Throughout the 2008 Democratic primary, Senator Hillary Clinton, her supporters and advocates, feminist groups, and commentators accused the media of sexist coverage. Was Hillary Clinton treated differently in the media because of her gender? The authors attempt to answer this question by examining the forms of address that television newspeople use to refer to the Democratic primary candidates. The authors find that newspeople referred to Clinton more informally than her male competitors. This treatment stemmed from the gender of the broadcaster; males show gender bias in how they reference presidential candidates. The authors conclude with suggestions for addressing gender bias in news coverage.
BaeHyuhn-Bae. 1999. Product differentiation in cable programming: The case in the cable national all-news networks. Journal of Media Economics12 (4): 265–77.
5.
BanajiM.GreenwaldA. G.1994. Implicit stereotyping and prejudice. In The psychology of prejudice 7, ed. ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M., 55–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BaumMathew A.2002. Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review96 (1): 91–109.
7.
BaumMatthew A.2004. Circling the wagons: Soft news and isolationism in American public opinion. International Studies Quarterly48 (2): 313–38.
8.
BaumMatthew A.GroelingTim. 2008. New media and the polarization of American political discourse. Political Communication25 (4): 345–65.
9.
BerinskyA.1999. The two faces of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science43:1209–30.
10.
BlumbergRae Lesser. 1984. A general theory of gender stratification. Sociological Theory2:23–101.
11.
BradenM.1996. Women politicians and the media. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
12.
BrownMary Ellen. 1997. Feminism and cultural politics: Television audiences and Hilary Rodham Clinton. Political Communication, 14 (2): 255–70.
13.
BrownR.1965. Social psychology. New York: Free Press.
14.
BrownR.FordM.1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology62:375–85.
15.
BurdenBarry C.MughanAnthony. 1999. Public opinion and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Public Opinion Quarterly63 (2): 237–50.
CarlinDianaWinfreyKelly. 2009. Have you come a long way, baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies60 (4): 326–43.
18.
CarrollS. J.2009. Reflections on gender and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign: The good, the bad, and the misogynic. Politics & Gender5 (1): 1–20.
19.
CowanGloriaKasenJill. 1984. Form of reference: Sex differences in letters of recommendation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46 (3): 636–45.
DevittJ.1999. Framing gender on the campaign trail: Women’s executive leadership and the press. Washington, DC: Women’s Leadership Fund.
22.
DolanK. A.2004. Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
23.
EaglyA. H.KarauSteven J.2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review109 (3): 573–98.
24.
Ervin-TrippS.1972. On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation of co-occurrence. In Directions in sociolinguistics, ed. GumperzJ. J.HymesD., 213–50. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25.
FalkErika. November 2008a. Gender bias? The press coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton’s announcement to seek the White House. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, San Diego. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p243735_index.html
26.
FalkErika. 2008b. Women for president: Media bias in eight campaigns. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
27.
FalkErikaKenskiKate. 2006. Issue saliency and gender stereotypes: Support for women as presidents in times of war and terrorism. Social Science Quarterly87 (1): 1–18.
28.
FaludiSusan. 1992. Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York: Anchor.
29.
FlowersJulianne F.HaynesAudrey A.CrespinMichael H.2003. The media, the campaign, and the message. American Journal of Political Science47 (2): 259–73.
30.
FoschiMartha. 1989. Status characteristics, standards, and attributions. In Sociological theories in progress: New formulations, ed. BergerJ.ZelditchM.AndersonB., 58–72. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
FoschiMarthaLaiLarissaSigersonKirsten. 1994. Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly57 (4): 326–39.
32.
FoucaultMichel. 1989. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge.
33.
FoucaultMichel. 2002. The archaeology of knowledge. Trans. SmithA. M. S.London: Routledge.
34.
FowlerC. A.1988. Differential shortening of repeated content words produced in various communicative contexts. Language and Speech31:307–19.
35.
FoxRichardOxleyZoe. 2003. Gender stereotyping in state executive elections: Candidate selection and success. Journal of Politics65 (3): 833–50.
36.
FreemanJo. 2008. We will be heard: Women’s struggles for political power in the United States. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
37.
FreudS.1938. The basic writings of Sigmund Freud. New York: Modern Library.
38.
GardettoDarlaine C.1997. Hillary Rodham Clinton, symbolic gender politics, and The New York Times: January-November 1992. Political Communication14 (2): 225–40.
39.
GroelingTim. 2008. Who’s the fairest of them all? An empirical test for partisan bias on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox news. Presidential Studies Quarterly38 (4): 631–57.
40.
GutoldNichola D.2006. Paving the way for madam president. Oxford, UK: Lexington Books.
41.
HaganJohn. 1990. The gender stratification of income inequality among lawyers. Social Forces68 (3): 835–55.
42.
HamiltonJames T.2005. The market and the media. In The press, ed. OverholserG.JamiesonK. H., 351–70. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
HartmanA. A.1958. Name styles in relation to personality. Journal of General Psychology59:289–94.
45.
HeithD. J.2003. The lipstick watch: Media coverage, gender, and presidential campaigns. In Anticipating madam president, ed. WatsonR. P.GordonA., 123–30. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
46.
HeldmanCaroline. 2007. Cultural Barriers to female president in the United States. In Rethinking madam president boulder, eds. HanLori CoxHeldmanCaroline. CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
47.
HeldmanCarolineCarrollS. J.OlsonS.2005. She brought only a skirt: Print media coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Political Communication22:315–35.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993a. The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly46:503–25.
51.
HuddyLeonieTerkildsenNayda. 1993b. Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science37 (1): 119–47.
52.
JohnKenneth E.1989. A report: 1980-1988 New Hampshire presidential primary polls. Public Opinion Quarterly53 (4): 590–605.
53.
KahnK. F.1992. Does being male help? An investigation of the effects of candidate gender and campaign coverage on evaluations of U.S. senate candidates. Journal of Politics54 (2): 497–517.
54.
KahnK. F.1994a. The distorted mirror: Press coverage of women candidates for statewide office. Journal of Politics56 (1): 154–73.
55.
KahnK. F.1994b. Does gender make a difference? An experimental examination of sex stereotypes and press patterns in statewide campaigns. American Journal of Political Science38 (1): 162–95.
56.
KahnK. F.1996. The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.
57.
KahnK. F.GoldenbergE. N.1991. Women candidates in the news: An examination of gender differences in U.S. senate campaign coverage. Public Opinion Quarterly55: 180–99.
58.
KisslingE. A.1999. When being female isn’t feminine: Uta Pippig and the menstrual communication taboo in sports journalism. Sociology of Sport Journal16 (1): 79–91.
59.
KittilsonMiki CaulFridkinKim. 2008. Gender, candidate portrayals and election campaigns: A comparative perspective. Politics & Gender4:371–92.
60.
LawlessJennifer. 2004. Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September 11th era. Political Research Quarterly57 (3): 479–89.
61.
LittleCraigGellesRichard. 1975. The social-psychological implications of form of address. Sociometry38 (4): 573–86.
62.
LorberJ.2005. Breaking the bowls: Degendering and feminist change. New York: Norton.
63.
MacCorquodalePatriciaJensenGary. 1993. Women in the law: Partners or tokens?Gender & Society7 (4): 582–93.
64.
McConnell-GinetS.1978. Address forms in sexual politics. In Women’s language and style, ed. ButturffD.EpstienE. L., 23–35. Akron Press, OH: University of Akron Press.
65.
McDowellL.PringleR., eds. 1992. Defining women: Social institutions and gender divisions. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
66.
McKaySteven C.2006. Hard drives and glass ceilings: Gender stratification in high-tech production. Gender & Society20 (2): 207–35.
67.
MillerMelissa K.PeakeJeffrey S.BoultonBrittany Anne. 2010. Testing the Saturday Night Live hypothesis: Fairness and bias in newspaper coverage of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Politics & Gender6:169–98.
68.
MurphyW. F.1957. A note on the significance of names. Psychoanalytic Quarterly26:91–106.
69.
PaludiMicheleStrayerLisa. 1985. What’s in a name? Differential evaluations of performance as a function of author’s name. Sex Roles12:353–61.
70.
Rendle-ShortJohanna. 2007. Catherine, you’re wasting your time: Address terms within the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics39 (9): 1503–25.
71.
RidgewayC. L.2009. Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social interactions. Gender & Society23 (2): 145–60.
72.
RidoutChristine F.1993. News coverage and talk shows in the 1992 presidential campaign. PS: Political Science and Politics26 (4): 712–16.
73.
RothbartM.EvansM.FuleroS.1979. Confirming events: Memory processes and the maintenance of social stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology15:343–59.
74.
RubinRebecca. 1981. Ideal traits and terms of address for male and female college professors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41 (5): 966–74.
75.
RudmanL. A.KilianskiS. E.2000. Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26:1315–28.
76.
SanbonmatsuK.2002. Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science46:20–34.
77.
SanbonmatsuK.2003. Political knowledge and gender stereotypes. American Politics Research31 (6): 575–94.
78.
SebastianRichard J.BristowDennis. 2008. Formal or informal? The impact of style of dress and forms of address on business student’s perceptions of professors. Journal of Education for Business83 (4): 196–201.
79.
SlobinD. I.MillerS. H.PorterL. W.1968. Forms of address and social relations in a business organization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology8:289–93.
80.
SmithJessiPaulDavidPaulRachael. 2007. No place for a woman: Evidence for gender bias in evaluations of presidential candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology29 (3): 225–33.
81.
SpenderD.1984. Defining reality: A powerful tool. In Language and power, ed. KrameraeC.SchultzM.O’BarrW. M., 194–205. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
82.
StewartTracie L.BerkvensMathildeEnglesWernyPassJessica. 2003. Status and likability: Can the “mindful” woman have it all?Journal of Applied Social Psychology33 (10): 2040–59.
83.
StiversCamilla. 2002. Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
84.
TakiffHilary A.SanchezDiana T.StewartTracie L. 2001. What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly25:134–44.
WinfieldBetty Houchin. 1997. The making of an image: Hillary Rodham Clinton and American journalists. Political Communication, 14 (2): 241–53.
87.
WoodJ. T.1992. Telling our stories: Narratives as a basis for theorizing sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Communication Research20:349–62.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
