Alice Blogs Gender & Sexuality

Question:

Discuss the ways in which gender stereotypes and inequalities are legitimised and perpetuated in news and current affairs reporting.

Key elements/essay outline:

 Explain how news and current affairs reporting works within existing frameworks of cultural understanding and how journalists frame new stories within existing mythologies, meaning that gendered archetypes are legitimised and perpetuated

 Gendered reporting – certain areas of news and current affairs become considered as male arenas (eg. Sport, politics, business, economics, war) or female arenas (eg. Celebrity gossip/entertainment, education/parenting, social issues) because:
- certain news and current affairs areas are predominantly covered by either male journalists or female journalists
- certain areas of reporting predominantly focus on males and others focus on females

 News access and males as authoritative voices – men occupy a larger proportion of high-powered positions in news organisations than women, despite large numbers of female journalism graduates (eg. most editors and TV news producers are male), so:
- men generally have more power over news decision-making processes and to set agendas
- under-representation of visible authoritative female reporters eg. female TV news readers are usually chosen for being young and attractive, rather than for being considered intelligent, while male news readers tend to be older and can have longer careers.
- More men than women are chosen to be authoritative (expert) voices on subjects

 Many reports are published as news confirming “evidence” of a gender divide and gender differences
- although usually published directly from press releases with very generalised and oversimplified information, they legitimise and perpetuate our understandings of a “natural” gender divide.

 Sexualisation of women in news and current affairs reporting perpetuates the idea of women as sexual objects, in order to sell newspapers and get online clicks for advertising dollars.

 Discuss the effects that this all has, eg. gender inequalities are perpetuated and the patriarchal social order is maintained.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Bird, S.E. and Dardenne, R.W. ‘Myth, Chronicle and Story: Exploring the Narrative Qualities of News’ in Berkowitz, D. (ed.) 1997: Social Meanings of News, Sage.
Bird and Dardenne consider “news as mythological narrative”, because through myth, members of a culture learn values and definitions of right and wrong, as they do through news. As every news story is written within an existing framework of previous news stories, we associate new news stories with previous news stories with similar themes. Their article talks about “a gallery of folk types – heroes and saints, as well as fools, villains and devils”. This can be related to the way much reporting is gendered, as news is one of the ways our culture learns about what it means to be man and what it means to be woman. As they state, “journalists play a role in affirming and maintaining the social order”, by representing that the prevailing maps of meaning should be perceived as “natural” and “common sense”.

Cottle, Simon 2000, Rethinking news access, Journalism Studies, 1(3), pp.427-448.
Cottle explores the relationships between news access and power and considers the sociology behind the scenes of news production. He talks about news being a form of cultural ritual and performance. Like Bird and Dardenne, he considers news as ‘myth’, and shows that there is a limited repertoire of news narratives that position characters symbolically to enact standardised roles within mythic structures.

Schlesinger, P. 1990: ‘Rethinking the Sociology of Journalism Source Strategies and the Limits of Media-Centrism’ in Ferguson, M. Public Communication: The New Imperatives, Sage.
Schlesinger also considers issues related to news access and power. He shows that news-media is a powerful source of public information that is closed to most people, and can usually only be accessed by powerful groups who can use it to their advantage. The issues that the powerful decision-makers choose to communicate as news become part of the agenda, and are thus considered the ‘pressing issues of the day’. He talks about the primary definition thesis which demontrates that even when alternative views are allowed to be heard, they must be voiced in terms pre-established by the primary definers.

Hall, S. et al. 1978: Policing the Crisis, London Macmillan, c.3, ‘The Social Production of News’, pp. 53-77.
Hall et al discuss the ways a shamble of simultaneous, chaotic events are given meaning by journalists. They show how the media plays the primary role in agenda setting, introducing issues for public concern and debate. Their arguments relate to the way the media presents gender stereotypes that maintain the social order: “by stressing the continuity and stability of the social structure, and by asserting a commonly shared set of assumptions, the definitions of the situation coincide with and reinforce essential consensual notions.”

Media Awareness Network 2006, Media Stereotyping, Media Awareness Network, Canada, viewed 23 January 2006, .
This website has a number of informative articles about media stereotyping of males and females. Within the section on media portrayals of girls and women it presents articles about news coverage of women and women’s issues, about women working in the media about the economics of gender stereotyping, and about beauty and body image in the media. Within the section on media portrayals of men and masculinity it features articles about media archetypes of men, about male authority in the media, and about the ways masculinity is represented in sports media.

It’s interesting to see how many different styles of articles have been written about the same-sex marriage issue. And while a plethora of articles have been published in mainstream newspapers in support of same-sex marriage, I haven’t seen any in opposition, despite the apparent controversy.

In an SMH article, titled, Marriage: same sex, same difference, Tim Dick shows the similarities between the racist American laws against inter-racial marriage, and the Australian laws that prohibit same-sex couples to marry. He relays the story of a black woman and a white man (Mildred and Richard Loving) who were sentenced to one year’s jail in 1959 for being married. The American laws were changed in 1967. The Australian laws continue to discriminate against homosexual couples.

Dick then then offers 6 reasons why same-sex marriage should be allowed, in order for Australia to catch up with much of the developed world. These are:

1. Australia is a liberal democracy and our government doesn’t rely on religion, so we should be free to make our own decisions, as long as we don’t hurt others.

2. Marriage allows individuals to help secure social environments - families, which are beneficial for the individual and society - economically, mentally and physically.

3. Marriage would remove inequalities for gay couples, particularly in social security, immigration, tax and family law.

4. Tradition should yield to reason - marriage has long been between men and women, but that is no answer to sound reasons for change.

5. Marriage will be helped by more participants.

6. Marriage is for more than child care - the infertile and the old can marry, but not gay couples.

One of the things I’ve noticed is that most of the articles about this issue have been written by males. This opinion piece, like the article Marriage Baggage, published on SSONET.com.au, is written by a gay man, as evident in the lines: “Religions can do as they please, and if it makes people feel better that my marriage is called a civil union, let them have that euphemism. I’ll just be happy with my rights.”

A story about Women’s Libido aired on ABC’s Catalyst today. It was a repeat of a previous show that aired in May 2004.

It dealt with the complex issue of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), which 43% of women experience.

It asked the question, ‘will there ever be a pill for women’s passion?’, since researchers announced that Viagra for women didn’t work (despite a widespread want for such a drug), and also questioned the libido depressing effects of the contraceptive pill. The pill has adverse effects on the sexuality of about 1/3 of women, yet there doesn’t seem to be much public discussion about the issue. One of the side effects of the pill is loss of libido, but most women with a sexual problem say ‘how come no one ever told me that?’, so there seems to be a lack of education, and possibly media attention on the issue. And they questioned why more research to develop a pill that didn’t supress libido, hadn’t been conducted by now. An interesting point was made - “if it had been a male pill we’d have done that by now”.

The program also asked how much of fsd is in the mind, and how much in the body - as the prevailing view is that FSD is psychological. Experts testify that this view leads us to ignore the physical problems.

Interviewees challenged the move to medicalise women’s sexuality, suggesting that this unecessarily turns normal women’s libido into a disease.

When I searched for this program’s transcript on the Catalyst website, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the ABC had broadcast and published numerous stories on the issue of female sexual dysfunction, including on Radio National, and in Health Matters. Yet each report comes to the same conclusion - that there is still little known about FSD and the female orgasm, and that it’s an extremely common problem.

Another Herald article accompanied by sexy photo of young model posing on red carpet, and with sexy title Court bans sexy little thing. The headline seems to imply that the court has banned this sexy little model from something/somewhere….but it’s misleading. The opening line, “Nobody can call themselves a “sexy little thing”, a Manhattan court has ruled”, isn’t very informative, and is also misleading - though catchy of course!

The article is simply about an American judge’s advice to fashion designer that she could be sued by another fashion company for trademark infringement.

In fact, it’s a very dull little article about a small American court case - it doesn’t seem very news worthy - all it’s got going for it is a sex factor manufactured by the journalist and photographer. Admittedly, it is in the Fashion section of the paper.

See my other post about the (over)use of sexual imagery on the SMH website.

This relates to the theory that nowadays, ‘News focuses less on providing what has been traditionally thought of as the information necessary for a democracy and concentrates instead on entertaining audiences’ (Williams and Delli Carpini, 2000) and that there are ‘increasingly blurry boundaries between news and entertainment and the overall celebration of commercial culture’ (Hartley, 1996). I think this is particularly prevalent in regards to news about gender and sexuality.

I know I’m linking to a LOT of Sydney Morning Herald articles - but basically, it’s because I’ve found they publish more articles on issues related to gender and sexuality than most of the other mainstream local newspapers I’ve been monitoring. The News Corp papers really don’t focus on such issues as regularly.

Anyway, a recent SMH article titled A change is brewing examined the way the “sweating, beer-swilling Aussie bloke is dying out as wines creep into the market and women work up a thirst for the amber fluid”.

The article demonstrates how gender relations, characteristics and stereotypes, have changed, and also how Aussie culture has changed, by showing the changes in our beer drinking habits (a big part of Aussie male culture).

It explains that in the past beer was always marketed to men, using very true-blue male imagery, characters, music and phrases - the major themes of the ads were usually mateship, sport, hard-yakka and larrikinism. Perfect examples are the old VB ads, which portrayed images of sweaty men licking their lips in anticipation of a cold VB, while “John Meillon solemnly intoned the ways in which you could work up a ‘hard-earned thirst’ for Victoria Bitter”.

Although they now use the occasional throwback to these old ads, eg. the new ad featuring iconic cricket legend David Boon, the ads created for beer companies are now very different (as are the beer-drinkers) - they portray more metro-sexual type men as well as women drinking beer anywhere but in the pub. They have to develop new ways to market beer as they face stiff competition from wines and ready-mixed drinks. Plus, as the article states, “today’s Australian male is more likely to be pushing a pen than wielding a pickaxe”.

Apparently, women now account for a quarter of beer drinkers, so to reflect this, women are also playing a more active role in the ads, eg. the Tooheys New advertisement that features a woman opening the bottletop with her belly button.

On the same day, the Herald published another article about the beer market, titled Tapping a circle of care - for any occasion. It’s written by Julian Lee, the same person who wrote the first one, and although it provides different info, it’s about the same issue. The first lines read, “PITY today’s beer marketer. He must weep when he looks back at the days when an Aussie working man would spend as much on beer in a week as he did on his mortgage. Back then your choice of beer said as much about you as a man as the car you drove or the team you supported. Occasionally you might have a light beer — if no one was watching. There was little else on offer. Today, the average Aussie has at least six drinks in his “repertoire” and scores of brands of spirits, wines and beers.”

It analyses the “average” young Aussie male’s drinking habits, but unlike the other article, doesn’t mention women.

By publishing these types of articles that analyse changes in gender characteristic, stereotypes, relations, as well as changes to Aussie culture, the Herald is acting as a social commentator - drawing public attention to the way our society has changed over time.

An article published in the SMH, titled, Teenage girls trapped in a web of mixed messages, quite hypocritical on the Herald’s part.

It begins with the sell, “Raunch culture is a product of society’s double standards, writes Rachel Funari.” and proceeds to demonstrate the double standards of the Herald by making statements about the glut of sexual images in the media (the Herald being one such publication that offers a glut of sexual images of girls, particularly on its webiste, where young girls are probably more likely to access the news).

She refers to a book by Ariel Levy, titled Female Chauvinist Pigs, which argues that the rise of “raunch culture” is an indication that women are mistaking voyeurism for empowerment. One of Levy’s points sserts is that sexualised media images lead young women to mistaken the difference between their own sexual desire and their need to be liked and accepted. So, girls are having sex, not because they want to, but because it’s cool.

The article states: “Girls and boys receive a glut of sexualised images every day from advertising signs, television shows and commercials. It is continually reinforced that female power - financial and social - is garnered through the body, one that is desired, available and on display.” This statement implies that the sexualised images in the media have negative implications. But it seems hypocritical to me, when the Herald is one of those publications that portrays “sexualised images”. On the SMH website, displayed right next to the link to this article, was a large image of a faceless teenage model in low-cut hipsters pulling seductively at her shirt.

Although the SHM may not seem to be as sexy as other publications, like it’s Sunday equivalent, and The Daily Telegraph, I think it’s increasingly using sex to attract readers (see my entry on Sex Sells in the SMH for examples). See today’s Herald for more examples - the feature picture is of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, with the headline “Jolie and Pitt to have baby” - hardly seems like serious international news, and would be more suitable for a gossip mag like Who Weekly. And despite the fact that Pitt could be considered one of the most famous men and sex symbols in the world, he is only pictured in a small inset in the corner of the large picture of Jolie - I guess sexy images of girls sell better than those of men as they appeal to both males and females.

Another article featured on the homepage of SMH today pictures Britney Spears with the sell, Britney tops ‘worst dressed list’, with “over-the-hill Lolita” look. Need I say more?!

I guess the article by Rachel Funari does aim to provide “honest and comprehensive sexual discussion” to help young people gain a better understanding of sexuality, but I think the problem begins because attracting young people to a “serious” publication like SMH may require the portrayal of sexy images. And so, it’s a vicious cycle.

Many gender-related news reports in Australian newspapers seem to derive from studies undertaken to compare and contrast gender characteristics. Most of these types of articles seem to perpetuate the attitude that men and women have different gender-related personality traits and behaviours, highlighting various natural divisions between the sexes.

One such gender-based article, recently published in SMH, was titled Evidence of online sexual divide. It begins with an old cliche - “that men are loath to ask for directions” and states that this cliche “is borne out by facts - on the internet, at least.”

It states that a recent US study found that American men and women use the interent very differently, and for different purposes - while “men probe deeper into the web’s hidden depths and use it for entertainment, women are much more likely to go online for practical purposes and to talk to friends.”

Apparently, men are more likely than women to check weather forecasts, read news, find diy info, track sports scores, look for financial information, research jobs, listen to music, and download software.

Women use the internet more to communicate with others, to seek health and medical support, and to look for religious consolation.

It presents findings that support preconceived stereotypes about gender differences - that more women use the internet to look at maps or to seek directions, and that more men visit adult websites. Hardly surprising…

The exact same article was also published on the News.com.au site, although titled slightly differently - Study probes online gender divide.

And surprisingly, the same article (excluding a bit of additional info at the end), was published in the same paper the very next day, but titled differently - Net difference between the sexes goes all the way down the line. However, this time it was printed in the Technology section of the paper.

Since these articles are the same, it can be assumed the information has not only been sourced from press releases - it’s basically a direct copy of a press release. The byline on all three articles does read ‘Agence France-Presse’. I often read similar articles to this one - facts regarding gender characteristics, derived from studies, and the reports are always similar in terms of the facts and details they present, as well as the style they’re reported in - that is if they’re not exactly the same, as in this one. I’m surprised that they don’t take any time to go out and do some additional journalistic research, even if only to make the information more relevant to an Australian audience…obviously these Ozzie papers wouldn’t be reporting such info if they didn’t think American trends reflect Australian trends. You’d think that if they think the issue’s important enough to print the article, it’d be worth their while to do some extra research and create a more comprehensive report, rather than relying on the press release.

And I guess these types of observations imply that these studies supply evidence for broader gender differences, eg. females’ usage of the internet reflects broader behavioural patterns of females. They perpetuate an oversimplified gender divide, as journalists play a role in “affirming and maintaining the social order” (Barkin, 1984).

As I’ve been monitoring media coverage of push for same-sex “marriage” to be legally recognised in Oz, I’ve noticed the regular use of the word ‘partner‘ to describe each half of a same-sex couple. Partner is commonly used nowadays by people in both hetereosexual and homosexual relationships, in place of girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/lover. However, I don’t think this became conventional until recently, say in the last 2 or so decades, as homosexual relationships started becoming more socially acceptable.

People, and particularly homosexuals, started using the word partner rather than having to distinguish their sexuality when talking to anyone with no business in knowing.

The media may have propogated the use of the term partner - it’s a convenient term with little connotations, and can be applied to almost any couple, whether they be married, de factos, sexual partners or even business partners. It doesn’t imply the sexual nature of a relationship, or the level of seriousness.

The Herald uses the regularly uses the word to describe people in same-sex relationships. In a Sun Herald article published today, titled Home is where the hearts should be joined, the word partner is used to describe people in 3 different same-sex relationships. On the other hand, it uses the word girlfriend to describe the woman in a heterosexual relationship.

Sydney Star Observer, a publication primarily concerned with issues the effect the gay and lesbian community, also uses the word partner regularly to describe people in same-sex couples.

To continue on the issue of the push to legalise same-sex “marriage” in Australia….there’s an interesting and detailed opinion piece titled, Marriage Baggage, was published on Sydney Star Observer Net (www.SSONET.com.au). It’s written by Steve Dow, one half of a devoted homosexual couple. As well as stating the practical reasons that same-sex partnerships should be able to be registered, he also writes about the “bigger picture” of “commitment and love”.

Dow writes, in narrative style, about his relationship with his partner, also named Steve. It’s a very personal account of how the couple met over 6 years ago. It’s written in a very flamoboyant style and expresses a kind of stereotypical gay, “camp” feeling:

“He’d seen me some weeks earlier, marching up and down Peel Street, preparing for the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, torso exposed with fairy wings strapped to my back, a little white wrap around my butt. A Melbourne Marching Boy in miniature. Somehow, he was able to resist approaching me at that point.”

Such details seem quite irrelevant for the point he’s making, but it certainly makes for an interesting read.

He writes of his brother’s relationship with his wife, in order to make a contrast with same-sex relationships - which I thought was an interesting technique since he’s basically arguing that both types of couples should be viewed similarly under the law, and enjoy the same rights.

He also writes of gay friends tying the knot around the world - in countries that do allow for same-sex civil unions.

He weaves facts about the laws re same-sex marriage around the world, throughout his narrative of personal accounts.

He makes an interesting point - and I guess the fact that he is a gay man, writing about this gay issue, gives him a kind of authority to make generalised points about gay couples - he writes:

“Among some gay people…marriage is viewed suspiciously as a conservative tradition, the franchise’s aims of monogamy and associated social strictures at odds with long-fought lifestyle freedoms, though this view is changing: as the overseas experience shows what’s possible, suddenly the options open to others become objects of desire.”

He makes another interesting point, stating that the moral panic about same-sex marriage is that it would weaken heterosexual marriage, and comments that it’s already too late due to such high divorce rates. Even if this is an argument against same-sex marriage, I don’t think its opponents (eg. John Howard) would admit it.

This article is very different to those published in Australian newspapers, such as the Herald, on the same issue. And I guess this is mostly due to the fact that it’s written by a gay man in a gay relationship, who thus has more authority than say, a heterosexual man, writing his opinions on the issue. He has a real involvement and investment in the issue as it’s affecting his life with his partner directly.

See SOIN - Sexual Orientation Issues in the News for an interesting article about whether homosexual journalists should cover the same-sex marriage issue, and attitudes on the broader question of ‘What disqualifies a journalist from covering a story?’.

Australia’s mainstream newspapers have continued to give extensive coverage of updates regarding the “gay marriage” legislation passed in England. It’s interestring to see how an issue that arose in another country can become an Australian issue if it gains media attention.

Online News Limited (www.news.com.au) published a story titled, Defiant Liberals urge gay unions, about how some Liberal backbenchers are pushing for Australia to follow Britain’s lead.

The article presents quotes from some of the backbenchers supporting gay unions - Warren Entsch said: “I would be a hypocrite if I said those people have less of an entitlement than I would”. Judi Moylan said: “It’s a matter of fair and equitable treatment of people”, and Petro Georgiou said gay men and lesbians deserved recognition: “People in relationships should be treated equally regardless of gender”.

These comments supporting gay unions were not balanced by any quotes from anyone opposing gay unions, despite the fact that the article states that John Howard opposes gay unions, as he believes that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, and that Labor opposes them also. I find this surprising - that Liberal backbenchers are supporting a change while Labor opposes it. Hopefully their campaign will have some success! It seems we are really behind so many countries in regards to this issue!

The article also includes ABS stats, which conlude that the number of same-sex-couple households doubled from 10,000 to 20,000 from 1996 to 2001, reflecting an increasing inclination among homosexual couples to declare their status. This statement conveys a need to recognise the civil rights of a fairly large and growing proportion of our population.

SMH published a news story titled Elton John’s ‘marriage’ certificate released. It’s a fairly mundane article and doesn’t seem to be particularly ‘news worthy’ to me, especially since the Herald published a few articles about the fact that Elton John and his partner would be tying the knot, in the lead up to their ‘marriage’. So, I think the fact that the Herald published this story shows that they are trying to bring this issue to the public’s attention and set the agenda for public and political debate.

An article about the push to legalise gay marriage in Australia was published the following day in the Sun Herald. It states that “gay rights activists will seize on Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (to be held in March 2006) to push for legal recognition of same-sex marriages.”

This article also seems to present a fairly strong case for the support of same-sex civil unions, including effective quotes from various supporters, and none from the opposition. It ends with the line “They (same-sex couples) also want the right to publicly celebrate their love and commitment”. which, to me, sounds positive and expresses no negative connotations.

I’ll continue to monitor the media’s coverage of this issue, but I should start focusing on more alternative publications….