Several ideas popped into my head while reading both articles, and while they both address media, I have to say that what really got me going was a quote in Liesbet van Zoonen's "Feminist Perspecitves on the Media," which shaped the rest of my reading:
"It is thought that media perpetuate sex role stereotypes because they reflect dominant social values and also because male media produces are influenced by these stereotypes," (27). Reflecting on this, I thought about broadcasting stations and how most of the coanchors and reporters seem to be female (I haven't counted, just what I perceive), and they are either fresh out of college, young looking mid twenties females with layers of blush, baubles upon baubles over tight, bright colored shirts that seem a bit timid talking to the camera (again, could be the 'new factor) or a matron like figure that seems to do a deep skin regimen (hey, good for her!) complete with boxy suits that usually covers the more serious news, such as deaths, government stories, etc.
As a viewer of the news (and also a freelance journalist) I can't take someone that looks like they are ready to go to the trendiest bar after airing, as someone of being informed about the news they are delivering. I'd be more comfortable with a conservative look, showing more business, less play on camera. I wonder if the producers of such networks think that Americans will listen more to these newscasters because they'll (the viwers) will think themselves smarter than them and thus listen for pieces to contradict, or do they just provide great "eye candy" to the masses?
In turn, we could go the other extreme and have Rachel Maddow, a conservatively dressed, gender-neutral attire and adamantly hammering issues left and right take stage but does that scare an audience off, to see an individual be smart and blurring the lines?
The socialist feminist model calls for a mainstream media reform in that feminist media be a separate divison seems to be unfortunately flawed. From a tv network standpoint, most major affliations are backed by a political party's views. How would politics embrace a women's news network, since politics haven't embraced a women president, and are divided, even today, on even embracing a non-white male president?
"Media fulfull the structural needs of respectively democratic, patriarchal and capitalist society by transmitting its distorted dominant values about women," (31). What are current broadcast reporters saying about society views? That it's ideal for a woman to look pretty, talk about the lesser serious news, and leave the bigger news to either matronly figures or males? That's a scary societal position to have....
I cannot wait to see what you make of the Mulvey piece for Monday - it's all about the male gaze and women as objects of vision rather than subjects.
ReplyDeleteI think the news industry is a great example. I feel like the men on TV are pretty heavily made up too (suits, posh haircuts, usually trim) but it doesn't seem as rigid as the look for female broadcasters.
When vanZoonen talks about media acting as a "socialization agent .. teaching children in particular their appropriate sex roles" (p 27), I think it drives home the reasons we have to talk about these things, the reasons we must question media.
I couldn't agree more. I am glad we are now paying attention to what we feed into the minds of our youth. News broadcasts are changing, we see more and more women taking leadership roles in this area, clearly suggesting that women want more serous and intellectual media.
DeleteNora
On the Chinese news station CCTV, their advertisement calls the news informative, accurate, graceful, etc. and you guessed it, for graceful they show their lovely female news anchor.
ReplyDeleteI'm also wondering about more serious news shows, PBS Newshour, or Week in Washington. Their newscasters are older more substantial, not physical size but mental presence, women. I suppose it is the networks use of the rhetorical triangle. If your purpose is serious news use a credible spokesperson. I'm happy they are employing women.
It's interesting you bring up Rachel Maddow. I feel like she thinks before she speaks and clearly she is very smart. Because of this she has built a rapport with me and I trust her. The woman on my local news is probably a bit younger than Rachel. She just seems to be reading a Teleprompter. I don't get into what she is saying in the same way that I respond to Rachel. So, for me personally I'm not intimidated by somebody smart on a news program. I appreciate it. I welcome it. I think it boils down to the fact that my local news anchor is simply inexperienced.
ReplyDeleteI think people had that built-in trust thing with guys like Walter Conkrite. Unfortunately I cannot think of a female counterpart contemporary of his. I found it odd that they removed Katie Couric from the national evening news broadcast. I believe they blamed her departure on declining ratings. Do you guys think the network was disappointed in her performance and that's why she was replaced? Was she replaced because she is a woman and they thought a man would do a better job? How can the network blame Couric for declining ratings? By the time the evening news is on the air it's already old news. Nowadays people get their news via their phones and computers. The evening news cannot really compete with that.