ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Media

Health

How The Mainstream Media Exploits ‘Science’ To Reinforce Gender Stereotypes

On Tuesday, mainstream news outlets covered the results from a small survey in Australia that polled just over 100 women about their sexual preferences. One headline atop an NBC story proclaimed, “Science proves women like men with bigger penises.” The reporter includes a few other examples of studies that have reached the same conclusions about women’s predisposition to larger male genitalia, but only after acknowledging that the results from past research on the topic “have been disputed as sexist, or scientifically flawed, or both.”

Sex and science often become entangled in the news, perhaps because the topic makes for eye-catching headlines. This is hardly the first time that the media has latched onto a small study in an attempt to make a larger statement about gender roles, regardless of the potentially shaky scientific relevance of this type of evolutionary psychology. Under the guise of being backed by scientific authority, news outlets will often tout studies’ results — or sometimes, selectively highlight certain results — to reinforce gender-based stereotypes. Of course, citing research also sets up a situation where it’s more difficult for opponents to take issue with the those studies, since it may appear as if they’re objecting to scientific fact simply because they don’t want to believe the truth.

Here are five other examples of this dynamic at play in mainstream media outlets:

1. Women’s hormones affect their voting choices. CNN incited significant backlash right before the 2012 election when the outlet published an article entitled, “Do hormones drive women’s votes?” The study, which consisted of unpublished data from researchers at the University of Texas, San Antonio, intended to investigate whether a woman’s hormone levels or relationship status contributes to her decision about how to cast her ballot. The study found, among other things, that women who are ovulating tend to favor more liberal political candidates because they “feel sexier.” After a massive outcry, CNN removed the article, explaining, “After further review, it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.”

2. Husbands who do housework have less sex. A USA Today article published at the end of January suggested that “traditional chores are linked with more sex for married couples,” citing a study that relied on data collected two decades ago. The researchers believed that their findings — which found that couples in which women did more of the traditionally “female” chores had sex 1.6 times more each month than the couples in which men did all of those jobs — were still relevant despite the passage of time, because “the relationship between sex and housework has changed little since then.” But much of the coverage of the study drew a simplistic connection between chores and sexual activity without giving much consideration to the myriad of other factors that can contribute to a couple’s gender balance, sex life, and household chore break-down — particularly the fact that women and men have been socialized to consider many household tasks to be “women’s work.”

Read more

LGBT

Puff Pieces Profiling Paid Anti-Equality Activists Plague The Mainstream Media

Many paid anti-gay activists work for an organization connected back to Robert George.

This week’s Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage equality have understandably attracted media attention, but unfortunately the coverage has been peppered with blatant puff pieces that offer a free pedestal for paid operatives working against same-sex marriage. These articles claim to profile individuals who make their living off the anti-equality movement offer little context, instead invite them to share all their talking points without any rebuttal.

For example, last Friday USA Today ran a piece profiling some of the top lobbyists against marriage equality, while the New York Times profiled young conservatives working with many of the same organizations. NPR offered two puff pieces, one similarly profiling various conservatives and another just to highlight Maggie Gallagher’s views on the topic. Almost every individual in each of these stories advocates against equality as a profession. Here’s a list of who they are and how they used their free media pedestal:

  • Brian Brown is executive director of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  He told USA Today that “The people are definitely on our side,” even though polling continuesto show the exact opposite.
  • Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), told USA Today that “there will be collateral damage to other freedoms” because of marriage equality, but offered examples of people who seek to violate nondiscrimination protections.
  • Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), told USA Today that marriage equality will “lure” people into homosexuality, just like legalizing marijuana, gambling, prostitution, abortion, “or any vice that is legalized.” The article neglected to mention that CWA is recognized as a hate group along with FRC.
  • Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, chair of the Catholic Bishops’ committee for the “Defense of Marriage,” told USA Today that same-sex couples are inherently inferior, and that the LGBT movement should have a “live and let live” philosophy instead of calling equality opponents bigots.
  • Rev. William Owens, head of the Coalition of African-American Pastors, which is funded by groups like NOM and FRC, claimed to USA Today that marriage equality is “another nail in the coffin for black families,” confirming his role in NOM’s race-wedging tactics.
  • Read more

Media

Fox: Americans Need Assault Weapons To Protect Themselves From An Iranian Invasion, Al Qaeda

During a roundtable discussion on Friday, Fox News’ Lou Dobbs agreed with a network contributor who argued that Americans need to access military-style assault weapons to protect themselves from an Iranian invasion.

“What scares the hell out of me we have a president, as we were discussing during break, that wants to take away our guns, but yet he wants to attack Iran and Syria. So if they come and attack us here, we don’t have the right to bear arms under this Obama administration,” Angela McGlowan, a former lobbyist for News Corp., said in the midst of a conversation about violence in Syria.

Dobbs quickly agreed, adding, “we’re told by Homeland Security that there are already agents of Al Qaeda here working in this country. Why in the world would you not want to make certain that all American citizens were armed and prepared? ” Watch it:

The panel also falsely argued that widespread gun ownership in Israel has helped prevent terrorist attacks, though access to firearms is strictly limited to people who “can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger.” Approximately “170,000 guns are licensed for private use in Israel,” while assault weapons are “banned for private ownership.”

[HT: MMFA]

LGBT

Denver Post Defends Front Page Picture Of Gay Speaker Kissing

Photo Credit: Craig F. Walker, The Denver Post

The Denver Post commemorated yesterday’s passage of civil unions in Colorado’s House with a front-page picture of Speaker Mark Ferrandino (D) kissing his partner Greg Wertsch — complete with a bottle of formula on the desk that belongs to their foster child. Anticipating negative reactions from readers, the editors published a defense for running the picture, arguing that it “shows the truth, no matter how objectionable” [see update below]:

One of the missions as journalists is to take our readers where they can’t go, and the speaker’s office is definitely one of those places. Ferrandino, who is gay, has been fighting to get this bill passed for at least the last three years, and he spoke eloquently on the subject while the bill was being debated. So it made sense to get his perspective. [...]

We have received objections to our photographs of gay couples before, so we all knew there would likely be a negative reaction to running the picture of Ferrandino. The civil unions vote was historic for Colorado and celebrating it was not a surprise. That led one editor to note, “We have no issues showing a straight couple kissing on election night.”

Another detail that made the photo so compelling was the baby bottle on Ferrandino’s desk. It belongs to the foster child he and his partner have; given that the civil unions bill offered protections for children and families, it was another element that gave context.

There is a difference between a picture that people object to and an “objectionable” photo. It’s disappointing that the editorial board thought the decision was “difficult.” Indeed, the one editor’s observation is key: it’s not kissing that people object to — it’s homosexuality . What has proven to be one the most effective ways to shift people’s opinions on gay rights is knowing gay people and learning about their lives and their families. No number of objections changes the reality that the Speaker of the Colorado House is a gay man with a loving partner and child; and reporting on reality is never a difficult decision.

Update

Editor Linda Shapley added a note clarifying a change to the originally posted headline:

After reading the comments, I’m altering the headline from “no matter how objectionable,” to “even if it offends some.” I’ve certainly dealt with some callers who are upset with the use of the photo, but my intent was not to label the photo (or the act) objectionable. As I’ve often said, everyone needs an editor, and I appreciate the comments. — Lin

Climate Progress

In Epic Blunder, NY Times And Washington Post All But Abandon Specialized Climate Science Coverage

Columbia Journalism Review slams Times for “outright lie” about its commitment to environmental coverage.

This weekend two of the premier newspapers in the country basically abandoned the story of the century — climate change — as a specialized beat. The NY Times shut down its Green Blog (fast on the heels of dismantling its environment desk) and the Washingon Post is switching its lead climate reporter, Juliet Eilperin, off the environment beat.

These epic blunders in editorial judgment essentially signal the end of the era of great national newspapers — certainly neither the New York Times nor Washingon Post qualify anymore. One can hardly be a great national newspaper while moving to slash coverage of the single most important story to the nation (and the world), the story that will have the biggest impact on the lives of readers and their children in the coming decades.

And we can finally strip the NY Times of its vaunted title “The Paper of Record.” Now, like most others, it is just a “paper of record-keeping.”

Back in January, I reported that the Times was “Widely Cricitized For Dismantling Its Environment Desk, Eliminating Editorial Positions.” Now, to compound that mistake, the NY Times has terminated its Green Blog, with this abrupt post:

The Times is discontinuing the Green blog, which was created to track environmental and energy news and to foster lively discussion of developments in both areas. This change will allow us to direct production resources to other online projects. But we will forge ahead with our aggressive reporting on environmental and energy topics, including climate change, land use, threatened ecosystems, government policy, the fossil fuel industries, the growing renewables sector and consumer choices.

Thanks to all of our readers.

Since Sandy was a freak, once-in-a-century superstorm, we figure New York is safe for another century.

OK, I added the final sentence, but still this move is doubly head-exploding in a post-Sandy world where even the media elite now know they aren’t free from the ravages of climate change. And again, we’ve only seen the impact of slightly more than a degree Fahrenheit of warming — we’re all but certain to see at least 5 times as much warming this century as we did last century, especially if the ignorati (not-so-intelligentsia?) gag themselves on the greatest story never told.

Curtis Brainard, editor of Columbia Journalism Review‘s “online critique of science and environment reporting,” slammed the move:

This is terrible news, to say the least. When the Times announced in January that it was dismantling its three-year-old environment pod and reassigning its editors and reporters to other desks, managing editor Dean Baquet insisted that the outlet remained as committed as ever to covering the environment. Obviously, that was an outright lie.

The Green blog was a crucial platform for stories that didn’t fit into the print edition’s already shrunken news hole—which is a lot on the energy and environment beat—and it was a place where reporters could add valuable to context and information to pieces that did make the paper….

In an act of total cowardice, the Times clearly timed its announcement to avoid (for the weekend, at least) having to deal with what is sure to be widespread criticism. When I called the paper shortly after 5pm on Friday, I was informed that executive editor Jill Abramson, managing editor Dean Baquet, and corporate spokeswoman Eileen Murphy were all out of the office for the day….

Those masthead editors should be ashamed of themselves. They’ve made a horrible decision that ensures the deterioration of the Times’s environmental coverage at a time when debates about climate change, energy, natural resources, and sustainability have never been more important to public welfare, and they’ve done so while keeping their staff in the dark. Readers deserve an explanation, but I can’t think of a single one that would justify this folly.

Dr. Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, whom the NYT called “an expert on environmental communications,” emailed me:

The NY Times coverage of the environment has continued its journey from bad to worse. It continues to abrogate its responsibility to inform the public about critical issues.

Slate has terrific piece, “The Times Kills Its Environmental Blog To Focus on Horse Racing and Awards Shows,” which lists some of the “the 65-odd other Times blogs” (!) saved from the axe while the green blog was beheaded:

Read more

Alyssa

The Leading Driver Of Diversity In Sports Journalism? It’s ESPN

The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport has released its 2012 study of minorities and women covering sports at America’s news outlets this week, and unfortunately, its findings haven’t changed much since it released its first study in 2006.

According to the Institute, 90 percent of sports editors are white and an equal percentage are men. As the first chart below shows, whites make up at least 86 percent of all assistant editors, columnists, reporters, and copy editors covering sports too. And as the second chart shows, at least 80 percent of those in each category are men:

The most interesting part of the study, though, is that without the world’s largest sports outlet, the numbers would be far worse. ESPN is the target of constant (often deserved) complaints in the world of sports journalism, but when it comes to diversity, the Worldwide Leader is leading the way, as the Institute’s president Richard Lapchick wrote at Sports Business Daily:

In the new report card, of the 12 people of color who are sports editors at “Circulation A” media outlets (the largest newspapers and dot-coms, with a circulation of 175,000 or more), four work for ESPN, which employed two of the six African-American sports editors and two of the four Latino sports editors. If ESPN’s people of color were removed, the percentage of sports editors in the “A” organizations who are people of color would drop from 15 percent to 11 percent.

Of the 11 women who are sports editors at this circulation level, six work for ESPN. If the ESPN sports editors who are women were removed, then the percentage of female sports editors at this level would drop from 14 percent to 8 percent.

Those numbers translate down the ladder too. Without ESPN, the percentage of columnists of color working at top outlets would drop from 20 percent to just 7 percent. Without ESPN, the percentage of female columnists at top outlets would drop from an already-low 13 percent to just 5 percent.

Indeed, ESPN has a strong diversity hiring policy outlined on its web site and it has won numerous awards for hiring a diverse cast writers, editors, and columnists. It regularly features minority and female hosts, analysts, announcers, and journalists on both its scheduled programming and its live broadcasts. ESPN is proof that there are qualified minority and female reporters and editors out there, and it is also proof that the rest of the sports world needs to do a better job finding them.

But ESPN also has the benefit of being able to cherrypick from the entire sports world, since most of its reporters are already established names before they join the Worldwide Leader, so the idea that this is a problem that begins and ends with the hiring process fails to explain the problem entirely. The problem starts well before hiring and runs far deeper.

As Chip Cosby, a sports reporter and former colleague of mine, explained in September, minorities face obstacles involving access, economics, and history. Many young minorities don’t see journalism as a way into sports, and many are less able to pursue jobs that are pretty low-paying before a reporter climbs the rungs to a top beat or columnist job. Even if they wanted to pursue writing, many don’t see it as a profession that is accessible to them, since they don’t often see minority reporters writing and talking about the sports they follow. Most of those problems also extend to women, who still face stigmas when reporting on sports, especially when they cover men.

Many of those problems are beginning to fade, thanks in large part to ESPN, which has made both minority and female sports reporters covering sports more visible and prominent. But as the latest edition of the Institute study make clear, many of the barriers blocking both minorities and women from entering the world of sportswriting still exist.

Climate Progress

Apocalypse Not: The Oscars, The Media And The Myth of ‘Constant Repetition of Doomsday Messages’ on Climate

The two greatest myths about global warming communications are 1) constant repetition of doomsday messages has been a major, ongoing strategy and 2) that strategy doesn’t work and indeed is actually counterproductive!

These myths are so deeply ingrained in the environmental and progressive political community that when we finally had a serious shot at a climate bill, the powers that be — led by team Obama! — decided not to focus on the threat posed by climate change in any serious fashion in their $200 million communications effort (see “Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?“).

These myths are so deeply ingrained in the mainstream media that such messaging, when it is tried, is routinely attacked and denounced — and the flimsiest studies are interpreted exactly backwards to drive the erroneous message home (see “Dire straits: Media blows the story of UC Berkeley study on climate messaging“)

In the Canadian high Arctic, a polar bear negotiates what was once solid ice.

The only time anything approximating this kind of messaging — not “doomsday” but what I’d call blunt, science-based messaging that also makes clear the problem is solvable — was in 2006 and 2007 with the release of An Inconvenient Truth (and the 4 assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and media coverage like the April 2006 cover of Time). The data suggest that strategy measurably moved the public to become more concerned about the threat posed by global warming (see major study here).

You’d think it would be pretty obvious that the public is not going to be concerned about an issue unless one explains why they should be concerned about an issue. And the social science literature, including the vast literature on advertising and marketing, could not be clearer that only repeated messages have any chance of sinking in and moving the needle, as I discuss in my book “Language Intelligence: Lessons on Persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.” One of the most popular quotes in the book is from GOP wordmeister Frank Luntz:

There’s a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again, and then again and again and again and again, and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.

Because I doubt any serious movement of public opinion or mobilization of political action could possibly occur until these myths are shattered, I’ve been posting on the best work on climate messaging and public opinion analysis (see “Must-Read: A Guide For Engaging and Winning on Climate And Clean Energy” and Krosnick: Candidates “May Actually Enhance Turnout As Well As Attract Voters Over To Their Side By Discussing Climate Change“).

Since this is Oscar night, though, it seems appropriate to update my post on what messages the public are exposed to in popular culture and the media. It ain’t doomsday. Quite the reverse, climate change has been mostly an invisible issue for several years and the message of conspicuous consumption and business-as-usual reigns supreme.

The motivation for this post actually came up last year because I received an e-mail from a journalist commenting that the “constant repetition of doomsday messages” doesn’t work as a messaging strategy. I had to demur, for the reasons noted above.

But it did get me thinking about what messages the public are exposed to, especially as I’ve been rushing to see the movies nominated for Best Picture this year. I am a huge movie buff, but as parents of small children know, it isn’t easy to stay up with the latest movies.

That said, good luck finding a popular movie in recent years that even touches on climate change, let alone one a popular one that would pass for doomsday messaging. Last year, Best Picture nominee The Tree of Life was been billed as an environmental movie — and even shown at environmental film festivals — but while it is certainly depressing, climate-related it ain’t. In fact, if that is truly someone’s idea of environmental movie, count me out.

This year Beasts of the Southern Wild is an environmentally-themed movie that has won its share of awards and is nominated for Best Picture. It is seemingly related to climate change. But it hardly counts as a popular movie, scoring a whopping $12 million in domestic gross to date, which means it was seen by somewhere north of one million Americans.

The closest to a genuine popular climate movie was the dreadfully unscientific The Day After Tomorrow, which is from 2004 (and arguably set back the messaging effort by putting the absurd “global cooling” notion in people’s heads!) Even Avatar, the most successful movie of all time — $2.7 billion global gross — and “the most epic piece of environmental advocacy ever captured on celluloid,” as one producer put it, omits the climate doomsday message. One of my favorite eco-movies, “Wall-E, is an eco-dystopian gem and an anti-consumption movie,” but it isn’t a climate movie.

I had some hopes for The Hunger Games movie. I’d read all 3 of the bestselling young adult novels — hey, that’s my job! — and while post-apocalyptic, they don’t qualify as climate change doomsday messaging. And the movie has nothing to do with global warming. So, no, the movies certainly don’t expose the public to constant doomsday messages on climate.

Here are the key points about what repeated messages the American public is exposed to:

Read more

Climate Progress

Washington Post Overlooks Obama’s Extensive Remarks On Climate And Energy

If a tree falls in the forest (because of global warming), but the media doesn’t report on it, does it make a sound?

That is the question posed by the amazing banner graphic in today’s Washington Post:

In its quantification of the key elements of the speech, the paper’s editors apparently couldn’t see or hear or speak of the nearly 10% of the State of the Union address devoted to climate and energy. But, hey, Obama devoted 3% of the speech to immigration — that’s news!

Coincidentally, former VP Gore had this to say about the major media in a book tour event yesterday covered by ClimateWire (subs. req’d):

“The American networks, they won’t cover it,” he said. “It changed a little bit after Superstorm Sandy, but not much. It’s almost like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage at the mention of alcohol or his problems, and so everybody in the family learns to keep quiet, don’t mention the elephant in the room, let’s just don’t ever say it.

… “We had disasters related to the climate one after the other, $110 billion worth of climate-related disaster damage last year, completely blowing away the previous record, half the North Polar ice cap melted last summer, and Superstorm Sandy devastated Manhattan and New Jersey, and all the while, we had a presidential campaign with more debates than ever in history,” he said, his voice rising. “And not one single reporter asked a single question in any of the debates of any of the candidates about the climate crisis. That is pathetic.”

‘Pathetic’ is the word.

Related Posts:

Media

Five Reasons Why Fewer People Trust Fox News Than Ever Before

A poll released Wednesday by Public Policy Polling shows that fewer people than ever trust Fox News as a source for accurate news and reporting. Just 41 percent expressed trust in the network — down from 49 four years ago — while 46 percent said they distrust Fox. There’s an obvious reason why: Fox misrepresents facts and fudges its data to advance the conservative agenda. Indeed, it’s nothing like the “fair and balanced” network it claims to be. And, it seems, voters are catching on.

Here are just five recent examples of how Fox skews the news:

1. They misrepresented the unemployment rate. Fox News ran this chart showing the unemployment rate, but managed to somehow make an unemployment rate of 8.6 percent look higher than 8.9:

2. They misinformed viewers about Benghazi. When Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) were trying their hardest to smear President Obama and former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton over Benghazi, Fox ran an “exclusive” report saying that the CIA had denied a diplomat permission to fend off an attack on the embassy. That never happened, and details later confirmed that the report — and the other conspiracy theories Fox ran alongside it — was totally unfounded.

3. They blamed non-existent ‘massive layoffs’ on Obama. Fox News runs frequent segments covering Obama’s supposed ‘War on Coal’ and the website Fox Nation even ran this glaring headline blaming the election for huge layoffs in the coal industry. But there were not massive layoffs. Just one business owner in Utah laid off employees. Under Obama, the industry on the whole has actually continued to grow tremendously.

4. They got almost all of their climate coverage wrong. An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists revealed that a full 93 percent of Fox News coverage on the topic global climate change was ‘misleading.’ Here’s the breakdown of how Fox covered the climate issue:

5. They don’t cover big stories. While the rest of the country discussed senatorial candidate Todd Akin’s ‘legitimate rape’ comments, Fox News hardly covered the controversy. They similarly ignored the conflict surrounding the death of teenager Trayvon Martin, and of New York’s same-sex marriage law’s passage.

The list of areas where Fox falls down on the job is too extensive to enumerate. But what is clear is that Fox’s method of dodging the truth and giving convenient facts won’t keep working, if they can’t gain the public’s trust.

Climate Progress

Sounds Of Silence: Weekly Science Sections In Newspapers Drop From 95 In 1989 To 19 In 2012

Columbia Journalism Review published the sorry statistics:

Thank goodness an understanding of science is not more important in people’s lives today than it was in 1989.

Actually, the situation is even worse than those numbers indicate. They are really for daily newspapers in the U.S. that run weekly science and health sections.

As a 2006 Shorenstein Center analysis cited by CJR points out, of the remaining science sections in 2005:

… more than two-thirds focus primarily on health in their titles, up from about 50 percent in 1992. In comparison, the sections that self-identify as “science” dropped from 30 percent in 1992 to 12 percent in 2004. The rest—18 percent today versus 21 percent in 1992—were listed as a combination of “health” and “science.”

The Washington Post is a classic example. This is the section they run every Tuesday.

And a quick look at the paper or their web page makes clear that the word “health” is first for a reason — the overwhelming majority of stories are health related and not aimed at  educating the public about science in general.

If only the media had a clue that the story of the century is also about the greatest threat to human health (see, for instance, this 2009 post, The Lancet’s landmark Health Commission: “Climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”).

Related Posts:

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up