Gender Stereotypes And Expertise In The Press PDF Download

Why are women still a minority of sources in American political news? Do gender stereotypes influence which issues men and women discuss as media sources? Although the political environment has become increasingly favorable to women in recent years -- female candidates for office are just as likely as their male counterparts to be elected and gender stereotyping of candidates by voters is waning -- these questions remain relevant to our understanding of representation in American politics. As women increase their presence in political occupations, it is important that they are given the same opportunities as men to influence the policy agenda and garner the authority and publicity that comes with media appearances. But much of the current research indicates that women and men do not receive equal treatment in the news, and the prevailing view attributes gender differences to stereotyping and bias against women. The three essays in this dissertation use original data sets to determine whether certain characteristics explain why women remain a small percentage of news sources. Across the board, I find little support for bias and stereotyping as explanations for women's under-representation in the media. Women's minority presence in the news is well established, but its origins are unknown. In the first essay of this dissertation, I investigate two competing hypotheses for the difference in the numeric representation of men and women in the media. The conventional wisdom suggests that bias against women leads to men being selected as news sources more frequently than women. But journalists tend to adhere to long-held norms when choosing sources for a news story; they rely on official sources with expertise in specific issue areas, and who provide credibility and balance to the news. Due to women's minority presence in elective office, and especially in leadership positions, men greatly outnumber women in the pool of potential official sources. Thus, in this essay, I determine whether demand (sexism) or supply (journalistic norms) explain why so few women appear as news sources. I employ an original data set of more than 4,200 appearances by elected officials and non-elected political actors on the Sunday morning talk shows. The findings confirm that women of seven different political professions are less likely than men to appear as sources. But the regression results also show that the gender gap does not result from overt bias. Rather, the characteristics that contribute to repeated appearances on Sunday morning are consistent with journalistic norms to find the most newsworthy sources. Because there are few women in the positions and professions from which most sources are selected, though, these norms also perpetuate a gendered news environment. The numeric under-representation of women in television news is established and explained in the first essay, so the second chapter turns to the content of men and women's appearances as sources in the news. A wide body of research finds that women and men receive political media coverage that highlights their expertise in different, and often stereotypical, issue areas. Most of this literature, however, examines print media coverage during campaigns only. And considering the presence of women in today's political arena is not the novelty it was in previous decades when few women had political careers, it is time to reexamine the prevailing view. The interview format of the Sunday morning news programs provides an excellent opportunity to study the issues discussed by men and women in the media, as well as the manner in which they talk about them. With an original data set of the comments made by guests on the Sunday shows throughout more than 2,500 appearances, I find that men and women tend to discuss the same issues as news sources. Female guests make more liberal statements than men, though this slant is influenced more by the guest's party affiliation than sex. These results suggest that men and women are equally situated to set the agenda on a variety of political topics, but men dominate the discussions because they appear on the programs more often. In the final essay, I turn to the print media to determine whether the findings from the first two essays apply to another medium. Individual journalists have more discretion over source selection in the print media than in television news. Previous research shows that -- similar to television news -- women are less likely than men to be quoted as sources in the print media. In addition, male and female sources tend to be quoted in articles about gender stereotypical issues; men are quoted in articles about the economy and crime, while quotes from women appear frequently in lifestyle stories. Since national newspapers are influential in setting the political agenda and influencing other news outlets, establishing an explanation for these gender differences is important for descriptive and substantive representation. I use an original data set of quotes from members of Congress in a national newspaper, USA Today, to explain why so few women appear in the print media. The findings from this analysis show that journalistic norms contribute to the minority presence of female sources in the prestige press. Journalists rely on sources with high-profile careers and expertise in issue areas that lend newsworthiness to their stories. There are no gender differences in the topics men and women discuss in the news, though. Since female sources are greatly outnumbered by men in the media, however, men have more opportunities to set the agenda on all important issue areas. These three essays show that women's under-representation in the political news is not due to overt sexism or stereotyping. Instead, journalistic norms routinely lead reporters to select sources from positions in which women are under-represented. Together, these findings suggest that women's presence in the media will improve only as women increase their presence in high-level political roles.