Introduction
The media, since its founding, have protected and constantly cultivated the gender stereotypes. The image of women that has been presented by the media, in general, is of weak, childish, dependent, domestic, irrational, subordinate creatures, the producers of children and little else compared with men.[1] Perhaps the area where these sexist representations dominated more than anywhere else is the sport; media’s coverage of sports historically has been dominated by sexist representations.
In this background, Katherine Kinnick has made a study regarding the Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes. In order to do this, she did the content analyses of five mayor daily newspapers: USA Today, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlanta Constitution. The findings of her study were that, “There was no evidence of gender bias in terms of quantitative representation of female athletes, or in the placement and prominence of stories. Overall, the findings suggest improvement–revealing less egregious bias than has been noted by previous studies of media coverage of female athletes”.[2]
This essay will aim to explain that a) Kinnick underestimates different forms of gender bias in sports’ journalism while she explains the findings of her research (i.e. a focus on appearance, characterizations of weakness, and linguistic sexism), b) the Kinnick’s research, more or less, is characterized by fallacy of evidence; it makes generalizations, since “recognition is a necessary condition for legitimation to occur, but not a sufficient one”,[3] and c) the ‘positive’ changes represented on Kinnick’s research are just a blip on the screen that coincides with the Olympic Games – the representation of female athletes by the media was and continues to be hegemonic.
Highlighting Recognition and Neglecting Respect
Different scholars, while studying gender and race bias in media content, in general, focus on two primary criteria identified by Clark (1972)[4]: recognition (the first stage of legitimation), or the quantitative presence of the group of interest (in our case female athletes in comparison with their representation in the population); and, respect (the second stage of legitimation) the treatment and status accorded to this group.
Kinnick’s research is focused on these two criteria also. In the beginning, according to Kinnick, studies of gender in sports coverage show a consistent pattern relating to recognition (representation): “Female athletes receive disproportionately less coverage than male athletes”.[5] However, according to Kinnick, in Olympics of 1996 this negative trend ends; moreover, “In some cases, such as page layout and article prominence, female athletes received favorable treatment, suggesting that editors sought to capitalize on reader interest in female athletes”.[6]
Concerning the respect, which presents the second stage of legitimation, Kinnick, reveals the common sources of bias which contribute to recurring themes of trivialization and devaluation. What is more, she groups these sources of bias into three categories: a focus on appearance, characterizations of weakness, and linguistic sexism.[7]
Interesting thing is that, while Kinnick discusses the findings of her study, she focuses, above all, on recognition or the quantitative presence of the female athletes in comparison with their representation in the population. On the other hand, Kinnick, more or less, neglects the respect, which is very important, since media may recognize certain female athletes, in certain sports, by mentioning them, but the way these female athletes are presented might disrespect and de-legitimize them. Kinnick only numbers the cases and does not analyze them. Perhaps this is an outcome of quantitative analysis, which represents the only method that has been used by Kinnick. If Kinnick would have done qualitizing of the data (Qualitizing refers to a process by which quantitative data are transformed into qualitative data),[8] she probably would have come to different results.
The qualitizing of the data makes possible avoidance of the generalizations, since the aim of qualitative analysis is a complete detailed description. The lack of qualitative analysis of data might cause the miss of contextual details. More over, if we deal with an important issue such as gender bias in the media, the qualitizing of the data is an imperative of time, since there are new ways of covering the gender bias in the media; these ways appear to be more sophisticated, less visible and camouflaged. Contemporary mediated representations of female athletes function hegemonically in more sophisticated and thus more powerful ways than the traditionally ways of representing the female athletes.[9]
The media, since its founding, have protected and constantly cultivated the gender stereotypes. The image of women that has been presented by the media, in general, is of weak, childish, dependent, domestic, irrational, subordinate creatures, the producers of children and little else compared with men.[1] Perhaps the area where these sexist representations dominated more than anywhere else is the sport; media’s coverage of sports historically has been dominated by sexist representations.
In this background, Katherine Kinnick has made a study regarding the Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes. In order to do this, she did the content analyses of five mayor daily newspapers: USA Today, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlanta Constitution. The findings of her study were that, “There was no evidence of gender bias in terms of quantitative representation of female athletes, or in the placement and prominence of stories. Overall, the findings suggest improvement–revealing less egregious bias than has been noted by previous studies of media coverage of female athletes”.[2]
This essay will aim to explain that a) Kinnick underestimates different forms of gender bias in sports’ journalism while she explains the findings of her research (i.e. a focus on appearance, characterizations of weakness, and linguistic sexism), b) the Kinnick’s research, more or less, is characterized by fallacy of evidence; it makes generalizations, since “recognition is a necessary condition for legitimation to occur, but not a sufficient one”,[3] and c) the ‘positive’ changes represented on Kinnick’s research are just a blip on the screen that coincides with the Olympic Games – the representation of female athletes by the media was and continues to be hegemonic.
Highlighting Recognition and Neglecting Respect
Different scholars, while studying gender and race bias in media content, in general, focus on two primary criteria identified by Clark (1972)[4]: recognition (the first stage of legitimation), or the quantitative presence of the group of interest (in our case female athletes in comparison with their representation in the population); and, respect (the second stage of legitimation) the treatment and status accorded to this group.
Kinnick’s research is focused on these two criteria also. In the beginning, according to Kinnick, studies of gender in sports coverage show a consistent pattern relating to recognition (representation): “Female athletes receive disproportionately less coverage than male athletes”.[5] However, according to Kinnick, in Olympics of 1996 this negative trend ends; moreover, “In some cases, such as page layout and article prominence, female athletes received favorable treatment, suggesting that editors sought to capitalize on reader interest in female athletes”.[6]
Concerning the respect, which presents the second stage of legitimation, Kinnick, reveals the common sources of bias which contribute to recurring themes of trivialization and devaluation. What is more, she groups these sources of bias into three categories: a focus on appearance, characterizations of weakness, and linguistic sexism.[7]
Interesting thing is that, while Kinnick discusses the findings of her study, she focuses, above all, on recognition or the quantitative presence of the female athletes in comparison with their representation in the population. On the other hand, Kinnick, more or less, neglects the respect, which is very important, since media may recognize certain female athletes, in certain sports, by mentioning them, but the way these female athletes are presented might disrespect and de-legitimize them. Kinnick only numbers the cases and does not analyze them. Perhaps this is an outcome of quantitative analysis, which represents the only method that has been used by Kinnick. If Kinnick would have done qualitizing of the data (Qualitizing refers to a process by which quantitative data are transformed into qualitative data),[8] she probably would have come to different results.
The qualitizing of the data makes possible avoidance of the generalizations, since the aim of qualitative analysis is a complete detailed description. The lack of qualitative analysis of data might cause the miss of contextual details. More over, if we deal with an important issue such as gender bias in the media, the qualitizing of the data is an imperative of time, since there are new ways of covering the gender bias in the media; these ways appear to be more sophisticated, less visible and camouflaged. Contemporary mediated representations of female athletes function hegemonically in more sophisticated and thus more powerful ways than the traditionally ways of representing the female athletes.[9]
The following examples of some gender bias forms (i.e. a focus on appearance and characterizations of weakness) show in the best way that the use of exclusively quantitative analysis might offer a wrong generalized impression of female athlete representations – the trap into which, Kinnick has fallen.
Relay runner Dannete Young-Stone is described as “a beauty manicurist with braided hair”, in an article that focuses its first two and a half paragraphs on the nail salon she owns, rather than her role as an Olympic athlete. (The Atlanta Constitution, July 31, 1996)
Gold metal swimmer Michelle Smith was described as “freckle-faced” with “light green Irish eyes… She is one feisty lady.” (USA Today, July 26, 1996)
Juliana Furtado, a well known athlete, was described as “a sports cover girl”. (The Atlanta Constitution, July 30, 1996)
Michelle Smith, among others, was described as “a lass”. (Los Angeles Times, July 21, 1996)
Judo star Ryoko Tamura was depicted as “a national darling” and “a pixie”. (The Atlanta Constitution, July 26, 1996)
The description of Amanda Beard, fourteen years old swimmer, was a very tough one: “With her big blue eyes and toothy smile, Beard is as cute as the teddy bear she carries to the pool”. (The Atlanta Constitution, July 23, 1996)
These descriptions frame the athlete as something to be gazed upon for others’ pleasure, and minimize their identity as athletes. Interestingly, Kinnick recognizes these forms of gender bias and describes them as “exceptions to the positive changes for women”. Maybe they are ‘exceptions’, who knows, but one thing is for sure, the focus on female athletes’ appearance and the characterizations of weakness, observed in previous studies is similar as in these examples.
Traditional conceptions of sports are related to the definition of masculinity in U.S. culture;[10] and, media continuously have cultivated these conceptions. Moreover, in the beginning, women’s participation in athletics, by the media, was viewed as a social anomaly. “If masculinity and femininity are viewed as appropriate social conceptions... If sport is logically deduced as a masculine domain, as media presents it, then the role of woman in sport is a social anomaly”.[11]
While time passes some things change for real; there is no doubt that the Olympics of 1996 present a positive transformation, at least, in terms media coverage of female representations. However, Kinnick exaggerates these positive changes; she suggests that there was no evidence of gender bias during Olympics. This is a consequence of highlighting recognition (as a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one) and neglecting the respect. On the other hand, some scholars disagree with her; one of them is Clasen: “In the summer of 1996, I spent countless hours watching the Olympic Games as well as interviews with the athletes on talk shows. On talk shows, I saw women discussing their hopeful modeling careers and families. It seemed ironic to me that women’s athletic performances became secondary to their outside interests, particularly when those interests seemed to reinforce traditional feminine roles”.[12]
Although, there were some improvements, the sports, in U.S. are still considered, by the media, as a masculine social environment. “The masculine/feminine dualism pervades U.S. sports journalism. By placing masculinity and femininity on opposite ends of a dichotomy, women have been excluded from the sporting world, because sports are defined by masculine characteristics. Being feminine is paradoxical to being athletic”.[13]
Conclusion
To conclude, Katherine Kinnick has made a study regarding the Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes. The findings of her study were that, “there was no evidence of gender bias in terms of quantitative representation of female athletes, or in the placement and prominence of stories. Overall, the findings suggest improvement–revealing less egregious bias than has been noted by previous studies of media coverage of female athletes”.[14]
Regarding the recognition (representation) of female athletes, I agree, that there are some improvement; however, as I argued, the use of only quantitative analysis might give a wrong impression of representation (exaggerate findings), since the new ways of gender bias are more sophisticated, less visible and camouflaged. The qualitizing of the data is essential, if we want to present factual situation about gender bias in the media. On the other hand, concerning the general improvements of media coverage of female athletes, that Kinnick suggests, I dispute her completely. On the contrary, as it’s shown, the ‘positive’ changes represented on Kinnick’s research are just a blip on the screen that coincides with the Olympic Games; the representation of female athletes by the media was and continues to be hegemonic.
Lastly, a suggestion for future researches would be to examine a larger sample of newspapers and to use both quantitative and qualitative methods. Qualitizing of the data is necessary, since respect (as the second stage of legitimation) is essential in order to determine the factual situation on media coverage of female athletes; as Clark would say: “Without recognition, legitimation is impossible, but it alone is no guarantee that legitimation will occur”.[15]
Notes:
[1]Lucy Kosimar, Women in a Sexist Society, Basic , New York, 1971, pp. 301-305.
[2] Katherine N. Kinnick, “Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes: A Content of Five Major Dailies”, in journal: Women’s Studies in Communication. Vol. 21, No. 2/1998
[3] Cedric Clark, “Race, Identification and Television Violence”, in book: George A. Comstock, John P. Murray and Eli A. Rubinstein, eds., Television and Social Behavior: Reports and Papers, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, 1972, p. 125.
[4] Cedric Clark, “Race, Identification and Television Violence”, in book: George A. Comstock, John P. Murray and Eli A. Rubinstein, eds., Television and Social Behavior: Reports and Papers, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, 1972, pp. 123-127.
[5] Katherine N. Kinnick, “Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes: A Content of Five Major Dailies”, in journal: Women’s Studies in Communication. Vol. 21, No. 2/1998
[6] Ibid.
[7] Katherine N. Kinnick, “Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes: A Content of Five Major Dailies”, in journal: Women’s Studies in Communication. Vol. 21, No. 2/1998
[8] Margarete Sandelowski, “Focus on Research Methods: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection, and Analysis Techniques in Mixed Methods Studies”, in journal: Research in Nursing and Health. Vol. 23, No. 1/2000
[9] Helene A. Shugart, “She Shoots, She Scores: Media Constructions of Contemporary Female Athletes in Coverage of 1999 U.S. Women’s Soccer Team”, in journal: Western Journal of Communication. Vol. 67, No. 1/2003
[10] Patricia R. W. Clasen, “The Female Athlete: Dualisms and Paradox in Practice”, in journal: Women and Language. Vol. 24, No. 2/2001
[11] Felshin, quoted in Patricia R. W. Clasen, “The Female Athlete: Dualisms and Paradox in Practice”, in journal: Women and Language. Vol. 24, No. 2/2001
[12] Patricia R. W. Clasen, “The Female Athlete: Dualisms and Paradox in Practice”, in journal: Women and Language. Vol. 24, No. 2/2001
[13] Ibid.
[14] Katherine N. Kinnick, “Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes: A Content of Five Major Dailies”, in journal: Women’s Studies in Communication. Vol. 21, No. 2/1998
[15] Cedric Clark, “Race, Identification and Television Violence”, in book: George A. Comstock, John P. Murray and Eli A. Rubinstein, eds., Television and Social Behavior: Reports and Papers, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, 1972, p. 125.
Bibliography
Katherine N. Kinnick, “Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes: A Content of Five Major Dailies”, in journal: Women’s Studies in Communication. Vol. 21, No. 2/1998
Lucy Kosimar, Women in a Sexist Society, Basic , New York, 1971
Margarete Sandelowski, “Focus on Research Methods: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling, Data Collection, and Analysis Techniques in Mixed Methods Studies”, in journal: Research in Nursing and Health. Vol. 23, No. 1/2000
Helene A. Shugart, “She Shoots, She Scores: Media Constructions of Contemporary Female Athletes in Coverage of 1999 U.S. Women’s Soccer Team”, in journal: Western Journal of Communication. Vol. 67, No. 1/2003
Patricia R. W. Clasen, “The Female Athlete: Dualisms and Paradox in Practice”, in journal: Women and Language. Vol. 24, No. 2/2001Cedric Clark, “Race, Identification and Television Violence”, in book: George A. Comstock, John P. Murray and Eli A. Rubinstein, eds., Television and Social Behavior: Reports and Papers, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, 1972
No comments:
Post a Comment