Prior research on the media’s portrayal of female candidates in comparison to male candidates has indicated that differences do exist, although most studies have focused on general election races of senate candidates. This study analyzed the media’s portrayal of candidates in mixed-gender gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races through a comparison of primary coverage to general election coverage in 2000. The study relied on content analyses of more than 1,200 articles from major newspapers to understand how female and male candidates might be framed differently when running for their party’s nomination as opposed to during the general election. The findings suggest that although the coverage from the primaries to the general election was relatively consistent across most categories of analysis, female candidates continue to face some stereotypical biases in the news coverage of their campaigns.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aday, S., & Devitt, J. (2001). Style over substance. Newspaper coverage of female candidates: Spotlight on Elizabeth Dole. Washington, DC: The Women’s Leadership Fund.
2.
Banwart, M. C. (2002). Videostyle and webstyle in 2000: Comparing the gender differences of candidate presentations in political advertising and on the Internet. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
3.
Bystrom, D. G. (1995). Candidate gender and the presentation of self: The videostyles of men and women in US Senate campaigns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
4.
Bystrom, D. (in press). Media content and candidate viability: The case of Elizabeth Dole. In M. S. McKinney, D. G. Bystrom, L. L. Kaid, & D. B. Carlin (Eds.), Communicating politics: Engaging the public in democratic life. New York: Peter Lang.
5.
Bystrom, D. G., & Kaid, L. L. (2000, April 15). Videostyles of women and men candidates in the U.S. senate campaigns in the 1990s. Paper presented at the Women Transforming Congress Conference for the Carl Albert Congressional Research and Studies Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
6.
Bystrom, D. G., & Miller, J. L. (1999). Gendered communication styles and strategies in campaign 1996: The videostyles of women and men candidates. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election (pp. 303-318). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Bystrom, D. G., Robertson, T. A., & Banwart, M. C. (2001). Framing the fight: An analysis of media coverage of female and male candidates in primary races for governor and U.S. Senate in 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1999-2013.
8.
Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review, 68, 973-988.
9.
Davis, L. (1978). Camera eye-contact by the candidates in the presidential debates of 1976. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 431-437.
10.
Devitt, J. (1999). Framing gender on the campaign trail: Women’s executive leadership and the press. Washington, DC: The Women’s Leadership Fund.
11.
Goldenberg, E. N., Traugott, M. W., & Kahn, K. F. (1987). Voter assessments of presidential and senatorial candidates. In J. Vermeer (Ed.), Campaigns in the news: Mass media and congressional elections. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
12.
Graber, D. A. (1989). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
13.
Heldman, C., Carroll, S. J., & Olson, S. (2000, August). Gender differences in print media coverage of presidential candidates: Elizabeth Dole’s bid for the Republican nomination. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
14.
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. S. (1993a). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503-525.
15.
Huddy, L., & Terkildsen, N. (1993b). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 119-147.
16.
Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (1997). The press and the public good: Spiral of cynicism. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University.
17.
Joslyn, R. A. (1984). The mass media and elections. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18.
Kahn, K. F. (1991). Senate elections in the news: Examining campaign coverage. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16, 349-374.
19.
Kahn, K. 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 Politics, 54, 497-517.
20.
Kahn, K. F. (1993). Gender differences in campaign messages: The political advertisements of men and women candidates for US Senate. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 481-502.
21.
Kahn, K. F. (1994a). The distorted mirror: Press coverage of women candidates for statewide office. Journal of Politics, 56, 154-173.
22.
Kahn, K. F. (1994b). Does gender make a difference? An experimental examination of sex stereotypes and press patterns in statewide campaigns. American Journal of Political, Science, 38, 162-195.
23.
Kahn, K. F. (1996). The political consequences of being a woman: How stereotypes influence the conduct and consequences of political campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.
24.
Kahn, K. F., & Goldenberg, E. N. (1991). Women candidates in the news: An examination of gender differences in U.S. Senate campaign coverage. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 180-199.
25.
Kaid, L. L., & Banwart, M. C. (2001, March 21). Webstyle: Comparisons of gender differences in candidate presentation on the Internet. Paper presented at the Carrie Chapman Catt Prize for Research symposium sponsored by the Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics, Iowa State University, Ames.
26.
Koch, J. W. (1999). Candidate gender and assessments of senate candidates. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 84-96.
27.
Lang, K., & Lang, G. (1966). The mass media and voting. In B. Berelson & M. Janowitz (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and communication (pp. 137-166). New York: Free Press.
28.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
29.
Leeper, M. S. (1991). The impact of prejudice on female candidates: An experimental look at voter inference. American Politics Quarterly, 19, 248-261.
30.
Lichter, S. R., & Noyes, R. E. (1995). Good intentions make bad news: Why Americans hate campaign journalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
31.
Miller, J. L. (1996). Dynamics of political advertisements, news coverage, and candidate gender: A content analysis of the campaign messages of the 1990 and 1994 California and Texas gubernatorial elections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
32.
North, R. C., Holsti, O., Zaninovich, M. G., & Zinnes, D. A. (1963). Content analysis: A handbook with applications for the study of international crisis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
33.
Robertson, T. (2000). Sex and the political process: An analysis of sex stereotypes in 1998 senatorial and gubernatorial campaigns. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.
34.
Robertson, T., Conley, A., Scymcznska, K., & Thompson, A. (2002). Gender and the media: An investigation of gender, media and politics in the 2000 election. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 10, 104-117.
35.
Robinson, M. (1976). Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of the selling of the president. American Political Science Review, 70, 409-432.
36.
Sapiro, V. (1981-1982). If U.S. Senator Baker were a woman: An experimental study of candidate images. Political Psychology, 3, 61-83.
37.
Smith, K. B. (1997). When all’s fair: Signs of parity in media coverage of female candidates. Political Communication, 14, 71-81.
38.
Trent, J. S., & Friedenberg, R. V. (1995). Political campaign communication: Principles and practices. New York: Praeger.
39.
Witt, L., Paget, K. M., & Matthews, G. (1995). Running as a woman: Gender and power in American politics. New York: Free Press.
