Community forum: sexism in media

On Feb. 19, seven people — students, faculty, Barometer staff and Mary Zelinka, assistant executive director of the Center Against Rape and Domestic Violence — sat down in the conference room of the Barometer to discuss sexism in media.

This is the first part of the forum series, which is about “-isms” in media. The series addresses the media’s involvement in legitimizing and spreading issues within our culture and communities.

The attendees came with stories of articles they read, people they know, advertisements they see and of theories they discuss.

They laughed at some, rolled their eyes at others and frequently exclaimed the pervasiveness of the problems.

What was most clear from the participants is they are all — whether they identify as male, female or other — affected by sexism and they are tired of it.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs was offered as evidence of these problems affecting everybody — disadvantaged groups struggle to fulfill the bottom of the pyramid (physiological and security needs) while those in privilege fail to reach self-actualization.

Participants shared specific examples of sexual and domestic violence, distorted body ideals, psychological and behavioral problems, communication errors, distorted goals and roles of power, condoned or ignored social ills, economic struggles, reduced job opportunities and a loss or devaluation of specialized knowledge.

In the forum on Feb. 19, four common topics of sexism in media were discussed and critiqued:

1. Women who are in headlines for their sensational, atypical gender behavior,
2. Editorial decisions of newsworthiness for gender-specific news,
3. Photos and/or quotes that fit gender stereotypes,
4. The process of sports reporting and the gender-specific contents of sports reports.

With the first common occurrence — identifying gender as a key aspect of a story — journalists may create a “survivor and victim” duality.

When crimes are committed against men, they are frequently portrayed as survivors (”Man recovers from attack”). Women, however, are frequently portrayed as victims (”Woman hospitalized after attack”).

With the second common occurrence — assigning different newsworthiness to gender-specific stories — journalists create irrational differences between special and general interest news.

When covering workplace and school shootings — crimes largely committed by middle class white males — the stories are presented as the problem of a whole society. News centering on women, however, is typically presented as only a woman’s issue (”Women paying more for birth control”).

With the third common occurrence — photos and/or quotes that fit gender stereotypes — journalists only receive part of the story.

When crime, war or conflict occur, men are typically used in news coverage to report facts and figures. In these same stories, women are frequently relied on for sensational, emotional reactions.

With the fourth common occurrence — different men’s and women’s sports coverage — journalists glorify ideals that harm each gender.

In coverage of men’s sports, the traditional themes are of speed, strength and attitude. For women’s sports, journalists’ praise seek different values — beauty, endurance and balance.

In biographical personal profiles, male athletes are frequently photographed in uniform, portrayed as stoic and powerful. Women are typically in dressy attire, often with a partner, their children or pets at their side.

With each of these four cases, the forum clearly saw the differences between the ways males and females are portrayed in the media. When it comes to solutions for sexism, however, the forum was less conclusive; while public awareness of the problem creates opportunity for change, the media profession itself must act to change.

Complicating the solution, the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics is voluntary. SPJ “encourage(s) fellow journalists and the public to hold news reports and commentary up to ethical scrutiny.”

While the best journalists will uphold standards to seek truth, minimize harm, act independently and to be accountable, the SPJ acknowledges these all are “a balancing act” without rules on a slippery-slope.

KAITLIN EMMERLING | THE DAILY BAROMETER

Solutions to the first case require journalists to tread lightly. Gender identification should be for specific purposes and not to sensationalize. Gender neutral terms, however, may mask some problems.
Overall, journalists should tell stories of crime for what they are — an individual’s failures to uphold the standards of their community and family.

Solutions to the second sexism case are largely a matter of re-framing our views of health. While health issues from behavioral exposure may be an individual’s fault, environmental and genetic problems should be the concern of everybody.

Just as reproductive responsibility is shared between the sexes, the emotional burden of individual health is shared by families — nuclear and nontraditional. Journalists who pretend we are not all affected are shortsighted.

Our third case of sexism demands a change in processes. Journalists must ask equal questions of each gender. Editors must demand this and ensure it happens.

Finally, our fourth case of sexism may find solutions in the fringe of the marketplace. Media outlets that are able to deliver engaging, non-archetypical stories of athletes, whatever their gender may be, are clearly going to find success.

What becomes clear, then, is an informed and empowered public must speak up to ask for change. Journalists must be open to critique and understand where it comes from and what it can provide.
Sexism in media limits our perspective and prevents the real stories from being heard. Working together as equals — open and honest — each gender will gain.

This Tuesday, Feb. 26, in the Barometer Conference room, Snell 120, the community forum continues with a discussion on alcoholism and community livability. Lt. Jeff Lanz from the Oregon State Police will contribute.

Originally written for and published in The Daily Barometer.