According to 4thEstate.net, which collects and analyzes data from a sampling of news stories from U.S. national print outlets, TV broadcast and radio transcripts covering the 2012 election, a gender gap exists in U.S. media, and its excruciatingly wide. In print, radio and television media, female newsmakers are dramatically under-represented. Male newsmakers make up around 70% of the statements in all three categories and females hover in the 20% range.
This is outrageous.
A recent report showed that men are quoted and cited as experts much more often than women in the general media, even when the issues being discussed are specific to women. The analysis stated:
Women are significantly under-represented in 2012 election coverage in major media outlets. In our analysis of news stories and transcripts from the past 6 months, men are much more likely to be quoted on their subjective insight in newspapers and on television. This pattern holds true across all major news outlets, as well as on issues specifically concerning women. For example, in front page articles about the 2012 election that mention abortion or birth control, men are 4 to 7 times more likely to be cited than women. This gender gap undermines the media's credibility.
How can we believe what the media is telling us if we're not getting the full story and if we consistently ignore the voice of more than half this country?
Over a year ago, I wrote "From Anger to Action: Why Women Must Get Mad," in which I pleaded with those who are sick, tired and frightened of the daily abuses of women and girls in this country, lack of jobs, pay inequity, toxic air, water and food, cuts in education and health care, wars that never seem to end -- and so much more -- to band together, stand up and say "enough is enough."
During the ensuing months, things went from bad to worse but women, it seemed, just weren't quite mad enough, or were so weighed down by the enormity of it all we collectively waited for someone to come along to push us out of the depths of our despair. We experienced deeper and more painful levels of unemployment, a dearth of senior level private and public sector positions (in fact, according to recent reports, more women lost government jobs than men thanks to cuts, cuts and more cuts), legislation and programs that would compromise our health and safety and witnessed ultra conservatives referring to women as sluts and comparing us to farm animals. Another report came out saying that men are now targeting "traditional women's jobs" and getting them... with higher salaries. And that's just the short list.
How, we wanted to know, did this happen? How did American women slip so far backwards in the eyes of this country that huge groups of people want to see our rights taken from us? Want to see us give up control of our own bodies? Hope to never see us enjoy equal pay or equal rights? Want to control us and our daughters? And, to add incredible insult to devastating injury ... they don't even let us voice our opinions.
This spring, something miraculously clicked in the collective consciousness of American women, and it was palpable. We got really, really mad. Even Republican women in office became angered (a little late perhaps) by the war on women, as did Republican voters. We grew weary of being used as pawns in an increasingly nasty political game where the only real players are men. And it brings us no joy to know that both political parties are using women in hand-to-hand combat to win the presidential election.
But, according to The 4th Estate, the "War on Women" effort has faded away to become a footnote in "media history" usurped by other pressing issues, specifically the economy. After Hilary Rosen's comments on CNN about Ann Romney, a national discussion emerged about women's role in society. But, the media coverage didn't last. Yes, we have other very pressing issues, specifically the tanking economy and looming recession, but for sure, if we had greater representation in the media all these issues would continue to be part of the national discourse.
Let's be clear about something: this isn't just about women's rights. It's much, much bigger than that. Women have opinions, knowledge and expertise on all issues, not just those that are labeled "women's issues."
Women have a great deal of work to do in this country if we are ever going to fix what needs fixing. But unless we get a lot tougher... our voices will continue to be silenced.
Follow Barbara Hannah Grufferman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BGrufferman
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
http://www.womenwintoo.blogspot.com/2012/04/msm-simply-not-interested-in-women-and.html
There is insufficient evidence from this article for women to "get mad". Since a cause relationship is no where near being established. This is the same with equal pay. Salary determination is a very complex issue and has much to do with the aggressiveness of the employee, as well as other subjective (non-discriminative) intangibles. It is unjust, illogical, and reckless to examine data and react solely on that. What if we take data on minority groups in industry and find they are under-represented? Do we instantly assume discrimination? Preposterous! This sort of reactionism is dangerous...and WILL boomerang (since root cause is purposely avoided).
You have succeeded: I am speechless.
Barbara
But "success" was not my goal. My point is not personal, but often a becomes a trend when we look at data and make assumptions that have not been tested. In doing so, the problem may never get solved. And the "solutions" can create even more problems. I think in the case of the media, that would have to really be uncovered - a case for discrimination, that is. I think it unfair (to the media and to readers) to expect us to make this assumption unexamined.
I don't know if your attracted to her cleavage but I find I have no problem focusing on her brains even if I do like the cleavage. The fact this brilliant and talented women is also attractive is a plus. It does not detract from her intellect in anyway. I don't get mad at Brian Williams for being handsome or funny, I don't get mad at Brad Pitt for being good looking and a brilliant actor. Your comments demonstrate a kind of cattiness that is unhelpful. You should be celebrating these smart and beautiful women.
We have plenty of smart unattractive women on television, I won't name them because that would be insulting.
"On the deeper side of the issue perhaps women have simply grown tired of battling through the main stream venues for speaking their truth."
Women are not another species and the truth is dependent on our gender. We might interpret things slightly differently but that's not the truth but our bias. If you want a female bias feel free to watch day time television that's full of powerful mature women who were not chosen for being so good looking. You can also turn to the numerous women's channels.
And I'm proud to help, in some small way.
Hmmmm, must be around here somewhere. I mean, there's a "Women" section and we know the media is not letting women air their views so it stands to reason there must be at least two or three "Men" sections on here. Lessee.... click...click...click.....
Still looking..... can someone give me a link?
a.) The kind of women who asks for a sex selective abortion will often get beaten up if they refuse.
b.) This isn't China or India, where the issue of sex selective abortions is a numerically larger problem.
c.) It's unenforceable. To get a sex selective abortion, even if it's illegal, just means that you don't tell your doctor the reason you are aborting that particular fetus.
That's a lie, your only saying that to excuse females from any responsibility for anything. Women are half the population and fully accountable for their actions. Women want the male children or the same reason the men do.
If you don't like sex selective abortion ban abortion.
If having more women announcers brought higher viewership, I'm sure the TV and radio stations, eager to increase their ratings, would promote females, since media is all about dollars these days, but apparently even female viewers prefer males in these roles.
Besides, it seems to me like most media news shows have female leads or at least female co-announcers, so I'm really wondering if there is such a gap as the author states.
She's talking about those who are being interviewed and asked to analyze an issue. Why are men being asked to remark or opine about something that is considered a woman's topic? Sure- their angle is needed. But it shouldn't be the starting point or major point.
Also- issues that aren't gender-specific shouldn't be ones that men are the ones mostly commenting
Modern media is all about MONEY and RATINGS, and really, nothing else. Long gone are the days of investigative journalism and even handed reporting. Nearly every source has an agenda, bought and paid for by elitists and corporations.
Since viewers and listeners of media are primarily women (who also happen to spend over .80 of every dollar spent in the US), media apparently chooses to interview male points of view more often than female, since that improves ratings.
Maybe women just prefer men's interviews, and give the male view more credence, and hence, higher ratings?
And certainly more males would be interviewed in election topics such as military and economics, the two areas of national interest which are currently dominating the election, for the simple reason that experts in those fields are dominated by males.
Does that mean an agenda is specifically out to deprive women of media voice, or just that few qualified women happen to work in those areas currently being talked about?
Did you click on the links showing the statistics? The stats, as gathered and reported by The 4th Estate, did not focus on male/female TV hosts. It was about how often men and women are cited and quoted in broadcast and print media.
The stats do speak volumes.
Thanks for reading,
Barbara
I suspect that the 4th Estate has the underpinnings and funding of feminism, since they have half their department labels tagged with "gender related" headers and that seems to be largely the thrust of their reporting.
Even if the 4th Estate has no agenda (unlikely), it would seem to be just common sense that male experts would be the most interviewed during a presidential election year, since right now the national economy is the number one concern, followed by our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and looming over Iran. Males dominate economics and military, so would provide the most insight about those topics. And even female listeners know that male points of view in those areas come from those most knowledgeable about those particular subjects.
If the 4th Estate was tracking other media subjects (besides only the 2012 election), they might find women interviewed much more than men, depending on the topic.
1. The statistics you posted do support that women are less represented in journalism.
Of course there is this study:
"Gender split in broadcast news reporting: Kathleen Ryan of Miami University of Ohio and Joy Chavez Mapaye of the University of Alaska, Anchorage, studied all news programming on ABC, CBS and NBC during one week in February 2007 and compared it to a similar survey done in 1987. They found that in 1987, men reported 73% of stories; in 2007, men reported 48% and women, 40% (the remaining 12% were team efforts featuring reporters of each gender). (Electronic News, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2010) "
Regardless. Assuming the data is good. How can we just jump right into an assumption of discrimination? I assume that is why women are to get angry? Or are they to get angry more in the sense of getting themselves into these positions.
2. To Morningstar's point, media, even journalism, is all ratings based. It is a difficult argument this day and age to promote that there are non-ratings based motivations which describe these disparities. Surely there is more research that supports that there has been some discrimination here recently?