"Equitable Media Coverage of Female and
Male Athletes: Is there a solution? "
According to Vincent, the media places more value on males than females in its sports coverage. For those of us who consume sports media, the veracity of these words rings clear, whether it’s the smallest story of the day or the biggest headline. I think the most persuasive argument he presents is within the theories. Essentially, that is that newspapers are not proponents of cultural change because they are driven by monetary principal. So, newspapers are not inclined to further women’s portrayal in sports (justifying them socially and equitably) because readers want to hear about their favorite “strong, active, powerful” male athletes (Vincent 2005).
After the theories, an intense elaboration of what makes the coverage unbalanced ensues. Basically, the positioning and prevalence of male athletic photos, the quantity of articles, and the overall coverage of men’s sports overshadows the coverage of female media coverage in all of the same areas. Vincent also elaborates that the “qualitative” coverage of women is greatly lacking. Basically, if there is a picture of a woman than it’s often posed or boring where as men always get action shots.
Women, as he and his three pages of sources see it, are depicted in stereotypical roles that often accentuate beauty, sexual prowess, and other conventional aspects that altogether avoid how the women actually play their respective sport, which should be the most important aspect. This leads coverage away from less attractive women who may even be seen as androgynous. The result is women enjoying a fractional spotlight, approximately 10 percent of the total coverage in fact (Vincent 2005).
Vincent enumerates an array of sources that detail how this is sexist and conforms to society’s standards to berate women etc. To me, the explanation is, as explained in class, Occam’s Razor. Maybe, the media covers men’s sports more than women’s just because that is in fact what the public wants to see. Essentially, it’s more fun to watch men’s sports than women’s. It isn’t that women’s sports are less important, although from a financial standpoint that is sadly, the truth. It is just that men are, even if Vincent’s article cites this sort of talk as sexist, naturally stronger and faster. It isn’t a slur to demean women it is just a fact of nature. Men have, clearly, more testosterone which equates into more muscle. They are also on average taller and in the end this creates a much faster paced sports environment. Clearly, it’s more fun to watch a high-speed sporting event (disagree if you want, but popular opinion will override you). Therefore, we fall back on Occam’s Razor, the simplest prevails. Additionally, looking back on day one when everyone recounted their favorite teams I do not recall,, even from the women in our class, one female team.
So, do I think Vincent is being realistic in his qualitative and quantitative equalization? No. It is not realistic to believe that the masses will suddenly decide that they want to watch a 140 LB women on the defensive line instead of a 300 LB man, or the same sort of switch in a number of other sports. And yes, I think it makes sense that women are portrayed more often in gender appropriate sports than in the inappropriate ones which Vincent lists as “field hockey, softball and rugby” (Vincent 2005). To me, this list itself is asinine. Softball is definitely a gender appropriate sport. It is what female athletes play all through high school and college and I know there are male summer leagues, but the sport is dominated by females. Now, putting that aside, the other two present similar problems, which stray far from gender issues. Possibly, if not probably, Rugby is more popular in say England or a similar country, but I still believe that it hardly gets media coverage anyways. Additionally, considering that Vincent is from Alabama this alternative answer that he is referring to European sports seems unlikely. Now, Field Hockey may be a more appropriately popular sport but it is still far from the top. Honestly, I’m surprised that basketball did not make it into this discussion, especially when you consider the dichotomy between the WNBA and the NBA. I am almost positive that everyone in class could name at least one player in the NBA, but naming one from the WNBA would prove a greater challenge by far. I could not name one myself and I think that this single instance characterizes the difference between men and women’s sports, but yet, I do not agree with Vincent or the incredibly slanted, feminists views he has expounded. I do agree to a certain extent that this could change and the media is to blame. It just seems that the chances of this happening seem slim.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment