Gender and Politics: Media and Press Coverage

Professor Karen Owen

Juna Hwang

Unlike in the past when the roles of men and women were strictly divided, women

have been steadily entering the public sphere. Corresponding to this trend, many female

politicians are actively participating in political activities nowadays. Even though the

numbers are not equal to men yet, women have been struggling to get a seat in the public

sphere as much as men. One of the ways for political candidates to be known is to be shown

in media. It is a well-known fact that media is a crucial factor in conveying one's messages to

the public and helping voters to determine who they would vote for. However, despite this

importance, numerous studies show that the media is biased in a favorable way to men

candidates. This paper would summarize and analyze this lopsided phenomenon based on

three papers. They would be reviewed in the following order: Thomas and Wilcox’s review,

Julie Dolan, Melissa M. Deckman, and Michele L. Swers’ Women and Politics, and Miller,

Melissa K., Jeffrey S. Peake, and Brittany Anne Boulton’s Testing the Saturday Night Live

Hypothesis, according to how they are dealt in specific to the subject.

According to Thomas and Wilcox, while media tends to cover women candidates less, a

large fraction of the coverage is about the viability of the women's candidacy. The viability of

women candidates is portrayed much more negatively than men. Not only the viability but

also the content of the coverage is unfavorable to women. The language used to describe

women candidates were also mentioned. According to one study, it suggests that the media

utilize nonneutral language using words such as “outburst” instead of a neutral word,

“stated.” The amount, emphasis, and tone of the coverage were different in an unfavorable

1
way to women. In addition to unfair gendered media reports, another interesting finding that

was dealt with in the chapters was how men and women tend to stress traditionally

recognized traits that are opposite from their gender. That is, men were likely to stress their

“female” traits, whereas women stressed “male” traits. This shows how gender is directly

related to policies.

This tendency with media coverage goes more into detail in Julie Dolan, Melissa M.

Deckman, and Michele L. Swers, "Women and Politics." This book talks about four gendered

frames that are put on women candidates. The first gendered frame is the mother frame. It

implies a female candidate would be nurturing and compassionate, but at the same time,

would have a hard time balancing in the public and private sphere. Some examples of this

would be headlines such as "A New Twist on the Debate on Mothers," debate questions

asking about one's children, and the press paying less attention to policy positions. The next

is the sex object or seductress frame. It makes the public pay more attention to physical

appearance, feminine characteristics, or one's attributes more than their qualifications. This

frame disables voters to look objectively at the candidates and reduce their credibility. The

third frame introduced is the iron lady frame. It is used as an expression to describe a female

candidate who is portrayed as masculine. A major example of this would be former British

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton. This frame focuses on the toughness

and one with a powerful driving force while it questions one's likability, trustworthiness,

putting one into another frame of "testicle lockbox," which is used negatively to women. The

last frame is the child frame. It suggests that the candidate has to rely on another to maintain

one's seat. The book also mentions that being a woman and being a racial minority leads to

more negative coverage in tone than other women.

2
 To prove this phenomenon where media coverage is hostile to women, Miller, Melissa K.,

Jeffrey S. Peake, and Brittany Anne Boulton tested the fairness and bias in newspaper

coverage of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign back in 2008. Notably, this was studied

limited to Hillary Clinton, so the result may not apply to all women candidates. A total of

6,600 articles from 25 newspapers between 2007 Labor Day and 2008 Super Tuesday were

analyzed. Mainly two dimensions were looked at, traditional and tonal. Indicators such as

coverage amount, appearance, marital status, gender, personality, matters of substance were

analyzed in the traditional dimension, and headline tones were examined to indicate the tonal

dimension. According to the study, appearance was not treated seriously. However, other

traditional factors were a hindrance. Clinton’s marital status and gendered coverage were

shown in media more than other rivals which led to more questioning in her electability. She

received higher negative trait references, especially in headlines, and those negative

portrayals were more personal with words used such as “scary,” “cold,” and “remote.” When

looking at matters of substance, issues mentioned in Clinton’s coverage corresponded with

other rivals, but the problem was that it was issue-oriented. Moreover, Clinton’s coverage

was less positive in tone. Overall, the study shows that Clinton was treated equally with other

male counterparts on a few traditional indicators, but bias against women candidates still

existed.

Numerous studies as findings above show that media and press coverage act in an

unfavorable mechanism to women. There is some positive evaluation of female politicians.

Images that are positively highlighted are "harmony," "flexibility," "clean politics," "gender

equality," and "alternatives to old politics which are centered to men." On the other hand,

their images in the media often do not deviate significantly from the traditional view of

women. For example, it is easy to observe media reports that focus more on the candidate’s
3
private life and her appearance than their policies. The studies analyzed above proves this

point. From Thomas and Wilcox’s relatively broad view about this subject to analyzing one

specific female candidate, Hillary Clinton, one can realize the political arena is unfair to

women. The media subtly manipulates the public by using traditional and tonal indicators.

They also put on specific gendered frames to women that make it harder for women to be

known by their capabilities. Furthermore, the traits media covers about women candidates are

directly linked to the viability and electability of the candidate. Evaluating female politicians

using traditional indicators or negative tones makes the public question the candidate’s

viability and electability.

On the other hand, there is a positive side to this phenomenon. Traditionally, politics has

been the realm of men. In our political history, women's entry into the parliament is not very

long ago, and the proportion is still low. As female politicians are considered exceptional and

relatively new to the public sphere, negative evaluations based on prejudices exist and are a

barrier to women's political activities. However, female candidates are slowly occupying

seats in politics. Perception about females being involved in the public sphere is being

improved. As the public’s perception of female politicians improves, the media would not be

able to undermine women as media is sensitive to the public’s opinion. The public should be

aware of these biased circumstances. Citizens should have “political media literacy.” As

voters, people should analyze the messages contained in the media correctly and understand

media can be favorable to one candidate, or largely, one gender.