Saturday, January 13, 2007
Week 4 Blog Topic
This week most of our readings deal with women and the media. A great deal of research (sometimes conflicting) is presented regarding media treatment of women in general, female candidates for office, office-holders, female versus male journalists, and so on. A recurring theme is the role of the media in "framing" perceptions of women. Nimmo and Combs refer to this as "mediated" realities. Whitaker writes on page 81, "These mediated realities are perceptions, which are focused, filtered, and fantasized by the mass media". Your task in this blog entry is to critically analyze the media you come into contact with (newspaper, news shows, tv shows, commercials, etc.) and write about this "mediated" reality or "framing" of women in the context of the readings that were assigned for this week (note that this may also include the sex discrimination readings in the Cushman book).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Perhaps the most noteworthy example of “framing” that I have noticed in the media as of late involved two of the most powerful women in America. On an episode of the O’reilly Factor last week, (by the way I completely acknowledge upfront that O’reilly is as biased as they come and his show is not really news, but it is absorbed by a large amount of people so its views are presented as factual news) and Mr. O’reilly was reluctantly admitting that Nancy Pelosi had not done a terrible job as Speaker of the House so far. However, he basically posed the question that “Nancy Pelosi has not made many mistakes so far, but how will she perform under pressure and during military crises?” To me, that seems about as loaded a question as one can ask, because it assumes both that she will commit errors because she is a female politician of note, and also that females are not capable of performing under pressure as well as a man. Sure enough though, emails, etc. streamed in about how we should not gamble during these oh so precarious and dangerous times by putting a woman in a position of power. The discussion then turned to how would Hillary Clinton respond to military threats as president, and whether she would be able to endure the pressures of the office like a man would. None of those issues were brought up by O’reilly himself, and he did seem to skate around the issue without offering a clear cut answer, but by simply allowing loaded and biased questions like that on his show, Fox was presenting a viewpoint and forcing an opinion on people in a very subtle and devious way. Fox and O’reilly both avoided being quoted as saying something so profoundly prejudice, yet they still managed to get their point across that women are going to crack under pressure, would be soft on our enemies, and basically America would decay and fall apart if a woman became president. The idea that media pundits can manipulate the news and get their audience to pose questions or ideas that can seriously alter public opinion seems like a form or byproduct of framing that we have not discussed. It allows those media figures to remain officially unbiased while at the same time presenting a very slanted version of the news to millions of viewers. I would be interested in seeing what everyone else thought about this idea, and whether or not call / email screening could be considered a form of framing.
When it comes to framing in the media of women in America, the initially triggered thoughts are that women are family oriented, innocent, or just trying to step up in a men’s political world. Not so in the case of Tara Connor. When she got in trouble for being drunk in public and messing around with drugs, the media had a field day and showed the world how bad of a person she was and how embarrassed she should be and how she doesn’t deserve the crown and what not. If that was any other women other than Miss America, that wouldn’t even be interesting enough to be a story in the newspaper much less a headline on the news. If she were a woman who wasn’t known nation wide, she would just be a girl having a good time because she is young and able to do whatever she wants. Because she is Miss America, she got blasted in the media. Being Miss America makes you a positive role model for young ones and when the media made her out to be the “devil”, it really made people look at her and the Miss America pageant different. She basically made it look acceptable to drink and party in America, which is not the image that Miss America is supposed to send. Just because one woman did this does not mean the media should frame all women as drug abusers or alcoholics. A lot of times, the media bases women’s actions from the past and relates them to current stories.
The overall concept of “framing” is not new to American media. For decades, the media has manipulated and filtered news stories according to various factors, including agenda, economy, race and gender. Still today, the media “frames” stories on gender, especially women. More so, many of these “framed” stories are often concerning women in politics.
While engaging in various media over the past several days, I tried to be more alert towards such stories. Indeed, both a story in a well-known magazine and on the evening news “framed” or presented a certain perspective concerning the wife of Senator Barack Obama. Although each story was mainly focused on the Senator himself, each time his wife was mentioned, the emotional appeal of her devout motherhood was presented. Nothing was mentioned about her education or support for her husband, but basically that she was a full-time mom. I feel that this is a typical “frame” that the media puts on the majority of females, including those in politics.
Throughout that same evening newscast, there were multiple stories about the war in Iraq and military operations—all which featured male soldiers and male analysts. However, one feature story focused on an “Army wife” who started her own internet radio talk show and website as a “support group” for herself and other army wives. (www.armywifetalkaradio.com). The wife was (as the story quoted) a “stay-at-home mom” with one child and one on the way – her husband is currently in his third tour overseas. The story’s content could be considered thematic framing, in that it somewhat blamed the government for the circumstances of this lady and her family. More so, this story caused me to question “But what about the Army husbands?” This once again demonstrates the stereotype or “frame” that only military spouses are females.
In one of the top stories in pharmaceutical care, Merck is lobbying alongside Women in Government for a mandated state law to enforce that females at the age of 11 and 12 be vaccinated with Gardasil. As HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer in females, pharmaceutical companies stand to gain billions each year if the law was approved. The story is framed in such a way that makes women look indecisive as a group. That women are people who make poor judgment. They report that we have the opportunity to eliminate cervical cancer and that we should use it.
However, what they don't tell you is that there are over a hundred different strains of HPV most of which don't cause cervical cancer and clear up on their own accord. The vaccine they have developed is only to prevent 4 strains of this virus, those that may be the cause of the cervical cancer.
There are many other ways to develop cervical cancer that have nothing to do with HPV and can be to blame on other viruses and outside environmental issues.
As the drug is very costly at $360 for a 3 shot regime, many people can't afford it, much less the deductible that those with insurance will still have to meet. As cervical cancer is the leading cancer that kills women every year, mandated education of prevention to girls starting at the age of 10 and older may be the best solution. Where we now have the option in some public schools to inform our children at ages
starting at 11 on up into high school years, it is not mandated. If we speak of worrying about our female children becoming sexually active at ages of 11 and 12 or little older, then shouldn't we, as adults, men and women, do more to inform them besides enforce another vaccine that still has a short history on the long term side effects. As the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, has been introduced into the limelight of the media, so did the information on how one of the reasons cervical cancer has developed. As more and more women are informed through the media, we now know that protection is needed from more than the well known STD's and diseases and pregnancies we were once informed about. Where once before if we had an HPV virus, our doctors would give us an antibiotic and tell us not to worry it would clear up on its own or along with some medicine. Now we if have to be tested to see what type of strain we have and if we have an HPV strain that
causes the cancer, the shot Gardasil will do nothing for us.
While I wasn't able to attend class on Thursday I think I get the general idea of what happened just by taking a look at the readings. I was fortunate enough to be in class on Tuesday and look through the newspaper to find articles written by women or articles that mentioned women. I also took note of what those articles were about. I think this gap in media coverage or difference in media coverage is just something that will take time to fill in, just like anything else concerning race, gender, sex, or orientation. Obviously if men are in control of news publishing businesses, more men will be in charge of writing articles about "men" issues; however, when I looked through the newspaper, specifically at the sports section, I noticed a large chunk was written by a woman. I thought about that after I left class and decided that maybe in some way, newspapers use authors as sort of an advertisement tool. Women readers tend to look for women authors. I quickly threw away that theory, because if that was the case, you'd have men answering letters in a "dear Andy" section instead of a "dear Abby" section. After more thought I decided that women are covered this way in the news because they are supposed to be the loving, kinder sex, and when they show some sort of power or independence it makes them a bigger target. When the world acknowledges that women are very equal to men (If not superior ;) ) I think this will problem of women being portrayed as a "Eat their young" type will disappear.
I think that the point I was trying to make in class when I said that the Comment on "Framing" reminded me about an episode that a local news station did on my county was that all to often the majority of what is trying to be captured is left out. It's like they want the public to see the worst in everything. They hide the real truth or keep the public from seeing it and just display the attention getting information. It's kind of like with Hillary Clinton, how the media has a field day when she screws up but they don't seem to capture the good side. I was reading an article about how the media has captured Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani trying to get the attention of stars so that they may back their campaigns. The media had a field day with Hillary Clinton saying that her and her husband were just looking for the pot of money they thought was theirs. However the article went on to say that Barack Obama was the light shinning in the stars eyes. Now that everyone thinks that the stars in hollywood think that Obama is the way to go, those you really don't check into the stats of the potential runners will automatically turn to their favorite stars choice. So the point I am trying to make is that most of the time the press takes what they think will make a great story and turn it in to that great story. They then proceed to leave out what actually happened or what was actually said, leaving the readers and or watchers to believe what is put in front of them.
I confess I haven't had much time to devote to watching the news lately, so when it came time to post my blog entry I was forced to go to the Internet. I visited Fox News.com, where I found an exemplary showcase of not only the media "framing" women in a certain way, but also the media's lack of interest in women. I decided to begin with the U.S. news. Under that option were several more focused options: War on Terror, Homeland Security, Education, Law, Crime, Immigration, Natural Disasters, and Sept. 11. I quickly browsed through those different sections and the education section is where the majority of the “women’s stories” were.
These stories were framed in a manner the showcased women as we would normally think the typical stereotype would. They were motherly, they were emotional, they were needy, and they were focused on children. The media framed these articles to make women seem somewhat incompetent, or maybe that is just what I perceived after noticing that women were not mentioned in the more important governmental articles. The slant was definitely towards men. The thing that I was surprised by was that the majority of the “women’s stories” were in fact written by women. I think this is just one more example of women needing to perform like me in order to succeed, but that is off topic. I was actually surprised at the amount of slanted or “framed” news provided. I suppose I like to live in my own naïve world where nothing like that occurs.
The most disturbing characteristic about the Fox News articles, for me, was that apparently these women journalists were either oblivious to the anti-women slant or under such pressure that they are forced to ignore it. They actually participated in the “framing” of women in a stereotypical role. I would think that women would see the problem here and would want to try and change it.
In Fox’s defense there were a few articles about women under the more governmental sections such as Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and like Jessica found, Barrak Obama’s wife. However the Fox News defense doesn’t continue much further because each of these article portrayed these potentially spectacular women as if they were only successful because they either acted like men or men aided them in their political journey. Basically I see framing by the media as a problem, not just for women but also for all types of people. But, I do not see it changing anytime soon, why should it? The media is getting great ratings for their catchy stories of controversy, why would they give that up?
An example of framing that came to my mind was the fact the race for governor. The media seems to believe that Anne Northup would not win because she's a woman, a republican and a Catholic. I belong to the same church as Anne Northup and I know her and I believe that she would do a great job as governor. But because she is a woman society looks down upon that. Because she is a woman, she might be "too emotional" for the job, or "she's Catholic", like that’s so bad and that she's republican. Because of those three characteristics society doesn’t want to have anything to do with her as governor. What’s so wrong with a female in charge? Are the men of the population scared of answering to a woman? Are they afraid a woman will change everything for the worst? I mean what is wrong with a little change. Other countries have woman presidents or prime ministers. But the United States has never had a woman in charge. I mean if she’s too much like a man the media sees her as “just trying to fit in with the boys” and gives her crap for it. If she acts like a woman, “She’s too emotional and a typical woman” and would still ridicule her in the media. This was said in class I might be wrong but, “Women must be extraordinary; and better than everyone, not too masculine and not too feminine.” But it seems to me that women have always worked super hard for what they want, and when they’ve reached that goal. It means so much more to them because they worked so hard for it.
I think that part of the reason for the prevalence of framing of women, or any other non-white male demographic, in the modern media is because these people who “break the mold” and defy traditional gender roles make for a much more interesting story that people will be more inclined to read, watch, or listen to. The best example I can think of to prove this point is our last two first ladies. During the Clinton administration, Hilary was often framed by the media as a progressive feminist who sought to enter niches held predominantly by men. I believe she was the first first lady to keep her office in the west wing, ran and was elected to the predominantly white male Senate, and is currently embarking on a presidential campaign. It is unfortunate that even today it’s so remarkable that it’s newsworthy that a woman would take such initiative beyond her traditional role of chatting with the wives of foreign diplomats, redecorating the White House, and becoming the champion of a stereotypical women’s issue (see Nancy Reagan and the war on drugs in the 1980’s).
Laura Bush, on the other hand, has managed to, more or less, avoid major media attention in all forms. This is not all that surprising since she has seemingly chosen to remain in a more traditional women’s role. Anytime I have seen her in the media myself, it is either as an advocate for education and literacy (she is a librarian by trade), or chatting with the wife of a foreign diplomat as previously stated.
None of this is to say that Laura Bush is in any way inferior to Senator Clinton. Rather, they each took a different approach to the role of first lady, and it is apparent which one of these roles is more unique, and as such garners more attention from the media.
Looking at CNN.com there are a few interesting articles concerning women. The first is an article on Harvard University and the fact that the have selected a female president for the first time in Harvard's history. They framed the article by discussing the fact that a woman was selected after the former president had made sexist comments regarding women and their success in science fields. The article also mentioned shortcomings of the newly elected president which were that she did not receive a degree from Harvard and that she did not have a science degree. The second article was very interesting. It was on the political page of CNN.com and was a message from Donatella Versace to Hillary Clinton telling her that she needs to ditch the trousers and start wearing dresses and skirts because she is a woman. Donatella Versace also tells Senator Clinton that she needs to embrace her femininity and stop emulating masculinity just because she is in politics. WOW~
Framing is such an interesting phenomenon because sometimes it is so subtle that unless you are paying close attention you would not know it existed. I have to admit that prior to reading about framing I didn't really notice the slant that the media put on the news. However, the exercise in class proved that it does exist. I had the exact reaction that each phrase was suppose to elicit from the reader and I was surprised because I am fairly skeptical person especially when it comes to the media.
Speaking of media...I know we discussed Katie Couric and her new "nicer side of America" approach to the news. I wonder if her different approach is because she as a woman is inherently different in the way she presents the news or if this is just some cleverly crafted media executive decision to separate the men from the woman. Why can't any of the men approach the news in this manner? Is this change in the way the news is presented because Katie is inherently different than the men or because the media big shots want it to look that way and have framed the presentation of the news according to that belief? Just something to think about...
Janice Clayton
There is something about the word “framing” that is just unsettling in this context. Its negative connotations seemingly overwhelmed me with a very Mission Impossible like scapegoat entrapment feeling. A feeling that the “frame” may have cropped some of the best parts out of the picture, and kept captive what it had to display within the confines of its four sides.
The media is this frame. It chooses the picture it finds fitting by the standards it has already defined for itself, often discarding the marginalized. Take for example the media this past Thursday when Anna Nicole Smith died. She (at least at the time of her death) held to the media’s characteristics of female beauty, as well as the fact that she had a dash of scandal or two in her life, (though she did lack mothering qualities usually idealized) and upon her death every major news station in one way or another, reported it. It was even the case on one station (Fox News I think…not sure) they went to such links as to interrupt an interview with Clint Eastwood to make the news known.
Perhaps, part of the big appeal was that she was thought to be a role model for loosing weight, or even the role model for what a role model shouldn’t be. But reasoning aside it is a shame that these are the things we distract and dilute our news with. Especially when there are women doing much greater things than dieing everyday in the public eye of this country who don’t get even a portion of the coverage Anna Nicole Smith has gotten.
Even this last week in class one of the New York Times’ covered all of the matters of the ‘State of the Union’ address, except for the profoundly historical significance of Nancy Pelosi’s female presence as Speaker of the House. Yet perhaps with her story added to the framing of the female in media, there would be too large of a tip on the scales. The risk of loosing the “frame's” negative connotations is far to great for the social norms of journalism and media (male and female alike, as socialized to be) to wager. Especially since not only is Miss America in rehab, but someone famous is always about to die, so that we may not only pollute our news and entertainment, but our minds as well.
erin jo mullen
After our readings this week, I believe that, I paid a little more attention to some of the programming that I watched this weekend. I began to notice that there is a distinct shortage of women perpetuated in sports. I switched between five local news sources and found only one female sportscaster. This area of discrimination for women is not anything new. The incident of Joe Namath in 2004 telling ESPN report Suzy Kolber not once, but twice on air that “I want to kiss you”. I also noticed this past weekend during a men’s college basketball game that ESPN’s sideline report was of course of woman. During the broadcast of the game, the male commentators found it amusing to show pictures of Erin Andrews whenever she was a dancer for the University of Florida. Not only does she have to compete in the mans world of sports, but she also has to compete with the stereotyping of being a dancer and not an athlete. This would not be the first time that Andrews has dealt with discrimination in her job at ESPN. In 2006 Andrews was referred to a “Poopsie” by fellow co-worker, Kirk Herbstreit while on air. This just seems to perpetuate the arena in which women are relegated to perform in sports journalism. On a side note, I looked on ESPN’s website and only 3 out of 60 columnists are women. Not that sports journalisms ties in directly with evening news, but you cannot help in seeing the similarities in that Katie Couric finally became this first woman to deliver this news format. There were those of course that attempted to block Couric’s chances of taking over the seat dominated for 24 years by Dan Rather. This seems to perpetuate the “glass ceiling” concept that was mentioned in our text reading. Are female journalists any less capable of delivering the news, any news that is, than her male counterparts? By looking at the number of women in media and the positions in which they are relegated, it seems that popular media still harbors perceptions of women in journalism.
"These mediated realities are perceptions, which are focused, filtered, and fantasized by the mass media"
I have two different things to say about this quote and about women in the media, paticularly the role of women journalists. In the Dolan/Deckman/Swers reading, on page 121, it mentions that women (as of 1999) only made up 25% of network news reporters. The readings discuss the "framing" of women as certain types of journalists. For the most part, they seem to be the Sunday Arts and Life section writers, or the City and Region reporters, as we noticed in our activity on Tuesday.
Something about this caught my attention. I don't read the newspapers or watch television for my news. The vast majority of my news comes from NPR. I listen to NPR in my car, I download the podcasts: I'm am a hardcore NPR dork. I found that this "framing" of women that can be seen in newspapers and television is not there on the radio. For example, look at some of the major NPR broadcasts: All Things Considered, Day to Day, Weekend Edition, and Morning Edition. All Things Considered is hosted by Robert Siegal, Michele Norris, and Melissa Block. Day to Day? Alex Chadwick and Madeline Brand. Morning Edition? Steve Inskeep and Renee Montagne. Even Weekend Edition is fairly evenly split: a man does the Saturday show and a women does the Sunday show. I love my NPR and I feel that it gives such a fantastic, even and balanced reporting of events. Women are assigned to just as important stories as the men and aren't pigeonholed as the culture and slice of life reporters.
Last night, I went to Knoxville to hear Ira Glass, the host of the public radio show, This American Life. He was talking about his show and the media in general. He said that he feels that traditional coverage like the CBS Evening News or The Early Show is so slanted and flawed in its coverage. He feels that it doesn't gives viewers the real story or the kind of coverage that makes us understand whats actually going on in the world. He described it as serious reporters reporting serious things pretending that the world is 100% serious and any other story should be completely separate and in its own little cateogory. I'd have to agree with Mr. Glass (who I got to meet by the way!!!). Why can't all our news coverage be more like NPR? Maybe NPR critics are right and NPR is simply tailored for the educated elite and the hipster know-it-alls...you know, the cultured, opera going, book reading kind of people, and maybe I completely identify with that kind of coverage, but I think that it has something going for it. It doesn't seem to be restrained by the traditional type of coverage. It doesn't make a big deal about a woman reporter because on NPR, its not a big deal. Michelle Norris and Terry Gross are just as vital and important parts of the coverage as Robert Siegal and Carl Castle. This "framing" of women reporters is non-existant. I asked my boyfriend, who listens to more NPR than me since he commutes to work in Lexington everyday, and he said he completely agrees. The coverage on NPR is so much more balanced and to me, reflects what is important and useful in my life.
Maybe I really am a huge hipster know-it-all NPR nerd. I have no idea why the coverage seems so...different. But it is. Listen if you don't believe me. I wish I could explain why its so different than the newspaper and television. I don't know what makes the radio so different.
I'm not really sure if I totally answered the question. I missed Thursday and was simply going by the readings. I just really wanted to talk about NPR in my answer. I'm a total dork.
Jenny Holly
Due to not having and television in my apartment, I had to look towards the Internet for my research. Finding sexists articles and comic strips that framed women in a ‘bitchy’, condescending manner wasn’t hard to find. One of the top articles on the CNN website was and I quote, word for word: “Donatella to Clinton: Ditch the trousers” This entire article was about Donatella Versace giving much needed advice to Hilary; “She should treat femininity as an opportunity and not try to emulate masculinity in politics". How does this society let fashion do’s and don’ts onto a official news website? I feel this severely down plays the important milestone that is ahead of Hilary Clinton and makes women look like air headed, morons who are only concerned with what people are wearing. There are many more important issues at hand here.
Also, how do I know that Condoleezza Rice’s dress size is between a 6 and 8?? Probably because it was printed on the New York Time’s front page after she was elected the first African American female national security advisor. Why is it that I do not know George Bush’s pant size?
It wasn’t until recently that I have been paying attention to the way women have portrayed in the media. It is fascinating that the media giants have socialized and entire nation to think that this is acceptable.
On an end note, I will leave a comic strip I found on the internet portraying Pelosi’s recent squabble with the media about her demanding an aircraft to take here nonstop coast to coast.
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/interactive.aspx?type=ss&launch=17058207,3032105&pg=15
After reading the main section of USA TODAY, I found that all the women in that section were framed as either victims, crazy, or bitter. There three frames of women in the main section. First there is a story about a woman whose husband committed suicide. Her husband quit attending therapy sesions for fear of his job at a police department. She is painted as a victim of the cruel justice system that took her husband from her. Granted in this case, she most likely is a victim. However, this frames women as helpless beings. Additionally there are two references to the woman astronaut who tried to drive cross country with a diaper on. There is another female astronaut who comments on how this is somehow linked to the dire need for women to have children. I'm surprised that a woman in that position would frame her college as a result of the balance between career and children. It indicates that women cannot acheive these positions without becoming mentally ill. She calls it "the biological-clock issue." Through quoting this source, the mass media projects the stereotype in framing women as subject to their hormones. The crazy, hormone-driven frame is repeated in a political cartoon showing a woman attacking another woman with a quote bubble stating, "That's one small step for MY MAN." In the same set of political cartoons, there is one picturing Hillary Clinton. In this cartoon, Obama is pictured as the golden boy and the other democratic hopefulls are separated into their own club. Within the democratic hopefuls, Hillary Clinton is pictured with a look of bitter disgust.
It's necessary to discuss how these are half truths that become as stated by Whitaker "focused, filtered, and fantasized by the mass media". In the first story the woman is a victim. However, it is focused to one story and fantasizes her as some type of hero in her suffering. In the story about the astronaut it is focused to one out of how many female astronauts? Furthermore, it is filtered to not include any actual mental illnesses she most likely has. It is filtered to not include if other female astronauts go on rampages. And it is fantasized as what can inevitably occur if a woman tries to balance such a stressful job with a family. Finally Hillary Clinton's frame is filtered to not include any good she does for the democratic party or for her constituents in New York.
The news media is a very powerful and influential avenue for shaping public opinion. From newspapers and magazines to radio and television, Americans are manipulated for better or worse everyday. The spin involved with women and politics is both subtle and blunt, and the news media can manipulate the public easily with framing. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton must find a way to overcome the negative spin of many news outlets. The public perception of women is rooted in centuries of culture and tradition. For instance, all hurricanes used to be named and personified as women. The jest being that women are an unpredictable, unstable entity capable of great destruction if one suffers their wrath. This is but one of many examples of the subtle way in which our culture portrays women. Journalism, at least the upper tier, is dominated by men. A few exceptions aside, i.e. Greta Vansustren, men control the political framing of politics and particularly women pols. As illustrated in our reading from the Dolan book, women only make up a quarter of news anchors and reporters. I feel that even this statistic does little to show the extreme gap of gender and the news media. The high profile anchor jobs go to men like Bill O'Reilly and Chris Mathews, and political news columns are also male dominated. Katie Couric was recently granted an exclusive with Iran's leader. I was a bit surprised, especially b/c of the role of women in the Muslim world, that Couric got the interview. I think that Hillary doing so well in polls and public opinion, and Pelosi leading the House, that the proverbial pendellum will begin to swing in the other direction. Regardless of whether Clinton gets the democratic nomination, if she wins or loses public perception about women will shift. A good showing by Hillary will make way for women to do more things politically. "Framing" in the news media will certainly begin to show women in a more capable light. The long standing belief that women can't control their actions because of hormones and emotions is an example of how the public can be manipulated and lead like sheep by the news media and the political powers that be. Slavery and the civil rights struggle for black's and women are examples of how far wrong we can be lead. As a country that was founded on radical new ideas of equality there should have been no need for the fight for freedom and civil liberties.
I have to agree with what I have seen on here often enough with the portrayal of women. More often than not, the media seems to display women in traditional sense, and when there are females in the role of males, they are almost looked upon with a laughing sense, in that “oh a woman in a man’s job, how quaint” sort of appeal.
What I notice more is the news focuses on female celebrities than on female stateswomen. In this realm women are portrayed in the “slut vs. stud” mentality, especially regarding sorts like Angelina Jolie, who was regarded as a demon-woman for “stealing” Brad Pitt away from Jennifer Aniston, even though all three members of the issue were relatively tight-lipped about it.
There is then the difference in the coverage of Anna Nicole Smith, although there is always the ‘death difference’, which causes the media to portray certain persons in a positive light, even if the coverage had been less-than positive beforehand. Although then there is the way that Paris Hilton is often covered by the news, where I’ve often seen some refer to her as a ‘positive’ role model for young women. (Don’t even ask me how that works)
Then there is the regard for female leaders around the world. Especially in regards to Angela Merkel of Germany, who is barely spoken about in any news-media (even my staple of the BBC,) and when she is covered, it is silly things like her reaction to President Bush’s “shoulder rub”, instead of her policies, or her moves as German Chancellor.
This trend of framing is often far too subtle for many to pick up on. After all, the average American might not even know who the Chancellor of Germany is, let alone that it’s a woman until the images of her practically jumping out of her chair to President Bush’s hands, giving her the impression of a regular woman being treated as a ‘woman in a man’s world’ instead of an equal in the public realm.
So, since the question left “media” as an undefined term, I think I will explore the side of the media yet unexplored: your regular television programs. Being as I don’t own a TV (no I don’t miss it at all), I find I can be pretty un-biased in my assessment of television programming (I have no allegiance to any show.)
Overall, I find an interesting trend across channels: its called “Daytime TV.” What is this you ask? Well daytime tv consists mainly of soap operas, talk shows, and home shows. Oprah is on, Gina remembers she really has amnesia on “As the World turns”, and hey! You can watch live births! On TLC (one of the few channels I watch when I get the chance) you will find shows like “A Baby Story”, “A Wedding Story” and re-runs of “What Not To Wear.” I actually found a very interesting blog that inadvertently addresses this issue (http://www.angryman.ca/blog/2005/09/things-that-make-me-angry-learning.html) and take a peek at the lineup from February 13th (http://tlc.discovery.com/tvlistings/schedule.jsp?dd=13&mm=02&yyyy=2007&channel=TLC) which exemplifies my point.
So what’s so interesting about this (to me at least)? Well, maybe the fact that the media as a HUGE broad entity assumes one thing: that the majority of people at home during the day, watching TV are going to be women. Why is this??? Ohhhh yeah, women are stay at home moms! Not only does their programming and framing often encourage stereotypical female roles, but the very set up of cable television promotes the idea that women are stay at home moms, while hubby is at work all day. What happens around the time that hubby comes home? The news comes on. Something that little wifey didn’t care about all day while she was learning that all of her clothes are completely wrong for her body type (or “American Chopper comes on, something hubby might find more entertaining.) I find the general dirth of substantive programming during the day depressing. News comes on in the morning and the evening, around the times that professionals are eating breakfast and returning from work. In between, we find an overwhelming trend towards the more “girlie” programs. This seems to insinuate that people who stay at home all day do not need to watch the news (well, you could watch C-span, but it is excruciating most of the time, and doesn’t help if you want local news.)
This strange trend in the lineup of television over the course of a day seems to back the mounting evidence we are gathering that there is a definite framing of the roles of the sexes in popular media. I do want to point out though that it is equally as ludicrous for men. I know plenty of men who have no interest whatsoever in motorcycles, military history, or women jumping on trampolines. My dad watches more cooking shoes than my mother could ever stomach. Mom tends to pay more attention to the news as well. So these stereotypes not only stifle the interests of women, but of all sexes.
*** TANGENT (sort of)***I think Jenny makes an interesting point about the radio being less-biased than the more often-used media. It reminds me of how Nixon won the popular vote on radio, but Kennedy far outstripped him on TV.
I don’t think that Dr. Patton’s 300 word limit will ever be a problem for the majority of us. We rock.
I must admit that I have a problem paying attention, so TV shows are usually out for me, because I start flipping. However, I did watch (most of) Meet the Press tonight. The entire first half consisted of two men, the House minority leader, and the House majority leader. They mentioned Nancy Pelosi once, about her wanting airplanes to fly her all over the place. The Democrat (I'm sorry I can't remember his name) noted that the same was done for Speaker Hastert in the past, and Pelosi did not ASK for this to be done, it was done for security reasons. The second half of the program discussed Barack Obama's bid for President, with one woman journalist weighing in on the issue. I catch Meet the Press sometimes, and it seems to prove that women are not really spotlighted on foreign policy issues.
I then turned to the MSNBC website. They had several articles relating to women: Harvard names their first woman as president, and 1 in 5 women with lung cancer never smoked. On the health homepage, there was a picture of a woman holding a child. In fact, it seemed that most of the ads on that page were directed more towards women than men, perhaps focusing on the fact that women have showed more concerns for such issues.
Also, in regards to television shows, since most everyone else has focused on "real news" =).....something that has always bothered me about most sitcoms is the family set up. You have the loving, doting mother who has to take charge, the goofy father, and the staple 2 children, then toss some in-laws into the mix. Everybody Loves Raymond, Home Improvement, King of Queens, and Yes Dear are all examples of this, where the woman has to take control of all family situations because the father just can't do it. Or they'll have an episode where the father has to take care of the kids for the day, and inevitably screws everything up. Or shows like Judging Amy, which shows the tribulations of being a woman judge, and a mother too.
Something else interesting on the MSNBC page, I went to the politics section and all of the updates and pictures at the top were of men in politics.
So then, out of curiosity, I went and found an old issue of The Nation (June 2005), with Hillary Clinton on the cover, "Making her Mark on the Democratic Party". The article surprised me, because of all the reading about journalists focusing on image, this was really about her politics. It even poked a little fun at her husband. She was portrayed as a strong woman, which could have come across as aggressive also. The front cover had a cartoon image of her riding a donkey, while branding it with "HRC". While The Nation always has political cartoon images, this could have come across as a little too tough.
I too, never realized the extent to which the media does "framing". It is so engrained in our heads that we hardly notice it unless we are really looking for it, and sometimes what we find might be surprisingly stereotypical.
-Ashley Farmer
The news this week has been disgusting. I constantly see Anna Nicole Smith plastered everywhere. EVERYWHERE.
Now, not that she wasn't a human being and not that her death wasn't tragic, but does it really merit constant broadcasting on the News?
While the media does generally concern itself more with celebrity garbage than actual "news," the trend is MUCH more prevalent concerning women. Women are more likely to be featured in news stories about accidents or gossip or domestic violence than they are for their professional abilities, expertise, or political opinions. It's a HUGE ordeal when Paris Hilton makes a sex tape, but coveraeg of women politicians is scarce in comparison to their male counterparts.
Take sports. Women's sports don't receive NEARLY as much hype as men's sports. Across the board, the media does a pretty fantastic job of maintaining female-role stereotypes and male-role stereotypes--leave the politics and the sports to the men, and leave the women their drama and gossip and household duties.
Sarah brings up a fantastic point--daytime tv is perhaps one of the clearest indicators of this, and the pattern of programming is not only indicative of this sort of sterotypical pigeon-holing, but indeed reinforces it.
Mediated reality or framing by the media often has a very profound affect on the ideals we form about the role of women in our society. After our extensive discussion in class concerning the various frames in which women are portrayed I decided to investigate some major news sources and see just what frames these media outlets are using to portray women. After visiting foxnews.com and cnn.com, politically opposite news channels, the story concerning a female, drawing recognition by both sites was the controversy surrounding the death of Anna Nicole Smith. Smith, as we are all well aware has in the past been framed as the quintessential “gold digger.” Articles on both sites seemed to be most concerned with the disputed paternity of her daughter Dannylyn. The fact that three men claim to be the child’s father also calls into question the “slut v. stud” framing we discussed in class on Thursday. Will these three men be criticized for their promiscuity or will it really be considered that big of a deal that all three men slept with Smith? Prince Frederic von Anhalt, the husband of actress Zsa Zsa Gabor, claims that he had an adulterous affair with Smith. Is the American public outraged by the fact that he freely admits to the affair or is just something that we expect because he is famous and male? Additionally, do we judge Smith for having these flings or is it also something we expect because she has previously been labeled in our minds as a gold digging play boy model, thanks in large part I might add to framing by the media? After considering all the frames we discussed in class and how much impact framing does seem to have on construction our views, I wasn’t really shocked by the news that a paternity battle over Smith’s baby was taking place, as I myself had fallen victim to the frame that she was a gold digging play boy model.
An additional article that caught my attention on the Fox site was that of Drew Gilpin Faust being named as the first female president of Harvard. Faust replaced the previous president Lawrence Summer who made comments concerning differences between the sexes accounting for a decline in science related jobs among women. Faust oversaw the creation of two faculty task forces to examine gender diversity at Harvard following the remarks. This is particularly relevant to our reading’s discussion of framing in that media has often subjected the public to the mediated reality that males are better in the areas of science and math than females. While articles on both the Fox site and the CNN site run the similar headlines: “Harvard Names First Female President,” Faust makes it clear in the CNN article, “I'm not the woman president of Harvard, I'm the president of Harvard." Faust seems very aware of the framing she is being subjected to as the “first female president of Harvard.” Of course, if a male had been named the new President of Harvard it is debatable whether or not there would have been much of a story at all and if there had been, it would have been sure to include a reference or two to the statements made by former President Summers regarding differences between the sexes—after all, controversy sells. On both websites the articles discussing Faust’s selection as President were located under the education section. I realize that news pertaining to a University would undoubtedly fall under education but I also think it is interesting to note that education has been framed by the media as a female issue.
The Dolan book’s discussion of soccer moms and security moms also lead me to research such terms on the internet. What I found when “googling” the term “working mother” was actually a website called workingmother.com. The website claimed that they are “the only publication that looks at the world through the unique lenses of a working mom.” The website had articles on the 100 best companies for working mothers as well as tips on how to balance home life with a career outside of the home. One of the most interesting things I found on the site was the working mom’s blog. The blog had headings such as “political mom,” “hairdresser mom,” “new biz mom,” “single mom,” “single working mom,” and “work at home mom.” In some ways I feel these sub groups within the blog actually contribute to the media’s framing of women in that the women posting under them appear to freely allow themselves to be labeled as “single moms” and “work at home moms.” I don’t think that these terms are necessarily bad but, allowing oneself to be defined by them leaves women susceptible to other frames constructed by the media that could potentially pit women against one another. This would be the case in such instances when the media incites conflict between working mothers and stay at home moms by acknowledging one of the two groups as having a more difficult or important role in society. When I searched the term stay at home mom, a site entitled familycorner.com came up. This site had articles on weight loss and fitness, family and parenting tips, and recipes and cooking. The Whittaker article in our reading talked about how the overall image of women continues to be one in which they are defined primarily through stereotypical domestic roles. I think this website supports this claim. The family corner website included discussion of recipes, cooking, and crafts that could be done with kids and the working mother site also provided tips for delegating household duties. Like it or not, the media, including these sites that promote themselves as women oriented sites still feed off of the mediated reality that has women firmly connected to domestic activities. I could be wrong but, I’ve yet to see a website that touts itself as a single working woman without children site.
Kristeena Winkler
In Theory last week we were talking about some ancient white guy when someone brought up how stupid all the men are on network sitcoms. They take an ignorant, many times overweight man who watches football and hates his in-laws and put him with a drop dead gorgeous woman who loves him because he can make her laugh. Gone are the days of Andy Griffith and the Cleavers when Dad knew best and actually took part in guiding the children through life.
That has nothing to do with how women are portrayed but this does, these drop dead gorgeous women most always have three things in common: they have kids, they drive a mini-van or SUV, and you never really know what kind of job they have or if they even have a job at all. There primary goal in life seems to be taking care of the kids and keeping their lazy husband happy. Life is great on a sitcom.
As for the news media, particularly when it comes to entertainers such as the late great Anna Nicole Smith, women are framed as being extremely fragile, their weight is monitored so closely I doubt they even need to own a scale, they just pickup the Enquirer and read about how thin or overweight they are getting to be. Men miraculously avoid such criticism and no one seems to care how many drugs they do or why they were crying when they left the doctor (Lindsay Lohan).
The book mentioned Murphy Brown and how when she became a single mother (with a great career) it caused a big rukus. My mom and I watched that show religiously when I was young but I never really realized how great it was until now. That show did something then that few attempt to do even today, it presented a real woman who wasn't confined to the mini-van or an ignorant husband. Remarkable.
I read where someone was talking about soaps, and I would just like to say I absolutely love All My Children. I added sixty channels to my satellite just so I could get soap net and watch it at night, then school started and I don't even have time to watch it at night anymore. What a freakin bummer.
This post is late but I hated to miss one.
Cameron
Post a Comment