Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Women in Indian Media




If India's press is so free, then how come hardly any women are sourced in articles of major publications, such as the weekly news magazine, India Today?


Comparable to Newsweek, India Today has 1.1 million in circulation every week published in five languages. Launched in 1975, it is estimated that the publication has as many as 15 million readers. India Today has one of the most interactive websites in the country (i.e. full magazine archives, photos, videos, and blogs, national and international politics, economics, the environment, health, society, arts and entertainment).

India Today covers nearly every genre a magazine could ever hope to touch on, albeit one minor detail, there is a noticeable gender disparity in news stories.

India’s press it seems as if women generally are used more for their femininity instead of their successes or influence on society.

The media system in India is, in many ways, similar to the US. It offers a various selection of newspapers that competes with others. India became a more liberalized economy in the 1990s, which boosted the press system, a better understanding of English as the language of international business, and increased the number of dialect-specific media outlets. According to Jeremy Tunstall, a media analyst, India’s mass media outlets, which are the leader in southern Asia, reach Bangladesh and Pakistan. These three countries together make up 22 percent of the world’s population.

India’s national media system is most complex due to the many languages provided. The country has a sturdy English language press, too. But India doesn’t participate much in media importing from other countries. Instead it mimics other press systems, like ones in the US or Britain, which can bee seen in India’s Page Six press, layouts and headlines, for example.


Indian press is more diverse than American press because it’s entirely free. However, it is not as technologically advanced as America’s online media outlets. In developing nations the use of the Internet is very different. It’s used more for development communication in poorer countries than media communication.

India generally seems to be a patriarchal society because in many of the articles women were portrayed as meek and innocent. For example, “bloodied women and children” were the poignant factor used in Hasan Zaidi’s article on a major terror attack in Pakistan. In many American newsmagazines (like Newsweek) journalists often don't identify gender in political stories, largely in part because of its irrelevance, (like, “Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid").


In the India Today stories, gender labeling is quite noticeable. In a few of the IT sample articles, the women who were cited were labeled like women, and not as leaders. These articles heavily mentioned a woman’s femininity, either referring to her dress, romantic status (i.e. a “widow”) or family status. For example, IT reporter Jhilmil Motihar compiled a brief about two Indian politicians’ daughters who have recently broke into the political scene. She wrote of 30-year-old Pankaja Munde, daughter of Gopinath Munde, “…She has been spending long hours with Daddy at rallies.” Perhaps Motihar feels it’s justifiable to insinuate a cutesy reference into the brief — especially since it is one about politicians and their daughters. It would be curious to see how readers received the article if a man had written it. This could be seen on its Web site, India Today provides a rating graphic that allows users to comment on the article whether it was “good” or “bad” on a scale of five points.


Gender labeling is common in the media. Leading women political figures are “nominated” by male journalists who emphasize masculine or dominant qualities. For example, in S. Prasannarajan’s article memorializing Indira Ghandi, his words poetically revered her efforts for the people of India (Prasannarajan, 2009). However, scandal, romance or any other out-of-the-ordinary bit of information gets factored into the public equation, their feminine qualities become criticized (like, “former beauty queen”).


The imbalance of the genders in political reportage, especially in America, is largely due to the overall gender disparity in governments across the globe. According to a report found in The Straits Times in Singapore, numbers from 2006 show that women make up for less than 17 percent of policy makers throughout the world. And at the rate women are insinuating themselves into politics today, gender equality isn’t projected to happen until 2068.


According to reporter Theresa Devasahayam, countries like France (and in some ways, Rwanda) have inducted some form of mandatory gender quotas to allow women’s voices to be better heard.


William Pesek of the Herald Sun in Australia wrote that recent statistics from the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index shows more Asian countries’ gaps worsened instead of improved this year. The index, which is based on economic participation, opportunity, education, politics, and health, showed that Sri Lanka fell four places from being in the top 20 nations that have gender parity. Asia’s under performance says a lot considering half of the world’s population is female.


Another contributing thought that might help explain why women are still portrayed as less-important political officials in India, and as a patriarchal society, is that of birth control. There is a definite increase in gender imbalance in the country because of an increase in gender-selective abortions. According to a report in The Christian Science Monitor, findings from the United Nations Population Fund, there are less than 93 female births to every 100 males. This is 12 less than the world’s average for women.

When analyzing the context in which the sources are used, the differences are more apparent. Women public officials in America are treated similarly to men, especially Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and often Sarah Palin, who are often criticized in the media, just as any male political figure would. In India, female political sources' femininities are played up. References are often made to their saris and overall gender. It could be hoped for that once people can overlook gender, equality will be more achievable.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

The Power of Children

Richard and Mayumi Heene got all the media attention they wanted — plus much more. Their son, Falcon is alive, well, and not floating in a helium balloon above Colorado (nor was he ever).

The 6-year-old had reportedly crawled into the homemade contraption and floated miles away from his family home in Fort Collins. After his story exploded onto the national media scene, he was found hiding in the attic of his house.

Although this isn't the typical boy-who-cried wolf scenario, I wonder how the MSM feels for avidly covering the plight of an airborne child only to find out that he never actually floated away and was actually part of a scheme concocted by his camera-loving parents.

Even before Falcon leaked the truth, the story had made it to nearly every corner of the nation, and many parts of the world. Was it in vain for the media to discover "Balloon Boy" was all a hoax? If CNN, for example, had waited for even just a couple hours, would the Heene family have received as much press attention? I think if CNN had deliberated a bit more — if the editors had just let the situation marinate a bit longer — perhaps a more meaningful story might have headlined instead.

Congratulations to Wolf Blitzer for dragging out the truth but I just don't see that story as significant as the war we're in, the situation in Honduras, or the many starving regions around the world. These situations, along with dozens of others, are those that should be brought to our attention — not a story about two nutty parents.

"Balloon boy" certainly is a unique story, but a meaningless one to say the least. And I doubt society was improved by the show that the Heenes put on. I think the MSM should've left that story to the Colorado press.

This leads me to wonder how often a media outlet should publish or broadcast stories about children. When is a story about a child relevant to a national, or sometimes international, audience without exploiting him or her? What good does it really do to see the Gosselin family splayed across the pages of newspaper and magazine covers?

A lot of our interest with children has to do with our culture. Our hearts to go out to child victims of kidnapping, domestic and sexual abuse and labor violations — these certainly are eye-catching stories for media outlets. But I think children, like rape victims, should be somewhat hidden from the public eye in cases of child abuse, and even stories as unique as "Balloon Boy."

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Must pinch the general news media on this one.

"Saturday Night Live"'s resident Barack Obama impersonator, Fred Armisen, introduced the show last weekend with a monologue claiming his executive accomplishments have amounted to zero.

"When you look at my record it's very clear what I've done so far. And that is, nothing... Nada," Armisen quipped, reviewing a checklist of things he hasn't done almost one year into his presidency. (On the docket: closing Guantanamo Bay, improving Afghanistan, reforming health care, and bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 2016.)

Of course there is some debate over what promises the president has and hasn't delivered and why said claims haven't been achieved.

But still the question remains, why would CNN and PolitiFact.com fact check a comedy sketch?

The fact of the matter is "SNL" political shenanigans have been broadcast before. Who remembers Dan Akroyd as Richard Nixon, Dana Carvey as George Bush, Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford, Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton and Will Ferrell as George W.? And, lest ye forget, Tina Fey's rendition of Sarah Palin was quite popular.

I think the sketch was reported on to the point of overkill - more than I've ever seen in the news. Several MSNBC, FOX and CNN hosts deemed it important enough to air the controversial skit on their broadcasts (some even in the evening).

Since the first season of "SNL," comedians have impersonated presidents, presidential candidates and politicos in general and it's curious to see comedy having such a focal point in the hard news media.

Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact.com, noted, "This is not a fair portrayal of how Obama's done, but it's comedy, it doesn't have to be fair."

Adair is right. It was unfair, and that's a main element to comedy. And stooging is never really fair to politicians.

If I could just leave aspiring editors with a final thought it would be this: there is no limit to the way in which comedians will be impertinent. Fueling their comedy by reporting on it on evening news broadcasts reflects, I must say, poor taste and somewhat of an agenda.

Here's the video:

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Word Choice In Framing

Welcome to Pinched, a blog about today's journalism through the eyes of an aspiring editor. To be succinct, I'm examining bias found in hard news and looking at how different publications frame a similar story. Regardless of what we think about bias, as long as we have the First Amendment, it will never disappear.

For awhile I brainstormed different ways of best explaining the essentials of media bias, which was a struggle. And then I uncovered Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?, an article published in Time recently. Journalist David Von Drehle did a fabulous job capturing one distortion that describes media bias. Here's the lede:

On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly — the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism." If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic. Either way, you may not be inclined to believe what we say about numbers, according to a recent poll that found record-low levels of public trust of the mainstream media.

As UI journalism professor Frank Durham, media bias is not a bad thing. Instead, he reasoned that bias is analogous to voice. Durham said he would rather hear different voices than dozens of automated response robots.

A controversy that's been popping up in the news about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) ACORN is a non-profit organization geared toward assisting lower-income families in health care, public safety, housing and voter registration.

The story broke when ACORN employees at five satellite offices were recorded on a hidden camera offering advice to two conservative activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute looking to open a prostitution business. They told ACORN employees their venture would include underage girls. The pair, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, said their undercover reporting was aimed at exposing ACORN, which garnered a good amount of attention in the media. A CNN broadcast warned against the 20 and 25-year-old activists' take on investigative journalism, calling it as "gotcha" journalism (but that's a different blog for a different day).

The US Government moved to cease their funding to the organization. According to a recent statement, ACORN has taken action to prevent situations like the ones that occurred at their satellite offices in Baltimore, New York City, San Diego and San Bernandino, Calif., and D.C.

What I found intriguing was the way in which several media outlets described the illegal actions that Giles and O'Keefe proposed to ACORN employees. Let's take a look at a few.

1. CNN cited Giles and O'Keefe's proposal as a "prostitution ring" in the lede, later mentioning that it would include underage girls from El Salvador.

2. An AP article mentioned the plan saying, "The pair also claimed they planned to employ teenage girls from central America as prostitutes, and an ACORN employee suggested that up to three of the girls could be claimed as dependents." The article didn't list the ages of Giles and O'Keefe, instead they were described as "a man and a woman."

3. The LA Times wrote that "An undercover video shot at the group's office in National City purports to show workers willing to help someone interested in setting up a prostitution ring, possibly with girls from Tijuana."

4. In a Washington Post story, Giles and O'Keefe's business plan was called a "brothel filled with underage Central American prostitutes to finance a bid for political office," and referred to Giles, O'Keefe as "youngsters."

5. Here's a recent clip from "The Daily Show With John Stewart" on the recent events:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

As you can see, in situations as delicate as the ACORN scandal, editors must decide the best way to report on underage prostitutes (as ridiculous as this situation is) in a way that inserts simple information without offending readers. I think the AP article did it best because it was short (about six inches) which was just the right amount of space that a story like this deserved. It was also to-the-point. A Maryland ACORN official was cited as calling Giles and O'Keefe's act an attempt to "smear" the organization.

I would call that just about accurate.

EXTRA:

Here are a few helpful websites that will help you determine journalistic slants anywhere. From reading headlines to considering sources and beyond, it's wise to develop an editorial eye when digesting the news.