Nice Dig!

Abstract

This study represents a content analysis of 10 beach volleyball games for the men’s and women’s team USA during the 2008 Summer Games. Play-by-play commentary and between-play commentary were analyzed for all 10 games, and all court shots and camera angles were coded. Using earlier work examining the existence or presence of gender inequities in mediated coverage of sport in general, the goal was to identify how or if coverage of beach volleyball might still reinforce gender inequities. Findings from the coded visual and verbal coverage suggest that gender difference was not evident in the manifest content of the 2008 Olympic Games. Additional findings and implications are discussed.

Keywords

sports media Olympics gender beach volleyball commentary

Introduction

The Olympic Games may be the one event that is truly worldwide. Rather than turning to the media to view the latest news on a conflict somewhere in the world, people turn to the media to watch the struggles and triumphs of athletes from around the world. Worldwide, Nielsen Media research reported more than two of the three people tuned in to the 2008 Beijing Games—4.7 billion people worldwide (Associated Press, 2008). The Beijing Games became the most-watched event in television history, scoring 211 million viewers that tuned in over the 16 days of the Games (Fitzgerald, 2008). Often, prejudices are put aside, at least for the 16 days the Games last, and athletes earn respect, regardless of their race, religion, or country of origin.

Given the changing media landscape, the explosion of new media technologies, and increased participation in sport by women and girls, it is appropriate and relevant to examine mediated representations of one of the marquee events of the Olympic Games—beach volleyball. Beach volleyball is a sport both thought of as highly sexual in nature and has further been found to be covered by the media in a sexualized manner (Bissell & Duke, 2007; Daddario & Wigley, 2007). While previous research suggests inequities in coverage might exist in media coverage of men’s and women’s sports, the relatively new sport (to the Olympic Games) in concurrence with this new media environment prompt the present investigation of the similarities and differences in media coverage of men’s and women’s beach volleyball during the 2008 Olympic Games.

Very little empirical evidence exists examining National Broadcasting Company’s (NBC) storytelling of men’s and women’s beach volleyball. Using content analysis, broadcast commentary and visual coverage of the men’s and women’s games for both gold medal teams were analyzed to see whether differences by gender could be identified. The present study is exploratory in nature; however, findings from an earlier empirical investigation of women’s beach volleyball guide the present study’s questions. One key question for the present study is identifying the similarities or differences which exist in the visual and verbal coverage of the men’s and women’s beach volleyball games to examine if the type of coverage has changed since the 2004 Olympics.

Theoretical Foundation

Framing has been used to examine how material is presented and organized for media consumers from which to infer meaning (Gitlin, 1980). Framing studies in general have three main functions: an examination of selection, emphasis, and exclusion (Angelini & Billings, 2010; Billings, 2004; Tankard, 2001). Previous studies have examined the three functions of framing through language (Bissell & Duke, 2007; Higgs, Weiller, & Martin, 2003; Weiller, Higgs, & Greenleaf, 2004), visual images (Fink & Kensicki, 2002; Hardin, Lynn, Walsdorf, & Hardin, 2002), athletic accomplishment (Billings, Angelini, & Eastman, 2005; Billings & Eastman, 2003; Kinnick, 1998), and sexuality (Daddario, 1994; Daddario & Wigley, 2007; Knight & Giuliano, 2001, 2003).

Despite some of the occasions where female athletes might receive media coverage, much of what viewers are exposed to is male athletes and male sports (Trujillo, 1991). Messner and Cooky (2010) reported that the marginalization of women’s sports reinforces the notion that “sports are exclusively by, about, and for men” (p. 23). Additional research reinforces the notion that marginalizing the coverage of women not only impedes female athletes’ ability to gain an interested audience but also reinforces the idea that female athletes and sports are simply not as important as their male counterparts and therefore not deserving of the same attention (Adams & Tuggle, 2004; Davis & Tuggle, 2008; Eastman & Billings, 2001; Pedersen, 2003).

Framing and Gender

Hargreaves (1986) provides a conceptual definition of masculinity within sport by noting, “In sport, ‘masculine’ identity incorporates images of strength, aggression and muscularity, and it implies at the same time an opposite ‘feminine’ subjectivity associated with passivity, relative weakness, gentleness and grace” (p. 112). The use of the body and physicality became benchmarks in later research for defining if a sport was considered masculine or feminine. Koivula (2001) noted characteristics such as danger, risk, violence, speed, and strength defined masculine sports, whereas females were expected to display beauty, passiveness, emotion, and grace. As noted previously, when females participate in traditionally feminine or socially acceptable sports, they are more likely to be covered by the media. However, as Theberge (2000) stated, when a female athlete breaks from the norm or tradition of a gender-specific sport, the athlete is at risk of being labeled a “lesbian” or “dyke,” and media coverage drops.

Along these lines, Klomsten, Marsh, and Skaalvik (2005) noted that “the female body continues to be identified as an object; girls and women are also socialized to use their bodies to please others and to compare their appearance to that of the dominant feminine ideal” (p. 626). Kilbourne (1999) argued that the corruptive nature of media content in general, but more specifically advertising, creates a worldview by which a female is seen as an object first, a subject second, or not at all. Framing theory establishes that the framer has more agency than those being framed, thereby the theoretical connection between framing and hegemonic masculinity is that those framing female athletes through commentary and visual coverage of them will do so with a lens that keeps female athletes with less power in the venue of sport. One of the ways this power balance has been maintained is via the framing of female athletes in a way that showcases or highlights femininity. Attractiveness, emotionality, femininity, and heterosexuality are a few traditional markers of gender representation; through an emphasis on these attributes via media coverage of female athletes, the effect on viewers could be that female athletes are noted for these characteristics over their athleticism (Knight & Giuliano, 2001).

Sexist language exists within sports media and serves to reiterate gender-specific stereotypes (Bissell & Duke, 2007). Commentary during women’s sporting events that focuses on the athlete’s body, physical traits, or attire create an image of a woman first, athlete second (Higgs et al., 2003; Weiller et al., 2004). Daddario and Wigley (2007) found the commentators of the 2004 Olympic broadcasts engaged in gender marking, framing female athletes by their family roles, emotional states, and by selectively applying masculine descriptors to successful female athletes. Not only has analysis of commentary revealed differences across gender, analysis of visual coverage suggests differences by gender are often found in comparative studies of men’s and women’s sports.

Visually, there has been a criticism in the difference in production values when men and women play the same sports. Research examining the National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball tournaments has found the men’s games to be produced in a more exciting manner than the women’s games with more camera shots and graphics (Hallmark & Armstrong, 1999). Greer, Hardin, and Homan (2010) called the visual production of the men’s track and field coverage from the 2004 Olympic Games more visually exciting than the women’s coverage through the utilization of more camera shots, camera angles, and special effects. Stark differences in production values can communicate to the viewer that one game is worthy of more interest and attention.

Hegemony, Gender, and Sport

Drawing from earlier scholars (Brod, 1987; Connell, 1990; Hanke, 1990; Kaufman, 1987; Kimmel, 1987) concerned with the oppressive, stealthy pressures of masculinity in mediated representations, Trujillo (1991) argued that the hegemonic nature of particular portrayals of masculinity mask structured de-enfranchisement through appearances of normative or natural occurrences. Within normative portrayals of hegemonic masculinity, representations of gender highlight the struggles between these oppressive forces and the disempowered. As Trujillo (1991) noted, “perhaps no single American institution has influenced our sense of masculinity more than sport” (p. 292). Through ritualized sporting traditions and modern mediated gatekeeping, masculinity has become interwoven into the fabric of manhood, athleticism, and righteousness that is seldom questioned. Thus, establishing that some traits, such as athletic prowess or a pioneering spirit, are “natural” in men while gentleness, emotionality, and maternal instinct are “normal” for women places pressure on individuals of each gender to display attributes that might not fit, while placing people into an artificial, rigidly enforced binary (Butler, 1990).

Situations such as athletic performances from women expose these gender binaries as arbitrary, contrived, and oppressive, which reduces the power of hegemonic masculinity. Discovering an example of hegemony that disempowers causes a shift when those power structures adjust to reclaim hegemonic dominance. Bissell and Duke (2007) found limited evidence of commentary that emphasized the appearance or sexuality of the female players in their analysis of women’s beach volleyball from the 2004 Olympic Games; however, the visual coverage offered a different perspective because of the camera shots that focused on the athletes’ body parts. Therefore, the fluid nature of hegemonic masculinity calls for constant revisitation to the arenas of disenfranchisement.

As results from past research (Bissell & Duke, 2007; Daddario & Wigley, 2007) highlight, broadcast coverage of the 2004 women’s beach volleyball suggests that female athletes were spoken about and videotaped in a way that emphasized gender differences and highlighted femininity. However, much changed in the media landscape between the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games, and the women’s team of May Traynor and Walsh was even more popular and well known by viewing audiences around the world. We therefore advance research questions that address media coverage of men’s and women’s beach volleyball during the 2008 Olympic Games.

Research Question 1: How did sports announcers describe the athletic performance of the men’s and women’s beach volleyball athletes during the summer 2008 Olympic Games?

Research Question 2: What differences were evident in the commentary between the men’s and women’s games in the discussion of physical attributes or athletic skill?

Research Question 3: What differences were evident in the visual coverage of the men’s and women’s beach volleyball games?

Method

Procedures

Content analysis was used to analyze NBC’s primetime coverage of men’s and women’s beach volleyball during the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. The purpose of this project was to analyze the play-by-play commentary, color analysis, and visual coverage of the U.S. women’s gold medal team of Misty May Traynor and Kerri Walsh and the men’s gold medal team of Todd Rogers and Phil Dalhausser. In analyzing commentary of games for the men and the women, five games were coded for each team.

The present study is one part of a longitudinal study analyzing media coverage of women’s beach volleyball in the Olympic Games between 2004 and 2012. The coding procedures employed in the present study were the ones used in a previously published study of the 2004 games (Bissell & Duke, 2007). The 2004 study used coding categories developed by Billings and Eastman (2003) and Billings, Halone, and Denham (2002). The Billings and Eastman (2003) taxonomy was utilized as it is still a standard in coding gender (see Angelini & Billings, 2010). Using these procedures and coding categories, the on-air speech of beach volleyball commentators during game play was analyzed. All commentary was analyzed from the start of the network’s coverage of beach volleyball (prior to the first serve) to the end of the game (showing players’ celebration after a win), before the network cutaway to the host and transitioned to coverage of another sport. It is important to note that the commentators for the men’s and women’s games for both the 2004 and 2008 games were the same. Thus, it is possible that findings from the present study are more reflective of the broadcasting team’s approach to covering the sport. One of the color commentators—Karch Kiraly—is a former beach volleyball player and has covered the men’s and women’s circuit for more than a decade, and thus, we could argue he is very familiar with the sport, the athletes, and the important language to use when calling a game.

Play-by-play and color commentary were coded using recorded video of all games. The unit of analysis was play between each serve, meaning all commentary from the start of one serve to the start of another serve was coded. This unit of analysis allowed for the play-by-play commentary to be coded, and then after the point was over and the players were moving on the court or switching sides, the commentary going on before the ball was put into play was considered “between-play” commentary. In short, all comments made while the game was in progress were coded. Visual coverage of the game was coded by analyzing several aspects of the video shot—the court shot (how much of the court was visible), the camera shot (once the camera was on a player, how much of the player’s body was visible), and zoom shots (whether the camera went from a wider shot to a tighter shot or the reverse), and then these same elements were examined in all video replays. A coding sheet was constructed using coding categories created by and similar to Billings and Eastman (2003), but a few of the coding categories were modified based on the nature of the sport under investigation. Coding practice was done on an early game between Australia and Russia for an overall intercoder reliability score of .88 using Cohen’s κ. After this score was obtained, 20% of the U.S. games were coded by all researchers, and intercoder reliability was run again. Intercoder reliability on the portion of the sample examined by both coders was .91 again using Cohen’s κ. When intercoder reliability was run on individual variables, the highest agreement was found for coding categories such as game sequence, opponent, and other similar variables that remained the same over the course of the game. The lowest agreement came in the more subjective areas of the coding sheet, but more specifically with the coding categories of Background 1, Background 2, mental/cognitive, and leadership. While reliability on these categories started out low during the practice phase of the coding, more detailed descriptions were added to the coding sheet so that all coders would be able to understand exactly how to code each comment. The coding categories were mutually exclusive, and when the final intercoder reliability was run, the lowest reliability score was a .72 with most ranging between .85 and .99. It is important to note that tremendous amounts of coding practice were completed on non-U.S. games in order to refine the coding categories and ensure instrument reliability.

Coding Categories

Broadcast commentary was analyzed by coding the following: game status (preliminary pool games, round of 16, round of 8, semifinal, final); team gender (men, women); game sequence (first of three, second of three, third of three); broadcast announcer gender (male, female); play-by-play commentary, which included commentary from the start of the serve to the end of the point; play-by-play commentary valence (positive, negative, neutral); between-play commentary, which included all commentary made from the time the point was over until the next serve began; who the statement was made about (Walsh, May, both women, Rogers, Dalhausser, both men, other team, general comments, other team in competition but not currently playing, or other person/player not competing); between-play valence (positive, negative, neutral); camera shot; body shot; camera angle; and replay shots.

Broadcast comments (play by play and between serve) were coded into 1 of the 14 categories: physical/behavioral (comments about individual players, “springs off the sand”); mental/cognitive (comments about intelligence, mental skill, “reads the line well”); affective (comments about hard work/effort, determination, “pushes herself through pain,”); dominance (comments about the team as a whole rather than individual players, and comments related to a combination of attributes above); leadership (i.e., “strong leader”); Background 1 (commentary about an athlete’s background related to personal or family issues in the past); Background 2 (commentary as it relates to health, physical issues, training, practice or issues with the health/training, etc., in the past); game play (comments made regarding specific play, i.e., “Walsh serves,”); game comments (comments related to the game but not specific play calling, comments updating viewers on the score of current or earlier game); other team (all comments related to the other team); personal information (comments made regarding current personal life of an athlete); looks/sexuality (comments about body shape, physical attributes); attire (comments specifically regarding the attire worn by athletes during play); and other.

While one objective of this project was to analyze the commentary during team USA’s beach volleyball play, analysis of the visual coverage of the game was also important. Therefore, four visual aspects coded were court shot (full court, half court, medium shot of players, tight shot of players, zoom, or others [fans, etc.]); camera angle (full body visible, waist up visible, chest up visible, chest only shot, buttocks shot, face shot, other); zoom shot (wide to tight on court, tight to wide on court, move up body, tight to wide on player, wide to tight on player, player to player); number of replays (the number of replays during any unit of analysis); during a replay, the court shot and camera angle were coded using the same categories listed above.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The broadcast coverage of the 10 games resulted in analyzing 5 hr, 33 min, and 13 s worth of game time of the men’s and women’s team USA play. During the course of 10 beach volleyball games between the men and women for team USA, a total of 2,835 comments were coded into one of 14 coding categories.

In sum, a majority of the play-by-play comments for both teams were related to the calling of the game and updates on the score. However, as will be discussed in greater depth below, a larger percentage of comments not specifically related to game calling were found in the between-play commentary. The researchers also analyzed the visual coverage of the game. In sum, 2,659 court shots and 2,047 camera shots were coded between the men’s and women’s games.

RQ1 addressed the way announcers described the men’s and women’s beach volleyball games. A total of 2,835 comments were coded and analyzed during play and between play over the course of the games for both teams. Of the 1,358 comments coded during all games while the ball was in play, 54% of the comments were coded as game comments and 25% were coded as game commentary. Another 8% of the comments were coded as “personal” and 3% were coded as being about physical or behavioral attributes of the players. The remaining comments were coded as being about background, dominance, mental/cognitive, about the other team or other.

Overall, there were more comments made between play after the point had been won, and in this case, the content of the commentary also shifted. Of the 1,477 total comments coded after the point was over, 39% were coded as game commentary and another 25% were coded as personal. Another 7% of the comments were made about the team in terms of being descriptive with regard to their physical/behavioral skills and another 5% of the comments were about the team’s dominance during the game. It was between-play comments where more discussion about a player’s background was made (5%), and it is where the few comments about attire were made (3%).

When it came down to the differences in the total number of comments made about the male and female athletes, a chi-square analysis revealed a significantly greater number of comments for women (χ² = 98.75, N = 2,835, p = .001) across the broadcasts. For example, the women’s team received the greater amount—approximately 60% of all comments. It is important to note that the women’s team received more airtime than the men’s team, so the higher percentage of comments about the women’s team is not unexpected. Given the popularity of women’s beach volleyball and the popularity of the women’s team, it is quite possible May Traynor and Walsh were extended privilege over the men’s team not only in the commentary but also in the airtime received. While this possible privilege might explain why the women’s team had significantly more coverage, it would not necessarily explain the type of commentary received. Thus, specific comments and the valence of those comments made about both teams were analyzed.

Another way to examine the way the respective games were called was to analyze the valence of all comments. When the game was in play, 78% of the comments were coded as neutral; 10% of the play-by-play comments were negative, and 12% of the comments were positive. In most cases, the negative comments made during play were often made in reference to a member of the opposing team who might have made a poor shot or a poor decision during game play. However, the commentary was also negative about the male athletes while the ball was in play, meaning there were more negatively valenced comments about their physicality, their dominance, or their mental toughness. On the flip side of it, there were more positively valenced comments in the same coding categories during the play by play for the female athletes. In examining the comments made between play, 80% of the comments were coded as neutral; 5% were coded as negative, and 15% were coded as positive. As the commentary shifted from game calling or game play to a player’s background or a player’s personal style, a slight shift in valence was found.

RQ2 examined how the commentary about physical attributes varied across the two teams. When the coding categories related to physical attributes (physical/behavioral, looks/sexuality, and attire) were combined, a slightly different picture emerged when comparing commentary about the two teams. During the play-by-play calling, 5% of the total comments were made with regard to the men’s physical attributes whereas 14% of the total comments were made related to the women’s physical attributes (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Total Play-by-Play Commentary for the Men’s and Women’s Beach Volleyball.

Commentary Type	Men	Women
Physical	61	57
Mental	14	15
Affective	0	2
Dominance	17	57
Leadership	1	0
Personal background	7	28
Training background	34	38
Game Play	35	35
Game comments	225	345
Other team	162	203
Personal information	1	4
Looks	32	19
Attire	2	14
Other	33	31
Total play-by-play comments	624	848

Note. N = 1,477.

Twenty separate chi-square tests were run examining the specific type of comment by gender. Table 2 shows significant results from the first play-by-play comment for both the men’s and women’s games. The findings suggest that while much of the commentary was related to the general calling of the game while the ball was in play, the commentators tended to provide more detail about individual player’s physical, mental, or leadership attributes and also tended to elaborate on players’ personal backgrounds, looks, and attire.

Table 2.

First Play-by-Play Comments With Significance, Men’s and Women’s Games.

Commentary Type	Men	Women
In play
Mental toughness	χ² = 3.50, N = 17, p = .048
Dominance		χ² = 3.80, N = 21, p = .038
Looks	χ² = 9.23, N = 38, p = .001
Between play
Physicality	χ² = 7.11, N = 118, p = .005
Dominance		χ² = 8.90, N = 74, p = .002
Personal backgrounds		χ² = 5.78 N = 35, p = .011
Attire		χ² = 5.00, N = 16, p = .019

Of the 155 first between-play comments coded as being about a physical attribute of a female player or the women’s team, 64% were coded as being about looks or attire compared to 23% for the men. This simply suggests that as soon as the point was over and commentary began between play, the announcers were more likely to discuss the female athletes’ looks first followed by discussions about their play. There was little question about the athleticism, agility, or speed of the women’s team, so the findings simply suggest that it might have been easier for the announcers to default to discussion about the female players’ looks and/or attire.

RQ3 addressed how the visual coverage of the men’s and women’s games differed. Given that the air time between the men’s and women’s games was not equitable, it is difficult to discuss statistical differences as the women’s team had more air time than the men’s team. However, a few differences within the camera and court shots are notable. In coding the visual representation of broadcast coverage of both the men’s and women’s beach volleyball games, several different types of court shots and camera angles were coded. Table 3 breaks down the total court shots and percentages of each shot for the men’s and women’s games. Table 4 breaks down the camera shots and percentages of each for the men’s and women’s games.

Table 3.

Visual Coverage of Men’s and Women’s Beach Volleyball.

Court Shot	Male	Percentage of Total Shots: Male (%)	Female	Percentage of Total Shots: Female (%)	Percentage of Total Shots (%)
Full court	140	15	151	11	11
Half court	225	24	345	25	21
Medium shot of player	101	11	146	11	9
Tight shot of player	544	58	760	56	49
Zoom shot	80	9	127	9	7
Court shot—other	16	2	24	2	1
Total court shots	931		1,368

Note. N = 2,659.

Table 4.

Camera Shots of Men’s and Women’s Beach Volleyball.

Camera shot	Male	Percentage of Total Shots: Male (%)	Female	Percentage of Total Shots: Female (%)	Percentage of Total Shots (%)
Full body	290	35	499	41	39
Waist up	200	24	219	18	20
Chest up	256	31	302	25	27
Chest only	2	<1	7	1	<1
Butt only	0	<1	7	1	<1
Face	71	9	146	12	11
Other	14	2	34	3	2
Total camera shot	833		1,214

Note. N = 2,047.

Findings suggest that the type of court shot used was roughly equal across five games for the men and the women. Even though there were more total court shots of women (1,368 compared to 931), the percentage of tight shots of players on the court was very similar. Despite similar percentages of the type of court shot of the two teams, some differences in the camera angles used were found, notably more full body and face shots of the women. Furthermore, it was also in the camera angles that were focused more on specific body parts where slight differences were found, with more chest only and butt only shots being found for the women. While statistical evidence does not allow us to draw conclusions regarding the visual coverage of the men’s and women’s beach volleyball games, we will note some more qualitative findings below.

Discussion

This study represents a content analysis of 10 beach volleyball games for the men’s and women’s team USA during the 2008 Summer Games. Using earlier work examining the presence or absence of gender inequities in mediated coverage of sport in general, the goal was to identify if or how coverage of beach volleyball might still reinforce gender inequities or gender difference. Findings from an analysis of more than 5½ hours of playing time suggest that little difference in coverage was evident based on the manifest content coded.

As earlier studies have documented, much has been made of the female players’ in all sports physical appearance, level of fitness, exposed skin, attire and emotional outbursts on a court, or field across sport. Furthermore, earlier analysis of coverage of women’s sports or female athletes in print media suggest that sports reporters have often taken many liberties in discussing a female athlete’s height, weight, dress size, hairstyle, or outfit; these descriptions help separate the women from the men. As noted in the observational analysis section, commentators found subtle ways to describe the female athletes more by their gender and less by their status as athletes; however, it is important to note this type of commentary was neither universal nor reflective of a majority of the coverage. When examining the comments about looks and attire more closely, a different picture emerges. Kerri Walsh had special kinesiology tape on her left shoulder for most of the games, and commentators talked a lot about her injury and how the tape was functioning in helping support her shoulder. There was also a discussion about Roger Dalhausser’s hair style. The commentators made several comments about his decision to shave his head, and his worry over if it would look good. Even though both comments were coded as “looks/attire,” it could be argued that the discussion of Walsh’s attire was more clinical, and the discussion of Dalhausser’s looks was more superficial.

While the statistical findings from the present study do not support the presence of coverage differences by gender, it is possible the differences were present in other areas of coverage not included in the present study. For example, post-game interviews were not included in this study’s analysis, but if they had been, we might have noted more discussion of family, more discussion of “traditional” female or feminine traits and characteristics, and a de-emphasis on the female as athlete or the female as powerful and strong. Trujillo (1991) discusses the five features of hegemonic masculinity in American culture and says that “physical force and control” (p. 291) are one of those key features. While both teams won gold medals in the 2008 games, the post-game interviews with the women’s team often focused on topics outside of the realm of sport whereas the post-game interviews with the men’s team often were centered on the team’s dominance and control of the game. According to Trujillo (1991), viewing the women’s team in a context outside of sport is the easiest way to maintain the balance of male dominance or power in the venue of playing field.

The greatest difference between coverage of the team USA men and team USA women’s games was the amount of time allotted to coverage of the games. More time was allotted to coverage of the women’s games, even though the men spent more time on court in order to advance, that is, the men had to play three sets during a particular game before winning. Yet, the percentage of comments in each of the 14 categories was roughly equal across gender. Even though a large percentage of overall commentary was coded as comments about the game or game play, when comments in the other coding categories were examined, very similar percentages of comments about physicality, mental toughness, leadership, and background were found among the two teams.

Based on observations from Kilbourne and Jhally (2000), the lack of framing of Walsh and May Traynor in feminine terms during play may be due to their past athletic success as their past success and current domination on the beach volleyball court might have elevated them to a level that put them beyond objectification. However, this is not a unique example of successful female athletes being described in masculine terms; during the 1996 Olympic Games, both the synchronized swimming team and the female swimmers were described using terms of power and strength (Billings & Eastman, 1999; Higgs et al., 2003). Much like May Traynor and Walsh, the 1996 female Olympic swimmers, as well as the 1996 synchronized swimming team enjoyed unparalled success, and as Daddario and Wigley (2007) noted, “winning is an antidote for every ill” (p. 40). What this study, and past studies, may show is that successful female athletes may be extended a certain amount of power and privilege in the way they are framed. What past studies have shown that this examination does not is the presence of the feminine apologetic to atone for that granting of power. As noted above, if this analysis had included post-game interviews, a de-emphasis on May Traynor and Walsh as powerful and strong may have been found.

While the findings reported here were largely unexpected and certainly not in line with what has been found in earlier studies that compared coverage of men’s and women’s sports, the findings do suggest that the analysis of coverage of this relatively new and wholly different sport contribute to and advance our understanding of the way gender is represented in sports media. While difference or inequities based on gender were not found in the broadcast coverage of the games, it could be in other areas where the differences can be found. The announcers did mention the personal backgrounds of the players and even though announcers did discuss the attire of players and some characteristics that could be considered more feminine or more masculine, when examined in the context of the large number of comments made, these references that were more about the person and less about the athlete were relatively low in number. However, these may be the types of comments viewers remembered the most. The “human interest” commentary about the female athletes’ families or personal lives may be what resonated more with the viewers, even if those comments were few in number.

Framing theory, as it has been used in relation to gender and sport, could assist the interpretation of the findings from this study in offering a better understanding of how female athletes are placed in a specific context in sport broadcasts and commentary. Such knowledge of the concepts allow these results to be even more supported, but in a different way than found with past research. However, while the findings of the present study do not run parallel to what’s been found in the past, the application of the theoretical framework is still relevant—the effect of the findings can have a direct correlation to other aspects of society’s stereotypes of male and female athletes. What makes these results significant is the potential effect of embedded biases, and the potential effect of inappropriate stereotypes on society (Wenner, 1989).

A good deal of research tells us that we should expect to see gender biases in sport in general (Duncan, 1990; Messner, Duncan, & Jensen, 1993), in media coverage of sport (Billings et al, 2002), and in the commentary of women’s sport (Bissell & Duke, 2007; Daddario & Wigley, 2007). If we continue to see such biases in coverage of other women’s sports, we will continue to influence future expectations and stunt positive changes to society. The findings from the present study cannot necessarily be generalized to coverage of all women’s sports, and it is possible the finding cannot be generalized beyond the two teams included in the present study. However, as noted above, a similar phenomenon of describing female athletes as powerful has been found in other sports (see Billings & Eastman, 1999; Higgs et al., 2003). With that being said, it is important to note that for many viewers, exposure to women’s beach volleyball may come only through mediated coverage of the games during the Olympics. Therefore, if viewers’ perceptions of the sport and the athletes who play the sport are shaped via the framing of the sport from commentators and visual coverage, it is quite possible viewers’ perceptions might be skewed.

Limitations

While the current study represents an analysis of all team USA’s men’s and women’s games during the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, some content—verbal and visual—may still have been missed given the use of the specific coding categories. Since a large percentage of the commentary was coded as game play or game commentary, it is recognized that these categories could have been expanded so that greater description could be provided on the actual analysis of commentary. Additionally, because the court shots and camera angles were not coded in conjunction with a specific comment, some interpretation may be lost with regard to the camera shot or camera angle used with specific comments. We also note that a rhetorical analysis of the same content might yield different results. The present study adds to the present body of knowledge by adding to previous studies of women’s beach volleyball. It is only through a long-term lens that we can better understand the ways commentators and video producers can shape the way viewers see and interpret sport.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

Tuggle

C. A.

(2004). ESPN’s SportsCenter and coverage of women’s athletics: “It’s a boys’ club.” Mass Communication & Society, 7, 237–248.

Angelini

J. R.

Billings

A. C.

(2010). An agenda that sets the frames: Gender, language, and NBC’s Americanized Olympic telecast. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 363–385.

Associated Press. (2008). Olympics ratings: 4.7 billion people worldwide [Electronic Version]. The Huffington Post. Retrieved October 25, 2008, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/olympics-ratings-47-billi_n_124337.html

Billings

A. C.

(2004). Depicting the quarterback in black and white: A content analysis of college and professional football broadcast commentary. Howard Journal of Communications, 15, 201–210.

Billings

A. C.

Angelini

J. R.

Eastman

S. T.

(2005). Diverging discourses: Gender differences in televised golf announcing. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 155–171.

Billings

A. C.

Eastman

S. T.

(1999). Gender parity in the Olympics: Hyping women athletes, favoring men athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 23, 140–170.

Billings

A. C.

Eastman

S. T.

(2003). Framing identities: Gender, ethnic, and national parity in network announcing of the 2002 winter Olympics. Journal of Communication, 53, 569–586.

Billings

A. C.

Halone

K. K.

Denham

B. E.

(2002). “Man, that was a pretty shot”: An analysis of gendered broadcast commentary surrounding the 2000 men’s and women’s NCAA final four basketball championships. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 295–315.

Bissell

K. L.

Duke

A. M.

(2007). Bump, set, spike: An analysis of commentary and camera angles of women’s beach volleyball during the 2004 summer Olympics. Journal of Promotion Management, 13, 35–53.

10.

Brod

(Eds.). (1987). The making of masculinity: The new men’s studies. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

11.

Butler

(1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

12.

Connell

R. W.

(1990). Which way is up? Essays on sex, class, and culture. Sydney, Australia: George Allan and Unwin.

13.

Daddario

(1994). Chilly scenes of the 1992 winter games: The mass media and the marginalization of female athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, 275–288.

14.

Daddario

Wigley

B. J.

(2007). Gender marking and racial stereotyping at the 2004 Athens games. Journal of Sports Media, 2, 29–51.

15.

Davis

K. K.

Tuggle

C. A.

(2008, August). A gender analysis of NBC’s coverage of the 2008 summer Olympics. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA.

16.

Duncan

M. C.

(1990). Sport photographs and sexual difference: Images of women and men in the 1984 and 1988 Olympic games. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7, 22–43.

17.

Eastman

S. T.

Billings

A. C.

(2001). Biased voices of sports: Racial and gender stereotyping in college basketball announcing. Howard Journal of Communications, 12, 183–220.

18.

Fink

J. S.

Kensicki

L. J.

(2002). An imperceptible difference: Visual and textual constructions of femininity in sports illustrated and sports illustrated for women. Mass Communication and Society, 5, 317–339.

19.

Fitzgerald

(2008). Beijing: Most-watched event of all time [Electronic Version]. Media Life. Retrieved October 24, 2008, from http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/Sports_TV_52/Beijing_Most-watched_event_of_all_time.asp

20.

Gitlin

(1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.

21.

Greer

J. D.

Hardin

Homan

(2010). “Naturally” less exciting? Visual production of men’s and women’s track and field coverage during the 2004 Olympics. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 53, 173–189.

22.

Hallmark

J. R.

Armstrong

R. N.

(1999). Gender equity in televised sports: A comparative analysis of men’s and women’s NCAA division I basketball championship broadcasts, 1991–1995. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 43, 222–235.

23.

Hanke

(1990). Hegemonic masculinity in thirtysomething. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 231–248.

24.

Hardin

Lynn

Walsdorf

Hardin

(2002). The framing of sexual difference in SI for Kids editorial photos. Mass Communication & Society, 5, 341–359.

25.

Hargreaves

J. A.

(1986). Where’s the virtue? Where’s the grace? A discussion of the social production of gender relations in and through sport. Theory, Culture & Society, 3, 109–121.

26.

Higgs

C. T.

Weiller

K. H.

Martin

S. B.

(2003). Gender bias in the 1996 Olympic games: A comparative analysis. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27, 52–64.

27.

Kaufman

(Ed.). (1987). Beyond patriarchy: Essays by men on pleasure, power, and change. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.

28.

Kilbourne

(1999). Deadly persuasion: Why women and girls must fight the addictive power of advertising. New York, NY: Free Press.

29.

Kilbourne

(Producer), Jhally

(Director). (2000). Killing us softly 3: Advertising images of women [videorecording]. Retrieved from Media Education Foundation website: http:/www.mediaed.org

30.

Kinnick

(1998). Gender bias in newspaper coverage of the 1996 Olympic games: A content analysis of five major dailies. Women’s Studies in Communications, 21, 212–237.

31.

Kimmel

M. S.

(1987). Rethinking ‘masculinity’: New directions in research. In Kimmel

M. S.

(Ed.), Changing men: New directions in research on men and masculinity (pp. 235–249). Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press.

32.

Klomsten

A. T.

Marsh

H. W.

Skaalvik

E. M.

(2005). Adolescents’ perceptions of masculine and feminine values in sport and physical education: A study of gender differences. Sex Roles, 52, 625–636.

33.

Knight

J. L.

Giuliano

T. A.

(2001). He’s a laker; She’s a “looker”: The consequences of gender stereotypical portrayals of male and female athletes by the print media. Sex Roles, 45, 217–230.

34.

Knight

J. L.

Giuliano

T. A.

(2003). Blood, sweat, and jeers: The impact of the media’s heterosexist portrayals on perceptions of male and female athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 272–285.

35.

Koivula

(2001). Perceived characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminine, and masculine. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 377–393.

36.

Messner

M. A.

Cooky

(2010). Gender in televised sports: News and highlight shows, 1989–2009. Center for Feminist Research. Retrieved October 23, 2011, from https://dornsifecms.usc.edu/assets/sites/80/docs/tvsports.pdf

37.

Messner

M. A.

Duncan

M. C.

Jensen

(1993). Separating the men from the girls: The gendered language of televised sports. Gender and Society, 7, 121–137.

38.

Pedersen

P. M.

(2003). Examining stereotypical written and photographic reporting on the sports page: An analysis of newspaper coverage of interscholastic athletics. Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal, 12, 67–75.

39.

Tankard

J. W.

(2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In Reese

S. D.

Gandy

O. H.

Grant

A. E.

(Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 95–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Theberge

(2000). Gender and sport. In Coakley

Dunning

(Eds.), Handbook of Sport Studies (pp. 322–333). London, England: Sage.

41.

Trujillo

(1991). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of Nolan Ryan and American sports culture. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8(3), 290–308.

42.

Weiller

K. H.

Higgs

C. T.

Greenleaf

(2004). Analysis of television media commentary of the 2000 Olympic games. Media Report to Women, 32, 14–21.

43.

Wenner

L. A.

(1989). Media, sports, and society: The research agenda. In Wenner

L. A.

(Ed.), MediaSport (pp. 134–153). New York, NY: Routledge.