Discourse Women Sport Less Exciting

8/17/2019 Discourse Women Sport Less Exciting

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/discourse-women-sport-less-exciting 1/18

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hbem20

Download by: [University of California Santa Barbara] Date: 06 May 2016, At: 18:46

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

ISSN: 0883-8151 (Print) 1550-6878 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbem20

“Naturally” Less Exciting? Visual Production of Men's and Women's Track and Field CoverageDuring the 2004 Olympics

Jennifer D. Greer Ph.D. , Marie Hardin Ph.D. & Casey Homan M.A.

To cite this article: Jennifer D. Greer Ph.D. , Marie Hardin Ph.D. & Casey Homan M.A. (2009)

“Naturally” Less Exciting? Visual Production of Men's and Women's Track and Field CoverageDuring the 2004 Olympics, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53:2, 173-189, DOI:10.1080/08838150902907595

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838150902907595

Published online: 08 Jun 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 467

View related articles

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/08838150902907595#tabModule

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/08838150902907595#tabModule

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08838150902907595

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/08838150902907595

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hbem20&page=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hbem20&page=instructions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838150902907595

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08838150902907595

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbem20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hbem20



Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media /June 2009

‘‘Naturally’’ Less Exciting?Visual Production of Men’s andWomen’s Track and Field Coverage

During the 2004 OlympicsJennifer D. Greer, Marie Hardin, and Casey Homan

This study analyzes visual production techniques in NBC’s 2004 Olympic

track and field coverage using Zettl’s applied media aesthetics approach.Track and field coverage is worthy of analysis in relation to gender because of the sport’s perception as ‘‘gender-neutral’’ in comparison to other sports suchas gymnastics (feminine), or U.S. football (masculine). Men’s coverage was presented as more visually ‘‘exciting’’ than women’s—it used more shot types,camera angles, and motion special effects per minute. These differences may contribute to perceptions that women’s sports are inferior or ‘‘naturally’’ lessinteresting than men’s, reinforcing men as the symbolic authority in sport.

When Canadian writer Binks (2004) suggested on the CBC Web that the mediashould increase airtime for women’s hockey, the comment prompted swift readerreaction. One wrote, bluntly, ‘‘Women’s sport will always have difficulty succeedingin the entertainment world because fourth and fifth rate men’s sport is still better’’(Binks, 2004, Letters, para. 5). Another reader gave Binks ‘‘the brutal truth.’’ ‘‘Thereis not much interest in watching most women’s sports : : : Women’s sport may nothave the intensity level of the men’s sports, may be slower paced or not on thesame skill level. This may be hard to swallow for some people, but it’s the truth’’(Binks, 2004, Letters, para. 5).

These comments reflect the attitude that women’s athletics are ‘‘naturally’’ less in-teresting than men’s (Hallmark & Armstrong, 1999). The truth is, however, that sportdelivered via mass media involves far more than action by athletes. Commentary and

Jennifer D. Greer (Ph.D. University of Florida) is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Journalism at the University of Alabama. Her research interests include media effects, media credibility, and gender and diversity issues.

Marie Hardin (Ph.D. University of Georgia) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Journalism and Associate Director for the John Curley Center for Sports Journalism at The Pennsylvania State University.Her research interests include ethics and diversity issues in sports media and the experiences of women insports journalism.

Casey Homan (M.A. University of Nevada) is a Business Development Lead at Lexem Strategy in theWashington, D.C. area. She previously had worked as a program analyst for the Defense InformationSystems Agency. She worked as an intern in broadcast news sports departments while in college.

© 2009 Broadcast Education Association Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53(2), 2009, pp. 173–189DOI: 10.1080/08838150902907595 ISSN: 0883-8151 print/1550-6878 online

173

D o w n l o a d e d

b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f

C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6



174 Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media/June 2009

visual production combine to project the sports experience to viewers, as exploredto varying degrees by scholars since the 1980s (Duncan & Hasbrook, 1988; Higgs& Weiller, 1994; Messner, Duncan, & Cooky, 2003; Messner, Duncan, & Jensen,1993; Messner, Duncan, & Wachs, 1996). Clarke and Clarke (1982) describe themediated viewing experience, ‘‘Between us and the event stand the cameras, cameraangles, producers’ choice of shots, and commentators’ interpretations’’ (p. 73).

This study focuses on what happens ‘‘between us and the event,’’ in relation togender, by examining visual production techniques in a mediated sporting event.Studying production techniques can show how sport is constructed as entertaining;doing so with an event that features men and women in the same activities shedslight on how coverage may be constructed differently depending on the genderof the athletes (Borcila, 2000; Higgs & Weiller, 1994). Focusing solely on televi-sion production techniques is a deviation from past studies that have examinedcommentary as prime in the framing of athletes (Billings & Angelini, 2007; Billings& Eastman, 2003; Eastman & Billings, 2001; Messner et al., 1993). However, thepower of visuals in a medium defined and remembered for its images (we watchTV) cannot be overstated, ‘‘The picture is the story’’ (Fitch & McCurry, 2004,p. 107).

This study examines NBC’s 2004 men’s and women’s Olympic track and fieldtelecasts through Zettl’s (1999) applied media aesthetics approach that examinesthe amount and type of coverage as exhibited through visual production. The studyasks if the visual production frames the events in ways that would present themas equally visually exciting. Visual excitement is understood to be the result of the production of events using techniques that can enhance viewers’ emotionalengagement and visual stimulation. Implied is the idea that an event can be pre-sented in ways that encourage perceptions of it as one that is active, interesting,and entertaining (Hanjalic, 2006; Sandomir, 2004). Production of sports events mayeither challenge or reinforce the ‘‘commonsense’’ idea that women’s sports arenaturally less entertaining than men’s (Hallmark & Armstrong, 1999).

The Olympics provide an ideal venue for this study. They showcase men andwomen competing in many of the same events in the same venues almost simulta-neously, thus removing many external factors that could lead to different productionchoices based on gender. Further, the Olympics are among the most-watched eventsin the world; the 2004 telecasts reached 3.9 billion people worldwide (Global TVViewing, 2004).

Literature Review

The relationship between sports and media is so interdependent that Jhally labeledit the ‘‘sports/media complex’’ (Jhally, 1989, p. 70). Scholars have indicted thesports/media complex for reinforcing masculine hegemony, defined as the ‘‘taken-for-granted’’ system of gendered power relations reinforced by the ideology that(White) men are, and should be, ‘‘naturally’’ at the head of the socio-economic

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6



Greer, Hardin, and Homan/VISUAL PRODUCTION OF TRACK AND FIELD COVERAGE 175

hierarchy. It is built on the understanding of masculinity as the place of ‘‘sym-bolic authority’’ in contrast with femininity, which is ‘‘defined by lack’’ (Connell,2001, p. 33). Men’s symbolic authority is represented through less coverage of women’s sport and through presentations of women’s sport within traditional genderboundaries; both devices symbolically annihilate female athletes (Hargreaves, 1994;Pedersen, 2003; Tuchman, 1978).

Marginalized in Coverage

The marginalization of women in sport media seems almost universal. This trendis apparent in children’s media (Cuneen & Sidwell, 1998; Lynn, Walsdorf, Hardin,

& Hardin, 2002), daily newspapers (Eastman & Billings, 2000; Pedersen, 2003),sports magazines (Bishop, 2003; Salwen & Wood, 1994), and major programmingon ESPN and CNN (Eastman & Billings, 2000; Shugart, 2003).

Studies of televised Olympic Games consistently show similar patterns. Analysis of NBC’s 1996 Olympic track and field coverage found that men were featured twiceas often as women (Higgs, Weiller, & Martin, 2003). A comparison of the 1996and 2000 Olympics by Tuggle, Huffman, and Rosengard (2002) showed that menreceived more coverage than women overall; women’s coverage actually declinedbetween 1996 and 2000. In the 2002 Olympics, men’s events were featured twice

as much as women’s, also a decrease in parity from 2000 (Billings & Eastman,2003).

Framing Within Gender Boundaries

Masculine hegemony is reinforced through the way sports are mediated. Womenare presented as ‘‘naturally’’ less suited for sport through coverage that emphasizestheir differences from men. Discursive themes present women as weaker, moreprone to emotional outbursts, and less able to handle the stress of sports (Borcila,2000; Hall, 1996). Further, female athletes are sexualized (Bernstein, 2002; Shugart,2003).

Perhaps most influential in the trajectory of feminist critiques over the past decadeof televised sports has been the work of Messner and colleagues (1993, 1996, 2003).Messner et al.’s 1993 study examined the quantity and the quality of basketball andtennis broadcasts through commentary and production. The analysis focused mostlyon commentary, pointing out the ways female athletes were encoded (see Hall,1980) in ways that diminished their athleticism in comparison to men. Althoughthey did not cite Hall’s seminal work on encoding/decoding of televised messages,Messner and colleagues’ analyses rely on Hall’s assertion of the power in the‘‘moment’’ that a raw event becomes a communicative event —laden with thehierarchy of social relations.

Studies of Olympic television coverage have extended the links between mas-culine hegemony, gendered language, and the general encoding process in sports

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




production. An examination of 1996’s coverage found contrasting presentations of men and women as illustrated by a feature on Jackie Joyner Kersee’s marriage andher husband-coach; a narrative on Michael Johnson, in contrast, focused solelyon his athletic talent (Higgs et al., 2003). This finding was supported by Eastmanand Billings (1999), who found that 1996’s Olympic commentators emphasizedthe athletic victories of men, and the family life and attractiveness of women.Borcila’s (2000) analysis of gendered language and stereotypical images in the1996 Olympics found that female athletes were depicted as more vulnerable toinjury, more emotional, more prone to stress, and less focused than male athletes.A practice of commentators in 2000, found in two studies, was the comparisonof women to men in descriptions of excellent performances, but not the reverse(Billings & Eastman, 2002; Weiller, Higgs & Greenleaf, 2004). Most recently, Billingsand Angelini (2007) found that male athletes were mentioned more frequently anddepicted as more courageous than were female athletes. Researchers have foundexceptions to this pattern, however. Billings & Eastman (2002, 2003) found thatOlympic commentators more often attributed wins by men to athletic skill in 2000,but more often attributed wins by women to skill in 2002.

Masculine hegemony also is reinforced through emphasis on sports considered‘‘gender-appropriate.’’ Such sports allow for traditional images of femininity (Koivula,1995; Tuggle & Owen, 1999). Team sports with an element of body contact,such as basketball, hockey, and football, are deemed masculine. In contrast, sportsfocused on individual performance and judged on aesthetics, such as gymnasticsand figure skating, are rated as feminine (Koivula, 2001; Pedersen, 2003). Mediaprovide more coverage of women in ‘‘feminine’’ sports because of the emphasison traditional feminine ideals such as grace and glamour (Brookes, 2002; Vincent,Imwold, Johnson & Massey, 2003). A study of newspaper coverage of interscholasticsports found that girls in neutral or feminine-appropriate sports received morecoverage than girls who participated in ‘‘masculine’’ sports (Pedersen, 2003).

A range of individual sports that do not involve body contact, but are not judgedby aesthetics (i.e., running, golf, tennis), have been rated as ‘‘neutral’’ in experimen-tal studies involving youths and college students; researchers argue that such sportsdo not incorporate physical tasks that have been culturally co-opted as masculineor feminine (Koivula, 2001; Riemer & Feltz, 1995). It is important to note, however,that sports often considered ‘‘gender-neutral’’ are not; they still involve the use of skills and attributes that favor men. For instance, speed skating and downhill skiing,both seen as gender-neutral (Angelini, 2008), allow men to become the benchmarkfor excellence because they require strength and speed.

Many track and field events are considered gender neutral because they allowathletes to perform in ways that do not blatantly violate gender norms; e.g., womenare not in physical contact or lifting heavy objects and men are not judged onaesthetics. Shot put, discus, and javelin, however, are examples of track and fieldevents not accepted as gender-appropriate for women because they emphasize overtdisplays of strength; female Olympians in these events generally do not appearduring prime-time (Tuggle et al., 2002). Coverage of 2000 Olympic events involving

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




physical size, force over an opponent, or unpenalized body contact featured mostlymen; men’s sports involving power or contact received greater coverage than thesame types of sports for women (Tuggle et al., 2002).

Media Aesthetics and Sport

Masculine hegemony in sport is reinforced when men’s and women’s events areproduced in ways that present women’s sport as inferior in entertainment value(Messner et al., 1996). Decoding visual presentations of sporting events, however,is complex. Zettl’s (1999) approach to understanding visuals, called applied mediaaesthetics, can provide a useful approach to doing so. Zettl’s approach includes

investigation of basic contextual image fields of television and film. Although Zettlexamines several areas, this study focuses on three: two-dimensional space, three-dimensional space, and four-dimensional space.

Two-Dimensional Space: Field of View. The two-dimensional space involves theway camera shots present the world to television viewers. This field of view relatesto how close or far away an object on screen appears; Zettl (1999) identified fivelabels for fields of view: extreme long shot, long shot, medium shot, close-up,and extreme close-up. The extreme long shot is a distant view that establishesthe landscape; people appear as tiny figures (Millerson, 1990; Zettl, 1999). Theextreme long shot also ‘‘takes a rather detached, impersonal attitude, surveyingthe scene without any sense of involvement,’’ according to Millerson’s (1990,p. 118) instructional text on television production. The long shot is not as distant;it establishes location and allows the ‘‘audience to follow the purpose or pattern of the action’’ (Millerson, p. 103). The medium shot ranges from full-length to mid-shots of the subject, where the shot frames only one person (Millerson, 1990; Zettl,2003). Close-ups concentrate the audience’s interest on a particular athlete’s face orfeatures (Millerson, 1990). An extreme close up is even closer to the subject (Zettl,2003). These shots frame an entire face or focus on a body part or object. Close-upsseem psychologically and physically closer to the viewer than a long shot; close-upshots invite more viewer involvement (Bucy & Newhagen, 1999).

Three-Dimensional Space: Point of View. The depth that can be created by thecamera relates to three-dimensional space, which deals with the point of view (Zettl,2003). The power in point of view is illustrated by Metallinos (1996): Looking upat a tall building, a person feels the power the building exerts by being taller,bigger, and more dominant. ‘‘Conversely, when we look down from the top of atall building, things look smaller, weaker, powerless’’ (p. 226). The same is truewhen point of view is provided through the camera lens (Zettl, 1999). When acamera looks up, the subject seems more powerful and authoritative than whenthe camera looks at the subject straight on. Conversely, when the camera looksdown, it diminishes importance or significance of the subject (Millerson, 1990;

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




Zettl, 1999, 2003). Camera angle has been linked to viewer perception throughvarious experimental studies (Drew & Cadwell, 1985; Mandell & Shaw, 1973).

Four-Dimensional Space: Time and Motion. The basic structure of television is themoving image; thus time and motion are two crucial contextual aesthetic elementsand are determinants of other elements (Zettl, 1999). The basic unit of television,the video frame, is always in motion (Zettl, 1999). Motion can be manipulated;examples include the use of ‘‘real time’’ or varying degrees of slow motion. Anevent is considered in ‘‘slow motion’’ when normal time is slowed and an objectappears to be moving through a denser medium than air (Millerson, 1990; Zettl,1999). Slow motion can be used to prolong ‘‘the agony of getting somewhere’’or to demonstrate an athlete’s skill (Zettl, 1999, p. 240); it is considered a ‘‘verysignificant’’ technique for reinforcing a visual message (Metallinos, 1996). Slow-motion shots were used equally for men’s and women’s track and field events inthe 1992 Olympics (Higgs & Weiller, 1994), but were used more for women thanmen in 1996 (Higgs et al., 2003).

Several technologies have introduced new types of motion in sports broadcasts:rail-cam, simul-cam, and stro-motion. The mobile tracking camera (‘‘rail-cam’’),first used during NBC’s 1996 Olympics telecasts, offers a offers a side-angle viewof moving athletes from a remote-controlled tracking camera sliding on a chest-level rail positioned just at the edge of the track. Viewers follow the event at theathletes’ pace and can track their relative positions (Gallagher, 2002). Simul-camallows viewers to observe athletes’ position and style comparatively by placing twoor more athletes on the screen at the same time, even when they might have runin different heats (Dartfish, 2008). The stro-motion effect allows viewers to see anathlete’s movement in time and space by mixing video images into a frame-by-frame sequence (Dartfish, 2008). The moving object is perceived as a number of static images along the object’s trajectory.

Putting it All Together: Visual Excitement

Researchers studying sport and gender have assumed that the components of visual production as explained by Zettl matter in terms of engaging viewers. Forinstance, studies by Messner and colleagues (1993, 1996, 2003), Hallmark andArmstrong (1999), and Bissell and Duke (2007) incorporate discussions of pro-duction techniques as significant in relationship to athlete gender. Each study isbased on the idea that camera shots, angles, graphics, and slow motion relateto viewer interest. Research supports this assumption (Hanjalic & Xu, 2005). Thepatterning of shot lengths is a popular tool filmmakers use to create pace; directorsuse a sequence of shorter shots to create a ‘‘high tempo of action development,’’and longer shots are used to ‘‘deaccentuate an action’’ (Hanjalic, 2006, p. 92).Fewer camera shots, longer in duration, have the camera focusing on one person orobject for an extended time, which Millerson (1990) asserts is less interesting than

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




a rapid succession of images. Meyrowitz (1998) argues that ‘‘selective use of close-ups, medium shots, and long shots can reshape [emphasis added] the perceptionsof both fictional and nonfictional sequences’’ (p. 96). Drew and Cadwell (1985)concluded that varying the camera shots prompted viewers to rate a news story asmore credible, while Bucy and Newhagen (1999) found that production qualitiesof staged political events impacted perceptions of viewers.

Zettl’s work, including the dimensional fields, has been used in research on tele-vised visuals. For instance, Baym (2004) incorporated Zettl’s two-dimensional spaceconcept when analyzing news coverage of Watergate and Clinton’s impeachment.Baym tracked close and extremely close shots of Clinton and concluded that thisled to a more intimate presentation of Clinton. Burch (2002) also relied on Zettl’sdimensional fields in an analysis of aesthetics in an Indian soap opera, and explainedthat the use of these fields by producers helped maintain the program’s popularity.

Studies not directly linked to Zettl’s concepts have demonstrated that presen-tations of news and sports on television have demonstrably quickened the paceof telecasts through shorter camera shots, the use of time/motion technologies,and multiple on-screen graphics, presumably to enhance viewer interest (Barnhurst& Steele, 1997; Choi, 2002). Hanjalic reminds us of the role of the producer’sassessment of events in decisions about field of view, point of view, and otheraspects in the depiction of an event: ‘‘The director of a live broadcast responds tointeresting events. In particular, a relative increase in the shot change rate can beexpected at times of interesting or unusual events as the director attempts to showall aspects of such events in a limited period of time’’ (2006, p. 92).

Visual Excitement in Production of Sports

Krein and Martin (2006) found little published research focusing specificallyon production techniques in sports telecasts; they assert visuals are foundationalto understanding the power of the telecasts. Some research, however, has linkedthe dimensions of production described by Zettl to sports telecasts. In an athleticbroadcast, more shot variation leads to perceptions of a more exciting event (Higgset al., 2003; Millerson, 1990). Studies of men’s and women’s NCAA basketballgames during the 1990s found that men’s games used more variety in shots, creat-ing more excitement, and a more appealing presentation (Hallmark & Armstrong,1999; Messner et al., 1996). Hallmark and Armstrong’s (1999) study follows ear-lier studies (Duncan & Messner, 1998; Shenker & Armstrong, 1990) that foundmarked differences in the variety of camera angles in the broadcast of a men’s andwomen’s championship basketball game. Hallmark and Armstrong (1999) foundfew differences in the number of shots but far greater use of on-screen graphics inthe men’s championship game than the women’s. They documented other subtledifferences, such as longer duration of certain shots in the women’s games, whichcould impact perceptions of excitement. Also, in a recent study assessing camerashots in women’s beach volleyball telecasts, Bissell and Duke (2007) found use of

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




angles (often down) and close-ups that objectified the chests and buttocks of players,which, they argued, diminished the athleticism of women.

Research Questions

Although a number of studies have examined ways commentary reinforces mas-culine hegemony in sports, few studies have examined visuals in sport broadcasts.Olympic track and field broadcasts provide an excellent venue to examine visuals:the events are among the most popular at the summer Olympic Games, the eventsare ones in which women have gained attention for their athleticism (Brookes, 2002;Higgs et al., 2003), and the events have been considered gender-neutral exceptfor a few that involve overt displays of strength (Pedersen, 2003; Riemer & Feltz,1995). In the 2004 summer Olympic Games, the United States was representedby 61 male athletes and 52 female athletes in track and field events (excludingthe marathon); men competed in 23 events and women competed in 21 events.Given this distribution, overall coverage for U.S. prime-time broadcasts on NBC formen and women could be relatively equal in terms of length of coverage. The firstresearch question tests this assumption.

RQ1 : How do men’s and women’s track and field events compare in terms of running time and prime-time hour ?

The remaining research questions examine Zettl’s concepts directly by examiningvisual production broken into two-, three-, and four-dimensional fields.

RQ2 : How were men’s and women’s track and field events framed through theuse of two-dimensional space (field of view) ?

RQ3 : How were men’s and women’s track and field events framed through theuse of three-dimensional space (point of view) ?

RQ4 : How were men’s and women’s track and field telecasts framed through theuse of four-dimensional space (time/motion) ?

Method

Track and field was defined as coverage (live or taped) of any competitor in anyevent occurring within Panathinaiko Stadium in Athens during the Olympics (August13–29, 2004); thus, marathons were excluded. All types of coverage were included:narrative, live event, taped interview, medal ceremonies, highlight segments, studiocommentary, and live interview. Prime-time was defined as 7 p.m. to midnight(EST).1 A total of 62 hours of prime-time coverage (excluding opening and closingceremonies) was broadcast during the 2-week period covered by this study; nearly10 hours were devoted to track and field events.

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




Production techniques used in this coverage were analyzed through contentanalysis. Content analysis attempts to decode a message; it has been used to quantifythe ‘‘prevalence of the masculine point of view in popular culture’’ (Strinati, 1995,p. 195). The results of content analysis, however, must be understood within theirlimits. Content analysis, for instance, cannot uncover intentions of producers oranswer questions of why the content looks the way it does. Also, it does not accountfor the ambiguous and sometimes contradictory nature of gender-related mediarepresentations. Even so, this method is useful for illuminating patterns in mediarepresentations (Strinati, 1995).

Categories for Coding

The Olympic track and field telecasts were broken down into segments for coding.The segments were determined by any shift in type of coverage within track andfield events (live coverage, a narrative package, a taped interview, a live interview,studio commentary, a medal ceremony, or a highlight segment), by a commercialbreak, or by a shift in coverage to another Olympic sport. A segment was defined asthe time between each shift in coverage. Segments were divided into two groups:those focusing on male athletes and those focusing on female athletes. If both maleand female competitors were featured, segments were classified by the gender thatreceived a clear majority of screen time. Ten segments gave equal time to maleand female competitors. Because comparing coverage of men and women was thekey question in this study, these segments were not included in the analysis. Othervariables recorded were date and time of the event, running time in minutes andseconds, type of event, type of segment, field of view, point of view, and use of special motion effects.

Segments were then further broken into specific shots within each segment. Thespecific time of each shot was not recorded; coders simply tallied the number of shot types in the variables used to measure the three major constructs: field of view,point of view, and time and motion. The total segment time was divided by the totalnumber of shots in each category to approximate the average length of shots withina segment for comparative purposes. Tallies were marked each time the camerashifted for field of view and point of view. This allowed the coders to capture boththe total number of shots of each type in the segment as well as the presence andabsence of each. For motion, real time shots were not tallied—codes simply noteduse of special motion effects.

For two-dimensional space, the number of each type of field of view shot was tal-lied: extreme long shot (landscape shots, forcing viewers to survey action from afar),long shots (often used at the start of a scene to establish the location), medium shot(a shot framing only one person), close-up (attention on a subject’s head/shoulders),extreme close-up (concentrated on an object or body part). For three-dimensionalspace, point of view was defined according to Zettl’s (1999) classifications: high(looking down on the subject), eye-level, and low (looking up at the subject). Fourth

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




dimensional space was coded by tallying each time a special motion effect was used.These included slow motion, rail-cam, simul-cam, or stro-motion.

Reliability

Three coders examined the taped segments, with 20% of the time recorded(roughly 2 hours) used to check intercoder reliability. This study used the target-ratermethod of comparison or the agreement of all coders with a ‘‘rater’’ who providesthe ‘‘true’’ rating (Hubert, 1977). To control for agreement by chance, intercoderreliability was computed using Cohen’s kappa. While there is no firm agreementon acceptable kappa levels, Capozzoli, McSweeney, and Sinha (1999) argue thatvalues greater than 0.75 ‘‘represent excellent agreement beyond chance’’ whilevalues between 0.40 and 0.75 ‘‘represent fair to good agreement beyond chance’’(p. 6).

In this study, 19 variables were used. Six classification variables (gender, type of coverage, event, date, prime-time hour, and start and end time) all were reliable atleast 0.87, indicating excellent agreement. Coding on variables within the dimen-sional categories was slightly less reliable. Because the range of choices was high(some segments contained more than 30 shots) and shots were distributed acrossvariables in a category (such as high, eye-level, and low angles), when codersdisagreed on placement of one shot, it could affect the tallies for other choices inthe category. Still, kappas for these 12 shot variables were well within the ‘‘fair togood’’ agreement levels as defined by Capozzoli et al. (1999). The lowest was .55(extreme close up), the remainder were in the .60 to 1.0 range. 2

Findings

The nearly 10 hours of prime-time coverage devoted to track and field eventswas broken into 253 segments. After the 10 segments that gave equal coverage tomale and female athletes were removed, 243 segments totaling 578 minutes and 1second were content analyzed. The longest segment was 14 minutes 37 seconds;the shortest was 8 seconds. The average segment length was 2 minutes, 19 seconds.The largest percentage of track and field segments, 89 (35.2%), occurred within the11 p.m. prime-time hour; the least number, 36 (14.2%), aired during the 8 p.m.hour. Sixteen of the 24 possible track and field events aired during prime-time. 3

Tests of the Research Questions

The first research question explored differences by gender on running time andprime-time hour of the broadcast. Of the 243 segments, 161 (66.3%) focused on

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




male athletes, and 82 (33.7%) focused on female athletes. Therefore, the ratio was1.96 men’s segments to every 1 women’s segment.

For running time, men’s segments totaled 351 minutes, 23 seconds, comparedwith 226 minutes, 48 seconds for women’s segments. Men received 55% morecoverage than women based on running time, meaning that for every one minuteof women’s coverage, men received 1 minute, 33 seconds of coverage, for a ratioof about 1.5:1.

Crosstab analysis found no significant differences between coverage of male andfemale athletes by prime-time hour; both were aired most frequently in the 11 p.m.hour.

The second research question examined differences in the two-dimensional spaceor field of view. Because total running time and number of segments were solopsided in favor of male competitors, this analysis compared the average number of shots of the five field of view variables per minute of coverage within a segment. Forexample, if a 2-minute segment had 15 long shots, it would average 7.5 long shotsper minute. This allowed comparisons to be made by gender despite the overalldominance of the men’s coverage. As Table 1 shows, the per-minute average of every type of shot was higher for men’s coverage than women’s coverage, however,it was significantly higher only for long shots (t D 2.16) and extreme close-ups ( t D

2.57).A new variable was created by summing the average shots per minute of each

type to create an average total number of shots per minute. This was done to showthe variety of shot changes by gender that might lead to the impression of one asmore ‘‘visually exciting.’’ As noted above, coders marked every time there was achange in the field of view. Men’s coverage (M D 12.47 shots per minute) hadsignificantly more shot changes in the two-dimensional space per minute than didwomen’s coverage ( M D 9.61, see Table 1). This meant that after an opening shot,the field of view changed 11 to 12 times per minute for men but 8 to 9 times forwomen.

The third research question examined the three-dimensional field or point of view.As with the two-dimensional element of shot type, camera angles were analyzed

Table 1Field of View Shots Used in an Average Minute of Coverage, by Gender

Gender

ExtremeLongShot

LongShot*

MediumShot Close-Up

ExtremeClose Up

Total Shotsper

Minute*

Men 1.35 3.63 4.90 2.72 0.14 12.47Women 1.33 2.67 3.64 1.86 0.11 9.61

* p < .05

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




by average segment to control for the greater total running time for men. Eye-levelshots were the highest per minute for both men ( M D 6.87) and women ( M D 4.48),but the number per minute was significantly higher for men than women ( t D 2.24,df D 226.98, p < .05). No significant differences were found in the total numberof low or high angle shots by gender.

Finally, with an eye toward examining ‘‘visual excitement,’’ a new variable wascreated by totaling the number of high, eye-level, and low angle shots per minutefor men and women. A t test indicated that men’s coverage used significantly moreangles per minute (M D 11.65) than women’s coverage ( M D 7.43, t D 2.62, df D

238.53, p < .01). Again, after the opening shot, the point of view shots for menchanged between 10 and 11 times per minute and only 6 and 7 times per minutefor women.

The final research question looked at the fourth-dimensional space of time andmotion. Stro-motion technology and the simul-cam, relatively new technologies in2004, never appeared in the telecasts. Rail-cam use for men occurred twice as oftenper minute (M D 1.19) than for women (M D .64; t D 1.61; df D 66; p < . 05). Slowmotion uses showed the same pattern. Men averaged almost four slow motion usesper minute (M D 3.88), nearly double the women’s average of almost two uses perminute (M D 1.82; t D 2.036; df D 140; p < .05).

Discussion and Conclusions

A participant in Bucy and Newhagen’s (1999) focus group summed up the in-fluence of televisuals on viewers: ‘‘That’s the power of television : : : the pans,the close-ups, the dissolves, the cuts, I mean the editing. Those things all createan emotional impact as you’re watching it’’ (p. 205). The ‘‘emotional impact’’created via production is key in perceptions of mediated sports. Sports viewers seekexcitement. Viewers not cognizant of the ways visuals are constructed may decodewomen’s sports in the way they were encoded: as less exciting and entertaining thanmen’s. Women’s sports, at least those studied here, carry visual markers that couldmake them appear as ‘‘less than’’ in comparison. This study found that coverage of male athletes used more of everything: more time, more segments, more variationin field of view, more variation in point of view, more slow motion, and more useof rail-cam.

These findings may be explained by factors not directly related to gender ideologyin relation to sports. The U.S. men in the 2004 Games won more than twice as manymedals as the U.S. women; certainly, news values dictate that winners (if they aremale 4 ) get a greater quantity of airtime. Thus, although the 2:1 ratio of segmentsdevoted to male competitors could indicate a gender-related bias this may not bethe case. The medal counts may also explain why more time was devoted to men’sevents. However, U.S. women’s role as finalists in most of the track and field eventswarranted coverage on NBC. Further, medal counts alone do not drive coverage;

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




witness NBC’s focus on the 2004 women’s long jump, where Marion Jones, a 2000medalist plagued by rumors of drug use, competed but did not place.

Hegemonic Values in Production

Medal counts cannot alone explain the visual production techniques that couldleave the impression that men’s events are more exciting than women’s. The dif-ferences very likely are related to gender, given the consistency of these findingswith those in past studies. The events were the same for men and women, negatingthe argument that differences in the physical landscape or in logistics surroundingthe events warranted contrasting production. Because events took place in the samevenue and often within the same several hours, it is highly unlikely that the differingvisuals are a product of different production crews, as has sometimes been arguedto justify the diminished quality of women’s sport presentation (Duncan & Messner,1998).

It seems as though Hanjalic’s observation, that it is the estimation of the producer about the raw event, is key to speculating about production differences found here(2006). As the authors point out, sports have been a primary site for maintenanceof ‘‘natural’’ power relations in U.S. culture that privilege men, with the inferiorityof women in sports being an integral, taken-for-granted ideology. The decisions of producers on how to frame men’s and women’s events might be based on their(unconscious) adoption of this prevalent ideology.

Furthermore, although track-and-field events are generally perceived as ‘‘gender-neutral,’’ thus, warranting equal coverage, they may be seen as ultimately favoringmen. While these events do not transgress traditional gender boundaries in theiraesthetic—that is, they do not involve the force or contact in masculine sports,or the performance qualities in feminine sports—track-and-field ultimately is not gender-neutral. The strength of men at elite levels allows them to be consideredthe benchmark—through faster times, and longer jumps, for instance. Thus, thereis reason to rationalize inferior coverage of women even in sports deemed neutral.Therefore, the only sports in which women may be expected to receive equal (orgreater) production treatment as men are the sliver of sports considered feminine,such as gymnastics or figure skating.

Another reason producers may use to rationalize differences in coverage of women’s sports is ratings, or the number of viewers these events receive. Heavyreliance on ratings in decision-making about TV sports coverage suggests that thefate of women’s coverage is in the hands of fans; if fans watch, women get more,and if fans don’t, less coverage is justified. Ironically, however, the circular nature of the production-reception relationship complicates that equation—making producersaccountable for decisions by fans. A less exciting presentation generates low viewerdemand; that, in turn, rationalizes decisions by gatekeepers not to increase quantityor quality. Thus, the symbolic annihilation of women/symbolic authority of men insports continues, justified by the interplay of producers and fans.

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




Further Research

The results of this study are limited by its scope: It involved visual images of athletes in one sport during one Olympic Games. Obvious is the need to expandstudy of Olympics visuals to other sports and venues, and to incorporate elementssuch as on-screen graphics. Another useful approach would be to follow Bucy andNewhagen (1999), and incorporate viewers to further interrogate how they perceiveproduction in men’s and women’s mediated sports.

An innovation of this study is its use of Zettl’s applied media aesthetics, whichoffers a systematic way to study visual production of sports coverage. Additionalstudies of sports media televisuals using Zettl’s approach would help build a bodyof research that exposes patterns in production that the industry could address.Research exploring the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the producers themselveswould also be useful, as would basic studies of how the gender of producers isrelated to visual production decisions. It is vital that such research and activismcontinue to interrogate practices that minimize women in sport, for this will allowsports viewers to eventually receive mediated events that are naturally fair and,perhaps, interesting.

Notes1 This adds 2 hours to the traditional definition of prime-time. However, Olympic evening

broadcasts often stretch to these hours on certain days (Sundays/peak event days).2 Intercoder reliability also was checked by calculating Krippendorf’s alpha. The 19 vari-

ables were reliable at alpha levels ranging from 72.6% to 100%.3 The eight events that did not air were the heptathlon, 3,000 meter steeplechase,

10,000 meter, 20 kilometer racewalk, 50 kilometer racewalk, shot put, discus throw, andhammer throw. For men, the event receiving the most coverage in prime-time was the 100-meter race, shown in 25 segments (15.8% of the total men’s coverage). For the women,the 200-meter race received the most coverage, with 16 segments (19.5% of the women’s

coverage).4 Lont (1995) aptly describes the representation of women in sports media: It is morecommon to find a story about a male who lost than a female who won. Binks (2004), forinstance, tells the story of the 2001 Canadian women’s world championship in curling thatreceived only a mention at the end of a story about the failure of male curlers to qualify forthe world tournament.

References

Angelini, J. R. (2008). How did the sport make you feel? Looking at the three dimensions of emotion through a gendered lens. Sex Roles, 58, 127–135.

Barnhurst, K. G., & Steele, C. A. (1997). Image-bite news: The visual coverage of elections onU.S. television, 1968–1992. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics , 2, 40–58.

Baym, G. (2004). Packaging reality: Structures of form in US news coverage of Watergate andthe Clinton impeachment. Journalism, 5, 279–299.

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6






Gallagher, M. (2002). Men in tights: Sport and representation in the 2000 Olympic telecasts. Jump cut: A review of contemporary media , 45, retrieved September 15, 2008, fromhttp://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/jc45.2002/gallagher/olympictext.html.

Global TV viewing of Athens 2004 Olympic Games breaks records. (2004, Oct. 12). OfficialInternational Olympic Committee press release. Retrieved June 13, 2008, from http://www.olympic.org/uk/news/media_centre/press_release_uk.asp?id D 1117.

Hall, M. A. (1996). Feminism & sporting bodies. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, and P. Willis (Eds.)

Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson.Hallmark, J. R., & Armstrong, R. N. (1999). Gender equity in televised sports: A comparative

analysis of men’s and women’s NCAA Division I basketball championship broadcasts,1991–1995. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media , 43, 222–236.

Hanjalic, A. (2006, March). Extracting moods from pictures and sounds. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 23(2), 90–100.

Hanjalic, A., & Xu, L. Q. (2005). Affective video content representation and modeling. IEEE Trans. Multimedia , 7 , 143–154.

Hargreaves, J. (1994). Sporting females: Critical issues in the history and sociology of women’ssports . London: Routledge.

Higgs, C. T., & Weiller, K. H. (1994). Gender bias and the 1992 summer Olympic Games: Ananalysis of television coverage. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 18, 234–246.

Higgs, C. T., Weiller, K. H., & Martin, S. B. (2003). Gender bias in the 1996 Olympic Games:A comparative analysis. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27 (1), 52–64.

Hubert, L. (1977). Kappa revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 289–297. Jhally, S. (1989). Cultural studies and the sports/media complex. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), Media,

sports, and society (pp. 70–93). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Koivula, N. (1995). Ratings of gender appropriateness of sports participation: Effects of gender-

based schematic processing. Sex Roles, 33, 543–558.Koivula, N. (2001). Perceived characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminineand masculine. Journal of Sport Behavior , 24, 377–393.

Krein, M. A., & Martin, S. (2006). 60 seconds to air: Television sports production basics andresearch review. In A. Raney & J. Bryant, (Eds.), Handbook of sports and media , pp. 265–276. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lont, C. M. (1995). Women, men and media: Content, careers, and criticism . Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Lynn, S., Walsdorf, K., Hardin, M., & Hardin, B. (2002). Selling girls short: Advertising genderimages in Sports Illustrated for Kids. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal , 11, 77–100.

Mandell, L., & Shaw, D. (1973). Judging people in the news unconsciously: Effect of cameraangle and bodily activity. Journal of Broadcasting , 17 , 353–362.

Messner, M. A., Duncan, M. C., & Cooky, C. (2003). Silence, sports bras, and wrestling porn. Journal of Sports & Social Issues, 27 , 38–51.

Messner, M. A., Duncan, M. C., & Jensen, K. (1993). Separating the men from the girls: Thegendered language of televised sports. Gender and Society , 7 , 121–137.

Messner, M. A., Duncan, M. C., & Wachs, F. L. (1996). The gender of audience building:Televised coverage of women’s and men’s NCAA basketball. Sociological Inquiry , 66,422–439.

Mettalinos, N. (1996). Television aesthetics: Perceptual, cognitive, and compositional bases.Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Meyrowitz, J. (1998). Multiple media literacies. Journal of Communication , Winter , 96–108.Millerson, G. (1990). The technique of television production (12th ed.). Boston: Focal Press.Pedersen, P. M. (2003). Examining stereotypical written and photographic reporting on the

sports page: An analysis of newspaper coverage of interscholastic athletics. Women inSport & Physical Activity Journal , 12, 67–75.

Riemer, B. A., & Feltz, D. L. (1995). The influence of sport appropriateness and image on thestatus of female athletes. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal , 4, 1–13.

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6




Salwen, M. B., & Wood, N. (1994). Depictions of female athletes on Sports Illustrated covers,1957–1989. Journal of Sport Behavior , 17 (2), 98–107.

Sandomir, R. (2004, Jan. 7). Sports media and business: By the numbers, the college game has

less action. The New York Times. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/ 2004/01/07/sports/07TV.html?ex D 1388811600&en D c5731c98bc60d624&ei D 5007&partner D USERLAND.

Shenker, B., & Armstrong, R. N. (1990, November). Men’s and women’s televised collegebasketball games: A comparative quantitative analysis of video production techniques.Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Shugart, H. (2003). She shoots, she scores: Mediated constructions of contemporary femaleathletes in coverage of the 1999 U.S. women’s soccer team. Western Journal of Commu-nication , 67 , 1–31.

Strinati, D. (1995). An introduction to theories of popular culture. New York: Routledge.Tuchman, G. (1978). Introduction: The symbolic annihilation of women by the mass media.

In G. Tuchman, A. K. Daniels and J. Benet (Eds.), Hearth and home: Images of women inthe mass media (pp. 3–38). New York: Oxford University Press.

Tuggle, C. A., & Owen, A. (1999). A descriptive analysis of NBC’s coverage of the centennialOlympics: The ‘‘Games of the Woman’’? Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23, 171–182.

Tuggle, C. A., Huffman, S., & Rosengard, D. S. (2002, August). A descriptive analysis of NBC’scoverage of the 2000 Summer Olympics . Paper presented at the annual meeting for theAssociation for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Miami, Fla.

Vincent, J., Imwold, C., Johnson, J. T., & Massey, C. (2003). Newspaper coverage of femaleathletes competing in selected sports in the centennial Olympic Games. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal , 12(1), 1–21.

Weiller, K., Higgs, C., & Greenleaf, C. (2004). Analysis of television media commentary of the2000 Olympic Games. Media Report to Women , 32(3), 14–21.

Zettl, H. (1999). Sight, sound, motion: Applied media aesthetics . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Zettl, H. (2003). Television production handbook (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

D o w n l o a d e d


C a l i f o r n i a

S a n t a

B a r b a r a ] a t 1 8 : 4 6 0

6 M a y

2 0 1 6

Documents

Discourse Women Sport Less Exciting