Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Girl Reporter
As the class handouts indicate, women had second-class status in journalism for most of its history. What does that suggest to you about the relationship of journalism to the rest of American society? By and large, is journalism a progressive influence on society or a reflector and enforcer of society's established beliefs? (And why do you think that is?) How does it make you feel to read about the limits placed on women in earlier eras in journalism? Do you see or sense gender-based limits on women in media professions today? If so, what are they? Please respond by 4 p.m., Sunday, Nov. 15.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Throughout my life, I always viewed journalism as a progressive that sparked emotion leading to change. History classes throughout high school and college have taught me that movements such as the civil rights and woman’s suffrage were driven, if not started by, journalists. Publications were used to upset society in order for them to join together and force legal and ethical changes, but after reading The Girl Reporter I believe a further examination of journalism is necessary. The New York Times is known as one of the most liberal and progressive publication in the area, but according to Good the Times wouldn’t even allow woman into the city room until 1934 or 14 years after the Nineteenth Amendment gave woman the right to vote in 1920.
At times, journalism can be progressive and help those in need but time and time again has also proved that it reinforces stereotypes that hinder development. The jobs that woman were able to obtain in journalism in the first half of the 20th century reinforced the stereotypes that women were “big hearted but soft minded, emotionally generous but intellectually sloppy.” Woman were forced into jobs of “stunt girls” or “sob sisters” which focused on tabloids or feature articles, but the characteristics that assisted women in that field disqualified them from serious journalism that men dominated.
I believe the reason for this is simply fear. The men who were in control felt they were better off without the competition from women. I do believe that some men actually believed that stereotypes that women were weak, but the majority probably feared women more than anything. Anytime the people of power try to keep a group down fear is usually the ulterior motive. Journalism was competitive without half the population fighting for a position, so once women evened the playing field it was twice as competitive.
Even though women have made gigantic strides in America, they have not been able to become complete equals with men. While many women have found incredible success in the journalism field, on average women are underpaid and still stereotypes. Women reporters, especially on television usually get jobs because of their smiles rather than their ability to report on the news. Women are often used as sex objects and often need to work on making themselves attract as much as they need to work on their journalism profession. The limits placed on women, then and now, are upsetting. One of the reasons I was originally attracted to journalism was the opportunity to spark change in our society, but how can I believe that this is a progressive industry if the members of the industry are also slow to adapt and accept. My hope is that as a member of the industry I can help push change from within but as the readings have shown change is difficult to force.
I think that while the majority of journalism has, historically, reflected society's established beliefs, the most influential journalism has been progressive.
Specifically regarding women from the handouts, they obviously did face the same prejudices as women during their time. However, the reason that we remember them is for that very reason- they were pushing the limits that had been placed on them by society and they had to work even better than their male counterparts to get any recognition at all.
Today, I think that there are still some gender-based limitations in journalism, but they follow the limits present in the rest of our society- just like they did historically. Of course, this means that the limits are not as severe as they once were, but it also means that they are more subtle than before.
Although it is unfortunate the early years of journalism did not contain as many women in the field, it is understandable considering the times. It is sad to see that even those few women that were in the field were considered menial and men considered their reporting to be overly emotional. How many men would attempt to go around the world in a hot air balloon in less then thirty days? Not many, but Nelly Bly did most likely because she felt a need to prove herself.
Even in as late as the fifties, women were still mostly given secretarial positions. While watching "Good Night, and Good Luck", every women pictured was some type of receptionist. Only once in a quick flash do you see a woman work a projector and the only time a woman is in production meeting is to take notes and do small tasks. They are shown making copies, getting coffee and told to order flowers.
Journalism has obviously progressed since then, but not to it's full potential. At a recent Women in Communication conference one young woman asked the panel what to do when faced with discrimination and possible sexual harassment from men in the work place. The panel told the girl not to make a big deal out of it if she really didn't have to. Take a day to calm down, and think. Try to let if go, if you can't then quietly talk to the person who offended you to see if it will stop. They said the absolute last option was to go to HR. In some ways the advice is understandable for any person in the work place to take time to cool down when dealing with a problem with a co-worker, but the advice was still upsetting.
As Marcy said, women were the handmaidens while the boys got to play in the big game in the film "Good Night and Good Luck." Unfortunately, discrimination against even the most brilliant female journalists was present during those past years-such as Streitmatter wrote of Nellie Bly who gained attention by being the "pretty girl" of journalism who later had to do undercover work. Patterson, Dix, Black and Greeley-Smith were labeled sob sisters, much to their chagrin (as read in "Girl Reporter"). My own wiki project revolves around female African American journalist Ida Wells, who was reduced to being called a "darky woman"-nevermind that her words were some of the most eloquent, impactful and relevant of the time. While I can't say that such discrimination does not bother me, as Marcy said, it is a reflection of the times. I think some discrimination against women will always exist, because we will always be viewed as the "more delicate" or "fairer" of the sexes. However, I don't think that's holding us back in the realm of journalism anymore.
Today, female journalists are out there putting themselves in the line of fire just as men do-and are gaining more respect than those that paved the way for us. Producer Euna Lee and journalist Laura Ling are two of the bravest examples of female journalists I can think of-the two were held for 140 days in a North Korean jail on the charge of crossing the border, facing a life of imprisonment, all because they were working on a story about human trafficking in China. Now released, they still have not given up on their work-which includes reporting on a number of problems, including slave labor to HIV in other countries.
I will say that sometimes I'm embarrassed to tell people where I want to work (a magazine such as Marie Claire or Glamour) because I don't want them to think all I want to write about is lipstick; maybe it's a neurosis of mine, but I think people view most women's magazine as fluff-and if you write for them, your brain must be full of fluff, fashion and make-up, too. Many of the staffers for these magazines are writing poignant international stories for the magazine, traveling to places such as Cambodia to interview a former child sex slave who is now helping girls escape the trade (Nov. issue of Glamour) or a 20-year-old American student who was thrown in jail, without sufficient evidence, on charges of murder while studying abroad in Italy (Glamour again). Women are still expected by some people to only be interested in certain things or only have skills to a certain extent, but fortunately, the climate of journalism is not what it used to be. There are just as many great female journalists today as there are men, and that is because our "mothers" of journalism withstood the prejudices against them.
Last weekend I was at a career conference where four successful women news journalists sat on a panel discussing their distinguished positions and the route they traveled to get there. Granted it was sponsored by the New York Women in Communication organization, but it was still very informative and inspirational. Sadly, the last sentence on page 51 resonates loudly: "women journalists were women first, and journalists second, and suspects always." All had to work extra hard to climb the career ladder.
I applaud Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst for being two of the first publishers to recruit women into newspaper work as indicated on page 73 and 74. Although Pulitzer was motivated by ratings and increasing circulation, he gave women a platform to display their work. From their women began to gain recognition, and even earned the respective titles as best journalists.
Paper Dolls sheds more positive light on female journalists. Too many of their characteristics, however, are based on their gender. Rather than being recognized as an individual, they were all clumped together as one. Strides in journalism allow women to stand out from one another, as well as men, it today's society. While it still seems difficult, laws prevent women from not being hired based on their gender. Such laws serve as security. With motivation and determination, we are lucky that women can stand out as respectable news journalists. The women at the conference proved this.
Journalism for both genders should be an opportunity and a privilege to those who are serious about getting the facts and relaying the story to the common people.
Women journalists as we known are seen all over the media. We are anchors, reporters, writers, editors and behind the scenes. I believe like any profession, that companies and businesses put up a front when hiring women, especially women as reporters or anchors. Image today is everything. Broadcasting companies televise their attractive women to report on the daily events, while there are dozens of serious women journalists being shunned because they’d rather let their voices be heard, rather than caring how the look doing it. When I look through my local newspaper, women dominate the “Lifestyle” sections whereas men are reporting on world affairs and local matters. This brings us back to what women first were expected to write about. I wonder if these women today choose to write about relationships, food and health or they are being limited by outdated gender roles. A part of me hopes that it isn’t their choice, or we as women are feeding into the stereotype that beauty comes before brains.
When I read about the hardships women had to endure for whatever profession they tried to break into, I feel lucky that I can be basically whatever I want to be. Although there still is underlining animosity within some organizations and clear gender-biases, we do not have that immediate struggle or wall to break down like the women of the past. I do not think that the struggle is quite over though. We still have simpleminded people who still label women as “sob sisters” although they do not use that exact terminology; we still have “women’s work” and make 77 cents to every man’s dollar. But there is hope. As seen in New Paltz’s journalism department, women may just be the future of this profession.
I believe that although women have long since received "equal treatment," journalism was not an advocate for that. Although there were many journalists who fought for the rights of others to participate in the news, I believe that women journalists have gotten the short end of the stick.
I agree with James that women have taken big strides and were able to force people to listen until they were heard. The major problem that stands out for me though is that they had to force people to listen. Back in the 1930's, women were not taken seriously and they weren't even allowed the opportunity to participate in meaningful stories.
So, I have to agree more so with Chris. Yes, women journalists today have more of an opportunity and are able to be in loop of the news cycle. But journalism did not support that change. I believe that journalism held on to old-fashioned ideals and customs in our culture and immersed themselves in it. It was only until these ideals were completely cast aside that women in journalism were given the opportunity to speak and be heard rather than scream and be silenced by the rest of society.
I, like Chris, also viewed journalism as a progressive institution that helped incite change such as the abolition of slavery. However, after reading Mightier than the Sword as well as these two handouts, I have changed my mind. I think while a lot of journalism has helped spark movements like women's suffrage, it more often reflects society's established beliefs. I came to this conclusion after reading the chapter "Slowing the Momentum for Women's Rights" and particularly the "Paper Dolls" hand out. It made me very angry to see that women were held back by the Press when they were making strides to be viewed as equals.
I found myself scoffing at the quotes from men during World War II when women made up a large population of the journalism field. I also took offense when the four women at the trial of Harry Thaw were named "sob sisters." Men in journalism, like a lot of people, are afraid of change. Women introduced a new perspective, but not one that was only qualified for "fluff and tear-jerking stories" (Autobiographer 76).
What makes me so angry is that the field of journalism was only holding itself back by keeping women out of the serious news stories and city desks. If we can use this school as an example, a majority of journalism students are women, and talented women at that. However, when journalism was a male-dominated profession, it didn't matter how smart a woman was, an editor would rather "take a dumb man of erratic social habits over a smart gal every time" (Paper Dolls 208).
I would like to think that these stereotypes no longer exist in the world of journalism today, but I don't think I can. As far as television is concerned, a woman is more likely to end up as a news anchor if she is attractive, not if she is well informed. I heard a speech once by a female senator who had been a news anchor at her local television station for a number of years. However, once she got older and her hair began to thin and her face began to wrinkle, she was fired from her job at the television station. However, she explained, as her co-anchor, an older man, aged, he was considered endowed with wisdom and insight and was able to keep his job.
While I think that society has made great strides in accepting women in the workplace, there are still some social standards that prevent women from gaining as much respect as they deserve. I think women still have to work twice as hard to get as much recognition as men, but maybe in another 60 years that will be different.
It seems difficult to classify journalism as being either a completely progressive influence or being an enforcer of established beliefs. I think it's clear that throughout its history, journalism has played both roles. Obviously, with women it seems to have enforced society's established beliefs.
It's hard for me to imagine a time when women would be treated as negatively as is depicted in the articles. The thought that getting pregnant was essentially the equivalent of quitting, or that it was considered humiliating to have a job other than a housewife is mind boggling today.
I'm sure that there are still some gender-based limitations in media professions/journalism today but, obviously, they are different. Woman seem to be able to cover pretty much everything that men do in the news today, as opposed to being pigeonholed as "sob-sisters" or "stunt girls". But, woman also still make less than the average male. I'm curious to find out how many women run newspapers today and if that is a limitation for them.
For the most part, I see journalism as a whole as a reflector of society's already firmly established beliefs. As we've discussed in class, people tend to gravitate to things that they already believe in . Their preconceived ideas and beliefs dictate the type of information they seek, attempting to confirm that their ideas are "normal." People tend to be insecure of their ineptitude and ignorance and need to be reassured that others share the same beliefs. Playing upon these insecurities, journalism as a whole tends to be reactionary and a reflector of society's tendencies. This will help them sell more papers because they are able to have a certain demographic thoroughly enjoy everything they produce.
Consequently, it is the journalists that are a progressive influence and do question the establishment that we ultimately praise and look up to. While being controversial and not always loved in their own times, in the end they are pillars of journalistic integrity and courage because they broke out from the mold of being reactionary. Although they are the select few, a great minority, it is those who choose not to be loved by all that tend to be progressive and bring about change. It's not always easy to take a stand, which is why those who do are idolized in the journalism profession, yet, as a whole, most journalists tend to be enforcers of society's beliefs.
Lastly, it makes me truly upset and mad to read about restrictions placed upon women in the field of journalism in particular. One obvious example of these restrictions is from my favorite source of news, ESPN. All the men on their shows are seen as these knowledgeable and intelligent "experts," while women are relegated to sideline reporters and eye candy. God-forbid they try to bring about serious arguments, if one can call sports discussion a serious argument, the women are always treated with the same roll of the eyes and "why are women discussing sports" type reaction. Although less serious than many other things we've read about and discussed, it's the most obvious reason I can see in the media today.
It is no surprise to me that woman take the back seat in a career in journalism. It also, is no surprise that a womans status in journalism also reflects our status in American society. Woman have been for many, many years, the care givers, housewives, and mothers in the society, and to some degree, now in present time. Woman were lucky to get a job in the 1900's in journalism and lucky if they could keep it. In the article, Dream Job, “The woman who did some how break into journalism still faced rampant discrimination (Howard Good.1998.Gender, Journalism, and the Movies.pg48).” This statement clearly states that woman were losing jobs, if ever getting one, due to the way society viewed us! “....The day a woman even mentioned she was getting married was the day she was, in effect, resigning from newspaper work ( Howard Good.1998.Gender, Journalism, and the Movies.pg48).” It wasn’t until the around 1889 were woman were seen as, “journalists”. Newspapers saw a way to make money off of woman, by exposing their feminine more emotional side. Woman reporters were given the name, “sob sister”. “The title given to woman reporters who wrung tears form their coverage of sensational crimes and trials (Jordan,Lowell, & Underewood.1993.The Journalist As Autobiographer.pg74).”
How do you like that? Woman are good for something, not just to keep house and take care of the kids. Our feelings and emotions can be used to get across to others in society. Wow, woman can even make the newspapers money too! It is a shame however, that woman did not get paid the same salary as men, and that woman were given tasks and jobs that would demoralize and belittle them. However, William Randolph Hearst of the New York Journal, helped put woman on the map.
American people can be quite opinionated and critical. However, I do believe that journalism has a direct influence and impact on what, how, and why, society feels they we do about certain issues. To some degree newspaper, news programs on TV, as well as other journalism, tell us the story they want us to hear. Society is fed and pumped with the information journalists give us. We are not given the whole story. Therefore are unable to come up with our own ideas, beliefs, and suggestions. I feel that journalist are told what and how much info to display. I also feel that their opinions are fed to us, not allowing society to come up with their own ideas and objections. Isn’t this America? Shouldn’t we be able to think and feel what we want about issues going on in the world. I am tired of the media leading us or me, to believe certain facts about currents issues going on in the world.
Sorry, I had a lot to say.
I can understand the limits put on woman in early years. Yes, woman would tend house, care for kids, and so on. Men were the ones to go out and bring home the bacon. However, I don’t think woman should be turned away because they want to work, or if they have to work. Husbands and fathers die.... Woman and wives need to take care of their themselves and their children some way! By not allowing woman in the work force then, has created many issues in society today. Yes, things have improved. Women are more widely accepted in the work force. However, what kinds of jobs are we succeeding in or viewed as a job for a woman? “Woman in New York at the end of the 1920's, there were 63,637 teachers an 21,915 nurses, but only 11 engineers and 7 inventors (Howard Good.1998.Gender, Journalism, and the Movies.pg49).” The numbers have improved as years have gone on. However, woman need to prove to society every day that we can do it and that there is need for us. No , not only as teachers and nurses. Yes, we have emotional and feelings, but these feelings and emotions are what make woman great attorneys, doctors, and business woman. It is because we are passionate about what we and perform our jobs whole heartedly. It stinks that woman are still working to prove ourselves from issues that occurred in the early 18th and 19 th century.
I believe woman are still having a hard time finding their place and beginning a career in journalism. I do believe that it is easier today that years ago. Many great woman have broken the ice. Although, I notice a change in some journalist, I feel like woman are giving headlines that are of less importance. Men seem to introduce more of the major issues going on in the world. There are more women holding down important issues that highly effect the American society, but I see more men in these spots.
Reading about the discrimination that women faced during the early eras of journalism reinforced the beliefs of the society-at-large. Throughout the course of history, women have always had to work twice as hard as men to receive the same recognition.
It was pretty insulting for society to suggest that women, after taking various jobs in factories, mills, and event the military as nurses, tankers, etc because their husbands, fathers, and brothers were fighting in World War II, should go back to working in the homes. Likewise, women reporters like Dickey Chappelle were cursed all up and down for working "in a man's world," and was considered irresponsible for trading in her kitchen apron for combat boots.
The idea of the sob sister and stunt girl reporter stereotypes was supposed to justify, as well as disqualify, the place of women in the journalism field. Knowing dog-on well that women could write a news story just as well as a man, the masculine voice in journalism could not allow themselves to be overpowered by such a soft yet emotional creature. The idea that women journalists were first women, then journalists and always a suspect (51) was very discouraging because serious stories were passed on to men.
It was because of this idea that Mary Field Belenky wrote that women must jump outside their own frames and systems authorities provide and create their own (76). Women in post WWII times didn't want to overthrow their bosses or coworkers. They just wanted to take on the same assignments as men, be respected and appreciated for their equal amount of work and credited as full news reporters.
It seems like in the past there were very specific roles that women were assigned to during the history of journalism, such as stunt girls and sob sisters. This is much like it is today. We have made progress, with anchors like Kaitie Couric and Rachel Maddow but I think that these are still just “token” women roles that remain a rarity. Usually on a modern news team there is one women for every 3 men or so, and this is a huge progress from the way it used to be. I think this is evidence that the press reflects the rest of society’s established beliefs. It’s pretty clear that the news sells better to people that already agree with it. A show or newspaper that goes against the traditional women roles, or any other opinions of the readers, won’t do as good. When journalism acts as an agent for change, it is because there is some evil force being brought down that is seen as separate from the public audience. If the muckraking were to oppose or expose something that the audience thought was OK, such as the suppression of women, the audience might be insulted. Now, women are more accepted as equal to men and it is normal to work for a women, so the audience accepts the current man-woman ratio. It is much better then it used to be, but I think that the problems women face at news places are up to date with the problems that they would face at any other company.
Reading about earlier eras of journalism and women makes me think about what I have learned about race issues. Anthropologists say that part of the reason the white ruling and working class in America has been so opposed to the progress of the colored community is that they feel better know that they can always get a better job than a black man. This must have been part of the reason that women were so oppressed back in the 30’s, there wouldn’t be a man at the paper that would be OK with working under a women.
Reading or learning about anything that put limits on women (or any race, religion, or creed for that matter) really just makes me angry. I hate to think that I'd be held back in my career just because I'm a woman, and if in the future I am, I will probably be completely ignorant to that being the reason because I can't picture that still happening. I see so many empowered women in the work place that it makes me feel strong and feel like I have a chance to make something of myself.
Honestly, I don't really see gender-based limits in media professions today, or at least I haven't picked up on it. Like I said, if I'm held back in this profession, the last thing I'll think to blame it on is my gender. To see the difference between now and then is amazing, and I feel lucky to be able to choose what I want to do and have an equal opportunity to get it done.
biased**
Women have come a long way by making their mark in history while fighting to be socially and politically accepted. Although women today hold most of the highest positions in the workplace, there are many employers who discriminate against women. Today some employers would ask if a future employee has any plans on becoming pregnant or if they are married as a way to become aware of what lies ahead.
Reading this made me a little upset!!! Women in journalism were not respected and their work was not valued. The gender bias that went on in the newsrooms were obvious and the discrimination was socially and politically accepted by society. I feel as if the firing of pregnant women and the resignation after marriage was a way for the men to prevent women from progressing professionally. Reading about how women were being treated was almost like they were non-existent or as if they were invisible. Since the 1930's, the typical "staff of 30 to 50 men employed two or three women" has changed and roles are reversed in most offices today. Thinking about it, I realized it this summer while working for a pr agency and there was 99% females working there and 1% percent of males working there. This is the case in many places such as in colleges.
In my opinion, without the past there would be no present for women to work and strive for success. The Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 only granted women the right to vote, which made them revolt and fight for equality. I think that one of the biggest reasons why women are so much more successful today than men is because women fought their way to become accepted, unlike men who were already granted rights.
Post a Comment