By Chris McKenna (u1007729)
Mary
Stott, the long-serving editor of the Guardian
Women's Page.
When first
looking at the news media from a feminist perspective, the thing that
initially caught my eye was that while most major newspapers have a
specific section for feminist news and comment, the story selection
in these can be quite different to the front pages. Specifically,
rather than offering a feminist perspective on the day's main news
stories, as determined by prominence on the first few pages, they
instead almost exclusively stories that prominently feature women. If
the front page headline is about a story involving the intersection
of two male-dominated walks of life, for example the prime minister
meeting senior banking figures, there will be little if any coverage
of the story in the feminist sections. More likely featured will be
the meeting of a junior female minister with a women's group – the
section would be more accurately titled “women's news” rather
than labelled as feminism.
To take a
specific example of Monday 23rd April 2012, the top news
on The Guardian's website was
about Ofcom investigating Sky News about email hacking, and about the
record share of the vote gained by the far right in the first round
of elections for the French President.
The latter
story in particular should offer plenty of scope for feminist
comment, building on the work of prominent authors like Amina Mama
and bell hooks, looking at the implications for society in general
and women in particular. Yet the top stories on the Feminism section
are about an explosion in grass-roots feminist activist groups and
about how two sisters are fighting the “pinkification” of girls'
toys. In The Politics of the Smile: 'Soft News' and the
sexualisation of the popular press (in: Carter, C., Branston, G.
and Allan, S., 1998, p.18) Patricia Holland writes “[...] the
introduction of lightweight features and all types of trivia,
including the domestic, as well as a move to a 'softer' more ticklish
type of news, has been seen as a feminisation of the new
mass-circulation press, brought about by its desire for a broad
appeal.” This desire for softer news to attract a female audience,
with it's origins in the 1890s (ibid.) when attitudes towards women
were very different, is probably the cause – it was the old women's
pages which evolved into today's feminist and lifestyle pages – but
did they change more than the name?
Searching
through the archives even reveals no feminist comment on the role of
Rebekah Brooks, editor of the News of the World, in the phone
hacking enquiry despite playing a central role by any objective
measure. The lack of coverage could stem from several reasons, but
the most likely are either that it is too “hard” news for the
softer pages intended for a feminine audience, or perhaps it is
because it does not paint women in a positive role? While sexism is
reducing in the media (Holland, 1991) it is still something that
editors and journalists are sensitive to and conscious of, so one
must it seems be very careful when criticising women so as not to
appear sexist.
Rodgers
though offers a different perspective, (c. 2008, in Sarikakis and
Shade, p.192-193), putting the blame on the increasing
“comodification” of news and the resultant needs of the large
corporate entities that own the media outlets to sell advertising.
This, she argues, places constraints on journalistic content,
mandating against a change to the status quo of “uncontroversial
content that does not offend advertisers and draws in revenue”
(ibid.).
Looking at
this as as man, it seems rather sexist from several perspectives;
firstly it is implying that all feminists are women, and that women
are not interested in the so-called 'hard news', preferring the
softer human stories. It also means that women's issues are
disproportionately featured, for the major issues are explored in the
paper whether they affect men, women or both; but while the
relatively lesser stories regarding and affecting women have a
dedicated section in the papers, there is no equivalent for men's
issues. This is even though it is well known that the women's and
feminist pages are read by many men and have been so for many years
(Jeger, L. The Guardian
2002).
Further,
while there are increasingly many female journalists covering the
majority of a paper's content, indeed there are women in senior
editorial positions, the authors of the feminist sections are very
nearly 100% female. As Stephen Heath says in Men in Feminism
(in Jardine A. & Smith P. 1987, P.9) “Feminism is a subject for
women who are, precisely, its subjects [...]. Feminism is also a
subject for Men, what it is about obviously concerns them [...].”.
Why then is this so unremarked upon?
It
seems that exploration of the choice of news stories in feminist and
pages of newspapers is almost completely ignored it seems in academic
circles - when I started to research this, I was surprised to
see that there had been only limited academic discourse on this
subject. Why this is so is something that I have not been able to
determine, as there is undoubtedly the depth of material available
for study. It is however, outside the scope of this blog entry to
conduct the required primary research, and it will have to remain as
an unanswered question.
What has
been explored in the literature though is the wider question of
sexism in the news media and relevance women's and feminist sections
play and whether they are a good or bad thing in the contemporary
world. Lena Jeger notes that even the long-serving editor of the
Guardian's Women's Page had doubts about whether it was a
marginalisation or emancipation, “It was Mary Stott's background in
"real" journalism that led her to think hard when the then
Guardian editor Alastair Hetherington asked her to edit the paper's
women's page in 1957.” (The
Guardian, 2002)
Van Dijk
(1995, in Paletez 1995, pp.13-14) argues that the presence of the
sections marginalises women and highlights the underlying sexism of
the journalistic profession. “Feminist scholarship has extensively
shown the prevalence of male chauvinism in the mass media, even
today, despite the modest gains in the employment of female
journalists [...] and the slow acceptance of some major demands of
the women's movement. [...] Most journalists are men and women have
even less access to higher editorial positions [than ethnic
minorities]. As sources they are less credible [than men], and hence
less quoted, and as news actors they are less newsworthy. […]
[N]ews content and style continue to contribute to stereotypical
attitudes about women. Feminism itself is ignored, problematized
[sic], or marginalized. Readers are generally presupposed to be
male.”
Patricia
Holland, writing in 1991, though was more positive noting that “The
women's pages in the national press have provided a space for larger
articles by women freelancers. The Guardian
women's page, particularly under its long-standing editor, Mary
Stott, gained a reputation for broadening the discussion of women's
issues in that paper.” (Holland, 1991, p.18) She is also more
upbeat about the role of women in the newspapers, “In 1987
Wendy Henry became editor of News of the World.
She was the first woman to become editor of a national paper since
Mary Howarth in 1903. […] After only a year she moved to edit the
rival Sunday paper, the People.
At both papers she was succeeded by a woman editor. The days when
women were excluded from the newsroom were finally over.” (ibid.
p.19)
Even as long
as ago as the 1980s there was debate about whether a specific slot on
television was needed for women and “Channel 4 continued to argue
that there should be no specific commissioning editor for women's
programmes.” (ibid. p.42).
Another
argument against the separation is provided by Riley
(1988, p.16) when she comments that collective identities such as
“women” and “lesbian” are impermanent and not fully defining,
giving the example that “you do not live your life fully defined as
a shop assistant, nor as a Greek Cypriot”. By this theory, there is
no single homogeneous group that can be defined by the label “women”
or “feminist”, so by including a separate section the editors,
who define the structure of the paper, are “othering” (see
Mulvey, 1975) those who they seek to include within it.
Rogers essay
(c. 2008 in Sarikakis and
Shade) though can be used to provide an argument for the value in
separation – by having specific, predictable content sections with
a defined target audience, advertising space is more saleable and
therefore more valuable. This ensures that the feminist views will
remain accessible in the mainstream media.
One
thing that is clear though is that as we move towards the middle of
2012 the debate about the value and content of such sections is far
from over.
(1478
words)
References:
Heath, s.
(1986). Men in Feminism. in: Jardine, A. and Smith, P. eds, (1987)
Men in Feminism, London: Routledge (p.9)
Holland, P.
(c. 1998) The Politics of the Smile: 'Soft News' and the
sexualisation of the popular press, in Carter, C., Branston, G. and
Allan, S. eds. (1998) News, Gender, and Power, London:
Routledge (p.18)
Humm,
M. (1995) The Dictionary of Feminist Theory. 2nd edn.
Columbus, USA: Ohio State University Press
Jeger, L.
(2002). Obituary: Mary Stott. The Guardian [Online], 18
September 2002 16:03 BST. Available at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/sep/18/guardianobituaries.gender
[Accessed: 22 April 2012]
Lorber,
J. (2005) Gender Inequality.
3Rd
edn. Los Angeles, USA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Mulvey,
L. (1975), 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema', Screen
16(3), pp. 6-18, Mark Tribe
[Online]. Available at:
https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/MarkTribe/Visual+Pleasure+and+Narrative+Cinema
(Accessed: 10 April 2009)
Riley,
D. (1988) Am I That Name? Feminism and the category of
'Women' in History. Basingstoke:
The MacMillan Press.
Rodgers, J. (c.2008) Online News: Setting New Gender Agendas. In
Sarikakis, K. and Shade, L. R., eds. (2008), Feminist Interventiosn
in International Communication: Minding the Gap.
Van Dijk, T.
A., (1995), Power and the News Media (pp.24-25) in D. Paletz (Ed.),
(1995), Political Communication and Action. (pp. 9-36).
Cresskill, New Jersey, United States: Hampton Press. Available at:
http://www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Power%20and%20the%20news%20media.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment