A note on gender-bias in the sports media

In his article, “Equitable Media Coverage of Female and Male Athletes: Is there a Solution,” Professor John Vincent of the University of Alabama describes how the sports media has traditionally favored male athletes in the quantity and quality of their reporting, as well as how the media has tended to objectify and gender-stereotype female athletes.

Where the simple reporting of women’s athletics may not serve a distinct and significant cultural purpose on its own, rather the cultural portrayal of women (and other minority groups) can provide important social cues and frames for the public. Vincent writes, “Most aspects of life in contemporary societies have an impact on the media and, reciprocally, are influenced by the media. How the media represents a social group gives important clues to understanding their social status, social values, norms, and attitudes toward that group.”

Vincent also identifies three theoretical approaches to explaining the mediated coverage of women’s athletics: first) a feminist sport scholar perspective, second) a cultural studies perspective, and, third) a political economy perspective. While the first focuses on the gender-based (as well as race, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity) perspectives, the cultural perspective focuses on the hegemonic, patriarchic, heterosexual notions of media coverage, the third perspective, political economic, describes how media institutions are driven by financial considerations; often resulting in the reinforcement of “traditional cultural mainstream values rather than act as engines of social change.”

“Sports Journalism remains a male-dominated profession.”

According to the University of Central Florida’s 2008 Associated Press Sports Editors Report Card, 94 percent of sports editors were men, 90 percent of assistant sports editors were men, 93 percent of columnists were men, 91 percent of reporters were men, and 84 percent of copy editors/designers were men.

Vincent focuses on four qualitative and quantitative guidelines for determining equitable media coverage of women’s athletics: 1) quantity of coverage, 2) quality of coverage, 3) position of the page, and 4) content and quality of the photograph.

Quantity of coverage can be measured by number of articles published, number of words and paragraphs in articles, number of headlines, number of photographs, size of the articles, size of headlines, and size of photographs.

Quality of coverage is measured by position in the newspaper.

The position of the page refers to its actual location on the page (top, middle, bottom).

Content and quality of the photograph may be determined by the type of photograph (pose, competitive vs. non-competitive, etc.) as well as whether the photograph is in color or black and white.

Vincent concludes that, while the newspapers are in decline, the impact of newspapers remains significant. He labels the coverage as “dominant patriarchal ideology” and that the coverage “helps define, normalize, and influence the mainstream beliefs parents have about sport.”

Vincent believes that parental support is important in determining a young girls’ involvement in sports and a healthy lifestyle, but this may be impeded by negative media coverage of female athletes.

Ultimately, the media coverage needs to permit young girls to “identify with sporting role models who are determined, powerful, independent, and strong female athletes who are valued by society without having to deal with a host of socially constructed stereotypes, based on rigidly defined gender roles.”

Returning to Vincent’s description of the theoretical perspectives, it seems that, pragmatically speaking, the most relevant rationale for the diluted media coverage is economic. Where a question may develop as to whether, through their coverage, the media makes men’s sports more popular or whether, culturally, men’s sports are simply more popular, the notion remains that men’s sports are more popular throughout the nation than women’s sports. Hence, there is a significant discrepancy in financial value of men’s sports versus women’s sports; it seems that an applicable discrepancy in media coverage would exist.

Vincent’s recommendations for complete equitable coverage of women’s sports seems unrealistic in that there is not an equitable consumer interest in female athletics. This idea is not a condemnation of women’s athletics, but rather a practical understanding that the athletic-fan base remains male-dominated, and where it isn’t, athletic-curiosity for men’s athletics remains the prevailing interest of sports media consumers.

Where it seems unpractical to strive for equitable coverage, it seems appropriate and ethical for the media to strive for a cultural-consciousness of both the existing coverage of women’s athletics as well as the greater significance behind the framing of female athletes.

As an individual who believes in egalitarian principles, there is a certain responsibility placed on those with a substantial communal voice (elites, perhaps) to recognize and advocate for cultural minorities. In the future, “Never Three Putt” will feature amply more coverage of women’s golf.