Stereotype-Based Coverage
trivial trait coverage is because it is reporter based and dependent on the media outlet. It does not reflect what is most important when deciding who to vote for. In contrast to both of the previous theories, a third school of thought is that there is no difference in female and male senatorial candidate trait coverage. Hayes examined thousands of articles in local newspapers and found that there is almost no difference in the information about female and male senate candidates. Women and men also received the same amount of coverage as each other. There was not a strong bias toward either gender like the other schools of thought would indicate. Hays also found that women and men have coverage on the same traits and issues. There was no stereotyping present either. References to physical appearance, clothes, family roles and features occurred with the same frequency for women and men. This is in sharp contrast to the first theory that believes this type of coverage is how female candidates are
…show more content…
elected over male candidates. Additionally, Hays found that there was no coverage of only female physical characteristics like cleavage. There also was no research that women had disadvantageous coverage when compared to men. Media coverage focused on campaign activities, how each candidate was doing in the polls, and their policy ideas. Women didn’t need to showcase their feminine traits or focus on “feminine” issues to gain voters. They instead should focus on their policies and the reasons they would the best Senator.
This theory argues that men get elected more often because they run more often, which is why women are underrepresented, not because of unfavorable media coverage. More women run more frequently for the Democratic Party which makes it more competitive for them and harder for them to win and get Senate seats (Hayes, 2014). The media has no influence over the outcome the elections because the coverage is fair for both genders. Females and males both were likely to receive positive coverage over negative coverage. In general however, they both received neutral coverage. Women had a lot of attention in newspaper articles during the primary and general elections (Banwart et al., 2003). This shows how there is a common misconception that women receive less coverage than their male counterparts. Additionally, most of the time time of coverage is overall either positive or neutral. Female candidates aren’t receiving disproportionally more negative coverage. There is outstanding evidence that senatorial campaign coverage is gender neutral. According to studies done in senatorial elections in 2006 and 2008, analysis of 2,707 articles in newspapers gave female and male candidates equal coverage of their personal characteristics and traits. There was no significant coverage of personal life and appearances of either candidate. The coverage tended to focus on things that voters would find important regardless of gender of the candidate. Issue and policy coverage is often the focus of media coverage and tends to favor candidates equally.
Women don’t get covered more for their characteristics compared to men. On the other hand, male candidate’s personal life and appearance was more often discussed than a female candidate by 1.3% points. Political experience and family involvement are valued for both candidates and are covered heavily. Voters are curious about the home life of their senatorial candidates and want to know their background. This does not relate to gender, but instead relates to voter interest in candidates home life.
In Senator Clinton’s campaign, the first woman frame was not used and she was not covered based on her traits or stereotypical female attributes. She is great example of how gender does not influence media coverage. She was able to win her seat in Senate not based on gendered coverage, but based on her political platform. Senator Clinton’s media coverage and victory gives this schools of thought significant credibility over other theories of thought that focus on the power of gender based media coverage.
Their position as a wife and the focus on a female candidate’s family is only mentioned if it has political relevance, like if their husbands had held political office. Therefore, this type of coverage does not have a gender bias, but instead a political basis (Todorovic, 2011). Overall, this schools of thought argues that there is no research to support the idea of trait coverage or stereotype analysis for a female candidate running for the Senate.
Additional information I would like to know is what the current Senate elections reveal in how female candidates are being covered. I am also curious if there is a difference between different types of media. The research I found didn’t specify the types of media that they were basing their research off of. I am curious if there is a difference in coverage based on the source. I would also be curious to see how Hilary Clinton running for president affects female senatorial candidate coverage. If she continues on in the election and becomes president there might be a change in overall female coverage in political media.
The direction of future research should be focused on the differences between types of media. With the rise of social media, there is important research to be done in regards to how female candidates are covered. There is also the potential to look into how female candidates represent themselves on social media. Are they feeding into their stereotypes to gain votes or do they find it more effective to be neutral on the issues? Additionally, looking at different types of races and comparing how females are covered in different levels of politics would be interesting. I did not find any research about how presidential campaigns vs. senatorial campaigns are different when looking at female candidate coverage, which would be important to research as well.
Future research could also look at overall trends in history. Women have been gaining more political power over the years and therefore it would be interesting to have research on how their coverage has changed over the last 30 years. This could also incorporate the current presidential election. There has been some past research on Clinton’s media coverage during her Senate run. It would be interesting to compare her coverage in that race to her run for president in the current election.
Overall, the findings are important for media politics because they indicate that there may not be a difference in male and female political coverage in Senate races.
They also could indicate that even if there is trait and stereotype based coverage that it does not hurt the chances of female candidates getting elected. This could mean better chances for female candidates in the future and could reflect a future rise in female Senators. It would also indicate that the media is sticking to its principle of being unbiased and objective. If the second theory is correct however, it is problematic because it means that the media is not as unbiased as it should be and because of that less women are getting elected, which hurts democracy. The media helps shapes democracy and the degree to which the United States is a democratic nation. If the first two theories are more accurate than the last, this is problematic because it means that the media is shaping who the Senators
are. The media is a powerful force that has great influence on voters and can shape who gets elected. Each theory hold a different perspective on the amount of influence the media has. Trait coverage can have significant implications for female senatorial candidates and needs to be given notice by voters. All three schools of thought make convincing arguments about how the media can a have a strong influence in who is elected to the Senate.
elected over male candidates. Additionally, Hays found that there was no coverage of only female physical characteristics like cleavage. There also was no research that women had disadvantageous coverage when compared to men. Media coverage focused on campaign activities, how each candidate was doing in the polls, and their policy ideas. Women didn’t need to showcase their feminine traits or focus on “feminine” issues to gain voters. They instead should focus on their policies and the reasons they would the best Senator.
This theory argues that men get elected more often because they run more often, which is why women are underrepresented, not because of unfavorable media coverage. More women run more frequently for the Democratic Party which makes it more competitive for them and harder for them to win and get Senate seats (Hayes, 2014). The media has no influence over the outcome the elections because the coverage is fair for both genders. Females and males both were likely to receive positive coverage over negative coverage. In general however, they both received neutral coverage. Women had a lot of attention in newspaper articles during the primary and general elections (Banwart et al., 2003). This shows how there is a common misconception that women receive less coverage than their male counterparts. Additionally, most of the time time of coverage is overall either positive or neutral. Female candidates aren’t receiving disproportionally more negative coverage. There is outstanding evidence that senatorial campaign coverage is gender neutral. According to studies done in senatorial elections in 2006 and 2008, analysis of 2,707 articles in newspapers gave female and male candidates equal coverage of their personal characteristics and traits. There was no significant coverage of personal life and appearances of either candidate. The coverage tended to focus on things that voters would find important regardless of gender of the candidate. Issue and policy coverage is often the focus of media coverage and tends to favor candidates equally.
Women don’t get covered more for their characteristics compared to men. On the other hand, male candidate’s personal life and appearance was more often discussed than a female candidate by 1.3% points. Political experience and family involvement are valued for both candidates and are covered heavily. Voters are curious about the home life of their senatorial candidates and want to know their background. This does not relate to gender, but instead relates to voter interest in candidates home life.
In Senator Clinton’s campaign, the first woman frame was not used and she was not covered based on her traits or stereotypical female attributes. She is great example of how gender does not influence media coverage. She was able to win her seat in Senate not based on gendered coverage, but based on her political platform. Senator Clinton’s media coverage and victory gives this schools of thought significant credibility over other theories of thought that focus on the power of gender based media coverage.
Their position as a wife and the focus on a female candidate’s family is only mentioned if it has political relevance, like if their husbands had held political office. Therefore, this type of coverage does not have a gender bias, but instead a political basis (Todorovic, 2011). Overall, this schools of thought argues that there is no research to support the idea of trait coverage or stereotype analysis for a female candidate running for the Senate.
Additional information I would like to know is what the current Senate elections reveal in how female candidates are being covered. I am also curious if there is a difference between different types of media. The research I found didn’t specify the types of media that they were basing their research off of. I am curious if there is a difference in coverage based on the source. I would also be curious to see how Hilary Clinton running for president affects female senatorial candidate coverage. If she continues on in the election and becomes president there might be a change in overall female coverage in political media.
The direction of future research should be focused on the differences between types of media. With the rise of social media, there is important research to be done in regards to how female candidates are covered. There is also the potential to look into how female candidates represent themselves on social media. Are they feeding into their stereotypes to gain votes or do they find it more effective to be neutral on the issues? Additionally, looking at different types of races and comparing how females are covered in different levels of politics would be interesting. I did not find any research about how presidential campaigns vs. senatorial campaigns are different when looking at female candidate coverage, which would be important to research as well.
Future research could also look at overall trends in history. Women have been gaining more political power over the years and therefore it would be interesting to have research on how their coverage has changed over the last 30 years. This could also incorporate the current presidential election. There has been some past research on Clinton’s media coverage during her Senate run. It would be interesting to compare her coverage in that race to her run for president in the current election.
Overall, the findings are important for media politics because they indicate that there may not be a difference in male and female political coverage in Senate races.
They also could indicate that even if there is trait and stereotype based coverage that it does not hurt the chances of female candidates getting elected. This could mean better chances for female candidates in the future and could reflect a future rise in female Senators. It would also indicate that the media is sticking to its principle of being unbiased and objective. If the second theory is correct however, it is problematic because it means that the media is not as unbiased as it should be and because of that less women are getting elected, which hurts democracy. The media helps shapes democracy and the degree to which the United States is a democratic nation. If the first two theories are more accurate than the last, this is problematic because it means that the media is shaping who the Senators
are. The media is a powerful force that has great influence on voters and can shape who gets elected. Each theory hold a different perspective on the amount of influence the media has. Trait coverage can have significant implications for female senatorial candidates and needs to be given notice by voters. All three schools of thought make convincing arguments about how the media can a have a strong influence in who is elected to the Senate.