Who Makes the News?

GMMP (Global Monitoring Project), as part of a UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women) project have just released an extensive and exhaustive report on gender representation in the news (the fourth of its kind since the project started in 1995). They gathered data from 108 countries around the world. Trained volunteers from women’s rights organizations, media professional associations, and universities monitored the representation of women and men and gender portrayal in their local news media. The GMMP Report 2010 reveals what they found. With a total of 130 pages, the report details how gender balanced the news are on a given day. The report can be downloaded here in its totality.

From the report’s introduction:

What motivates so many people to do the unpaid monitoring of radio, television and newspapers? Why does it matter? Despite the recent proliferation of social media in some regions, news media remain the major and most influential source of information, ideas and opinion for most people around the world. It is a key element of the public and private space in which people, nations and societies live. A nation or society that does not fully know itself cannot respond to its citizens’ aspirations. Who and what appears in the news and how people and events are portrayed matters. Who is left out and what is not covered are equally important. The first GMMP, and as will be seen, the fourth GMMP reveal that the world reported in the news is mostly male. In many countries, the cultural underpinnings of gender inequality and discrimination against women are reinforced through the media.

Since the report is very detailed and packed with a great deal of facts and figures, I have created a series of infographics with some of the key findings.

Men vs Women in the News

The graphic above shows the total media representation in the news for Men vs. Women. Even though women make half the world’s population, women’s representation in the news, for all media, is at 24%.

The next graphic illustrates gender representation per topic:

Men vs Women as newsworthy topics

There seems to be a slight improvement in media representations of women in the fields of Science and Health but, as the report points out, this is also the topic with the least media presence of all. I should also note that usually, under the banner of Science and Health, fall diet tips, cosmetic surgeries and beauty treatments, all topics usually targeted at women.

When men and women are mentioned in a news story, it is usually functional to the narrative (i.e. in which capacity are people mentioned?). This graph shows a breakdown of the ways in which each gender is functional to the news:

Men vs Women functions in a news story

Women are majorly portrayed as the voices of “Popular Opinion” and as reference of “Personal Experience” while men are either “Experts” or “Spokespersons”.

Which brings us to the next graph, regarding Occupations listed in the News:

Men vs Women portrayed in a Professional capacity

When women are mentioned in the news, in the majority of cases, their occupation is not mentioned, with a slight improvement if the persons listed are celebrities or activists.

Regarding specific Gender Awareness matters, the news paint an even bleaker picture:

Gender Matters

Marketing vs advertising for social issues

Yesterday I was at TEDxChange Amsterdam and it was fantastic. The local Amsterdam team is truly amazing and they organized a huge event that lasted from 3PM until 11 or so. A few reasons for my amazement at these guys and gals: a) they are all volunteers (nobody gets paid a dime to be there, they spend weeks if not more organizing, searching for sponsors, venues, building the speakers lists, the guests lists, coordinating everything, etc.) b) in spite of the fact that they are all volunteers, the event was better organized and way more impressive than many corporate events I have attended. I am surprised that some private corporation has not snapped the whole team yet because, honestly, they are more professional and better prepared that some companies I have had to deal with in the past.

The local speakers were an interesting bunch and I think they had a great mix of local and non local initiatives. I really am fond of the stuff Boldewijn Sloet is doing with Barefoot Power, a company trying to bring solar powered lamps to replace the current kerosene lighting that is used in many rural areas around the world. I think his heart is really in the right place and he has managed to put together something that is both life changing (I didn’t know that in India alone there are 2.5 million people – 350,000 of them children, badly burnt due to kerosene lamps per year) and achievable at the same time.

At the beginning of the event, the live broadcast from United Nations featured a talk by Melinda Gates where she gave the highlights of her work through the Gates Foundation. She is an extremely impressive woman and certainly a force to reckon. However, there was one point in which I was sort of disappointed in: her views on what she called “aspirational marketing for social causes”. I understand the arrogance of disagreeing and even writing about said disagreement with one of the most powerful women on the planet, but I don’t think my disagreement is ideological, but more of a semantic one. What sort of bothered me a bit was the lack of distinction and oversimplification between what she referred to as “marketing” and what is indeed, nothing more than advertising. Advertising is just a slice in the marketing pie, nothing more than an instrument in getting the message out there, but marketing, particularly social marketing is much more than that. Sure, I agree with her that social marketing (and the talk by Mechai Viravaidya, the thai social marketer with a track record of success after success in social issues in Thailand was precisely about that) should perhaps improve on the way the messages are delivered (the advertising part), however, a marketing campaign should not be reduced to just the delivery of the messages. A good social marketing campaign would:

  • avoid colonial language (can we stop using “the poor” when referring to people living in certain structural conditions? I doubt a person would be receptive to a message that defines them through their living conditions, which they are not in control of due to said structural issues)
  • avoid what I like to call “the helpless rhetoric” (in addition to referring to people as “the poor”, the usual delivery of messages includes the kind of prose that addresses fully functioning adults as if they were children)
  • avoid treating “the poor” and “the helpless” as if they were one uniform mass of people (segmentation matters, especially when there are other socio cultural issues at play, just because a campaign is directed at disadvantaged groups, it doesn’t mean those groups are identical in all respects)
  • avoid fragmentation of social issues (how many campaigns to stop climate change are there out there? how many campaigns to prevent HIV? how many initiatives to improve maternal health? A successful initiative is one that targets a specific community, that addresses the issues of that specific community and not one that further contributes to the social initiatives fatigue)
  • avoid cultural preconceptions to get in the way of message delivery (better said, research your market! this, of course, is tied to the first point about “colonial language”)

I understand that these points are not necessarily easy to present in a ten minute talk aimed at a global audience. However, because so many of the audience members were social activists and people involved in Millennium Goals initiatives, I believe it is an important distinction to make.

The flaws in text analysis applications

Based on the text analysis of the past 9 posts in my personal blog, Urlai is telling me that a) I write like like an old lady and b) that I am happy.

I am going to take it as a compliment and instead, think that I am probably wise beyond my years. No? Ok, I might just as well admit I am a bitter old person (if not by age, at least by inclination). That’s why the “happy” part makes no sense.

I also crunched this site as well, just out of curiosity and here’s what I found out: hyperkinesis.net is probably written by a male somewhere between 51-65 years old. The writing style is academic and happy most of the time.

So, if you write in a business like tone, the system has been trained to assume you are male. Also, it placed the content I produce in a completely different age group (not that it is the right one either, but that’s another point altogether). I do wonder about the predictors used to determine gender, though.