| |
|
Empowering Men:
mbating
|
Manufacturing Concern:
Chapter Three: Quantitative and Qualitative
Results
Jim Boyce |
|
|
In this chapter, I examine the amount and type of headline coverage given
to male and female victims of violence. I begin by analyzing the number of
headlines found in each of the groups and sub-groups defined in the previous
chapter. I then examine the content of the headlines, comparing and contrasting
those emphasizing male victims with those emphasizing female victims, and
paying special attention to coverage of the “Montreal Massacre”
and its anniversaries. Because of their significant role in news, I finish
by describing the types of sources found in headlines.
Quantitative Results
The following chart shows
the number of headlines found in each of the groups defined in the last chapter:
| |
Number of
Headlines |
Percentage
of Coverage |
Gender-Specific |
|
|
1.Literal |
406 |
32.7 |
2.Contextual |
134 |
10.8 |
| |
540 |
43.5 |
Non Gender-Specific |
|
|
3.Connotative |
169 |
13.6 |
4.Neutral |
364 |
29.3 |
5.Other |
169 |
13.6 |
| |
702 |
56.5 |
Forty-four per cent (540
of 1242) of the headlines contain direct references to the gender of
victims. Three-quarters of these are literal (406 of 540)
and one-quarter are contextual (134 of
540). Most of the remaining
headlines were classified as neutral (364 or 29.3 per cent) followed by connotative
and other headlines (both at 169 or 13.6 per cent).
We can
assess coverage of male and female victims by examining the 540
direct references to gender in more detail. As in the last chapter,
I have distinguished two types of headlines for each group based on how strongly
they refer to gender and violence:
| |
|
Number of
Headlines |
Per Cent of
Headlines |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Women
- Men |
Women
- Men |
Literal |
Type One |
325- 11 |
96.7 - 3.3 |
|
Type Two |
67 - 03 |
95.7 - 4.3 |
Contextual |
Type One |
90 - 01 |
98.9 - 1.1 |
|
Type Two |
43 - 00 |
100.0 - 0.0 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
525 - 15 |
97.2 - 2.8 |
We find that women are emphasized in 97.2 per cent of
the direct references to gender while men are emphasized in 2.8 per cent,
a ratio of 35 to one. This emphasis is found in all four types. A majority
of these, 427 or 79.1 per cent, are of the first
type in each group and are, by definition, the most direct references in the
sample. In short, there is an overwhelming emphasis on women in headlines
which identify the victims’ gender.
Headlines making direct references to gender constitute
43.5 per cent of the sample leaving 56.5 per cent of it unaccounted for. It would be a mistake
to suggest that readers envision male victims when reading about victims in
general. For example, connotative headlines -- which refer to sexual and family
violence -- contain strong hints of a link to gender. When we consider headlines
which directly identify gender, we find that women are emphasized in all cases
of sexual violence and the vast majority of cases of family violence, and
this raises the question of whether literally neutral headlines imply a similar
emphasis. There are additional reasons for thinking that connotative headlines
emphasize gender. To begin with, they include references to women, men, equality,
cheerleaders and a frat-member, although they did not fall within the strict
definition of a literal reference to gender. Furthermore, one quarter of the
references to family violence and half of those to sexual violence were categorized
by CNI as Battered Women or Violence Against Women.
Similarities between the headlines from these two categories and the category
Family Violence suggest that terms like “family violence” and “wife
abuse” are used interchangeably. Finally, the bracketed information provided
by CNI shows that some literally-neutral headlines accompany articles focused
on gender. For example, “Family violence: ‘It always happens again’
[Men who beat women]” (92.05.08
VS.C 1). To test this evidence, I examined every fourth article from
the connotative group.
In deciding
if an article focused on gender, I considered the headline, text, photographs
and graphics. I did not consider neighbouring articles,
articles on nearby pages or previous coverage of an issue or event. I took
into account the “inverted pyramid” format of most newspaper articles,
reporters presenting information in what they believe is its order of importance.
The question I asked of each article was: does it, as its main theme, or as
one of several key themes, concern the victimization of men, women or neither?
Given
this, I did not include articles which mentioned women or men in a secondary
way or which focused on both to roughly an equal degree. An article on murder
in the United States that identified young, black men as the likeliest victims
(“Murderous marks topped: Violence blamed on guns, drugs and poverty”
91.01.29 VS.A3) or one on domestic violence that paraphrased someone saying
that “many pastors... believe that an abused woman should be told to
forgive her partner and go home” (“Mennonites aid abuse victims”
91.08.03 CH.B7) were not included because the connection to gender was established
late in the article. Also omitted were articles which emphasized men and women
to roughly equal degrees, such as one citing several cases of victimization
(“Worst felons face tougher parole rules: bill gives crime victims voice
in offenders’ release” 91.10.09 GM.A 1,10), though it is worth noting
that in the majority of these cases, the emphasis tended to be towards women.
The results
of my sampling are as follows:30
| |
Number |
# Emphasizing |
| |
Sampled |
Women |
Men |
Sexual Violence |
06 |
04 |
00 |
Family Violence |
36 |
29 |
00 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
42 |
33 |
00 |
Seventy-nine
per cent of connotative headlines emphasize women as victims. None emphasize
men. This provides strong evidence for the hypothesis that terms like wife
abuse and family violence are used interchangeably to refer to women as victims,
and reinforces the emphasis on women found in the contextual and literal groups.
This leaves the fourth and fifth group -- neutral and
other headlines -- which represent 42.9 per cent of the sample. In chapter
two, I described some reasons for suspecting an emphasis on gender in some
of these headlines. Some contained literal hints, such as references to men,
women, women’s groups, feminists, equality, receptionists and cabbies.
Others were contextual references, although at a municipal or provincial,
rather than a national, level. For example, a person who had read previous
articles about Toronto city councillor Kay Gardner’s
questioning of statistics on violence against women could easily associate
the headline “Gardner issues apology for remark on violence” (90.10.02
TS.A24) with gender. Finally, we found that CNI categorized 18 per cent (60
of 322) of neutral headlines and 55 per cent of other headlines (94
or 172) as Battered Women or Violence Against Women, and provided additional
bracketed information on the headlines which identified the gender of victims,
such as “Judges need more training NWT women maintain [controversial
ruling in a wife assault case]” (90.07.19 MG.B7). To test this apparent
emphasis on women, I examined every fourth neutral and other headline. The
results follow:31
| |
Total # |
# Specifying |
| |
Sampled |
Women |
Men |
Neutral References |
86 |
42 |
01 |
Other References |
41 |
33 |
00 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
127 |
75 |
01 |
Based on these figures,
approximately fifty per cent of neutral references and eighty per cent of
other references emphasize women as victims. Less than one per cent of the
combined groups emphasize men. Of those headlines specifying gender, 98.7
per cent emphasize women and 1.3 emphasize men, a
ratio of 75 to one. These results suggest that many literally gender-neutral
headlines accompany articles with a gender-specific focus which is virtually
always women.
Using
our sampling of these three groups we can estimate the number of articles
that emphasize women or men and, combined with the number of headlines from
our literal and contextual groups, get a broader sense of the coverage provided
in our sample. The results are as follows:
| |
Number of |
# of Articles |
%
of Articles |
| |
Articles |
Women |
Men |
Women |
Men |
1. Literal |
406 |
392 |
14 |
96.6 |
3.4 |
2. Contextual |
134 |
133 |
01 |
99.3 |
0.7 |
3. Connotative |
169 |
133 |
00 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
4. Neutral |
364 |
178 |
04 |
97.8 |
2.2 |
5. Other |
169 |
136 |
00 |
100.0 |
0.0 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1242 |
972 |
19 |
98.1 |
1.9 |
Using the projections from
our sampling, we find that eighty per cent of the headlines contain references
to gender (991 of 1242). Of these, 98 percent emphasize women as victims and
two per cent emphasize men, a ratio of 51 to one. Rather than negating our
initial finding that coverage overwhelmingly emphasizes women, this sampling
widens the coverage gap between women and men by almost an additional 50 per
cent. The only group where less than 75 per cent of headlines refer to gender
is the neutral group but, even here, they amount to half of the references.
This provides us with two quantitative measurements
of media coverage of male and female victims. One is the amount of coverage
revealed by the first two groups, literal and contextual headlines, which
were strictly defined to minimize the potential of including non-gender-specific
headlines. The second includes the results of sampling of the remaining headlines
in an effort to test for an additional focus on gender. It suggests that the
gap in coverage of men and women is greater than originally discovered and,
at the least, confirms those original findings. In both cases, I have been
careful not to over-estimate the focus on gender. In fact, the gap in coverage
between men and women is most likely greater than shown so far.
Qualitative Results
We have already seen
that most headlines in our sample emphasize women. In this section, I will
examine the content of headlines, comparing and contrasting those concerning
women and men.
As there are so
few headlines emphasizing men, it is convenient to list them here (the first
fourteen are taken from the literal group, the last one from the contextual
group):
1.
“Young males likeliest crime victims, study finds” (89.10.13 MG.A3);
2.
“Single males in the West most likely crime victims” (90.04.25 CH.B1);
3.
“Woman’s sentence suspended in husband’s stabbing death”
(90.05.10 VS.A12);
4.
“Wife regrets staying with man she killed” (90.05.11 TS.A1,1 1);
5.
“Family violence affects men too: researcher says women often initiate
ugly cycle” (91.05.04 CH.B2);
6.
“Real story behind call by feminist to ‘kill men”’(91.05.21
TS.Cl);
7.
“Hubby bashing found equal to wife abuse” (91.06.19 WFP.A27);
8.
“Male abuse victims want to talk: men hope to add their voices to the
national debate on violence against women so that their own cries of pain
can be heard”(91.12.04 GM.A);
9.
“Husband-killer’s death a suicide” (92.06.09 VS.A4);
10.
“39% of women in survey admit they abuse spouse” (92.10.23 TS.A18);
11.
“Females batter men, study says” (92.10.23 CH.B7);
12.
“Many women admit abusing mates, poil says”
(92.10.23 VS.A3);
13.
“More women than men admit abuse, study finds” (92.10.23 WFP.A3);
14.
“Women may be equal partners in spousal abuse” (92.10.23 HCH.D16);
15.
“The men in the middle: confused over what their role is, they meekly
obeyed a gunman” (91.12.06 VS.A 19).
Eight of the headlines
present quantitative information, finding that wives batter or admit battering
husbands (10, 12), that this battering may be equal (7, 14) or exceed (13)
that of women, and that men are more likely to be victims of general violence
(1, 2). The other seven headlines refer to individual cases of victimization
(3, 4, 6, 9, 15) or victimization as a broader issue
(5, 8). All but four of the headlines (1, 2, 6, 15)
appear to refer to family violence.
We should be careful about
drawing conclusions that all of these headlines represent an emphasis on male
victims. Three articles (3, 4, 9) concern cases where
battered wives murdered their husbands and another (6) concerns a comment
by self-described feminist Andrea Dworkin that men
who rape should be killed. In the context in which they were published, readers
may have associated these headlines with the victimization of women. This
would not be surprising since other headlines referring to such issues do
so.
The limited focus on male victims is even more striking when other factors
are considered. One-third of the
headlines (10-14) appeared on the same day atop a Canadian Press article that
was published in five newspapers. Thus,
already sparse coverage of men is concentrated on a few days out of a four-year
period. It is also notable that
headlines reporting men as the most likely victims of violence emphasize other
traits, namely, that they are young (1) and single (2). The number of headlines
about male victimization is small to begin with but, considering these points,
is still an overestimation of the attention it receives. This inattention
is seen in headlines stating that men hope to “add” their voices
(8) or that family violence “affects men too” (5). These
are ironic considering those headlines which report men as being as likely
or more likely than women to be victims of violence.32
In contrast to headlines
on men, relatively few headlines quantify women’s victimization and few
place that victimization in the context of men’s. Rather,
only the number of female victims is given or terms like
“epidemic,”
“on the rise” or “rampant” are used. In
essence, this decontextualizes violence, as the
following examples reveal:
“Violence
against women in Canada reaches epidemic levels” (90.02.20 HCH.A3)
“48%
of murdered women killed by husbands” (92.12.05 MG.A4)
“Figures
rising on violence against women” (92.08.24 CH.B5).
“1.1
million US women battered, report says”
Part of this tendency
is due to coverage of sources such as studies which deal only with women,
an issue I will examine when I address sources in more detail. The end result
is that women’s victimization is treated as a singular problem and is
not placed in a broader context of violence affecting both women and men.
One of
the few occasions where women’s victimization is made relative to men’s
is a series of articles on a Statistics Canada report in 1992. I will list
each headline since this is the only case where women’s suffering is
explicitly emphasized as being equal to that of men (all articles appeared
on November 19, 1992):
1. Half
of all violent-crime victims are women: most are attacked by men they know,
Statistics Canada says” (MG.Al,2);
2. “Women
are victims often as men, study says” (VS.B3);
3. “Women,
men equal victims: Statistics Canada shows true level of violent crime”
(CH.A3);
4. “Women
victims of violence as often as men” (92.11.19 HCH.A14);
5. “Women
victims of violent crime as often as men: survey contradicts other studies”
(WFP.A3);
6. “Women
as likely as men to be victims of violence” (GM.Al1).
These headlines are similar
in format to those suggesting husband abuse is as prevalent as wife abuse.
That women are emphasized in this way suggests that the findings are
atypical. Indeed, this is stated by one headline which reports that the findings
contradict past studies (5).
Ironically, another
states that the study had disclosed the “true” level of violence
(3). Since the statement is not attributed to a source it appears as though
it is the opinion of the headline writer. At the very least, this is a loaded
statement given the way the study was presented in the other headlines, and
in contrast to those headlines stating that men are more likely to be victims.
That these headlines contend that, at the greatest, women’s victimization
is equal to that of men, raises serious questions about disparities in the
amount of coverage given to each. Furthermore,
seeing that women are the vast majority of gender-specific coverage, it would
seem more newsworthy that men are equal victims, given that their experience
is largely ignored in the headlines.
This disparity in coverage is most pronounced in qualitative
headlines, that is, headlines that emphasize the quality rather than the quantity
of violence. The majority of headlines concern wife abuse or sexual violence
against women but we find them amidst a wide range of issues, including the
victimization of women at home, at work and in the public realm. These include
individual cases of victimization and violence as a societal issue facing
all women, women’s and other advocacy groups, government and privately-funded
projects, shelters, legal cases and events such as the White Ribbon Campaign.
This contextualization provides readers with
a rich base from which to understand women’s victimization, a context
that expanded during the years being studied.
In 1989 the vast majority of headlines concerned wife
abuse, whether in terms of shelters, government funding, conferences or the
legal system. The exception was the December coverage of the Montreal murders.
The focus on wife abuse continued in 1990 although there were also
articles on the fear of violence outside of the home, such as “Living
in fear: women are afraid to go out alone: why does half the population
have to put up with a restricted life?” (90.04.28 GM.D 1,8)
and violence at work, such as “Alarm over workplace murders: 42% of women
killed on the job site are murdered (90.12.05 CH.D8). The years 1991
and 1992 saw the greatest variety of topics concerning violence and women.
Although articles on wife abuse continued to be common, more headlines appeared
concerning issues such as fear (“Never at night: fear stalks Canadian
women on the streets of the nation” 91.10.23 HCH.D 12), threats of violence
(“Death threat sent to female editors” 91.11.07 GM.A6), violence
in the media (“Province considers labelling
movies for violence to women” 92.04.04 TS.A1) and the National Panel
on Violence Against Women.
This expanding context appears to correspond to an
expanding use and meaning of the phrase “violence against women.”
In 1989, this phrase appeared as often during December (four times), the month
of the “Montreal Massacre,” as in the previous 11 months (some headlines
used related terms such as “violence towards women and “violence
on women”). In the first 11 months, it appears that “violence against
women” refers to wife abuse and sexual violence. After it is associated
with the “Montreal Massacre,” the meaning becomes less clear since
that event does not fall into the scope of either of those two types of violence.
By 1991, at a time when an increasing range of issues concerning violence
and women are being addressed, the term appears in 30 headlines. In one case,
we see it being referred to in terms of work -- “Ending workplace violence
against women is handbook’s goal” (92.03.27 VS.D1) --while in most
it is used in general terms -- “Violence against women key world issue”
(91.10.20 MG.B2). It would appear that the term became the means through which
violence could be seen not as affecting some women, such as wives, for example,
but affecting all women. Headlines
state or suggest that violence against women is “systemic” and part
of a “continuum.” Violence was seen in terms of equality -- “Minister
links economic inequality to violence against women” (92.06.20 MG.A11)
-- and culture in general -- “Experts damn violent culture: women the
victims of tolerance, they say” (90.02.16 WFP.A4). Coinciding with this
is an emphasis on men as victimizers. As women were portrayed as victims of
a wide range of violence, men were cited as the cause: “Violence against
women: Canadian men leave behind a trail of death” (91.11.30 CH.A5) and
“Men must force themselves to change: violence against women just not
tolerable today” (90.11.20 MG.B3).
The Montreal Murders
These trends are especially
clear when we consider coverage of the Montreal murders and their anniversaries.
In 1989 and 1990, most references to violence against
women were to wife abuse and, to a lesser extent, sexual violence. In coverage
of the murders, however, we find headlines such as “Killings reveal violence
against women deeply ingrained” (89.12.16 MG.B1,6), “War against
women: last year’s massacre of 14 women in Montreal burst the issue of
violence against women out of the closet” (90.12.01 HCH.B 1,2) and “A
year later, the lesson of Montreal still unheeded” (90.12.05 HCH.A6).
In view of the nature of the Montreal murders – they were an act
neither of family nor sexual violence – and the broad scope of these
headlines, the term “violence against women,” associated with the
murders, begins to encompass a wider range of acts.
Even more obvious is the stress that coverage of murders
places on the inter-gendered nature of violence. Eight days after the murders
a headline posed the question: “Two solitudes: murders act of madman
or extreme example of male attitude toward women in Canada?” (89.12.14
CH.E 1). By this point, most headlines had emphasized the latter. A
division between men as victimizers and women as victims is obvious in articles
such as “Slayings deal blow to gender relations, murder expert says”
(89.12.11 GM.A9), and columns such as “A hatred of women thrives in our
society” (89.12.08 TS.A3 1) and “Male venting of rage must change”
(89.12.11 CH.A4). An unbridgeable gap between women and men is suggested in
“‘Men cannot know the feelings of fear”’ (89.12.12 GM.A7).
Only one headline claimed the opposite: “Slayings not part of trend,
analysts say (89.12.09 MG.A3). This dichotomy between men and women continued
in 1990, one headline suggesting that even the most sensitive men had difficulty
understanding: “Violence done to women doesn’t fade: even caring
men amazed by fear many women feel” (90.12.05 MG.B3).
In 1991 and 1992, headlines
concerning the Montreal murders shared space with other violence-related issues
and events. We also begin to see articles focused not on the anniversaries
of the murders but related issues such as the controversy surrounding the
White Ribbon campaign (“TV anchors told not to wear white ribbons”
91.12.06 GM.C1 and “Women angry over money spent by men’s white
ribbon campaign” 92.12.02 VS.A 1). Other articles explored new angles,
such as the men involved (“The men in the middle: confused over what
their role is, they meekly obeyed a gunman” 91.12.06 VS.A19) and a questioning
of the association of the murders to male violence (“Lighting a candle
for 14 women: on the Montreal massacre’s second anniversary, some survivors
are being challenged because they hesitate to characterize the event as indicative
of sexism or male violence” 91.12.06 GM.A20). Even so, we see a continuing
emphasis on the link between the murders and other types of violence suffered
by women. This is seen in headlines such as “Two years after Lepine’s
rampage violence against women still rages” (91.12.06 MG.A 1,8)
and “Three years after Lepine women are still
targets, study says” (92.12.07 VS.A4).
As “violence against
women” begins to encompass, after the Montreal murders, a wider range
of acts against women, we also see an increasing focus on the relationship
of women and men in general as an explanation for the suffering. Although
this was previously evident in part in headlines on spousal abuse, it referred
to certain types of men and women --husbands and wives. With the Montreal
Massacre, men and women seem to be categorized in general, the former as victimizers,
the latter as victims. This is particularly true of coverage of the Montreal
murders, which is aptly described by one headline as: “Candles bear mute
witness: Montreal massacre a symbol of violence against women” (91.12.06
HCH.A7).
Coverage
of the Montreal murders, like coverage of women in general, is overwhelmingly
qualitative. In exploring the violence facing women, it rarely quantifies
women’s victimization in relationship to that of men but, instead, personalizes
it and provides readers with concrete, individual examples which allow the
reader to identify with the victims. Even though headlines emphasizing men
report that they face a level of violence as high as that of women, there
are few qualitative headlines that place their suffering into a societal context
or personalize it. On the contrary, men are more likely to be identified in
qualitative headlines as perpetrators of violence, serving to reinforce the
focus on women’s suffering.
Sources
These trends in coverage
of men and women are reflected in the sources we find cited in headlines.
The most frequently cited are identified in terms of the legal system (judges,
criminologists, police, etc.), the government (identified as individuals --
Mary Collins; positions --councillor; geographical
location -- Ottawa; political parties -- Tories; or in terms of specific programs)
and, among other things, a wide range of conferences, inquests, panels, papers,
polls, reports, statistics, studies, surveys and task forces. Other sources
include native, religious and non-profit groups, labor organizations, the
media community, celebrities and a wide range of generically-identified experts,
including critics, analysts, sociologists, psychologists, clinic directors,
therapy groups, social workers, boards, officials, agencies, advocates and
activists. Individual victims or their friends and family are also used as
sources. Finally, newspapers themselves sometimes act as sources in the form
of columnists and editorialists.
Sources
can be identified in the headline -- “Battered women face feeling like
POWs, clinic director” (90.05 .05 GM.A 10) and “Ottawa willing
to move on abuse, McCrae says” (91.11.01 WFP.A5).
They can also be implied, whether by the use of verbs -- “Launch blitz
to stop violence against women MPs are urged” (91.02.13 MG.B4) -- or
quotations -- “‘Anti-woman and anti-feminist sentiments are all
around us”’ (89.12.09 MG.B 1,4). Whether
identified or implied, sources are key in framing
the mood of a headline. They accuse, argue, attack, blame, blast, call, cite,
criticize, denounce, demand, deplore, endorse, honour,
laud, pledge, praise, protest, question, vow and, above all else, urge.
It is not
surprising, given our earlier findings, that many of these sources are linked
to women or women’s issues. We noted some obvious examples earlier when
defining the literal group (“women’s shelters”) and contextual
group (“the National Panel on Violence Against
Women”). Headlines make references to people associated with women’s
issues such as author Betty Friedan (“Feminism
blameless: Friedan” 89.12.14 CH.E1) and Status
of Women Minister Judy Collins (“Changing men’s attitudes a major
challenge, Collins says” 90.12.05 GM.A5), and to women’s
groups (“Women’s group calls for stigma on violence” 92.02.13
VS.A4). There are additional references to a variety of sources focused on
women, such as a study on battered women, the federal government’s War
Against Women report, the Elizabeth Fry Society,
advocates for abused women and The National Panel on Violence Against Women.
In addition, individual victims are found as sources of some stories (“An
abused woman’s story ‘I escaped with the children and my life”’
92.02.21 CH.C 15).
Other references
are more generic. For example, “women” are cited in cases such as
“Women make passionate plea for Ottawa action: government ‘major
obstacle’ in fighting violence” (90.12.12 CH.A8) and “Women
rally against violence: angry marchers demand right to ‘walk the street
and feel safe”’ (91.09.22 WFP.A2). Many of these headlines are similar
to those citing women’s groups, the link being explicit in “Women
appeal for end to violence: feminist groups blame Conservatives for inaction
after massacre (90.12.12 MG.B1). Although there are several references to
“men” as sources, these also tend to focus on women’s victimization.
One example is “Men push to end violence: shelter funding, anti-p0rnography
campaign wanted” (91.10.21 CH.A6). There are a few possible exceptions,
such as “Male abuse victims want to talk: men hope to add their voices
to the national debate on violence against women so that their own cries of
pain can be heard” (91.12.044 GM.A1,11) and
“The men in the middle: confused over what their role is, they meekly
obeyed a gunman” (91.12.06 VS.A19).
There
are other headlines which imply a focus on gender. Given those headlines which
do emphasize women, it is reasonable to think that headlines such as “Battered
ruling gets hooray: no second trial for woman” (90.05.04 CH.A1,2)
and “Launch blitz to stop violence against women MPs are urged”
(91.02.13 MG.B4) are based on gender-specific sources. The same can be said
of headlines which contain or are direct quotes such as ‘‘Wife assault
called ‘epidemic’ among South Asians” (90.11.19 GM.A8).
Finally,
sources associated with gender are mentioned in the bracketed information
that CNI provides along with the headlines. These include the Canadian (and
Nova Scotian) Advisory Council on the Status of
Women, Justice for Women Coalition, Educational Committee Against the Abuse
of Women, Winnipeg’s Urban Safety for Women and Children Fact Finding
Group and a study conducted by a network of shelters for battered women. Although
the headline reader does not see this information it does give us an idea
of the type of sources upon which this coverage is based. This information
also reinforces the point that, whether directly identified or implied, sources
are overwhelmingly predispositioned to dealing with
the victimization of women.
These results
reinforce our quantitative and qualitative findings. As part of the overall
picture, we found that women are emphasized as victims 35 to 51 times
more often than men in headlines. In addition, we saw that although high levels
of male suffering are revealed in headlines, most focus on the suffering of
women, placing it into a societal context and personalizing it for the reader.
This focus is seen in sources which, when focusing on gender, focus almost
solely on women’s victimization.
| |
Webmaster |
|
Latest Update |
18 March 2016 |
|
|
