Read the linked article. Discuss what you find most interesting, surprising, or shocking about the conditions it describes and why. Your response is due by Sunday, Nov. 24, 4 p.m.
http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/3552133?n=267&s=4&printThumbnails=no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M35gbEFUG_E
And a link to photos of newsboys, many by Jacob Riis:
http://www.google.com/search?q=newsboy+photography+jacob+riis&nord=1&rlz=1W1ADFA_enUS401&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=BAuOUujPB-yQyQHR0YGgDg&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=434
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Beyond the fact that women were forced to struggle in order to make a name for themselves in journalism, what I found shocking was the fact that when women did become established, it was due to stereotypically “feminine” features. It seems that the headstrong woman with an emotional insight was valued over a woman who gathered facts and wrote an article in a basic journalistic style. Bugbee says a female reporter must be “industrious and painstaking, but if she is to accomplish more than routine writing, she must rise above routine, showing a sense of humor and an insight into emotional psychology” (262). In other words, she must provide an emotional slant with her writing, adding a “woman's touch” to her journalism, than follow in the footsteps of male reporters and write strictly hard news; thus, even when a woman is not reporting on “women's issues,” she is reporting in a distinctly feminine way—with an insight into the emotional, the human interest side of a what would be a hard news story if a man were to write it. Bugbee goes on to describe more characteristics ideal for a female reporter: “Something of the quality of a spoiled child may well be hers... She must be able to get her own way” (262).
Such expected characteristics are something of a double standard. While Bugbee says editors claimed they were not limiting female reporters to “women's issues,” female reporters were being limited to feminine stereotypes. Meanwhile male reporters were free of any expectations of a gendered writing style. A male reporter's success had more to do with a talent for writing and reporting facts than in a “male” style. Did male reporters truly have an easier time at gathering facts than women, not being put through the same hoops or denied any kind of information while writing a story? It would seem to me that these characteristics, an ability to emotionally capture an audience and refuse to be denied, might be useful for any reporter, male or female when discussing successful reporting.
When reading Bugbee’s writing, a few aspects of female journalism became quickly apparent. Throughout the piece, it seems that a common theme of Bugbee’s ideas is that women must be able to work past the stereotypes of the newsroom. She says that this can either be done by excelling at this “women’s stuff”, and earn a higher spot on the newspaper ladder, or by incorporating and using these stereotypes in her writing. According to Bugbee, if the female writer is able to accomplish this feat, her writing will be more valuable than many of her counterparts because she will have a unique voice and perspective on important topics. However, the above statements only apply to the very few women who actually get jobs at the newspapers, because as Bugbee in the beginning of the piece, each day a newspaper can expect to receive at least three applications, and they only hire one woman a year.
The most shocking aspect I see from this account of female journalism isn't so much the fact that women were able to advance in the ranks of the newspapers, but that the trend continued to present itself as time went on. As Bugbee states, and as it should be, women have historically been involved in the highest levels of journalistic decision making, even if it took more work than men to achieve that post. However, given the time period’s tendency to satisfy the male ego and keep the top positions in the control of men, I figured there were not too many cases of female editors or similar positions.
The first thing that I found rather interesting about women in the journalism field is that Bugbee starts the chapter right off the bat talking about how many of these females came to newspapers with a degree in hand, yet still turned away. She later talks about how some of them were told to return to school to learn even more. Though we’ve come a long way with women in journalism, this actually was reminding me a lot of how things currently are today for all genders in all fields. Due to job scarcity being quite a large problem, college graduates often go looking for jobs with the right qualifications in hand only to be turned away and told to go and further their education even more. It’s interesting to see that this was a concept that occurred in the 1920s (even if it was a lot more specific and targeted back then).
I also found it interesting that it seems as though women were more looked at for writing feature stories as opposed to hard-hitting news. I figure if a woman wrote a hard-hitting news story during this era, their story wouldn’t be taken as seriously as a man’s of the same topic. Because feature writing is seen as being more emotional and even as a “sob story,” women supposedly excel in that type of writing. It creates this stereotype around what women should and shouldn’t write and how they should write it. These stereotypes only expand further on page 262, where Bugbee has a list of things that females trying to break into the journalism industry “should” and “shouldn’t” be or do. It’s crazy to think that this comes off as being almost like a job requirement you’d see today except instead of just having basic knowledge and skill in the subject, prospective female employees are forced to act and write a certain way to even be considered for the position. And as Bugbee mentioned, typically only one female a year even got hired so chances were incredibly slim to begin with.
I found it shocking in the beginning of the article when Bugbee illustrated how difficult it was for a woman to get a job as a journalist. Even if they had a degree or years of writing experience, they were still turned down. If there were three women applying for a job a day, maybe one would get hired and that is quite shocking. She illustrated how the woman were subject to stereotyping. In the newspaper circles, people would speak negatively about "woman stuff" and women's interests included everything related to being a house mom, cleaning, children, home, health, religion, etc. Only fire and bloodshed were excluded from the women's field. This made it difficult for women to make names for themselves. The stereotyping and derogatory speech against them limited them in the workplace. Its perceived that woman were pretty much only given soft news as opposed to hard news that was relevant in the world. If a woman wrote a story about a current event and a man wrote a similar story, the man would have more credibility and his story would be taken more seriously.
There are three types of women who try to get into journalism according to the article, “Journalism” by Emma Bugbee. Women who want to be “in contact with exhilarating people and events and so provide entertainment as well as a weekly stipend” (256), those who use journalism as a way to further her secret ambition at writing fiction, and then those who are already specialists and have picked out women’s niches to fill. (Ex: fine arts, women’s section, etc.) I expected this segregation of talent. Women could only handle women’s “domestic” topics in the male reporter eye. However, the continued conditions and advancements for women reporters were a pleasant surprise. The fact is that the dividing line between ‘women’s stuff’ and general assignments is so vague that no two persons agree as to where it is, and on any given new event there will be both men and women reporters” (258).
However women’s niches were still prevalent and shockingly gave women an advantage in some areas. Bugbee noted that feature stories covered from the feminine angle “affords the newcomer in the journalistic world the quickest stepping stone to fame and fortune” (259). By her name being signed, Bugbee argues that she has opportunities to increase her operations outside the city staff for publications such as magazines. “From the newspaper’s feature section to the magazine world is the next step in her upward career” (260).
Although Bugbee describes a sexism in relation to what stories are covered by women, I was interested and pleasantly surprised to read the opportunities it presented women. I still think, even today, we have more advancements needed in newspaper reporting to ensure this sexism point of view does not continue to separate women and men based on sections.
This article begins with Emma Bugbee describing how women had great difficulty obtaining jobs in journalism. What I found interesting, was what she discussed next. She began discussing why women found the career interesting. She describe the career as a romantic adventure of traveling and meeting fascinating people, going days without eating or sleeping, just simply being in love with one’s craft. This description stood out to me because it feels like today. Journalists are often admired as having the best careers. On television, especially. Journalists get to meet and dine and hang out with celebrities and royalty, and government officials. They get to cover award shows and benefits. They travel to newly opened restaurants and resorts. I think that Bugbee’s statement was not only for women in this particular point. I’m sure some men like the romantic idea of journalism as well.
The second part of the article that I found interesting was when Bugbee states the toll the career actually takes on the journalist. She states, “Wiseacres often warn the young fiction writers not to stay too long in the newspaper field lest in their devotion to fact finding they lose their ability to see things emotionally. Less emphasis is placed on the danger that one will lose the ability for continued interest or sustained concentration through constant skipping from one sensation to another.” Bugbee is saying that journalists repeatedly cover events and often times life doesn’t become a job. Emotions are lost because events are just events. Journalists, after a while, forget that people make the events. And people, have emotions. I also thought Bugbee’s use of the word “sensation” was interesting and on-point. Journalists are known for being sensationalists, or glorified gossipers. I think that a line has to be drawn between simply reporting the facts and actually providing some context and interpretation so that readers get a real understanding.
There were multiple examples which I found shocking with the woman’s working conditions. First, those women were defaulted into this stereotypical category of writing strictly “woman’s stuff”. For example, it was said that a woman would only be able to cover a big story only under the condition if it appeared that only a woman would be competent of covering that story. Under the circumstance, this was because it was assumed that only a woman would be able to understand the clear psychology of a story that was linked to another a woman. It was also a bit discriminating that the employer just doesn’t only account for just her education but also considers her personality, “and moderate good looks never hurt a candidate.” A woman reporter carried the stress of always having to be dressed well; given all of the many situations where she was traveling. And in return, all to have a smaller salary difference next to the men, women were never reimbursed for their traveling expences. This also includes the ridiculously long working hours with no holidays or social life. It was present that the long term affects kick in when women on the job are forced eat weird fast meals, and constantly experiencing an emotional roller coaster due to the varied amount of stories. Every story entailed a different sort of sentiment which can also be considered good experiences, but she never had time to wind down. This only led to emotion over-load. All in all, women had to work their ass off and not only were the conditions not fair but in some ways a little inhumane. It’s a good thing that these women made their strong impressions and stuck through the worst to make what is achievable for any woman aspiring to be a reporter.
I found several things interesting in the article in regards to women in journalism. The first is that in other professions that are known as predominately male professions such as politicians, doctors, lawyers etc., women need to rise above and beyond all stereotypes and prove that she is just as adequate as her male competitors. However, journalism is much different. Women that tried to make it in the journalism world couldn’t write about the same topics as men such as war, murder or other headlining newspaper articles. In order for women to make it in the journalism world they had to give into their stereotypes and play along with them in their writing style and topics. For example, women would be required to stick to topics that relate to “women stuff” and incorporate an emotional edge to their writing whereas men were free to write about any topic and be judged on their writing abilities only. Although newspaper companies claimed otherwise, women were stuck writing about topics that only pertain to women interests. I would definitely have to say that this aspect of women in journalism is the most shocking because it is much different than other predominately male professions.
Another aspect of this article that I found interesting was the amount of women who achieved the necessary credentials to excel in this field. The beginning of the article states that there would be up to three applicants a day of women applying with degrees and years of writing experience that would almost always get turned down, they would hire one woman a year, if that. Overall, women with the writing capabilities and work ethic to be successful in journalism would get turned away whereas women with emotional writing styles who wrote articles on female topics, would at least get a job writing feature stories.
What most shocked me about Bugbee's writing was the vapid assignments with which women reporters were expected to report on. "Home, health, morals, religion, art, music, education, charities, fashion, and reform" were the subjects women were expected to report on, and while Bugbee does admit that it's a wide field, it excludes a great many subjects, including most breaking news.
This, combined with many other factors, including the treatment recalled by Linda Greenhouse, who was unable to get a job at a major daily because they simply didn't hire women, shows the gender inequality that the journalism industry still espouses today. Just look up the comment section on any video featuring S.E. Cupp.
What I found most interesting in this article apart from the strong presence women had in certain early newspapers, was the motives for women entering the field. Written in 1928, the motives the writer cited for women striving for a career in journalism hit home for me. The excitement that comes with constantly meeting new people and having an environment which is presumably always changing along with my desire to write fiction lead me towards journalism.
The fact that women being women changed what stories they were given is foreign to me and an idea that still shocks me a little. Even when a story was given to a women because of her competence and whatnot, the fact that she is indeed a women was always a factor at least to some extent. However, the favorable position that women hold such as the ability to jump from feature section to magazine and not have to deal with the hard news if that isn’t her desire is something I had never put much thought into. Is being forced into “women’s stuff” really so horrible? Yes, in many ways it is obviously restrictive, but a smart woman could find a way to use it to her advantage.
If women were given a story such as the murder trial which took weeks of incredible work and long hours, it was considered a feat for women as a sex. Today, I would like to think that stories are given to men and women without regard to the persons gender but I still wonder if a little bit of this sexism exists in newsrooms.
The author mentions the amount of women who are turned down by newspapers despite college degrees and various other merits early on in the article. She also included that certain newspapers receive 3 applicants per day while only hiring a single woman per year if at all. I found these statistics interesting but feel that the obvious question is how many men get hired at these newspapers. I imagine 3 applicants per day must mean a majority of applicants are turned down. This diluted her argument somewhat although the point is still clear that for a female reporter, finding a job was much more difficult than it was for a man.
Personally, I’ve been raised in an age where most journalists aren’t considered progressive. I think it should surprise me that women could not find a place amongst journalists, but it doesn’t. Even today I see female journalists not being taken seriously. The concept of “woman’s stuff” in reporting isn’t a foreign concept to the modern day reporter. I hadn’t considered the likelihood for a female to write human interest stories over stories about violence, but it makes sense given the stereotypical tendency for women to write in a more emotive, compassionate way. The problem is that being assigned these stories reinforces that stereotype.
The most upsetting parts of the article are the examples of women taking commanding roles in journalism and still having their sex undermined. Women had to work harder than men to get the same respect as an individual, while no amount of powerful females seemed to make a difference for the females starting out in a still male-dominated field. As the author exemplifies, this is the same in many fields including politics. People say women have done nothing in politics, but this is because they are doing great things that are overshadowed by men ding the same things with less obstacles in their path.
The article didn’t surprise or shock me at all. I don’t think it should have surprised anyone—women are not given the same opportunities as men in every field I can think of. That being said, there were a few points I found interesting.
Women making $10 less than men on newspapers is a terrible economic injustice. There are a lot of depressing factors that contribute to this statistic, such as female confidence and the nature of the work that women are assigned (home, child psychology, gardening).
I never thought of the costliness of a woman’s appearance and how her appearance reflects her position. Editors frequently placing women in situations where they would be required to buy things such as clothing and food, without considering the fiscal implications for a woman compared to a man, seems yet another injustice to women coming from the patriarch. The newspaper business is stressful enough. I cannot imagine doing it as a woman.
What most strongly stood out to me within the piece is how women at the time, compared to current women reporters, were perceived. Through an understanding of historical context I was under the impression that yes, like most occupations, women were placed in a separate sphere as men. However I reading about the ideology behind separating women from the same level of skill and professionalism men at the time had provides a more potent view of what was really happening.
Toward the start of the article it is stated that women get into journalism for one of two reasons: they are intrigued by the glamor and romantic images in their head when they imagine the exciting life of a journalism career, or they hope it will aid them in getting where they really want to go – fictional writing. This assumption does not directly stem from the point that women’s common practices involved the mainly domestic dealings, but goes further, and takes that fact and concludes that the very foundation of what a women holds important and what a women hopes to achieve is all for her own personal gain, as if she fed up with performing tasks for everyone else in her life, and is determined to make things now all about her. In a profession where people put themselves on a limb to get information to inform the masses and to spread the truth, the author indicates that women only care about themselves and how a career of journalism can help them. I found this to be offensive, perhaps because I feel there is an underlying theme of this that still resides in current day journalism – an idea that women get into journalism for the glamor, to travel around and meet interesting people and one day end up in front of a camera, dolled up, reading something someone else wrote. And while I do not doubt that these people exist and strive for journalism to lead them to this lifestyle, I not believe this only applies to females, nor does it only apply to journalism.
There is, of course, an even more pertinent placement of women in the newsroom back then that I feel remains strong today. Women, upon joining a paper, are the ones to cover the more “fluff” pieces; whether this is because of their greater understanding of such topics or a more sexist reasoning is of course debatable. But inevitable, as the piece suggests, as the women moves up the ranks in the paper, she will find great success in feature writing. “The feature story from the feminine angle affords the newcomer of the journalistic world the quickest stepping stone to fame and fortune.” This statement obviously does two things: it once again states the implication that all women want from their journalism career is fame and fortune, and that women are best suited for not hard news, but human interest stories.
Why? Because women naturally have compassion and understanding that provide said “angle” for a story. People are more inclined to talk to a women than a hard, cold man. Although I don’t fully agree that women in general are better suited for feature work, the fruition of the assumption is undeniable even in present day. Lucy Lu and many other talk show hosts, all women, create human interest stories for their viewers while men are usually left to the hard news on channels such as CNN, with fellow female anchors (dolled up to look mannequin-like, often attractive in the most cliché sense) at times seemingly like only props to defend against sexism (the irony). I found this article to be so eye opening for this very reason. Not only did it speak to how women journalists were perceived in the past, but how those same perceptions are still present today.
This was not a shocking thing to read, since I had heard many times Journalism is a somewhat static profession which changes at a slow rate. I think it is a beneficial thing that these women kept fighting for a role in current journalism. Without female reporters the perspective news outlets would present would be one sided and extremely limited. I respect these early female reporters because they persevered and wrote these stories which were considered acceptable for a female. They wrote these stories in some cases so well it garnished more respect for the reporter. It has still been progressing up until this day as more women enter the field. I know that in some cases I am one of only a handful of men in some journalism classes.
The portion of this article that interested me the most was when Bugbee discussed women in leading roles in journalism. She discusses that the American newspaper has become so highly organized and commercial that many women look upon it as a job that they can excel and succeed in as leading forces. That idea is one I particularly hold dear when I think of my involvement in our campus' publication, The New Paltz Oracle. Out of more than 15 editors on our staff, only 5 of them are men, which is an extreme progression from when women began in the journalism field. We always like to refer to the women on staff as "the iron clam" because often, we will proceed to ban together and write feminist columns as a result of whatever misogynistic current situation is happening in the news. We feel a certain protection over the power we hold as female editors, and the perpetual need we have to reverse the gender roles and stereotypes we are placed in as such.
As Emily mentioned in her blog post, Bugbee discussed women in the journalism field as establishing themselves because of stereotypical "feminine" features, which reminds me of a website I recently familiarized myself with, which documented misogynistic comments made to women photographers or reporters by men based on their leading positions in the journalism field. Many of them were directed at women in the sports field, because that is stereotypically seen as a field dominated by men. Some of the insults included questions about female reporters in the locker room being married to one of the players, or being "too pretty" to be doing the job they were doing. One insult directed at a photographer noted that her camera was "pretty big for such a little lady" like herself.
Even though we have made such progress in the journalism field when it comes to women taking on positions of leadership, there is still some animosity being harbored by men who feel that they are entitled to the positions women have gotten over them just based on their gender. It seems ridiculous that we would still be having these issues to this day, but we do.
Bugbee discusses that women are often confined to writing about "woman's stuff," encompassing children and all other topics that relate to women.
Post a Comment