Report
won't help women to reach top in politics
From NEWS LETTER May 21st, 1999
GEOFF MARTIN
A report issued yesterday concludes that women in politics get a raw de
al from the Press. But in these extracts taken from his speech at the launch
of Between The Lines, News Letter editor GEOFF MARTIN argues that the report
is flawed.
A report issued yesterday by the NI European Women's Platform claims an
inherent media bias against women in politics. The News Letter attracts
particular criticism. I have examined the claims in detail. The conclusion
would be damning, but for the fact that it does not stand up to serious
examination.
Crucial to the report's veracity is the finding that bias can be demonstrated
against the 21 female candidates in the Westminster elections. Yet just
one page later the study has to admit that 17.5 of all stories covering
election candidates and 16 per cent of photographs featured women candidates.
There is at first sight a small discrepancy in coverage, but once the space
given to party leaders is discounted the picture changes significantly.
Contrary to the report's findings, the balance of coverage was at least
fair, and in many cases biased, in favour of female candidates. The report
also highlights the media's apparent lack of interest in questioning political
parties about gender issues. I recall writing more than one editorial on
the subject.
The focus of one was the attempt by Patricia Campbell to gain the UUP North
Antrim nomination. We were interested in Patricia not only because she was
a woman in a male-dominated party, but because she was a Catholic in a Protestant-dominated
party. We took the unusual step at nomination stage of publicly endorsing
her campaign.
Bias against women? Not in her case. One of the key findings of the report
is that five out of six candidates who ran for election in Belfast constituencies
were dissatisfied with the campaign coverage They can't have been from the
DUP for the figure would have been six out of six. Nor any of the male-dominated
parties who constantly whinge about unfair coverage.
I would have a problem, more crucial than the gender debate, if election
candidates, who, unlike newspapers, are totally partisan in their approach
to elections, were satisfied with the coverage. The survey asks editors
if we seek out women for comment and analysis? Of course we do, but not
because they are women - but because they may be the most relevant people
to approach.
That's the criterion, plain and simple. Do we see female politicians as
worthy of editorial comment, we are asked. If they have done something newsworthy,
then yes. If not, the opposite is true. Editorial comment concentrates on
the big issues. The gender of those involved is irrelevant. The report advises
women in politics to issue statements to the Press and cultivate relationships
with journalists.
Nothing wrong with that. But the function of a newspaper is primarily to
report news. Actions count for more than words. If women candidates are
involved in energetic and newsworthy campaigns, that makes news, and attracts
coverage. There is specific criticism of the News Letter, with the suggestion
that John Robb becoming the election agent for Bronagh Hinds was considered
more interesting than Bronagh's candidature. On that day it was because
we had already carried the story about Bronagh standing for the seat, days
earlier. And criticism concerning our singular coverage of Iris Robinson
is also taken out of context.
The article referred to concentrated on Westminster constituencies where
an upset was possible. Iris Robinson fell into that category, and not because
she was a woman, but because she had a good chance of unseating a leading
UUP member. How many more women candidates were in a similar position? The
answer is none. An article by Sandra Chapman on the Women's Coalition's
first year in politics is also criticised for falling into gender stereotyping.
Why? For using first names! This article was clearly presented as part of
a lifestyle section. The mood a reporter sets in such an article is one
of intimacy, as if the journalist, the subjects and the reader are on first-name
terms. The same informality we all sometimes use when writing to people
we do not know, but with whom we want to connect - such as one I received
from the organiser of this event: Dear Geoff, signed Kate. |
