|Bio Sketches||Abstracts||Related Research||1972 Original Research Report||Important Links|
return to homepage
. . . More Than You Ever Wanted To Know)
Research Paper Abstracts for the Dr. Donna Allen Memorial Symposium
Donna, Donna, Donna, Donna - Susan Kaufman, Maurine Beasley, Annette Samuels, & Ramona R. Rush
|The Life and Work of Dr. Donna Allen - Martha L. Allen|
|"Where are all the old broads?" Ramona R. Rush & Carol Oukrop|
in Journalism and Mass Communication Education
1. The Women of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) - Susan Henry
2. The Commission on the Status of Women, AEJMC - Terry Leuck
3. Minorities in AEJMC -Lee Barrows & Jan Dates
4. The Update: Ramona
R. Rush, Carol Oukop, and Chandra Arts, Kate Peirce
7. Who Considers What
News?: The Progress of and Possibilities for Women Journalists in Newspapers
12. How Recent Graduates
Assess Their Journalism/Mass Communication Education - Katherine C. McAdams,
Maurine H. Beasley, & Izabella Zandberg,
16. Merger Mania and
the Sexual Politics of Journalism Education - Carolyn Byerly.
Margaret Gallagher, Paris.
Susan Kaufman, Maurine Beasley, Annette Samuels, & Ramona R. Rush
There's a strange "something" about being in the presence of greatness, that I've come to understand only since Donna Allen took leave of this earthly plane July 19, 1999: The truly great are somehow the easiest to know, sharing the greatest visions in the simplest of ways. Such was the woman who I came to know as my mentor, teacher, colleague, friend and sister, Donna Allen. Ramona Rush, Maurine Beasley, Annette Samuels, and I had the pleasure of sharing our Defining Donna Moments with many of you during the recent AEJMC Convention in Phoenix. In August, Kitty Endres wrote me the following note: "As I was sitting in your session on Donna, it struck me that many of the sentiments expressed in that session should be distilled for Women's Words." Well, Kitty, I wish I'd taken better notes, but after some amusing musing over notes, conversations, and papers Maurine, Ramona and Annette shared with me, here's what I came up with: Things that Donna taught us . . .
1. The person on the phone or in front of me is the most important person in the universe and demands my total and complete attention. "Donna Allen had a way of making you feel like you were the most important person in the universe. The first day I spoke with her I felt I'd known her all my life. And from that moment on we were friends and sisterly travelers." Sue Kaufman
2. Never say anything negative about anyone; Accent the positive. "The worst thing she ever said about anyone in my presence was in regard to a job applicant, and that was simply a very brief, 'Well, I suppose she would do.'" Maurine Beasley said. "Donna refused to waste time on the negative. She didn't like to talk about illness or personal problems. She wanted to concentrate on getting tasks done. Right, Maurine, but she sure could lay it on about the big, bad media corporations!
3. Always support one another, because if we don't no one else will. "Donna sent me flowers after one particularly difficult press conference when I was working for Marion Barry," Annette Samuels recalled. "The note said, 'Remember I'm always here. Call me. Love, Donna.'"
4. Have a "Can do, where there's a will there's a way attitude." Her attitude inspired her, and all who came in contact with her, Beasley said. "She honestly believed that women were changing communication and reforming society in spite of many repressive forces that she rarely alluded to."
5. Walk your talk! "Donna was a person who walked her talk with every breath she drew her entire life: a glorious life dedicated to freedom, democracy, and the right for each of us to speak for ourselves. This woman who amazed all of us with her principled dedication to freedom of the press worked in many roles and dimensions over the course of her life to assure that freedom was the independent variable." -- Ramona Rush - AEJMC Phoenix July 2000.
6. Take time to write a few words to people - by hand. "Donna Allen loved high tech, but she knew the importance of low-tech, high touch. She set up satellite conferences and planned media networks, but she also wrote little notes to her friends and colleagues, and, I suspect, to countless others we'll never know she knew." -- Sue Kaufman
7. Live simply; simply live. Donna understood economics was the consumer society's worst nightmare. She bought her clothes at resale shops and kept her expenses to a minimum. Everything she had she poured into the causes that defined her life: women's, civil and human rights, peace, restructuring the communications system, and a belief in the importance of youth. Her children were an integral part of her life and were integrated into campaigns for peace, justice and equality.
8. Network as if your life depended on it; it does! Donna Allen was always making connections. She was a wonderful spinner of people, ideas, theories and dreams. Listen to her words from the conclusion of her "From Opportunity to Strategy" chapter in the first book with Ramona Rush, "Communications at the Crossroads: The Gender Gap Connection" (1989) Ablex Publishing Corp.: "The stronger and more extensive we can make our worldwide women's communication systems, the sooner and better we will be able to close the gender gap in media outreach and make our needed contributions to a more viable, a more peaceful, and a more equal world communications system and thus a more viable, more peaceful, more equal society." Eight big lessons from a woman small of stature, but large of heart, energy, wisdom and power - what is shared here represents what should merely whet the appetite of others who may choose to begin the enormous task of examining the life works of this remarkable woman.
return to top of page
Martha Leslie Allen
This chapter traces a crucial part of a woman's personal and intellectual journey. Donna Allen's media philosophy grew out of a lifetime of experience and a careful analysis of the role of mass communications media in a democratic society. The story of the development of that philosophy is a fascinating one. As her daughter, and as someone who worked closely with her for the last 25 years of her life, I was a first-hand witness to that story.
Donna Allen dedicated herself to a broad range of causes. Early on she focused her attention on the rights and needs of the labor movement. By 1960 she expanded her activism to the nuclear disarmament and peace movements. During the early sixties Donna worked toward the successful abolition of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which she felt stifled dissenting voices. At the same time she was active in the civil rights movement, and a national leader in the efforts to end the war in Vietnam. As Donna participated in rallies on the East coast and on speaking tours across the country, she found herself focusing more and more on the role of the media in political discourse.
Donna had observed first-hand the power of mass media. She saw the profound inequity of a system in which a few media owners have mass outreach while the rest of us have little means to be heard. In 1969 she wryly titled a speech she gave "So You Think You Have A Free Press?" Donna believed that, in a technologically sophisticated society, people should not have to resort to "protests" in order to express their views.
She went on to articulate philosophical principles that she felt were intrinsic to media democracy. In 1972 Donna founded the Women's Institute for Freedom of the Press (WIFP). In doing so, Donna was acknowledging her realization that it is women who will play the crucial role in bringing about media democracy. Immediately she launched Media Report to Women, a periodical of "What Women Are Doing and Thinking About the Communications Media."
This chapter is part of the story of how Donna Allen developed the insights and ideas that became her life's work.
return to top of page
Ramona R. Rush, Carol Oukrop and Chandra Arts
In 1969, two newly-minted Ph.Ds, one from the University of Wisconsin and the other from the University of Iowa, found themselves sharing an office in their first academic jobs at Kansas State University. By 1971, the two were well underway with a study on the status of women in journalism education, a first in the field of communications and most other fields. As they were going over the results of the study, one looked at the other and said, "Where are the old broads?" Mostly, they weren't there except for a handful of what were later to be called pioneers (Rush, 1974-75). We will never know most likely how many women had tried to enter the field of journalism education and were rejected, how many had entered and failed, how many tried for at least a short time. The initial study found that only 7-8 percent of the-then Association for Education in Journalism (AEJ) membership were women. Women were mainly conspicuous by their absence. But did the study, "(More Than You Ever Wanted to Know) About Women in Journalism Education", (Rush, Oukrop, & Ernst, 1972) make any dramatic changes in our academic lives over 30 years? The original authors decided to replicate, update, and expand the initial study (including questions about minorities and sexual orientation this time) at the beginning of the new millennium. Preliminary results indicate that the big change is S-A-L-A-R-Y . The female respondents 30 years ago whose concern was to earn promotion now can be seen in the 2000 study joining ranks with younger counterparts and women of color deeply concerned about salary differentials compared to male colleagues. Reference can be made to a one-size-fits -all hypothesis that about progress in the U.S. for women in journalism and mass communication seen in an update from the 70s to the 80s. Again in the late 90s, another study indicated that the R3 hypothesis was the fashionable fit around the world (Rush, 1999). The absolute shock for us in this 2000 study, however, is that 30 years later, one size still mainly fits us all, no matter where or who we are, if indeed we are women in journalism and mass communications.
1. The Women of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC)
This history of women journalism professors begins in 1896, when Jane Cunningham Croly, a feminist leader and enormously successful journalist, became the first woman to teach college-level journalism. At that time few journalism courses were offered anywhere in the nation. The study then looks at women's involvement in the American Association of Teachers of Journalism (founded in 1912), where they were surprisingly prominent, in part because the organization was so small. For example, a woman was the vice president in 1924, and by 1927 the 42 women faculty members made up almost 10 percent of the total membership.
Still, the number of women journalism professors stayed small from the teens until the 1970s. This study will describe the most notable of these women "pioneers," focusing on the reasons they were able to find some success in this field along with the many difficulties they faced. Careful attention then will be paid to women's progress in the 1970s, when the total number of women journalism professors more than doubled and women increasingly were elected to positions within the Association for Education in Journalism (formerly the American Association of Teachers of Journalism).
Although before 1970 no women had chaired divisions or served on the AEJ Executive Committee, by 1980 15 women had been division chairs and the Executive Committee had had women members for four years. But the most important breakthrough came in spring 1977, when the first woman was elected president of the organization. Other significant developments during the 1970s included the presentation of the first AEJ conference paper on women in journalism education (in 1972), which was followed during the rest of the decade by numerous other papers on women in journalism and on women journalism educators.
One reason for new research interest in women was that a Committee on the Status of Women was formed in 1972, and it sponsored sessions that were a venue for presenting such research. Many of AEJ's most capable women were active on the Committee, and their actions help account for a number of changes that benefited women, including the increased number of women in elected positions.
The 1970s is in many ways the most important and interesting decade of this history because substantial, very hard-fought changes took place that laid the groundwork for many later advances by women. So these years will be explored in depth, with particular attention given to the work done by individual women (often under difficult circumstances).
The effects of their efforts will be evident in an examination of the following decade, when the number of women journalism professors again increased (by 1989 they were more than 25 percent of all journalism faculty) and women became much more visible and powerful within the organization now renamed the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. For example, three women won elections to the AEJMC presidency during the 1980s.
Here again women worked and fought exceedingly hard for these triumphs, and the most significant of their efforts will be described. During this time much new research also was carried out on women journalism faculty, with numerous inequities identified. These studies, which continued throughout the 1990s, help make it possible to describe the situations of "rank-and-file" women in journalism schools and departments.
Finally, women's even greater advances in the 1990s will be described. Certainly this was a period of many victories, including women serving as AEJMC presidents for six out of 10 years and holding many other important positions within the organization. But progress was stagnant in some key areas and reversals also occurred.
One notable victory and its reversal will be closely examined. "Standard 12," the accrediting requirement telling journalism schools and departments that "organized efforts must be made to recruit, advice, and retain minority students and minority and female faculty members," was instituted in 1985 and strengthened somewhat in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But efforts to soften it began in the mid-1990s and a weakened Standard 12 now is in effect. The story of the adoption, application and deterioration of Standard 12 - and the fervent battles that took place around it - is illustrative of the more recent challenges
return to top of page
The Commission on the Status of Women began changing lives and influencing people long before it was christened a commission. It has served as a vehicle for women's involvement in the organization as well as in the larger academic community.
But advocacy for women has had some unanticipated consequences that have divided women from their colleagues along the lines of gender as well as race (and sexual orientation?)
In the fall of 1990, under the presidency of MaryAnn Yodelis Smith, the AEJMC bylaws created both the Commission on the Status of Women and the Commission on the Status of Minorities. The association also added wording to its Constitution at that time, committing itself to affirmative action and equal opportunity. These commissions were constituted to help the association maintain its focus on these goals.
Since the outset, the Commission on the Status of Women has been concerned with tracking and supporting women in both professional and educational journalism. Another dual purpose that the Commission has served has been that of taskforce and programmer. As a taskforce, CSW provides a voice for women in the association's decision-making processes. The programming function is much like that of an AEJMC division. Through its programming, CSW has furthered feminist research.
The Commission on the Status of Women began as a formal entity within AEJMC in the fall of 1972, on the heels of the study by Ramona Rush, Carol Oukrop and Sandra Ernst, "(More than you ever wanted to know) about Women and Journalism Education." One of the authors of that study, Ramona Rush, noticed a more immediate effect of that study on her - isolation. In the 1970's, to point out a lack of women was to give voice to a problem that had no name (Rush Quote).
Incoming AEJMC president Neale Copple created the ad hoc Committee on the Status of Women. Each year thereafter, the president of AEJMC annually appointed members to the Committee. In 1975, the ad hoc was dropped, and the Committee became a regular, standing committee of AEJMC. Although it was still appointed by the president, members served terms longer than one year. One Committee chair commented that the Committee on the Status of Women was her entre into academic administration (Judy VanSlyke Turk Quote).
The Committee involved itself in convention programming. Many scholars have commented that they found the Committee, and later the Commission, an inviting gateway into presenting their research about women at conventions (Susan Henry Quote). By the end of the 1980s, a marked emphasis on feminist communication theory and research had emerged. (Lana Rakow and Leslie Steeves Quotes).
During the 1990s, the Commission created awards that recognize the importance of feminist scholarship. The MAYS Award, established in 1995 in honor of past president MaryAnn Yodelis Smith, recognizes an individual scholar for her research. More recently, an award honoring the first woman president of AEJMC, Mary Gardner, was begun in order to recognize and support the feminist research being done by graduate students.
But these are not the first awards to recognize women, their achievements and their commitment to the status of women in journalism and mass communication. In 1982, the Committee created the Outstanding Woman award to recognize the achievements of special women in journalism education. The first of these awards went to Marion Marzolf, who had served as chair of the Committee from 1974-1975. A role model to many women in the Commission, Marzolf edited the first directory of women educators and she compiled the essential syllabus packet of early "Women and Media" courses, which enabled many more such courses to be created across the nation over the succeeding decades.
In its advocacy of women, the Commission has sometimes found itself in crises over the years, split along the lines of race and ethnicity (Mercedes and Sue Kaufman Quotes; others) (and perhaps along the lines of sexual orientation - follow up with Maurine Beasley on her knowledge as president; others).
The Commission has continued its efforts to bridge the professional and educational communities, and it has reaffirmed its commitment to furthering feminist research and theory. In addition, it has provided a voice for the women of AEJMC on the Executive Committee.
return to top of page
Lionel C. Barrow, Jr. & Jan Dates
Purpose: To provide the minorities portion for a document on women and minorities in journalism/mass communications education.
It is strongly suggested that the papers presented at the 2000 convention during an invited paper session on "Diversity and Media in the 21st Century: Mission Impossible?" be considered for inclusion. I particularly suggest including the paper by Paula Poindexter, Texas, on "Improving Journalism Education's Diversity Grade in the 21st Century." It is also strongly suggested that the fact that the paper on "More than you ever wanted to know about women and education" was presented at an MAC session in 1972 be acknowledged. Timing: I estimate that it will take me from 3-6 months to obtain and write up the information listed above. Problems: The AEJMC office does not have copies of the early division reports. I will attempt to get the MAC reports from the heads at that time. The office also doesn't have copies of the early membership lists. If Ramona Rush still has a copy of the one she used I would appreciate receiving it.
Ramona R. Rush & Carol
Prepared for the Dr. Donna Allen Memorial Symposium Washington, D.C., Aug. 3 & 4, 2001
In 1969, two newly-minted Ph.Ds, one from the University of Wisconsin and the other from the University of Iowa, found themselves sharing an office in their first academic jobs at Kansas State University.
By 1971, the two were well underway with a study on the status of women in journalism education, a first in the field of communications and most other fields. As they were going over the results of the study, one looked at the other and said, "Where are the old broads?"
Mostly, they weren't there except for a handful of what were later to be called pioneers (Rush, 1974-75). We will never know most likely how many women had tried to enter the field of journalism education and were rejected, how many had entered and failed, how many tried for at least a short time.
The initial study found that only 11 percent of the-then Association for Education in Journalism (AEJ) membership were women; 7 per cent of the journalism faculty in 1972 were women.
Women were mainly conspicuous by their absence.
But did the study, "(More Than You Ever Wanted to Know) About Women in Journalism Education", (Rush, Oukrop, & Ernst, 1972) make any dramatic changes in our academic lives over 30 years? Rush and Oukrop decided to replicate, update, and expand the initial study (including questions about minorities and sexual orientation this time) at the beginning of the new millennium.
"It's the economy, stupid!"
Preliminary results indicate that the big change is S-A-L-A-R-Y . The female respondents 30 years ago whose major concern was to earn promotion now can be seen in the 2000 study joining ranks with younger counterparts and women of color deeply concerned about salary differentials compared to male colleagues.
If you've seen one group, you've seen all the groups
Reference is made to a one-size-fits -all hypothesis that about progress in the U.S. for women in journalism and mass communication, first seen in an update from the 70s to the 80s (Rush, 1996; Rush, Buck, & Ogan, 1982). Again in the late 90s, another study indicated that the Ratio of Recurrent and Reinforced Residuum Hypothesis was the fashionable fit around the world (Rush, 1999). The absolute shock for us in this 2000 study, however, is that 30 years later, one size still mostly fits us all, no matter where or who we are, if indeed we are women in journalism and mass communications education.
Rush, R. R. (Winter 1974-75). "Patterson, Grinstead, and Hostetter: Pioneer Journalism Educators." Journalism History, 1: 130.
Rush, R. R. (1993). Being All That We Can Be: Harassment, barrier prevent progress. Journalism Educator, 48(l), 71-79.
Allen, D., Rush, R. R. & Kaufman, S. J. (1996). (Eds.). Women Transforming Communications: Global Intersections. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rush, R. R., Buck, E., & Ogan, C. (1982, July -September). Women and the communications revolution: Can we get there from here? Chasqui (Quito, Ecuador; Centro Internacional de Estudios Superiores de la Comunicacion para America Latina [CIESPAL].
Rush, R. R., Oukrop, C. E., and Ernst, S.W. (More than you ever wanted to know) about women and journalism education. Paper delivered at the Association for Education in Journalism annual meeting, Carbondale, Illinois, August 1972.
Women and Journalism Education - A Follow-up
Carol Oukrop, Lori Bergen, Ramona Rush
Have the provisions of the 1989 resolution cited above have been met in journalism/mass communication education? This is basically the question we set out to answer with our followup on "(More Than You Ever Wanted to Know) About Women and Journalism Education," August, 1972. We looked at the 1999-2000 Journalism & Mass Communication Directory, the 2000 AEJMC Convention program and 11/12 years of Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator and Journalism & Mass Communication Abstracts. From those resources we gathered data to answer some 40 questions regarding such things as percentages of women and minorities in AEJMC executive positions, in convention activities, in teaching and research. Where possible, we compared current data with data from 1970-71.
To put our current data in perspective, note that in 1970-71, when we did our original study, 131 women belonged to the Association for Education in Journalism, which at that time had a total membership of 1,200. Women made up just under 11 percent (10.9%) of the organization's membership, and in 1971-72 a total of 73 women made up 7 percent of the total employed on journalism faculties (Rush, Oukrop and Ernst, 1972). We did not include minority concerns in our original study, but we attempt to do so in the current study. We don't have data regarding minority membership in AEJ in 1970-71. Lee Barrow's analysis (2001) of the 1968 AEJ membership list, however, showed eight minorities, only 1.4 percent of the 665 members listed.
Let us also point out that in the most recently reported study of enrollments in JMC programs in the United States, in 1999, "At all levels of study, approximately six in 10 of the enrolled students are women" (Becker, Kosicki, Lowrey, Prine and Punathambekar, 2000) p. 74). While fewer schools are reporting race and ethnicity of their students, study projections indicate that about 26% of the domestic undergraduates in 1999 were minority. (Becker et al, p. 76)
Once the data on our 40 or so questions were available, we grouped findings to allow us to see the big picture. It seemed logical to organize the data into those categories so typical in academe -- teaching, research and service.
Findings indicate that in national organizations and convention activities, largely service oriented, excellent progress has been made. In publication-related service there has been progress, but women are still at the R3 level in book reviews and in editorial board membership, and minorities are at 8 percent or less in those areas. [The R3 was in the form of a ratio of concentration of women in symbolic representation, occupational status, and/or salary levels. The ratio resided around a 1/4:3/4 or 1/3:2/3 proportion of females and males (Rush, 1989, 1982) with women usually in the lesser-status positions.] In research and in most of the areas we looked at regarding teaching, the R3 factor still seems to be in operation.
After profiling schools by percentage of women on the faculty and by percentage of minorities on the faculty, it appears that Standard 12 has not been effective regarding women, but has had some effect on ethnic diversity. The schools strongest in percentage of women and those strongest in percentage of minorities tend to be non-Ph.D. schools and more likely to be in the South. Gender diversity and ethnic diversity do not go hand in hand.
Discussion and recommendations follow.
The Status of Women in Journalism Education Administration: No longer so lonely. The Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication published "Seventy-five Years of Journalism and Mass Communication Leadership: The History of the ASJMC" in 1993. In the 75 years, only two women were included in the list of association presidents, the first in 1991-92. The 190 journalism/mass communication programs in the history list a total of 979 administrators through 1992. Only 63, or 6.4 percent, of the administrators are female. But times have changed, and women no longer constitute such a small percentage of the administrator ranks. This study goes farther than the ASJMC history to determine how many women were in the pipeline over the years and it documents how many have pivotal rolls in journalism education administration in 2001.
7. Whose News? Status and progress of women in newspapers and television news
Christy C. Bulkeley
Just a year ago--August 1, 2000--Gannett appointed new publishers or CEOs for four of its newspapers. Three of those named were women--in Phoenix, Indianapolis and Des Moines. Among Gannett's local daily newspapers, based on daily circulation, those newspapers are the company's first, second and eighth largest. Two of the three women named started in and worked up through the news departments of Gannett newspapers.1
Then on Jan. 23 of this year, Lee Enterprises, the newspaper publishing company, named Mary E. Junck its new chief executive. She joined Lee just over two years ago as executive vice president and chief operating officer of the company, became president a few months later. Before that, she had served both Knight-Ridder and Times-Mirror as publisher of major daily newspapers.
The authority that comes with those jobs is critically important. Within most newspapers, the publisher or chief executive controls the culture of the place, controls the resources available for pay, benefits, learning and coverage, the space available for news and so forth. Some of that authority is shared with corporate staff or affected by corporate expectations-circumstances which point to the importance of a woman's achieving the chief executive role of a whole newspaper company.
In the community, other community leaders must take these women seriously even if those other leaders haven't had to deal with women at that level before. Further, their visibility makes them role models, perhaps the first but certainly among the few at the top community leadership levels. The significance is real, regardless of whether the women are life-long feminists, converted feminists in the Katharine Graham model, or simply good 'ole boys. And what happens in the immediate place of employment should be of first concern to a new graduate, while factors affecting or apparent in the field as a whole should shape career hopes and achievements. For those reasons, this report on daily newspapers and television looks at what's known about the top of those fields.
The newspaper trade press didn't make much of any of the appointments I just cited; but I suggest they are significant beachheads on a highly complex campaign of more than 30 years…a campaign fought wave by wave, tide by tide, newspaper and community by newspaper and community as well in corporate headquarters and on corporate boards. Some might mark the start of the campaign even earlier-say back during World War II when women across the country filled major roles on newspapers and in the wire services until the guys came home. Some of those women were still working in journalism, worked with our generation and, indeed, held some of the break-through positions during the 1960s and 1970s. [footnote Paxson, Jurney, Biggs]
Whether the 1940s and 1950s were a prelude or the beginning, women flooded journalism schools starting in the 1960s and were hired by newspapers in record numbers and percentages by the end of that decade-rapidly pushing women's daily newspaper staff presence to more than 20 percent by 1971 [weaver/wilhoit to johnstone) and beyond 30 percent by the 1980s. Indeed, our Rochester Times-Union general reporting staff had 3.5 women counting me when I started as city desk clerk in 1964; but by the early 1970s, half the reporters were women. I was long gone before women were promoted into news management jobs in any numbers. But after that first rush, the percentage of women on the staffs of the nation's dailies changed little for the next two decades, hovering around the 35 percent mark whether staffs were growing in good economic times or shrinking in recessions and as more dailies died than were created to serve burgeoning suburbs. Since women were hired in greater numbers than men, the question of retention becomes highly relevant (and will be discussed later).
Even stuck, that base of women journalists was big enough to pay off gradually in the 1980s and 1990s with growing the numbers and percentages of "supervising editors." (Supervising editors, may or may not have any authority to go with their titles and responsibilities. The job titles and responsibilities vary among research reports by different organizations and researchers.) The American Society of Newspaper Editors, which added women to the annual inventory of daily newspaper minority journalists it has conducted since 1978, reported this year that women are about 87 percent of those news staffs and 34 percent of "newsroom supervisors." 2
Another measure of women's journalistic clout-or lack thereof-30 years ago is membership in The American Society of Newspaper Editors-then effectively limited to one "directing editor" of a newspaper (usually the chief news executive, sometimes the editorial page editor, or any of several others at the biggest papers). An additional member was allowed starting in the early 1970s if a woman or journalist of color had significant clout or control over the news resources to qualify as a directing editor. At that time, seven women were members (of 749) [Marzolf reference, p. 95] and another 59 appeared to be eligible. (Initiation fees and dues were, together, several hundred dollars even then, effectively precluding many small dailies from supporting the editor's membership).3 By 1988, a survey by the National Federation of press women reported that women held 13.78 percent of directing editorships, less than percentage increase over the prior year.4
The story in television news varies only a little: In 1972, 12.8 percent of the television news work force was female, according to Vernon Stone, the journalism professor who faithfully tracked status and progress of women and minorities in broadcast news from 1972 through 1994. [Footnote website and wealth of reports] Stone's annual surveys, supported by the Radio-Television News Directors Association, identified two women news directors the first year and projected the probability of a third women among the 630 at that time. By 1982, Stone reported, women were 31.3 percent of the television news work force and 7.6 percent of the news directors. As with daily newspapers, the percentages hovered around the mid-30 percentile until the late 1990s when women as a percentage of staff eased upward to the 40 percent reported in the survey for the year 2000. (The survey continues under RTNDA sponsorship even though federal equal employment regulations were eliminated through court action two years ago. (xxxck year)
The latest RTNDA survey also reports that women hold 24 percent of the "news director" jobs in commercial television stations, the television equivalent of chief news executive (called by various titles across the field of daily newspapers). Stone's work provides more complete, comprehensive information than the occasional newspaper surveys done by various researchers, a circumstance aided by the fact of federal regulation requiring annual filings by broadcasters.
He notes, for instance, that most of the early women news directors "headed small operations, typically at independent stations rather than at affiliates of the ABC, CBS and NBC networks.
In 1975, news directors' median fulltime staffs numbered four for women, 11 for men." 5
The gap narrowed across the next two decades until "[b]y 1994…only 18.2% of female news directors were at independent stations (vs.12.8% of men). Median staffs were 17 for women, 26 for men. Major news operations in markets of all sizes and in all parts of the Untied States were headed by women."6
Because of the thoroughness and continuity of his work, Stone also was able to report by the mid-1990s: "The 1990s have seen women increasingly breaking through not only to middle management (news director) but to upper management (general manager)…" coming both from news and from sales (the part of newspapers and television that generate the most income attributed to the effort of the individual contrasted with the news department's spending, somewhat linked to ratings in broadcast but imperfectly understood just as news content's relationship to readership and circulation isn't easily measured or understood).
By the year 2000, the RTNDA survey reported that 14 percent of television general managers were women with "no consistent pattern based on market size, staff size, affiliation or region."7 (NOTE: I need to do some more sorting of the differences between Stone's reports/projections and the later studies)
Research examining the status and progress of women in newspapering lacks the benefit of license-related federal reporting. Without that kind of self-interest by the field or by someone whose work includes research, the record is fragmented.
From the mid-1970s through early 1980s, a research team at Indiana University monitored newspaper management and managers looking basic questions of pay, promotion paths, job responsibilities and functions, satisfactions and dissatisfactions. Their mission included understanding the status and progress of women in newspaper management; but samples were so small that even with high response rates, the team hesitated to project findings to the field as a whole. At the time of the initial work in 1977, the team "determined that only 2.4% of top-level management positions in the daily press were held by women."8 Five years later, the team reported, "a head count of women's names in top positions appearing in the 1982 Editor & Publisher Year Book indicated that about 4.5% of the managers at that 9top0 level are women."9 By 1989, the NFPW reported that about 5 % of the daily newspaper publishers and nearly 14 percent of the directing editors were women.10
Separate survey research by Jean Gaddy Wilson at the University of Missouri in the mid-1980s found that 6% of the publishers were women (not a significant difference from the NFPW report, given the numbers involved) but also found that women were the majority at the bottom of the organization chart-54% of the new reporters and 63% of the news sales staff but only 36% of the long-term reporters and 41% of the long-term sales staff. In all cases, the women were paid less than men in comparable positions (not unusual in those days).
By the 1990s, the American Newspaper Publishers Association (now reorganized with other trade groups into the Newspaper Association of America) began to look into newspaper staff turnover recognizing roles turnover played in employee costs, work quality and achieving diversity goals, given the reality that minorities and women left more often than white men.
By 1999, the Freedom Forum (a reorganized and re-focused successor to the Gannett Foundation) sought explanations for and understanding of the high turn-over of journalists of color. Their departure from journalism is part of the reason news staffs remain mostly white even after a 20-year commitment by the ASNE to achieve staffing diversity comparable to population by the year 2000. (The research kept answers by gender but didn't analyze them. I'm working on getting the information…stay tuned).
A separate project related to the turn-over of women in news organization management is underway for the Media Management Center at Northwestern University. As these reports become available, they need to be compared against earlier research (The Indiana project documented job satisfactions, dissatisfactions and likelihood of leaving. Rush-Oukrup provided comparable anecdotal evidence in their 1972 report. Gaddy Wilson, likewise. Etc. etc etc.)
Other developments affect or reflect the ability of women journalists and news organization employees to develop satisfying careers whether as professionals or in management and executive roles. Whether their role can be measured or confirmed beyond anecdotal evidence requires further consideration. Some are in the nature of the tide that raises all ships, others more particularly targeted to women.
1. Increased continuing education for newspaper employees at all levels: The American Press Institute, once the place of learning for the elite of the management corps through one- or two-week seminars, has broadened its scope to include various short-term seminars for senior reporters, seminars, workshops at locations other than its custom-built center in Reston VA, and roundtable (literally) discussions on issues of concern to the field. The Poynter Institute continues to grow in size and scope as well. (example) The independent Foundation for merican Communications, based on the wet coast, State, multi-state regional and national trade and professional organizations and journalism schools all offer short- and long-term learning opportunities, many deigned for self-nomination and affordable for individuals whose bosses won't or can't afford to send them. Whether the best of these serve and present an adequate or appropriate mix of men and women and newspaper employes of color should be examined.
2. Self-help: Women journalists, no longer a big enough portion of the membership in Women in Communications to be assured of peer contact at meetings and conferences, created two organizations for themselves in the 1980s: the Journalism and Women's Symposium, familiarly known as JAWS and with a beribboned shark as its logo; and the Association for Women Journalists. The former started with a gathering of friendsof Tad Bartimas, journalists and news subjects, in Estes Park in 1985 and has grown into an annual camp of 150-200 women journalists at all levels of print, broadcast and, now, internet news organizations learning more about issues they cover and helping each other navigate the career paths they've chosen. It also sponsors small camps on skills as members want them. AWJ is based in several urban areas, giving the women journalists a safe and friendly way to interact.
3. professional association evolution: Theta Sigma Phi, the original fraternity for women journalism students (University of Washington 1909) and Sigma Delta Chi, the men's group, eliminated their gender barriers to membership and adopted English-language names (Women in Communications and Society of Professional Journalists) in the early 1970s. The former intentionally emphasized the common interests of all communications disciplines and their grounding in sound journalism while the latter continued to focus on news and news issues. Their fortunes have varied: Women in Communications has few news-based members and few men; but SPJ continues to look mostly male (detail to come) even though well over half its members are women. Nonetheless, each offers leadership opportunities and continuing education so members can build their knowledge and credentials. Dozens more designed for newspaper journalists with common assignments (feature editors, weekend editors, investigative reporters) have been created, all offering members ways to share knowledge, inspiration and support.
4. Global network: Journalists in the Washington DC area created the international Women's Media Foundation in the late 1980s to support women journalists throughout the world and to recognize annually women journalists of courage who have worked under life-threatening conditions. Its growing influence as a forum, meeting place and idea-exchange is reflected in its recent report: Leading in a Different language: Will Women Change the News Media?11
5. Outside support for innovative approachs to coverage: The Kettering Institution, an endowed research foundation especially interested in the effectiveness and vitality of democracy, began an exploration in the late 1980s of the role and affects of the news media in democracy. That inquiry brought together innovative thinkers (notably Jay Rosen, get credentials) and news executive who were trying to change public policy coverage to be more compelling and engaging to their publics. Over time, the inquiry turned into the public or civic journalism "movement" with major funding from the Pew Trusts for experimental approaches to community problem identification and coverage and sharing of lessons learned. That work is examined in a separate report within this overall project. (but I may have more to say, too!!!!)
6. Recognition: prizes for coverage and competitive fellowships have increased the former immeasurably as all kinds of groups have decided that awarding prizes for coverage of what interests them is a way to get the attention of journalists. But change also happens within: The Pulitzer prize board and newspaper prize screening/nominating juries, once limited to chief news and newspaper executives (plus a few interested outsiders on the board) and, thus, mostly white men, now include stand-out journalists and a degree of intentional diversity in race/ethnicity and gender. At last count, however, women had plateaued for years at about 20% of the jurors, the teams that decide which three entries get submitted to the board for final consideration. (The board can reject the three and go back for other considerations, but rarely does.) Comparing the topics of winning entries with those that win other competitions (say, the Women in Communications Clarions and the NFPW annual contests) might offer some clues about the impetus for changing news content, when what formerly uncovered topics started being treated seriously as news, whether women journalists nd men journalists cover similar topics similarly and so forth.
7. Increasing management: When news companies started going public, they also had to learn much more about managing resources (money, staff, time). Public ownership also spurred the trend toward group/chain ownership of newspapers 9although some are still controlled by particular families through various stock arrangements-those including The New York Times and the Washington Post companies). Those kinds of changes have come to the news business at the same time technology and growing sophistication of personnel management changed most businesses. Books and countless articles have attempted to analyze the impact of such changes on news content and news organization culture. By making intentional decisions that often were more instinctive, such changes should have contributed to the progress of women (and minorities) in news organizations. Given the stagnation reported in the most recent studies, the research question probably is why haven't the management changes expedited the changes in look of America's news rooms. (XXXXIn fairness, some clues should surface in the staff turn-over research. If it doesn't, the right questions aren't being asked.)
8. Leadership: What kinds of difference do corporate boards and top corporate executives make in diversification? Some early looks at this question are in books by Lorraine Dusky and Kay Mills (details needed) Are women among those corporate board members? Are leading news organization women being asked to serve on outside corporate boards to the extent their male peers are (reaping the financial and learning rewards)?
Does diversity in the newsroom (and the rest of the organization) really matter anyway? Here is what we thought we knew then, what we think we know now:
Presence in the News Product
--Carlotta Carlyle, "Flashpoint," p.161
That mismatch costs daily newspapers readers and circulation, network news viewers and has defied researchers who have sought to understand it for a generation.
Many women of the generation who flooded journalism schools in the 1960s and 1970s encountered the mismatch as they grew up and learned more about the world and how it works. They hoped consciously or felt instinctively that if their experience of reality were a factor in the work of journalists, they could overcome the mismatch. Some of us attributed the mismatch to geography-the difference between how The Chicago Tribune saw and reported farm policy and how those of us surrounded by fields of corn and grain and pastures of livestock lived it. Others sensed a difference between how the establishments of commerce, community, government saw their actions and decisions and how the folks in the trenches did. Geography. Culture. Social Class.
Our generation grew to adulthood in a world with norms built around norms of the privileged and empowered white male. (footnote or bullet examples Gilligan re development; maybe a theology and public policy issues) We learned as early as early college history and political science classes that answers to subjective questions won the most points if they agreed with the point of view of the professor-no matter how compelling other arguments were from our own point of view. The parallel experience marked our early days in news organizations: We reported and explored and made stories out of what the bosses thought was important or newsworthy. We told the story their way or saw it edited into their way before it was published.
When the temperature in Rochester NY reached 90 degrees for the first time the summer of 1964 one mid-June day, City Editor Herb Jackson told me to write three 'graphs for the night edition. I did. My version of the bright took an "at last it's warm" approach. When they quit laughing, Herb and Don Freudenberg, his assistant, explained that 90 was extraordinarily hot for the Rochester area, not routine summer weather. Common topic. Critically important, life-long lesson. Indeed, it should be a no brainer:
The convergence of the women's/feminist movement, the civil rights movement and emergence of the Third World (remember the "revolution of rising expectations") led some of us to believe that hearing women's authentic voice could provide a short cut to identifying, recognizing, understanding and covering what was missing from news, could rapidly eliminate the mis-match between the questions (white male) journalists popped and the answers (all kinds of) readers and viewers sought in the news.
Our experience and understanding often resonated more with those of "the outsiders" than with the conventional wisdom of our bosses and colleagues in the news organizations and the parts of the community we covered routinely. As the 1970s and 1980s unfolded, research and other work in journalism and many other fields identify and validate those differences-different perspectives; different world views; different not wrong; the "both/and" not just "either/or"; connection and compromise rather than win/lose; success defined by othr than bigger/more.
We thought we saw a number of experiences and perceptions shared by women, women and men of color, poor people and others who weren't in positions of power or authority. Some gave up on their own views, figuring people with power must know more and be right. Some of us believed in ourselves and our experience even if the bosses wouldn't listen.
That's not the way it was or is, Walter.
The size and strength of barriers to reporting accurately in the experience and reality of those we covered became apparent when I read The Boys on the Bus: Timothy Crouse's brilliant participant-observer analysis of presidential election campaign coverage. Much to my surprise, the problem area he identified paralleled those I encountered in years of covering local government and politics. (get quote re bosses wanting the same story others already had).
So now the question was not just one of an individual's gaining enough experience and credibility to have her voice and views of news accepted; it became, as well, a question of management and, beyond each news organization's management, of the systems governing news coverage. That meant, as well, that answers, solutions, changes lay beyond the structures of journalism somewhere in the highly complex, often-assumed- rather-than-conscious interlocking network or system of community/economy/governance, a situation that motivated some of us to change our journalism career paths from reporting to management.
By the 1970s, newspaper circulation compared with households was dropping fast enough that the situation compelled several trade organizations into an unprecedented partnership led by the American Newspaper Publishers Association (now Newspaper Association of America and incorporating some of the formerly independent organizations) and the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The six-year, multi-million-dollar Newspaper Readership Project researchers examined everything from news and advertising content, page make-up and typefaces through delivery times, ink rub-off and customer service. Many findings were pretty clear-cut, findings on such questions as delivery time and consistency, readibility of typefaces, usefulness of graphics in some stories or information presentation, and so forth. This was a first venture into research for many of the newspaper executives, although some of the bigger companies had commissioned their own research for years. That fact may have produced some mis-matches between research and reality. For instance, some content research reported that readers weren't interested in government and political coverage but the appendices of those reports listed all kinds of government-related topics that readers wanted to know about. A decade later, a bright young researcher in the Washington "D.C. area, commissioned by XXXXX to learn more about the role of newspapers in the democratic processes, discovered that people considered local government activities civic work, not government and politics..(Harwood footnote) Thus, any coverage decisions made on the basis of executive summaries rather that complete reading could have left local content seriously deficient Is it possible that other mismatches exist between readers, non readers and researchers/newspaper executives-mismatches that lead to misinterpretation of research results?
Jean Gaddy Wilson's benchmark research on staffing and culture of newspapers and earlier work by pioneer Dorothy Jurney (explain in footnote) led her to create new Directions for News, a think-tank based at the University of Missouri School of Journalism dedicated to helping news organizations get beyond traditional coverage patterns and conventional wisdom in order to cover the world and their communities in ways more relevant and compelling to changing populations.
By the late 1980s, the Gannett Foundation (not yet recreated into the Freedom Forum) initiated Women, Men and Media headed by Betty Friedan, whose The Feminine Mystique is considered the clarion call helping initiate and define mission of the women's movement, and Nancy Woodhull, long the point within and beyond Gannett for more inclusive news coverage. At first, WMM sought merely to document whether women were reporting significant news and were present in major news coverage. Researcher Junior Bridge began inventorying newspaper Page 1 markers--bylines by women journalists, women named in news stories and included in photos-and network television news presented by women and including women. Presence doesn't guarantee differing points of view any more than absence of women negates the possibility; but presence increases the possibility. Similarly, numbers without context tell an incomplete story: What's being reported affects the ease and difficulty of identifying valid sources (note studies of medical stories). Still, the inventories provided a starting point and a case can be made that, whatever their view of what was being reported, women's presence on Page 1 and the nightly news offers a more nearly realistic view of the day, the community, the world, that presented by all-male front pages and newscasts.
The research anchored conferences structured to get beyond the bare numbers into some of the related questions of content and context, decision-making leading to news presence and the interaction of broadcast and print news. And news magazines. XXXXX WMM's work continued through a March, 2000, conference on women's presence in broadcast news coverage of the military.
(I gotta talk to Junior Bridge and Jean Wilson to get to conclusions here. Then I want to compare the departure/turrnover reports with content stuff. My sense is that they'll point to a voice as a missing element in the work for women and minorities…and can be related to "not my world" stuff from folks who don't read/watch any more.)
What are the prospects and possibilities for women journalism graduates should they choose to work for newspapers or even want to build careers working for newspapers after graduation from college? The question is more complicated, of course. The response , also complex, starts like this:
First, after growing from a small percentage of newspaper news department staffs, women have been 30 percent or more of those staffs for more than two decades; but they've never achieved 40 percent. That base of 30 percent seems to have been enough for women to be promoted into various levels of supervision and management so that, by lumping all supervisory levels, the American Society of Newspaper Editors could show that for the last two years, women have held 34 percent of all news department supervisory positions. But the broad sweep of those numbers only begins the story. The newspaper "industry" as represented by the Newspaper Association of America started several years ago to look into what it considers (and the numbers suggest is) excessive turnover of women and minority staff in news and other departments and, most recently, the newspaper Management Center at Northwestern University has conducted research on the same question in news departments.
Second, throughout the same three decades, newspaper readership and circulation (as a whole) have dropped steadily. We note particularly that the percentage of women reading newspapers, long higher than the percentage of men, has dropped to markedly below the percentage of men. Some studies reflect the assumption that changing the staff mix to include more women can be a corrective; but other studies and discussions suggest that content changes require more than the presence of women, moving into more subtle understandings of women's voice and viewpoint--where and how women encounter and experience the world. Stated another way: The question becomes when and whether the authentic voice of women--the feminist inclusiveness of myriad valid points of view, both-and rather than either/or, complexity more often then simplicity, gains for all more than win/lose--should, can and will change the dominant traditions of newspaper content and management.
So, third, this report will review the studies and discussions that look for gender-related participation in coverage, content and control. For the most part, the many studies have been made and considered apart from each other and most often from the dominant view of newspapering. Taken together, compared with findings from other components of this comprehensive project and set within changes in workplaces and society as well, the works on newspaper staffing and those on readership can help define what women journalism students can expect to find should they chose newspapers as their professional field. Questions, ideas and issues for further consideration will be cited.
Today, 71 percent of public relations practitioners are female, but they make $17,000 less than their male counterparts even when education and experience are factored into the equation. This finding is almost three times the $6,600 salary differential reported in the 1986 "Velvet Ghetto Study."*
This study explores public relations practice over the past three decades as the field has become predominantly female. It reviews the academic and professional literature in the public relations field and evaluates the status of women in public relations today.
According to census data, public relations practice was a male dominated occupation until the 1980s. In 1986 "The Velvet Ghetto: The Impact of the Increasing Percentage of Women in Public Relations and Business Communication" report was published. The study concluded that the feminization of an occupation can be a dangerous thing, leading to drops in salary levels and occupational status if the field is perceived as "women's work." Coupled with the census data that revealed women made up approximately 60 percent of the field, the study fueled a wave of concern about the loss of status and prestige for the profession.
In the educational arena, the ratio of men to women also had shifted by the 1980s to predominately female. For the past two decades, enrollment of women in journalism and mass communication programs has stood at about 60 percent. However, in public relations classes more than 80 percent of the students are female.
The numbers led some to advocate for a change in public relations values so that the sex gap could be reversed. One such argument, "Making PR Macho: Reversing the Sex Gap in Undergraduate Public Relations Programs" was published in Journalism Educator in 1987. Feminist scholars responded that such arguments ignored the promise of "feminization."
In the 1990s, research on public relations roles added more fuel to the fire. These studies showed that women tended to occupy lower-paying technician roles, rather than managerial roles. Feminists responded to such arguments that efficiency, individualism and competition are not exclusively a male managerial domain, but rather organizational values. Others argued that feminine values, whether possessed by men or women, facilitated the practice of two-way symmetrical public relations, which is touted in the literature as the ideal model for public relations practice.
By the late 1990s, the arguments had turned to an examination of values with some scholars arguing that the most effective public relations practice grows out of a worldview embraces feminist values. At the same time, practitioners have returned to the "making PR macho" argument, trying to ensure that PR "isn't seen as a place where only women work." This study traces the evolution of these arguments over the past three decades with a finding that "nothing much has changed in the rhetoric".
Theoretical issues explored in the paper include: occupational sex segregation, division of labor and human capital, gender roles and socialization, encroachment and professionalism. A gender relations explanation proposed by sociologist Elaine Hall is explored. It attempts to move the argument beyond the individual level rationales of "blaming the victim" or "sex differences" as explanations the decline in status of female-dominated fields. Instead, it proposes viewing gender as a societal system similar to race and class, which exists to reproduce structures that support stratification and differentiation.
The paper concludes with recommendations for the future including leveraging the bottom line and mentoring the next generation.
*The differential is reported in actual dollars, not dollars adjusted for inflation.
Sue A. Lafky
The project I propose to undertake will further my work on the topic of gender and the news workforce in the United States. My ongoing study focuses on three decades of journalists in mainstream news organizations (newspapers, television, radio, news services). I have already completed the quantitative analysis for this study, drawing upon three major surveys of U.S. journalists-one conducted in the 1970s, one in the 1980s and one from the 1990s.
The work I propose to do during a semester assignment would add more historical and contextual analysis of the work force during these three decades, including research on journalism education, the declining role of unions for news workers, the comparison of salaries between journalists and other occupations and demographic profiles of journalists during these three decades. I would also interview members of organizations of journalists who are still active in journalistic endeavors as well as those of have retired. Issues of gender, race, and class are central to this proposal so I will also contact journalists who members of journalistic organizations serving minority journalists. These organizations include the Society of Professional Journalists, Women in Communication, Inc., Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Native American Journalism Association and the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association.
I will read biographies and autobiographies of journalists, visit archives that house the work of journalists (particularly from the 1970s), and research the history of women in journalism organizations such as The Society of Professional Journalists (which admitted women in 1969), Women in Communication, and the National Press Club. Some sources are available at the University of Iowa, but others are only available through the Library of Congress and other libraries. I plan to spend time in Washington D.C. during the leave, reading and researching at the Library of Congress as well as at the archives of the National Press Club and the Black Press Archives and Gannett DistinguishedNewspaper Publishers at Howard University. I will spend some time in Beverly Hills examining news programs archived at the Museum of Television and Radio.
Barbara Strauss Reed and Kandice Salomone
This chapter chronicles the contributions made by women of color working as professionals the journalism and mass communication industries. African, Latino, Asian and Native American (ALANA) females who served as reporters, broadcasters, publicists, copywriters, advertisers, commentators, columnists, television and film producers and personalities, are profiled as well as the distinct communities that they represented. In addition to the obstacles that they encountered because of their gender these groundbreaking, pathfinders also suffered untold challenges because of their racial heritage.
In an effort to tell the truth, some of these sheroes and heroines of color wrote about, reported on and investigated their communities, society at large, and various turbulent periods in history at great peril to themselves and their families while also defending freedom of the press and the fourth estate. They were instrumental in the evolution of The Black Press, The Asian American Press, The Latino Press, and The Native American Press and subsequently played pivotal roles in the formation of organizations founded to assist them with their journalistic endeavors, namely, the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), Native American Journalists Association (NAJA), National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ), and Association of Asian American Journalists.
The range of women discussed span from Ida B. Wells-Barnett, an African American female journalist who worked tirelessly during the 19th century to eradicate the lynching of black Americans, Oprah Winfrey, a national media phenomenon who became the first black woman to host a nationally syndicated weekday talk show , to Connie Chung, the first Asian American to co-host a national network news program. Some of the lesser known media practitioners discussed include Red Wing, who in 1909 became one of the first Native Americans to personify an American Indian in film and Hattie Kaufman, a member of the Nez Perce Native American tribe, who is a national correspondent for CBS This Morning. In addition to their employment, many of these women used the platforms provided by their work affiliations to combat the distorted images of their race promulgated through the media .
During the latter part of the 1960s, equal employment opportunities within media industries and women of color were given special consideration because of their labels as "two-fers." This terminology was applied because women of color could be coded twice when compiling hiring statistics for affirmation action reports. Since that time, women of color are working in more challenging and diverse positions in the mass media, however, they are quite dismayed by their employment on television, movie, newspaper, radio, and magazine staffs. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) and the National Council of La Raza issued a report of 60 newspapers in 1995 which stated that Hispanic reporters/writers comprised 4.5% of all workers, copy editors, 4%, and photographers/artists, 5.5%. Furthermore, the report indicated that the majority (61%) of Hispanic newspaper employees were men.
African-American women have been hired more frequently than members of other racial groups, and Native Americans have been hired less often than any, but all groups are still underrepresented in every facets of the media . There is growing concern that this disparity makes these industries less effective. Betty Anne Williams, USA Today, notes that, "For the media, turning a blind eye to diversity and gender issues could be a costly mistake in a nation where, census projections show, 87 percent of population growth between now and 2010 will be in minority communities, and where women already make up 51 percent of the population and 45 percent of the workforce."
12. How Recent Graduates Assess Their Journalism/Mass Communication Education
Maurine H. Beasley, Katherine C. McAdams, & Izabella Zandberg
The present study examines survey responses of 475 working graduates of journalism and mass communication programs. Data for the present study were gathered from graduates of the classes of 1981, 1984, 1987, 1990 and 1993 to update "The New Majority" study (Beasley and Theus, 1985) to account for changes in journalism/mass communications education in recent years. These changes include a gender shift among journalism students, so that more than 70 percent are women; diffuse demands on professionals brought about by changing technologies; and a growing and perceptible gap between skills taught in journalism schools and the needs of a rapidly changing profession (Becker, 1999; Griffin and Pasadeos, 1998; Marks, 1999). The updated survey found only moderate satisfaction with journalism education among graduates, with significantly more women saying they perceived biases relating to age, gender and race while in journalism school and on the job. Both men and women expressed disappointment with pay and rewards, and many voiced plans to change careers. Open-ended responses show respondents discussing suggestions for change in journalism education such as more teaching of technologies, business and marketing, more internships and hands-on experiences, and more mentoring programs. Responses indicate a need for updating and even re-conceptualizing journalism/mass communication education. Four specific recommendations are stated: (1) more studies of recent graduates to connect journalism educators more directly with the needs of working journalists; (2) more studies showing how journalism/mass communication graduates compare in satisfaction and rewards with recent graduates in other fields; (3) a willingness to include new technologies in all aspects of journalism education, even if doing so requires some changes in long-standing traditions; and (4) coming to terms with the diverse backgrounds, ethnic heritage, and gender of its students.
The Academy has traditionally been the locus of intellectual thought, fertile ground for new ideas, and a place for experimentation, and yet, curiously, we lag far behind private sector organizations in nurturing personal and professional growth.
While the Academy as an institution professes to be a nesting place for collegiality, collaboration, and shared knowledge there is little evidence to suggest that the Academy actually engages in these activities on a broad scale. The research literature on mentoring in business and management is plentiful, and strongly suggests that mentoring is integral to the success of any individual manager and the organization in which s/he works. However, there is a dearth of research on mentoring in higher education.
What little research has been conducted strongly indicates that mentoring does play an important role in the promotion, tenure, and retention of all promising teachers and scholars, and especially of women and minorities. It also suggests that mentor and mentoree, as well as the organization itself, are the mutual benefactors of such a relationship. But the most productive mentoring relationship for women may differ from the traditional mentoring model, which does not account for barriers that women are more likely to encounter such as career interruptions and gender role perceptions. These are among the chief concerns that grew out of the study, "(More Than You Ever Wanted To Know) About Women And Journalism Education" a generation ago.
This study reviews the mentoring literature starting in the early 1970s -- about the same time that "More Than You Ever Wanted To Know) About Women and Journalism Education" was completed. A critical analysis of this literature will examine how mentoring models developed in other disciplines can be applied to higher education in general, and to journalism and mass communication education in particular. Moreover, a comparative critical analysis of mentoring models will examine how what the mentoring needs of women in academia are likely to be quite different than those of men in academia. In addition, results from a survey of Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication (ASJMC) members will provide an overview of the types of mentoring models now being used in journalism and mass communication education. Finally, using these analyses we will suggest improved mentoring models for consideration by journalism and mass communication educators and administrators.
return to top of page
Julie L. Andsager
Sexual advances from faculty to graduate students may be an insidious means of reinforcing the power structure of universities. The situation between professors and their graduate students becomes even more complex because of their ongoing, close relationships. In faculty-graduate student relations, the potential for coercion is greatly increased but perhaps so subtle that students may fail to recognize faculty-initiated sexual advances or relations as sexual harassment. Indeed, Rush (1993) suggested that sexual harassment in mass communication is still largely unacknowledged and misunderstood, and it is often entwined with "political power harassment."
The purpose of this study is to analyze how and how often sexual harassment occurs in graduate programs in journalism and mass communication across the United States and Canada. Previous research on other disciplines has indicated that anywhere from 8% to 31% of female graduate students have received sexual advances - the most overt form of sexual harassment - from their graduate faculty (Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Glaser & Thorpe, 1986). The women reported their experiences as overwhelmingly negative (Glaser & Thorpe).
In exploring the incidence of sexual harassment of female graduate students in journalism and mass communication programs, two surveys will be reported. The first, conducted in spring 1994, was a mail survey using a census of female members of the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication and a stratified random sample of 500 male AEJMC members (Andsager, Bailey, & Nagy, 1997). The survey was a replication of Glaser and Thorpe's (1986) survey of female members of the American Psychological Association, and it focused primarily on sexual advances. The majority of respondents were women, with an overall response rate of 48%; nearly half of the respondents had earned doctorates.
These survey data indicated that 14% (n = 85) of the respondents had received sexual advances from faculty, and the vast majority (92%) of those respondents were women. Although these respondents tended to be slightly younger than the rest of the sample when they began graduate training in communication, their ages ranged from 19 to 50. Despite increased national attention to sexual harassment during the 1990s, the years that respondents who were harassed began their graduate training ranged across more than 40 years (1948 to 1992). The greatest number of advances came from male instructors prior to or during a working relationship, a situation the respondents perceived as possessing a clearly inherent power differential. For purposes of this paper, the results of the 1994 survey will be reported in depth, including open-ended comments from respondents.
The second survey will consist of replication of some of the items included on the previous study, but it will employ a broader definition of sexual harassment. One finding from the previous study was the recurring comment that women in graduate programs were discriminated against in much more subtle ways than sexual advances, and the proposed survey will attempt to encompass these. The second survey will be a web survey, with a census of female AEJMC members who obtained their Ph.D.s since 1996 and current graduate students serving as the survey population. Preliminary examination of the 2000-2001 AEJMC Directory indicates that slightly more than 300 women comprise this population. The survey will be conducted in spring 2001.
By analyzing trends in sexual advances and other forms of harassment, this study will help us to understand women's experiences in graduate programs. Only by revealing the women's words and experiences can we begin to repair the graduate experience, when it is necessary.
Andsager, J.L., Bailey, J.L., & Nagy, J. (1997). Sexual advances as manifestations of power in graduate programs. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 57(2), 33-42.
Fitzgerald, L.F., Shullman, S.L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
Glaser, R. D., & Thorpe, J.S. (1986, January). Unethical intimacy: A survey of sexual contact and advances between psychology educators and female graduate students. American Psychologist, 41, 43-51.
Rush, R. R. (1993). A systemic commitment to women in the academy. Journalism Educator, 48, 71-79.
return to top of page
This paper looks at the future generations, the academics of tomorrow. The results derive from a combined quantitative/qualitative survey amongst graduate students coming from industrialised nations mainly, but with significant differences in their resources, GDP and development and equality index. The survey reveals some interesting first indications as to the attitudes of younger people and new faculty members towards research and supervision categorised by sex, region and age. The importance of the paper lies upon the fact that it combines a comprehensive picture of the current status of women and young people but also provides a projective evaluation to the future of mass communications, as this is related to human resources and therefore will be shaped by them.
return to top of page
16. Inside Conglomeration: Toward a Feminist Analytics of Media Mergers
Carolyn M. Byerly
This paper is concerned with the possible ways that global media conglomeration impacts women, particularly those in journalism and other communication fields, both as practitioners and scholars. To a large extent, women's experiences in journalism professions, whether in the newsroom or the classroom, take place within the larger economic and ideological context that is still white, male, and corporate in its orientation. Neoliberal policies that have engendered a wave of deregulation have also accelerated mergers and acquisitions in all industries since the mid 1990s. In communications industries the result has been a concentration of ownership in newspapers, television stations, radio stations, telephone services, media production and other communication industries in the hands of a small group of wealthy men. Neoliberalism has also affected higher education, as much research shows, but the precise impacts on journalism programs are only beginning to show. This paper explores where women fit into the media conglomeration picture, and what the implications might be for feminist scholarship. The paper begins by tracing women's relationship to neoloberalism and its product, global capitalism, and the media industries that are so central to both. The discussion also makes a foray into the potentials for activism, considering how feminist journalism and other media scholars might emerge as major players within the academy and in other realms where public policy is made with respect to communications.
return to top of page
Ramona R Rush
Using existing secondary research, Rush examines the role and status of women in journalism and mass communications in several countries. It is discovered from this examination that a hypothesis developed about three decades ago concerning women in this field still applies. In the early 1980s, Rush was updating the work from a 1972 study on the status of women in journalism for a request from a Latin American communication research journal, Chasqui, when she suddenly noticed an interesting trend in that decade-later investigation: women were not moving beyond a certain limitation in number in employment and status the U.S. mass media. In that article, "Women and the Communications Revolution: Can We Get There from Here?" (with Buck and Ogan), the phenomenon was described as: " . . . an interesting phenomenon which looks as if there is some kind of a mystical 'ceiling' (or, more accurately for women, a "flooring") effect in the form of a ratio of concentration in symbolic representation, occupational status, and/or salary levels for women. The ratio usually resides around a 1/4:3/4 or 1/3:2/3 proportion, female to male. . . . . For example, of officials and managers in television stations about 75 percent were males and the other 25 percent were females; women represented about 36-38 percent of the U.S. daily press workforce; and in the computer industry, women earned bout 74 cents for every dollar earned b y their male peers, and men still outnumbered women by a factor of three to one except in the lowest paying operative area where 63 percent were women, and so on." (qtd in Rush, 1989, p. 9; original in Rush, Buck, Ogan, 1982). A footnote stated that "the ratio might appropriately be designated R3 -- The Ratio of Recurrent and Reinforced Residuum" (Rush, 1989, p. 9). Although Rush did not operationally define R3, her idea was that such ratios represented for women everything that was left over that men did not want or need, and she often mistyped "ratio" as "ration" she noticed. It was a surprise that the hypothesis held not only in the United States but also in so many countries around the world. This research finding is not particularly good, for women. Junior scholars in the field are encouraged to understand the consequences of this research implication which has remained sadly steady for about three decades and to become more active for justice and equity in the profession and higher education.
return to top of page
H. Leslie Steeves
Most early feminist
scholarship on women's oppression in journalism and communication is based
on conventional frameworks of liberal, radical and Marxian feminisms.
This research suggested strategies that have resulted in change, though
not all changes have been lasting, and applications are not suitable globally.
Postmodernist, post-structuralist and international feminists have rightly
critiqued the metanarratives that ground the conventional perspectives
as imperialistic and irrelevant to most gendered contexts. Yet the newer
trends have their own flaws, including an extreme (at times) rejection
of all theory, leaving few options for explanation and action; an excess
focus on individuals to the neglect of common ground; abstract concepts
and terminologies that are difficult to understand and apply; and a neglect
of material suffering, in favor of analyzing discourses. These flaws are
exposed in two realities: the reality of feminist activism within mainstream
media organizations; and the reality of feminist internationalism, that
is, in global movements based on common concerns. I argue that feminist
theory and scholarship in communications could benefit by more attention
to these stories.
Diane L. Borden.
Project conceptualization .As the U.S. news media entered the 21st century, critical issues about the role of journalists in society were being debated and redefined. One of these issues focused on how much involvement the media should have in public life. While traditional journalism asserts that it celebrates objectivity and disdains involvement in the community, a new perspective known as public journalism encourages the press's connection with the community and touts the positive results for an improved democracy.
Public journalism, also known as civic or community journalism, seeks to promote community debate and participation, not only between the press and the community but also between the community and its elected officials. Supporters of public journalism believe that democracy's decline can be traced to the public's demonstrated lack of interest and involvement in community issues. That lack of involvement, they say, is based on a disconnection between the public and the news media, which traditionally have supplied information on which citizen decisions could be based. In other words, a working democracy has depended on well-informed citizens. Public journalism supporters, therefore, seek to reconnect these three groups - the public, the press and the policymakers - often through the publication or broadcast of personal narratives and through the establishment of emotional connections.
The literature suggests that several theorists help inform public journalism, including such renowned thinkers as John Dewey, James Carey, Christopher Lasch, and others. To date, however, no one has examined how feminist theory can be used to explain this new form of news construction.
This study seeks to test the hypothesis that public journalism's proclaimed rationale and its strategies, including language usage, story framing and writing style, reflect ideas which are at the heart of cultural feminist theory.
The content analysis for this study would focus on the coverage of the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. Four local newspapers would be included in the study: the Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News and the Boulder Daily Camera, all viewed as traditional daily newspapers; and the Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph, a self-described public-journalism newspaper. The study would explore differences and similarities in writing style, language usage, and story framing among the four newspapers, all of which devoted staff resources to the coverage of the Columbine shootings.
Traditional or conventional journalistic norms historically have valued objectivity, or reporter separation from the issue, while public journalism focuses on finding a connection between the citizen and the issue. Critics of objectivity argue that the frame, sources and process of gathering news all contribute to inevitable subjectivity, and objectivity is simply a way for journalists to deny responsibility in their own stories.
Public journalism seeks a balance between objectivity and subjectivity and seeks to motivate people to take an interest in issues through experiencing connections, emotions and personal responsibility. This focus on a connection to the issues and on personal narratives represents a cultural feminist approach to journalism, one this study seeks to quantify.
Susan J. Kaufman and Ramona R. Rush
Two decades after the original Rush, Okrup, & Ernst study (1972) brought attention to what Daly (1984) would term women's "absence of presence" in journalism education, Kaufman (1992) reported that while women had made some gains into faculty ranks, fewer gains were made during the same period by women attempting to move into positions of administrative leadership.
Kaufman highlighted some of the roadblocks that stood in the path of women attempting to move into administrative posts. She developed a conceptual model to reveal deficiencies and identify approaches to problems to be addressed if women were indeed to move into these positions.
Now, close to three decades since the original study, Kaufman and Rush raise the question of what has happened with the movement of women into administrative leadership. Based on data from the broader study being undertaken, what has been the experience of these women? How have women defined success? Do those they lead consider them successful? What criteria were used by both leader and led to determine their success? What were the skills that women identified to bring them into their roles of leadership, and perhaps, more importantly, were they the same skills needed to be successful as administrative leaders?
Finally, Kaufman and Rush will address a question first framed by Kolodny (1998): Can someone with progressive and feminist ideals lead without compromising her values? Can someone with progressive and feminist ideals act ethically in ambiguous situations? Does women's leadership in a male structured administration matter? Do the multiple claims on leaders' time, attention, and budgetary resources make it possible for women leaders to preserve the values they hold concerning leadership?
|return to homepage|
|last updated 8/24/01|