From Bylines to Headlines: Exploring Gender Bias in the News

Women in the News

The phrase “women in the news” can have at least two meanings: women working in the news industry and women’s depiction in news. This themed article highlights that with either meaning, women’s representation is lacking globally. Without a doubt, women’s diminished presence in these areas carries societal implications. Who gets covered, and who does the covering, both signal estimations of value and worth. A lack of representation in bylines or coverage reinforces gendered power dynamics and inhibits progress toward gender parity.

The articles selected for this themed collection examine the dual meaning of “women in the news” by analyzing how journalists’ gender, and other structural factors, affects women’s representation in the news, and what barriers prohibit increasing women’s representation in these domains.

Women Covering Women

Based in gatekeeping theory (White, 1950) and the premise that more women in the newsroom could facilitate less biased coverage of women, Leiva and Kimber’s (2022) content analysis of national, political, and business sections in Chile showed nearly three quarters of articles included a male source as compared with only one quarter featuring a female source. Furthermore, female journalists quoted female sources more than male journalists, though there was no relationship between section editor gender and sourcing.

Riedl et al. (2022) also used gatekeeping in their content analysis of Austrian political news coverage and found similar results: female sources were present in a quarter of articles versus 68% sourcing men. Furthermore,

even when controlling for professional, organizational, and other individual factors . . . male journalists (a) [were] half as likely to include at least one woman actor in a news item, (b) cover fewer women in general, and (c) have stronger gender imbalances within news items than female journalists. (p. 15)

In follow-up interviews, journalists endorsed including more female sources but rarely acknowledged how their gender affected coverage, suggesting unconscious bias.

Bauer (2022) also examined organizational and individual factors in news coverage of mixed-gender and all-women elections for the U.S. Senate. Bauer found national and local news were more likely to report on the political qualifications of women compared with men in mixed-gender races, and both provided less of this coverage for women in all-women versus mixed-gender races. There were differences, however, when journalist gender was included: Female journalists, versus male journalists, were more likely to report on the political qualifications of female candidates in local newspapers but not in national newspapers. Given that female candidates are often viewed as less qualified, female journalists’ efforts at the local level may be crucial in aiding women’s electoral success.

Moving beyond politics, Beckers et al. (2024) examined TV news coverage in Belgium from 2003 to 2021, finding that “regardless of time, broadcaster, or topic, news items made by female journalists have a higher chance to contain female speaking actors than news items made by male journalists” (p. 489). They posited that female journalists are more aware of gendered source bias given their own marginalized state. Furthermore, while women were more likely to appear in soft news articles and non-elite roles, female journalists were more likely to feature women as elite sources (e.g., experts, politicians). Despite female journalists’ efforts, news coverage provided an exaggerated underrepresentation of women because 40% of national and regional politicians were women, yet they accounted for 20% of coverage.

Sjøvaag and Pedersen’s (2019) massive content analysis of Norwegian news produced similar results: women were sources less than men, women were more often sources for soft news, and female sources only gained parity when sourced as ordinary citizens. Furthermore, there was a similar discrepancy between the proportion of women in various sectors and their relative presence as quoted sources—which demonstrates, like Beckers et al., that the news presents a skewed picture of women and their relative presence.

Barriers to Women in the Newsroom

These articles indicate that having more female journalists could boost the quantity and quality of women’s coverage. But, as the following articles chronicle, retaining female journalists is challenging due to various barriers.

Kempton Davis and Walter (2024) analyzed the experiences of contemporary female journalists and those dating back to the 1950s in the United States. Across time, women voiced different challenges, but running throughout was the recognition that newsrooms are rife with gender discrimination. From being stigmatized for pregnancy, to inadequate maternity leave policies, to obstacles with breastfeeding, female journalists found the expectation to be “all in” at home and work unrealistic.

Urbániková and Čaladi (2024) found a similar tension in the Czech Republic between work and household expectations steeped in societal gender inequality and exacerbated by masculinized newsroom culture. Many female journalists recounted experiencing sexism and sexual harassment in-person and online with male colleagues disrespecting female superiors, as well as being sexually harassed by colleagues, superiors, sources, and audience members, ranging from sexual innuendos to sexual coercion and unsolicited touching and kissing. Many women accepted this treatment as a “necessary tax to pay if they want to pursue a career in a profession where masculine culture prevails” (p. 16).

Sentiments were similar in Miller’s (2023) study of U.S. journalists. Women received more sexual and nonsexual harassment than men, triggering emotions of anger and fear, and many women saw this harassment as the “price you pay” for being a woman in journalism. Alternately, men tied harassment to their professional identity, characterizing it as a “badge of honor” for doing “good,” adversarial journalism. Notably, none of the men identified their harassment as sexual. This does not mean men do not experience sexual harassment; rather, Miller posed two explanations: (a) men often see harassment as “harmless fun” and may be less likely to notice its presence, and (b) machismo culture may prevent men from vocalizing any fear related to harassment. In true machismo fashion, many of the men asserted they could physically defend themselves if necessary.

Harassment bares a number of effects on journalists, which was the focus of Yeon Lee and Park’s (2024) survey of South Korean journalists. Journalists who experienced more online harassment were more likely to self-censor, disengage from the public, and express skepticism about journalism’s role in society. The correlation between harassment and self-censorship was particularly high when journalists reported on politically sensitive subjects. Furthermore, women were more likely to engage in self-censorship, disengagement, and skepticism. The authors noted the “chilling effect” harassment can have on journalists and their ability to foster democracy.

Conclusion

Although several authors suggest ideas for better treatment of women in the news, such as better/more gender-conscious workplace policies and trainings, a common, though sometimes implicit, thread was a need to change at the societal level. Urbániková and Čaladi (2024) concluded that female journalists’ barriers flowed from societal gender inequality and called for a “feminist consciousness” in society. Such a consciousness could affect how women are treated in newsrooms and as sources, and perhaps alter how men view harassment for themselves and others.

This notion is not new as sociology of news studies has long discussed how journalists are products of their culture. Nor is this change easy to implement. Cultural changes are achingly slow as evident by the longitudinal articles in this collection and nebulous in nature. Putting more women in newsrooms and leadership roles is part of creating cultural change in newsrooms—see Everbach’s (2006) ethnography of a women-led newspaper—and society, but they alone cannot address the problem. In turn, just as many authors in this collection have done, future work needs to take a holistic perspective on studying women in the news to provide a comprehensive path forward.