What’s in a Name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic Primary

Abstract

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.

How gender determines the way we speak about professionals

“…Reference use was treated as a binary dependent variable (e.g., surname = 1 and any other reference = 0). [3][4][5][6][7][8]. Participants in studies 3-8 completed the study through Amazon's Mechanical Turk in exchange for monetary compensation.…”

“…Previous research hints at a gender bias in the use of surname references. First, during the 2008 Democratic primary in the United States, television news people were more likely to refer to Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton by surname (8). However, this difference may be explained by Hillary Clinton's more frequent use of her first name in her campaign, possibly as a way of distinguishing herself from her husband.…”

She is a woman, she is pregnant... she is the Minister of Defense. A comparative analysis of the media representation of the first female Defense minister in Spanish history.

“…Although some disparities exist between the different studies analyzing the relationship between gender and the news coverage a politician receives, there is a significant amount of research that suggests that the press covers men and women politicians differently. Some studies suggest that women receive lower, less prominent and less substantive coverage than do men (Aday & Devitt 2001;Braden 1996;Heldman, Carroll, & Olson 2000;Kahn 1992Kahn , 1994Kahn , 1996Kahn & Goldenberg 1991); women's viability as election contenders is often framed more negatively than men's (Falk 2008;Fernandez 2010;Kahn 1994Kahn , 1996Lawrence & Ross 2010); gender of women politicians is more likely to be highlighted by the media (Anderson 2007;Bystrom, Robertson & Banwart 2001;Falk 2008;Gidengil & Everitt 1999;Heldman, Carroll & Olson 2000, 2005Norris 1997;Ross 2002;Sreberny-Mohammadi & Ross 1996;Valenzuela & Correa 2006); news reports on women leaders tend to focus on personal appearance rather than on policy issues (Braden 1996;Norris 1997;Ross 2000;Witt, Paget & Mattews 1994); media refer to women more informally than men (Uscinski & Goren 2011); women are more likely to have their titles (such as Senator or Representative) dropped in news stories, and they are more often referred to by their first names or as 'Ms.' or 'Mrs.'…”

Hail to the Chief: Using Honorifics to Refer to the President in Cable News

“…Modes of interpersonal address indicate status and status differences amongst their users. Higher status individuals are addressed by their titles, whereas lower status speakers are addressed more informally (Slobin, Miller, & Porter, 1968;Uscinski & Goren, 2011). Craig Little and Richard Gelles (1975) suggested when status differences and social relationships are ambiguous, titles are avoided.…”