Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

Women: International
joke…. To show that you’re serious,
you have to try twice as hard if you’re a
woman.” The hazards of not being taken
seriously include the risk of sexual harassment—a
problem mentioned by
women surveyed in countries as different
as Finland and Spain. Thus while
their male colleagues use time after
work to develop the “old boys’ network,”
some women may limit their
after-work contacts because they prefer
to avoid “risky” situations.
Perceptions of editorial management
as a tough and virile domain, where
decisions are made by men in smokefilled
rooms, are enough to stop some
women from trying to become part of
a world they regard as alien. More
importantly, they affect the promotion
prospects of many women who do
aspire to senior positions. In the words
of a Danish journalist disappointed in
her attempt to obtain a management
post in the early 1990’s: “All my colleagues
recommended me, but the
management said… I wasn’t ‘robust’
enough. The management don’t like
women in managerial jobs. Only one
has succeeded so far, but it took her
more than 25 years.” The “one at a
time” mentality vis-à-vis women in senior
editorial management precludes
the possibility of women building up
the kind of power base necessary for
real change—either in terms of journalistic
output or in the way the institutions
of journalism are organized.
One of the major ways in which
stereotyped attitudes impinge on
women journalists is in the assignment
of work. In a 1992 survey covering 10
countries in Europe, North America,
Asia and Africa, writer Kate Holman
found that 56 percent of responding
journalists (male and female) believed
that women are still directed towards
topics which traditionally have had less
status (human interest, social affairs,
and culture), rather than being steered
towards the “high-status” topics such
as business, economics or foreign news.
Although this rigid division of labor has
started to break down in certain countries,
the general tendency to streamline
women and men into different
departments and subject areas undoubtedly
has an impact on salary and
on promotion prospects.
There is overwhelming evidence of
a significant salary gap between female
and male journalists…. It seems likely
that the earnings gap is related to the
kinds of assignment given to women
and men—the specific tasks they do
and the valuation attached to these
through additional payments and merit
awards.
The gendered division of work assignments
reduces more than women’s
income. It also reduces their chances
of promotion…. A journalist writing
about “hard politics” is supported and
regarded as good promotion material.
Someone writing about “human” and
“everyday” issues is seen as unambitious
(because of apparent disinterest
in the top priorities of the organization),
and tends to remain a rank-andfile
reporter. The subtlety and circularity
of this process, which both reflects
and constructs power relations between
women and men in the profession,
is aptly described by Professor
Eric Neveu with respect to French journalism:
“the female condition is a constraint
on access to responsibilities in
journalism…this distance from responsibilities
and important columns increases
the probability of meeting less
famous people, thus having to settle
for more anonymous, soft news
reporting…which in a nutshell produces
a journalism typified as ‘feminine’….
If women write what they write,
it is not always the expression of a
feminine sensibility…but also the fact
that in many situations they cannot
write anything else, according to the
structures of power within the professional
hierarchy.”
In her study of women’s impact on
the British press (1997) journalism lecturer
Linda Christmas concludes that
political writing is one of two “stubbornly
male enclaves.” The other is
leader writing (editorials). Again, the
rules of the game mean that women are
not seen as—and usually do not see
themselves as—suited to this form of
journalism. One of the few female
leader writers in Britain (for The Times)
ascribes the small number of women
to “a stereotyped notion of how
women’s brains work…. Men are
thought to be more convergent, more
dispassionate, more analytical than
women are. And women have been
assumed to be better at writing the
empathetic, people-orientated stories,”
according to Christmas. This general
stereotype feeds into gender-based
editorial appraisals, as Christmas writes:
“There are some editors who instinctively,
without questioning it, give less
weight to women’s views. Also, some
editors may think that women are more
muddled thinkers and therefore it is
not just that they think their views are
unimportant, but that their views won’t
be expressed quite so coherently as
men’s views.” The notion that coherence
equates with the bold affirmation
of a particular viewpoint is, again, something
with which many women feel
uncomfortable. According to another
senior woman interviewed by Christmas:
“My dream is to be able to write
‘on the one hand’ and ‘on the other
hand,’ and ‘having thought about it
carefully, this is the conclusion I come
to.’ But I know you can’t write columns
like that. Or leaders. You need to have
very, very firm opinions and a belief in
your own opinions.”
The male-defined rules of the game
which determine journalistic culture—
the customs and practices which prevail
within the profession—must therefore
be understood not simply in terms
of working conditions, definitions of
newsworthiness, values and priorities.
In a more fundamental sense these
rules permeate the very essence of what
journalism “is,” or is believed to be, by
the majority of its practitioners. Of
course, they are not completely static.
It can be argued that the audience goal
of journalism implies that the rules
must—in some respects—be subject
to redefinition if markets are to be fully
exploited. But given the framework of
power relations in journalism, it cannot
be assumed that such redefinitions
will work to women’s long-term advantage.
If audience behavior causes a
shift in the hierarchy of genres, or in
professional beliefs about what constitutes
“good” journalism, it is inconceivable
that male journalists will ignore
the new ground opened up by
such a change.
64 Nieman Reports / Winter 2001