The media prioritizes information and decides how and for how long each story will be told. I completely agree that the media has a role in telling us what to think about, not necessary what to think. “Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman 52). “Frames highlight some bits of information about an item that is the subject of a communication, thereby elevating them in salience. The word salience […] means making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences” (Entman 53).Basically I feel that the media did not create stereotypes but they continue to reinforce them within society. They choose what to emphasize and what to minimize during an advertisement or any other form of media text. The ideal stereotypical "beautiful" woman exists within society and while the media might not have initially create this idea, small comments and images slowly reinforce this ideal within females.
Young girls do not have it easy in society right now. Every part of their body is picked apart and it is hard for them to find successful role models who aren’t stick thin celebrities. With the Olympics underway much coverage has been given to the Sports Illustrated issue featuring Lindsey Vonn, who is a gold medal favorite skier for the USA. Lindsey Vonn is an athlete at the top of her sport and yet the main purpose of her feature in Sports Illustrated was the pictures of her in bikinis. This article brings to light the issue that only 6-8 percent of sports coverage is dedicated to female sports. “Advertising using the sex appeal of women to attract the attention of men could inadvertently teach or reinforce social cues that could have inadvertent but serious consequences. Goffman showed how women in many ads are presented as less serious and more playful than men” (Baran & Davis 318). It is fair to say that the majority of Sports Illustrated covers feature men in serious and tough poses. The cover of Lindsey Vonn could be seen as “more playful" and while it might have increased popularity for both her and her sport, is it truly for the right reasons? It seems that every young successful female is made famous for her looks not her skills.
Young girls are given good role models to look up to through professional female athletes. Can female athletes be part of the media without using their sexuality? Some news outlets have commented on the sexualizing of female athletes. See an example of the news coverage in this article:http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=841322&catid=396
To see more of Lindsey Vonn’s photos from Sports Illustrated visit:http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010_swimsuit/winter/lindsey-vonn/10_lindsey-vonn_1.html
Do female athletes have to use sexuality to further their careers in the media? Kelsey brings up a good point in her post, one that could have long-term negative effects. As Baran and Davis point out, expectations are very important in forming reality, as “expectations can be quite resistant to change,” (Baran and Davis 314, 315). Thus, if it becomes a norm for female athletes to resort to utilizing sex appeal to further careers, it could set negative gender stereotypes for generations. While I feel that using sex appeal can help female athletes find more spotlight, it is not an absolute necessity for media success.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of female athletes, well known in popular culture, who have not had to shed clothing to find fame. Cheryl Miller, a once famous basketball player, received more media attention upon her retirement, as she took up announcing and has become once of the best analysts in basketball today. Another basketball player, current star Diana Tarausi is well-known not only for her supreme athletic ability, but also for her much-publicized charity work. Furthermore, former skier Picaboo Street made a name for herself after her Olympic success with a multitude of guest appearances on children’s television shows such as Sesame Street, amongst others.
That said, there are, unfortunately, many female sports stars who use their looks to increase their time in the limelight. Take Indy Car Racing, for example, a sport in which Danica Patrick, a mediocre driver at best, is extremely well-known. Why? On top of her fiery personality, Patrick is not shy about exploiting herself, posing for calendar spreads and acting in risqué commercials for GoDaddy.com. Meanwhile, I’d venture to guess that very few people have heard of Sarah Fischer, another female Indy racer who continually finishes ahead of Danica Patrick, yet remains relatively unknown since she stays out of the media’s spotlight.
I feel this problem extends even further than simply female athletes, but women in sports, in general. How many attractive female sideline reporters do you see in relation to normal-looking ones? It is a sad truth, but often, the female sideline reporters were simply the best-looking applicants. Worse, was the Erin Andrews incident, in which her already successful announcing career took off to astronomical heights once a nude video of hers was posted online.
Obviously, and unfortunately, it is much easier for female athletes to increase their fame by using sexuality as a selling point. However, as Cheryl Miller, Diana Tarausi, and Picaboo Street proved, it is not a necessity. In Robert Entman’s piece, he notes the four different parts of frames, one of which is “communicators,” (Entman 52). A communicator is the person making the judgment of what to show or say to the viewing audience (Enteman 52). In this example, female athletes are the communicators, for no person gets exploited unknowingly (except for Erin Andrews, however, that is both a rare and sad case). Thus, those women who want to provide a positive example to young girls and change stereotypes can find better ways to insert themselves into the limelight.
You cannot argue that sex does not sell. If it did not, the media would not be using half naked woman to advertise their products or individuals in sexual poses to put their point across. There is no doubt that sex—especially when dealing with women—is the best way to entice someone to buy a product. It really is no different for female sports. Flip through a sports magazines or a risqué magazine and there is Danica Patrick posing topless with her car. I know her more for her physical attributes than her actual athletic talent [though some may argue that NASCAR is not even a sport, but that is a debate to be had for a later day]. There are certain Olympians I know of simply because they strutted their stuff in Playboy. I understand because of the lack of enthusiasm for female athletics, some become desperate to bring that attention to themselves and their sport—but when does the line need to be drawn? Yes, the media may press individuals to bare it all to promote their career, but in the end, it is the athlete’s decision to pose in tasteless clothing [if they are wearing any that is]. Athletes do not need to do this, but they choose to because this is what we were brought up with. This is how female athletes are supposed to act. To be honest, I do not believe that these types of photographs will encourage people to begin watching that sport or purchase a ticket. What they will purchase those is what the media fed them, magazine and pull-out posters.
ReplyDeleteThere have been numerous successful female athletes who have made it do the top without the need to expose their bodies. A prime example being Mia Hamm. If I am correct, the most lewd photograph of her was right before the World Cup, when she and a few of her teammates were photographed on the beach—wearing tank tops and fitted shorts. She was perfectly capable of bringing in huge sums of money without sitting in for Playboy or modeling bikinis on the soccer field. If you think about it, that was years ago during a time when women’s sports were even more underrated. In my opinion, there is no reason for these already powerful women to subject themselves to media’s perception of what a female athlete should be—a sex object. However, for a young, naïve girl having grown up seeing their role models sell their bodies as advertisements to further their career, it is difficult to think there is another way. Like Baran stated, “If the coverage is dominated by a single frame, especially a frame that comes from an elite source, then learning will tend to be guided by this frame.” [332, Baran] We see our favorite athletes utilizing these methods to expose herself and then actually seeing an increase in popularity [and I do not mean in an athletic sense] over and over again. As these “frames” are regurgitated it creates a society that believes in those specific standards, or as Entman referred to it as culture—“the stock of commonly invoked frames; in fact, culture might be defined as the empirically demonstratable set of common frames exhibited in the discourse and thinking of most people in the social grouping.” [53, Entman] In order to make that ideal more “noticeable, meaningful, or memorable” [53] is needs to constantly be replicated. I agree with Kelsey that the media did not create the sexist stereotypes when it comes to female athletes, but when they see that magazines and advertisements portraying female athletes in these roles are creating a buzz, they will continue to reinforce them.
Of course I am all for woman being sexy, feminine, and athletic and having the confidence to yell it from the rooftops. Lindsey Vonn is a gorgeous woman, but that is not why I admire her. I admire her for her athletic achievements, but it becomes difficult to remember her feats when she is prancing around in a bikini. These women's bodies are beautiful and admirable, but more importantly, so is humility and respect for oneself.
Michelle Kokot
In reading through Kelsey's blog post I have found myself to totally agree with the points she brings up as well as those who responded to the blog. My stance on this issue is that female athletes intentionally use the power of media to gain exposure particularly in sexual ways. While the media are the ones who portray these athletes in this manner because "sex sells", the athletes are equally as accountable for their actions. I will explain further.
ReplyDeleteSince I am a very big sports fan and an avid watcher of ESPN and reader of sports magazines, I have been capable of seeing a wide range of sport coverage. The fact of the matter here is that women's sports receive little to no interest from fans, therefore making it impossible for a media outlet to actually sell the content to the viewers without framing the content. The sad part of this whole reality is that most women athletes realize this as well and are forced into upholding these social norms if they want to receive more media exposure. The social norm is that women=sex appeal.
ESPN is a prime example of how "institutions are able to promote frames that serve to reinforce or consolidate an existing social order and to marginalize frames that raise questions or challenge the way things are" (Baran and Davis 320). Take for example, the number one ranked tennis player in the world - Serena Williams. Although she gets a decent amount of coverage, her exposure is no where near the level that men's number one tennis player, Roger Federer gets OR Andy Roddick who is a few rankings behind Federer. In addition, the only national spotlight Williams received on a magazine cover was in ESPN's "Body Issue" in which Williams appeared totally naked. The cover did not emphasize a spec of her athletic ability - not even a written word! And clearly she did not object to it. While it is easy to blame ESPN for essentially contributing to the social norms of women athletes and sex appeal, I believe that some of the blame must be passed off to Williams herself. Neither party challenged the idea that her athletic ability COULD sell and therefore settled for a risque photo that WOULD sell.
Furthermore, the blatant framing techniques of institutions to highlight women athletes through sex appeal can only go as far at the women athletes let it go but there seems to be no objection. Further examples include Candace Parker's ESPN cover in which she only appeared when she was pregnant. Parker is one of the only female athletes who can dunk - but again, not worthy of recognition. Since frames also bring salience to certain highlights, it means that "an increase in salience enhances the probability the receivers will perceive the information, discern meaning, and thus process it, and store it in memory" (Entman 53). The salience of sexual images in relation to female athletes leave society to only think of female athletes in this context. Essentially, only settling to view women's sports in the same manner. This may or may not be directly related to the scantily clad outfits of women's tennis players but can directly relate to the 1996 Women's Soccer final. When most people think of this event, they are not drawn to the excitement of the game but rather Brandi Chastain's celebration in which she ripped off her jersey exposing herself in just a sports bra. An image that has been associated with women's soccer for years - upholding typical framing.
ReplyDeleteSo how can we go about changing this societal norm? To me it can only be done with the athletes leading the charge. If women athletes want to receive coverage for their athletic ability alone then it must start with their pursuance of it. Chastain could've chosen to highlight he game winning goal, Parker only talk about her dunking abilities, and Williams can let herself be known as a number one tennis player - not a naked cover girl. Only when female athletes pursue exposure of their athletic abilities will media outlets challenge societal norms and eliminate the framing of women and sports.
The media has the power to influence its audiences through the messages it conveys. With regards to stereotypes, I agree that the media doesn’t necessarily create them, but they do reinforce them. Of course there are females who fit stereotypes, bringing the stereotypes to reality, but it is the media that raises attention and causes people to believe in stereotypes. The concept of framing plays a role in the way that women are portrayed in the media, often showing slim bodies and beautiful facial features. Consumers, fans, and audiences see what the media displays and take it as they see it. There is no label on the images as to how many pounds of makeup is worn or how digitally altered the images are.
ReplyDeleteProfessional female athletes are put in a complicated position, where they are forced to live up to expectations, but are only able to display certain aspects according to who they must please. Their main role is female athlete, but they also act as a role model to young girls. However, sports fans are mainly males and the athletes must consider the importance of press, as well as the honor of being featured in Sports Illustrated. “Stereotypes, attitudes, typification schemes, and racial or ethnic bias. All these concepts assume that our expectations are socially constructed” (Baran & Davis, 314). With a multitude of commitments, can anyone ever really please everyone?
I believe that females can be part of the media without using their sexuality, and although I think they deserve the respect and attention without the pressure of using their sexuality, I think it is okay, to a certain extent. For any athlete to be the spotlight on Sports Illustrated is an honor, especially for a female athlete to break gender barriers. The audience of Sports Illustrated is male dominated, and maybe she wanted to be seen in her bikini to be seen in a more feminine light, which is sometimes more difficult for female athletes. In addition, it is publicity, which is important to any athlete’s career.
It becomes important to recognize the line between emphasis on sexuality rather than talent. The media could reinforce female stereotypes by “framing” female sports coverage to highlight sexuality and downplay talent, in which case the stereotypes are positioned negatively. “Frames highlight some bits of information about an item that is the subject of a communication, thereby elevating them in salience” (Entman, 53). For Lindsay Vonn to model in a bikini for Sports Illustrated, I don’t think she crossed the line. However, if she were to continue by posing nude for magazines and take the emphasis away from her career as an athlete, the media will have framed in her an a way that completely alters the way she is perceived. The media has so much control that it is able to control framing and reinforce stereotypes, as it has with female athletes.
I definitely agree with the idea that the media has had a hand in creating the need for female athletes to use their sexuality to further their career in the media. Through personal experience, I know how hard it can be for female athletes to gain any recognition at all, even in the smallest of ways. My father has been a basketball coach for over 30 years, coaching both women at the collegiate level and girls’ varsity basketball in high school. It is so difficult to see these girls and women play their hearts out to basically empty gyms or arenas, especially if they have more talent than the boys’ or men’s teams that get packed houses. Knowing this, it is easy to see why, at the professional level, women have to resort to something other than just talent to get noticed and make a living—and the media has only helped to reinforce this stereotype.
ReplyDeleteIn the coverage of sports in the media, it seems that there really are only two images of female athletes. On the one hand, there are gorgeous and model-esque athletes, like Lindsey Vonn, who happen to also have talent to go along with their beauty. On the other hand, there are athletes who have enormous talent, but care more about building strong bodies than bodies that would grace the covers of magazines. Obviously, we know who gets more coverage, and this is just one way that the media has created the need for female athletes to highlight their sexuality and downplay their actual talent—we all know the old cliché of “sex sells”, and in order to get the coverage and recognition they want, the athletes have to go along with that. And because this is what the media represents, the theory of framing suggests that this is what society will come to expect.
The Baran and Davis chapter talks about female representation in advertising, but the same ideas can be used to talk about magazine covers and photo spreads—“We could be learning a vast array of social cues, some blatant but others quite subtle. Once learned, these cues could be used in daily life to make sense of members of the same or opposite sex and to impose frames on them, their actions, and the situations in which we encounter them” [Baran & Davis, 318]. This means that once we become used to the idea that female athletes in the media should be more about sexuality than talent, it becomes easy to apply this idea to female athletes in general. Indeed, the idea of framing does not just say that the media exaggerates one aspect of reality (in this case the sexualizing of female athletes), it also downplays other aspects of reality (i.e. talent levels). As Robert Entman states, “Most frames are defined by what they omit as well as include, and the omissions of potential problem definitions, explanations, evaluations, and recommendations may be as critical as the inclusions in guiding the audience” [54]. By omitting the importance of talent for female athletes, the media frames our thinking in a way that highlights the sole importance of physical attractiveness in women’s sports.
Of course, not only female athletes are expected to be “hot” or to show off their bodies. Plenty of male athletes appear shirtless on the covers or inside the pages of magazines such as Men’s Health. A recent example that got a lot of coverage (although for a different reason) can be seen when Tiger Woods appeared shirtless on the cover of the February 2010 issue of Vanity Fair. This cover became more noteworthy because it came out right after his infidelity scandal, but the pictures had been taken long before that. One has to imagine that the reason the pictures were taken was probably to “sexualize” the sport of golf, which is definitely not usually thought of as a “sexy” sport. Obviously, this trend happens a lot more often with female athletes, but I think it is important to note that sometimes the media just likes to sexualize sports in general, regardless of gender.
In this day and age, female athletes are seen not only for their natural talent, but for their sexy body image as well. Female models, as well as athletes, are often seen in modeling for advertisements. The underlying selling point is to convince consumers that they should buy the product or service because of the sexual innuendo and physicality that it will bring or that it already has. I think that the female athletes have to use their sexuality to further their career in the media. When do you see advertisements that don’t portray a sexual image of a skinny, beautiful woman? It is quite rare that advertisements will be revealed based upon women who aren’t skinny and portray the perfect body image. In order for athletes to want to be seen through the media, they need to keep up with their body image so they can appear in celebrity endorsements, advertisements, commercials, and just in the media. By being involved in various mediums, such as commercials and magazine advertisements, it promotes the athletes name and it publicizes who they are. The below article further proves Kelsey’s as well as my argument. http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Content/Articles/Issues/Media-and-Publicity/M/Mixed-Media-Images-of-Female-Athletes.aspx
ReplyDeleteIt discusses how the media portrays female athletes as sexual when they are seen in advertisements and even in any media medium. Therefore the example of Lindsey Vonn truly emphasizes how the media portrays women to the public.
The media reinforces female stereotypes by “framing” their female sports coverage to highlight sexuality and downplay their actual talent. I think that the movie Blue Crush is a perfect example of a typical female athlete who is revealed through the media as a sexy woman. The girl who wants to become the amazing surfer in the movie is constantly filmed in her bathing suit instead of her surfing. The movie barely shows the girl becoming a better surfer, which is her main goal and plot of the story. Blue Crush is the reality of today’s American world because it is often that the media portray female athletes as a sex image rather than publicizing their talent. While men are photographed as serious and strong, women are seen as playful and sexy. In chapter 11 in the Baran and Davis reading, “Goffman revealed how women in many ads are presented as less serious and more playful than men. They smile, place their bodies in nonserious positions, wear playful clothing, and in various ways signal deference and a willingness to take direction from men…” (Baran Davis 318). These are social cues that can affect any viewer or reader, especially young girls, because it reinforces our culture in thinking that every female has to look skinny and beautiful in order to get attention. When young girls look up to athletes because of their natural talents, they will not only look at them as their role model, but also as a beauty image. Girls will think that not only do they have to be talented to get attention, but they need to beautiful too. Framing “has a common effect on large portions of the receiving audience, though it is not likely to have a universal effect on all” (Entman 54). In general, the media frames everything that is revealed to the public and it affects the readers/viewers in some way or another, whether positively or negatively.
When it comes to sex and women in sports there will always be an argument. I totally agree with Kelsey when she stated that the media has a role in telling us what to think about. I believe the media plays a role in everything in today’s society. Women athletes are looked at sex symbols when are in the media. The typical way a women athlete can make it on a front cover of a magazine is by showing some skin; whether it’s in a bathing suit or in their uniform which shows a lot of their body. When Entman talks about the idea of framing and salience, women athletes are truly the real meaning. Salience means making something noticeable for the audience. This applies to women athletes in the media.
ReplyDeleteKelsey brought up a good point when she talked about how society is picking apart female athlete’s bodies. This has to deal with the fact that every time a women athlete is on a magazine most of their body parts are being half shown. An athlete’s body tends to be a little bit thicker than the normal women because they work out so much to be the best they can be. But in today’s society they are looked at as looking like a man. Women are trying to become stick figures because they see famous people like that. But they have to realize that those women do not work out to gain muscle, they work out to lose weight and become skinny.
I agree with Baran and Davis when they explain how women are treated in ads. “Advertising using the sex appeal of women to attract the attention of men could inadvertently teach or reinforce social cues that could have inadvertent but serious consequences. Goffman showed how women in many ads are presented as less serious and more playful than men” (Baran & Davis 318). I cannot say that men are never showing some skin on ads or front covers of magazines, but women are truly showing way more than them. I do believe that by showing more on women they could get more viewers because that’s how society is built today. I do think it’s wrong, but we cannot do anything about it now. It’s more about their looks then their abilities on the field or court.
Kelsey explains that the media didn’t create stereotypes for women but are, however, reinforced by the media. Although today I believe this concept is reinforced, I still believe it was a creation of the media. Sex has been selling since advertising was first around. In 1885, W. Duke & Sons put trading cards into cigarettes that featured “women placed in a variety of poses and often rather revealing costumes for the time” (Tobacco Advertising 2008). http://library.duke.edu/digitalcollections/eaa/tobacco.html By the late nineteenth/early twentieth century he was the most successful cigarette company. W. Duke & Sons’ cigarettes were most likely no different from the next cigarette but providing the sexual incentive focused the audience’s attention to somewhere more appealing.
ReplyDeleteThis proves that framing existed even in the earliest types of media. A basic skill, framing is simply highlighting “…some bits of information about an item that is the subject
of a communication, thereby elevating them in salience” (Entman 53). As W. Duke & Sons did in the late 1800s, more of the same is being done today.
Baran and Davis explain that sexually advertising women to men has serious consequences towards the female population. Being that the Super Bowl two weeks ago is being listed as the highest rated television show in history, it’s only appropriate to discuss those advertisements and the potential outcome it could have on women athletes. For several years, professional racecar driver Danica Patrick has been the face of godaddy.com. Known for their sexual and provocative commercials (especially on the Super Bowl) it simply portrays the wrong message to females who one day aspire to be athletes.
“The specific messages each of us gets from the ads can be very different, but their long-term consequences may be similar—dominant myths about women are retold and reinforced” (Baran and Davis 218). Breaking this quote down, I believe that many people may interpret godaddy.com’s ads differently, but over time, a misleading assumption about female athletes is going to be made. How many times will we have to see…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKQEpzJTUio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOgSq2lA9vQ
…before society believes that this is what makes up a female athlete.
Kelsey is right, young girls are given good athletic role models to look up to but I also believe they use their sexuality to further their career. Their sexuality is framed and athleticism is essentially out of the picture. The previous Danica Patrick advertisements didn’t discuss any of her driving capabilities. On the contrary, Lebron James and Kobe Bryant commercials emphasize their skills on the basketball court.
“…the concept of framing directs our attention to the details of just how a communicated text exerts its power” (Entman 56). Advertising (the communicated text) uses its power to take the audiences mind away from a female’s talent and focus it towards their sexuality.
As we have come to realize, the media is a powerful outlet for many people. Each day stories are fed to us and we ultimately shape opinions through them. I found this blog very interesting, considering I am an avid sports fan. As long as I can remember women sports have not been able to get the same recognition as men. Regardless of the competition and scale of each event, they have been pushed to the side.
ReplyDeleteMany stereotypes have been made about Women athletes, and recent history has proven that they still occur. Over the past 15 years of my life, I can’t think of one female athlete who was portrayed in a light where it wasn’t sexual. The statement “sex sells” is extremely accurate. One example I can think of is when the Women’s National Soccer team won the world cup in 1998. No one expected for the team to win. However, Brandi Chastain managed to remove her shirt at the end of the game (only sporting a bra).
This became a national/iconic photo. The story became not about the women’s accomplishments but rather Chastain’s choice to take off her shirt in the heat of the moment.
Even though not every female uses her sex appeal to acquire fame, its hard not to notice that most “have” to. If you look at the top athletes in certain sports, all females have chosen to be seductive and sexy in magazine covers. Athletes such as Serena Williams. Danica Patrick, and Jenny Finch have all chosen to do so. What does this say to aspiring female athletes? That you can only become successful if you bare it all?
I believe that women feel they have to be sexy in order to gain success. Its come to a point where it’s as if our society expects these things to occur. These decisions that female athletes make ultimately takes away other aspects of their careers. According to Robert Entman, “Most Frames are defined by what they omit as well as include, and the omissions of potential problem definitions, explanations, evaluations, and recommendations may be as critical as the inclusions of talent for the audience” (Entman 54). Talent is ultimately the most important aspect of sports regardless of gender. According to Entman, the media is shaping our thoughts in a way where women’s body attributes are the most important thing in sports. I can’t help but to agree with him, as top athletes in their respective sports have managed to do so.
Lastly, what does this say to young female athletes around the world? In order to be successful you must be showing a little skin? The media would like to make you think so. According to Baran and Davis, “If the coverage is dominated by a single frame, especially a frame that comes from an elite source, then learning will tend to be guided by this frame” (Baran and Davis 332). Many young girls are now forced to feel as if they “need” to look like these “role models” in order to further their careers.
Overall, I think it’s a shame that we live in a society where female athletes get more recognition for their body image then their actual talent. The media helps reinforce these ideas, and makes it hard for people to realize that their athletes and not sex symbols. Athletes should be rewarded for their talent and performance. If certain changes are not made in the near future, I believe this stigma will continue to occur.