 at 16:00 | Report abuse |
  37. guest

    CNN,
    Anything for obama, always.

    October 25, 2012 at 14:11 | Report abuse | Reply
  38. guest

    CNN, you don't think we can think for ourselves.

    October 25, 2012 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Steve

      sad, isn't it.... sounds like a new form of censorship to me.....

      October 25, 2012 at 15:57 | Report abuse |
  39. Ron

    Seriously, you can't handle a bit of uproar about this story and had to take it down like a bunch of babies?!?

    October 25, 2012 at 14:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  40. Southern Man

    When a study disagrees with your feelings, go with the feelings and ditch the study.

    October 25, 2012 at 15:05 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. sarah

    This is why I only check CNN for the right wing/tabloid flavored news, rarely. I check Fox for the same reason. I used to be a fairly regular CNN reader/watcher. But it's nmot just this story that is the problem. Why isn't your mea culpa on the front page? A couple of Op-ed pieces can't balance the numbers either. Nice try.

    Fire the author. Take a journalism class. Watch/read PBS. Do you edit/not publish comments too?

    October 25, 2012 at 15:30 | Report abuse | Reply
  42. apollyon911

    Truth hurts. End female suffrage.

    October 25, 2012 at 15:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  43. Sam

    At least Fox News is entertaining in the stupidity they embrace, this is just bizarre. Glad I stopped using American television as a means of information ages ago. Only thing worth watching news-wise is The Daily Show or the Colbert Report.

    October 25, 2012 at 17:14 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. A person

    You might think you're a special snowflake, but a lot of your behavior can be ascribed to your biology.

    October 25, 2012 at 17:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. arcadesproject

    i read the article and it was good for a laugh. i mean, it's a 'you can't be serious, can you' kind of experience And of course it left me deeply curious abuot the efect of testosterone on voting. (Not)

    October 25, 2012 at 17:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  46. Willers

    Technology is the only hope. The saps will inherit the earth as long as its all a tap in. Might happen, if it doesn't – game over!

    October 25, 2012 at 19:09 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. ana

    Does anyone have a cached copy of this post. I want to use it for a lecture in my media class. It is unfortunate that CNN took the post down because I think that they should accept responsibility for posts that they make and not try to erase the fact that they posted the content.

    October 25, 2012 at 19:54 | Report abuse | Reply
  48. James

    I'm appalled, appalled I say ! Truly appalling!

    Not really, but I am amused at how people are offended at the drop of a hat and suddenly are all experts on what drives them. The comments here basically show that free speech has been killed by the the ones who are always complaining about the lack thereof. You can say what you want but only within the parameters defined by the PC rage brigade.

    You honestly all think your thoughts and feelings are independent of biology? You think the universe is built on egalitarian principles? You lot are a lost cause and are the reason why the USA is fast becoming a joke.

    October 25, 2012 at 21:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  49. crustymackay

    You got the story wrong? Don't delete (hide?) your mistake. Post a correction. Post the new reporting that refutes what you posted earlier. Pretending your mistakes don't exist and can't be corrected is ridiculous.

    October 26, 2012 at 13:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. Genvnill

    Виниловые наклейки на iPhone 4

    November 7, 2012 at 07:53 | Report abuse | Reply
1 2 3 4 5

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.