Media Bias in Portrayal of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Leading Television

Home , Clinton family, Victoria Woodhull

Networks During 2008 Democratic Nomination Race

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Scripps College of Communication of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

Arman Tarjimanyan

May 2014

This thesis titled

Media Bias in Portrayal of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Leading Television

Networks During 2008 Democratic Nomination Race

ARMAN TARJIMANYAN

has been approved for

the E. W. Scripps School of Journalism

and the Scripps College of Communication by

Michael Sweeney

Professor of Journalism

Scott Titsworth

Dean, Scripps College of Communication

ii ABSTRACT

TARJIMANYAN, ARMAN, M.S., May 2014, Journalism

Media Bias in Portrayal of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Leading Television

Networks During 2008 Democratic Nomination Race

Director of Thesis: Michael Sweeney

The study researched the employment of traditional gender and racial frames and stereotypes by major news media agencies in the coverage of Democratic Party’s process of picking a presidential nominee in 2007-2008. The study analyzed coverage of the

Democratic nomination process broadcast on the Big Three television networks: ABC,

CBS, and NBC from September 3, 2007 until Hillary Clinton’s decision to withdraw from the race on June 7, 2008. Results show that in their coverage television networks used gender stereotypes and frames, and at the same time refrained from using racial stereotypes and frames. The study concluded that gender frames and stereotypes used in the coverage of Hillary Clinton had negatively affected Clinton’s popularity and perception by the public.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am very thankful to the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism, within the walls of which I have grown professionally and personally. The experience I had in Scripps, and its wonderful teachers and classmates, have made an enormous impact on my life. The access to academic resources provided by the school played a crucial role for this study.

I want to thank my academic advisor Doctor Michael Sweeney, whose reviews and comments in this work allowed me to develop this research into a completed thesis, and whose support enabled me to complete this study.

I also want to thank my professor Doctor Carson B Wagner, every conversation with whom gave me new inspiration, opened for me new horizons in science and afforded me considerable food for thought.

Most importantly, I want to thank Doctor Joseph Bernt – the teacher I would like to become one day – who has read and reviewed this thesis and whose advice guided me in the world of science for several years.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Abstract ...... iii Acknowledgments...... iv List of Tables ...... vi Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 3 Portrayal of Women Political Leaders ...... 4 First Lady ...... 11 Hillary Rodham Clinton ...... 15 Frames and Stereotypes ...... 19 Chapter 3: Research Questions and Hypotheses ...... 25 Chapter 4: Method ...... 27 Chapter 5: Findings ...... 29 Descriptive Results ...... 29 Comparative Results ...... 34 Other Findings ...... 45 Chapter 6: Discussion ...... 47 Research Question 1 ...... 48 Research Question 2 ...... 50 Research Question 3 ...... 51 Hypothesis 1 ...... 52 Hypotheses 2 and 3 ...... 54 Gender and Adoption of Industry Standards ...... 55 Chapter 7: Notes on Qualitative Analysis ...... 56 Portrayal of Barack Obama ...... 56 Portrayal of Hillary Clinton ...... 58 Chapter 8: Conclusion and Limitations ...... 63 References ...... 66 Appendix A: Sample Coding Page ...... 77 Appendix B: Codebook...... 79

v LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Coverage of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Primary Campaigns ...... 30

Table 2: Use of Frames, Stereotypes, and Political Issues ...... 31

Table 3: Types of Sources...... 32

Table 4: Video Context Surrounding Candidate ...... 34

Table 5: Candidates’ Physical Qualities Mentioned / Date ...... 35

Table 6: Selection of Sources and Sources’ Gender / Date ...... 36

Table 7: Presence of Family, Portrayal of Candidate as Vulnerable, and Portrayal of

Candidate with Supporters / Date ...... 37

Table 8: Main Character of News Report and Candidate who Speaks Directly in News

Report / Date ...... 38

Table 9: Candidates’ Physical Qualities Mentioned, “The First” Frame, and “Change”

Frame Used / Reporter’s Gender ...... 39

Table 10: Selection of Source and Source’s Gender / Reporter’s Gender ...... 40

Table 11: Candidate Appeared with Family and Candidate Appeared with Symbols of

Authority / Reporter’s Gender ...... 41

Table 12: Physical Qualities and Appearance Mentioned / Candidate ...... 42

Table 13: Use of “Change” Frame / Candidate’s Support ...... 43

Table 14: Gender of the Source and Main Topic of News Report / Candidate ...... 44

Table 15: Candidates Portrayed as Vulnerable and with Symbols of Authority ...... 45

vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

In the middle of the 19th century, in New York City, members of the Children's

Aid Society decided to help women from poor families. The ideology adopted by these

“sincerely caring reformers” (Mitchell, 1993) was simple. It rested on the assumption that men and women have very different natures; and, while men should operate in the greater world of commerce and politics, women could only find happiness if they literally stayed in their homes. The solution to the problems of poor women in the framework of this ideology was not too sophisticated either: the “sincerely caring reformers” drove impoverished women off city streets, as their ideology cast women as morally superior beings with a primary duty to raise children.

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Politics and femininity are usually constructed as each other’s antithesis (Sreberny, 1999). Thus, for decades the iron law of politics was that the political arena was an exclusively masculine realm, where women were allowed to appear only as a spouse of the political figure. At the most, the public allowed women activists to address traditionally “soft” or feminine issues such as education or health care. At the same time, those rare women political figures who dared to trespass on established standards and to interfere in the masculine realm of economics, foreign policy, and defense were severely punished by public institutions, including mass media. Those women, who dared to insert themselves into political decision-making on issues seen as masculine, were framed either as heartless and flawed or as too soft to take on such issues.

In her memoir, Hillary Rodham Clinton described her reaction to her first political loss. During her senior year in high school in 1964-1965 when she ran for student

government president against several boys, one of them told her she was “really stupid” if she thought a girl could be elected president. She lost, and later, the winner asked her to head the Organizations Committee, which was expected to do most of the work. She agreed. Hillary Clinton has since learned how to navigate through the thorny issues of being a feminist and a politician.

This study analyzed how traditional gender frames and stereotypes were employed by major news media agencies in the coverage of Democratic Party’s process of picking a presidential nominee in 2007-2008. The study analyzed coverage of the

Democratic nomination process broadcast on the Big Three television networks: ABC,

CBS, and NBC. The study researched news broadcast from September 3, 2007 – one year prior to the Labor Day of 2008, which is usually considered an unofficial start of the presidential campaign – until Hillary Clinton’s decision to withdraw from the race on

June 7, 2008. The study also attempted to test a second-generation question, that is: whether different gender frames and stereotypes, including presumably “positive stereotypes,” negatively affected Clinton’s popularity and perception by the public.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Perhaps there are no political positions where gender stereotypes work more to women’s disadvantage than the “highly masculinized office of the presidency” (Heldman et al., 2005). Previous studies have shown that media treatment of women in politics was often unfair. Scholars supported the notion that gender hinders female politicians and that women encounter media resistance when they go beyond their usual political roles

(Devere & Davies, 2006; Devitt, 1999, 2002; Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991; Scharrer, 2002;

Wilson, 1997; Witt, Paget, & Matthews, 1995). Most studies examining the coverage of women candidates (Carroll & Schreiber, 1997; Kahn, 1994a; Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991) have found that women were depicted as more knowledgeable in “feminine issues” while being ignored on economics, defense, and foreign policy issues (Braden, 1996; Clawson

& Tom, 1999). Furthermore, news coverage of female political leaders more frequently mentioned their family, appearance, and fashion decisions than did coverage of male political leaders (Braden, 1996; Devitt, 1999; Gidengil & Everitt, 1999; Witt et al., 1995).

In contrast, the coverage of male candidates was more likely to suggest that men are more prepared and qualified for politics (Davis, 1982; Devitt, 1999; Jamieson, 1995). Those findings suggest that journalists hold preconceptions about women candidates that lead them to consider women to be less viable than their male counterparts (Kahn, 1996).

Thus, the role of the media is an important factor that may prove an obstacle for women at every level (Norris, 1996).

Portrayal of Women Political Leaders

A generation ago, in an analysis of popular music that was introduced over a time frame of thirty years, Cooper (1985) concluded that there was a tendency to describe women in terms of physical attributes or as evil, as possessions of men, or as dependent upon men. Today, there is still much evidence to argue that prejudices and stereotypical perceptions have not disappeared.

Although women have been running for office since the 19th century, and for the presidency since newspaper editor and women’s rights advocate Victoria Woodhull of

Ohio ran in 1872, women politicians are still viewed as significantly different than their male counterparts (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008). Research showed that media take women politicians less seriously and give them less attention (Huddy & Terkildsen,

1993a, 1993b; Kahn, 1994a, 1994b; Kahn and Goldenberg, 1991; Niven & Zilber, 2001).

At the same time, Robinson and Sheehan (1983) have found that it is particularly those candidates who have a good chance of winning the election who are held up to intense scrutiny by the media. In a content analysis of newspaper coverage in Iowa prior to the

August 1999 Republican straw poll, Bystrom (1999) found that Elizabeth Dole received less news coverage than George W. Bush and Steve Forbes. At the time, Dole was second to Bush in the polls, nationally and in Iowa, and Dole and Forbes had visited the state more often than Bush. Another study (Heldman, Carroll, & Olson, 2000) analyzing articles from the major papers section of Lexis-Nexis from March 12 through October 19,

1999 found that Dole received considerably less coverage than Bush and U.S. Sen. John

McCain. Again, during the period studied, Dole was second to Bush in the polls and had high favorability ratings.

News reports focus on personal traits of women and suggest that men are qualified and knowledgeable about the issues at hand (Devitt, 2002; Kahn, 1994a). The traits expected in a leader, such as assertiveness, ambition, and strength, are perceived as inappropriate for a woman (Devere and Davies, 2006). Furthermore, policy areas in which males are perceived as more skillful, such as defense or the economy, are regarded as more important for higher levels and types of office (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008).

At the same time, the portrait of women that emerges from the press suggests that they are less powerful and less weighty players in the political game (Carroll &

Schreiber, 1997; Clawson & Tom, 1999; Devitt, 1999; Niven & Zilber, 2001). Typical female policy competence issues include education, poverty, and health care (Heldman et al., 2005; Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993a, 1993b; Nacos, 2005). Deaux and Lewis (1984) found that women were perceived as more capable at dealing with the elderly because they were viewed as compassionate. Huddy and Terkildsen (1992) in their study found that assumptions about females’ sensitivity and warmth directly translated into views about their greater competence in handling issues such as education, health care, and poverty. Huddy and Terkildsen (1993) also found that voters perceived female candidates as less competent to handle the military, war, and the economy.

In an analysis of 26 Senate races in 1984 and 1986, Kahn and Goldenberg (1991) found that women were presented by the news media as less viable candidates and coverage focused more on “feminine” issues and traits than on general political issues. In

perpetuating these sorts of stereotypes, the news media further depicted women terrorists as interlopers in an utterly male domain (Nacos, 2005). Yet women have been among the leaders and followers of terrorist organizations throughout the history of modern terrorism. According to Nacos (2005, p. 435), a “comparison of the framing patterns in the news about women in politics and the entrenched stereotypes in the coverage of female terrorists demonstrates similarities in the depiction of these legitimate (women in politics) and illegitimate political actors (women in terrorism).”

Reporters also devoted more attention to the personal lives, personalities, and appearances of women compared with men and reinforced masculine and feminine stereotypes (Braden, 1996; Devitt, 1999; Kahn, 1996; Herzog, 1998; Robinson & Saint-

Jean, 1991). Men in politics were also more likely than women to be shown in family rather than employment settings (Coltrane & Adams, 1997). More recent study has shown that women on average received three times as many physical descriptions as their most equivalent male counterpart in news stories (Falk, 2008). These descriptions were often focused on the attire and appearance of the women. The age of women was more likely to be reported than was the age of a men, and the gender of all of the women “was heavily marked in the texts” (Falk, 2008).

In addition, Kahn noted (1996) news attention to campaign resources as an important element of campaign coverage. According to a study of Senate races (Kahn,

1996), the lack of resources is discussed by the media more frequently for female candidates. Thus, only 5% of the articles written about male candidates mention a lack of

resources, while twice the percentage of articles (10%) about female candidates discussed their scarcity of resources (Kahn, 1996).

Bretl and Cantor (1988), on the other hand, concluded that progress had been made from 1971 to 1985 in the presentation of women in U.S. television commercials.

Smith (1997) examined newspaper treatment of male and female candidates for Senate and gubernatorial seats in 11 races in 1994 and found roughly equal coverage in terms of quantity and tone, with only very slight differences that favored male candidates. The study of post-electoral coverage of women who were elected to Congress for the first time during 1992 (Carroll & Schreiber, 1997) showed that women received more media attention than one would normally expect first-term members of Congress to receive.

Sullivan and O'Connor (1988) showed more optimism about women’s portrayal in their analysis of advertisements appearing in eight general-interest periodicals during

November 1983. Compared with similar 1958 and 1970 studies, Sullivan and O'Connor found an increased propensity to depict women as employed; an increase in the portrayal of women in professional, managerial, and executive positions; an increase in the portrayal of independent, active women; and a decrease in the use of alluring female models to sell masculine products.

A few studies have questioned whether women politicians contribute to the existence of these gender stereotypes (Niven & Zilber, 2001). Kahn mentioned that gender differences in news coverage could reflect real differences in the campaigns of men and women. “Male and female candidates often adopt alternative strategies, stressing different themes and issues” in their electoral campaigns (Kahn, 1996).

Furthermore, there have been documented differences in issue priorities and voting records between women and men legislators (Berkman & O’Connor, 1993;

Mezey, 1994; Saint-Germain, 1989; Thomas, 1994). Other researchers argue that women not only vote differently than men but also approach the job of legislating differently than do their male colleagues (Kathlene, 1989, 1994, 1995; Rosenthal, 1997). In particular, women leaders are more likely to place an emphasis on reaching consensus (Kathlene,

1994; Rosenthal, 1997). Moreover, some women legislators report that they feel they have an obligation to step outside the boundaries of conventional male members’ concerns to advocate ideas that would otherwise be ignored (Dodson, 1998; Witt et al.,

1995). However, the analysis of congressional web sites offers little support for the assertion that women representatives are responsible for the stereotypes the media and voters hold of female members of Congress, and “while women do place a higher priority on compassion and women’s issues, this distinction is exaggerated by the media” (Niven

& Zilber, 2001, p. 402).

The results of research document how television programming reflects and transmits the social values of the prevailing culture and has a socializing influence on viewers (Bryant & Zillman, 2002). How news media portray elected women affects how public women are viewed (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008). As research has shown

(Dayhoff, 1983; Kahn, 1992; Kahn and Goldenberg, 1991), media coverage of women candidates can serve to undermine women’s credibility with voters. Gerbner et al. (1986) argue that the view of reality transmitted via television is far from “value free” and is inaccurate, with males outnumbering females three to one. Falk concluded (2008) that if,

for example, the press always mentions what women wear, this may convey the impression that women are not serious candidates.

The media can have a great impact on the public’s perceptions of women candidates and their campaigns “by portraying them as less viable and by describing them in terms of their image characteristics, rather than their issue stances” (Bystrom,

Robertson & Banwart, 2001, p. 2002; Kahn, 1996). According to Falk (2008), when reporters use certain words, frames, or labels rather than others they affect the associations of distinctions that may be drawn by the receiver. “By featuring gender or by differentiating between men and women, reporters will affect the thoughts of the reader.

The reporter’s discourse will be a factor in building the receivers’ mental representations of the world and therefore their understanding of the world,” noted Falk (2008, pp. 21-

22).

Indeed, generally, those who watch television more often tend to have more stereotypical views of gender (Milkie, 1994). Van Zoonen demonstrated that men have dominated the print and broadcast media at every level, and this is reflected in the masculine norms and conventions that govern news production and affects how gender discourse is “encoded” into media texts. Croteau and Hoynes (1992) mentioned that male domination of the media has resulted in the construction of an “ideal” male identity that marginalizes men who do not conform to the tough, macho stereotype.

At the same time, the gendered nature of news can be traced to the “gendered structure of news production” (van Zoonen, 1994, p. 43). Kahn also found some differences between men and women reporters. Thus, while newspapers prefer to focus

on “male” issues when covering men and women candidates for the U.S. Senate, women reporters are more likely to stress “feminine” issues in their coverage (Kahn, 1996).

In addition to gender differences in the amount of coverage, stereotypical views are likely to influence the substance of news coverage (Kahn, 1996). Thus, in her study

Norris found (1996) that the media stressed uniqueness of women leaders in the political arena. In many cases, “the first woman” frame was employed to emphasize the emergence of a woman leader in politics, a woman who won against the odds. Framing of the women in politics as “the first” probably contributed to the perception that women are unnatural (Falk, 2008) and marginal (Norris, 1996) in the political sphere. A woman politician “is defined by what she is not. She is not simply a politician (male as norm) but a special kind of deviant professional, a woman politician” (Sreberny & van Zoonen,

1999). Particularly, Falk (2008) concluded that the notion that women are somehow

“unnatural” in the public sphere but “natural” in the private sphere was one of the more enduring arguments against women’s full participation in elective politics found in press accounts of women seeking office.

In the introduction to her book Gender, Politics and Communication Annabel

Sreberny mentioned that it is not uncommon to see politics and femininity constructed as each other’s antithesis (Sreberny & van Zoonen, 1999). Significantly, these beliefs about women politicians commonly advanced by the news media are widely accepted by

American voters (Alexander & Andersen, 1993; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993a; Koch,

1999). Media frames of female politicians can be ascribed to a wider notion of gender

stereotypes, or general beliefs about men and women (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008).

Partially these beliefs were a legacy of the first lady’s image in U.S. history.

First Lady

Mayo (1993) traces a history of criticism of such powerful and politically active first ladies in the United States as Nellie Taft, Edith Bolling Wilson, and Florence

Harding, who were all viewed as the president’s closest adviser and received harsh scrutiny for surpassing traditional conceptions of acceptable roles. Much of the past media coverage of first ladies in the United States focused on their roles, with the assumption that, although there is no official role prescribed by the Constitution, there was an assumed role to which they needed to conform (Franklin, 2000). Winfield (1994) suggests that the press expects stereotypical “political wife” standards of the first lady, and when she does not conform, negative coverage ensues. Hostility in press coverage can result from challenges to traditional roles (Benze, 1990).

For more than two hundred years, the American media have both judged and relayed societal expectations about what is acceptable or not acceptable behavior for a first lady (Winfield, 1997a). While at least a few of the duties of the president of the

United States are outlined in the Constitution, the duties of their spouses are not formalized at all (Tien, Checchio, & Miller, 1999). However, unofficially the role of first lady is very rigidly defined in the United States (Templin, 1999).

Winfield (Winfield, 1997a) found that the framing conventions for the first lady tend to fall into four main categories. The earliest frame depicts the first lady primarily in an “escort” role: the wife is mentioned by virtue of accompanying her spouse, not

because of any independent function. The next most frequent frame adopted by the early press emphasized first ladies in their “protocol” role: leading fashionable society at social, ceremonial, and diplomatic events. In the twentieth century the press came to place increasing emphasis on the first ladies’ “noblesse oblige” role: charitable and good works concerned with orphanages, the homeless, or the poor, which represents a natural extension of women’s volunteer work in the community. Lastly, the press has also covered the first ladies’ “policy” role: helping to formulate, develop, and influence public policy issues.

Similarly, Gutin (quoted: Tien, Checchio, and Miller, 1999) argued convincingly that modern first ladies can be divided into three major types – based upon the role they sought for themselves and the time in which they lived. The first group includes the first ladies who treated the office largely as “ceremonial.” The second group is the

“spokeswoman.” The women in this category tended to adopt specific projects upon which to spend their time working. The final group is the “political surrogates and independent advocates.” Margaret Truman, daughter of Harry and Bess Truman, suggested that the American public has always expected and wanted the first lady to be a traditional wife and mother first. Any other interests, especially political ones, have usually been greeted with criticism (Tien, Checchio, and Miller, 1999).

Overall, Greer (1996) pointed out that the American first lady in recent years has been expected to play the role of “virtuoso housekeeper,” to run the residence and entertain visiting dignitaries. She is also expected to give press conferences, to make public appearances for charitable or public causes, and to stand beside her husband and

show her appreciation for him. However, among the most important of her functions, said

Greer, is to “[reassure] us as to the head of state’s active heterosexuality” (Templin,

1999).

According to Bem’s “lenses of gender” (Bem, 1993) certain filtering assumptions about sex and gender are embedded in Western culture and reflect a patriarchal view of society. These assumptions are: That men and women are fundamentally and essentially different, therefore, oppositional; that men are the dominant sex; and that these conditions are “natural,” therefore prescriptive. These lenses, Bem argued, are superimposed on perceptions of persons in public life, or on personages depicted in the media (Lafky,

Duffy, Steinmaus, & Berkowitz, 1996).

In Butler’s formulation, if men are to be masculine, women must be feminine

(1999). Greer (1996) points out that one of the primary functions of the first lady is to convey the strong and active heterosexuality of the president, who is supposed to be, in general, not just sexually, a powerhouse or superhuman – one who can take on the rigors and challenges of running the country.

Previously, when newspapers mentioned the first lady at all, they usually referred to her in connection to her spouse, such as “Lady Washington,” or “The President of the

United States, and His Lady.” Sometimes first ladies were not even noticed (Winfield,

1996a). Martha Washington attended the second inauguration, but the newspapers did not mention her presence (Thane, 1960). Early press coverage of Martha Washington rarely mentioned her social function, but this role gradually evolved. With Abigail Adams the first lady’s political influence became a consideration (Winfield, 1997a). Under Abigail

Adams the first lady developed a stronger role in influencing public policy. Her political partnership was unusual, but not enough of an issue to be challenged in newspapers. By

1809, White House social endeavors reached an apex with Dolley Madison as first lady, known for her hospitality. No matter how unusual this first lady was in her role, the

National Intelligencer, the major capital newspaper, initially ignored Dolley Madison’s presence (Winfield, 1997a).

The earliest first ladies were not a part of the election campaigns or even an issue in the partisan press. By 1828, the worthiness of a candidate’s wife became a campaign issue (Winfield, 1997a). Rachel Jackson’s corpulent appearance, modest clothing, and use of a long clay pipe had already been unsettling. The public attention to her appearance as well as to allegations that she was a bigamist (which technically were true, as she married Andrew Jackson before completing a divorce from her first husband), greatly hurt the Jacksons; she, mortally so, for she died from a heart attack after the election. The first lady had become a symbol of morality and representative of the country’s social virtues (Winfield, 1997a).

A century later, Eleanor Roosevelt’s role as an independent partner was noted in the press before 1932 (Winfield, 1997a). Her statements about keeping a career while being first lady were unprecedented and shocking. Although Eleanor Roosevelt never violated expectations of the first lady’s “escort” and “social” roles, she did the unprecedented by speaking to the Democratic National Convention in 1940 and appealing to the delegates for party unity over the nomination of Henry Wallace as vice president (Winfield, 1997a).

In contrast to many predecessors, Jacqueline Kennedy was portrayed in the media as another Dolley Madison (Winfield, 1997a). Rather than focus on her previous career, the coverage emphasized her “escort” and “social” role, her help to John Kennedy’s career, and her partnership in his efforts to win the presidency. Her partnership was seen as a supportive escort, without a political agenda of her own (Winfield, 1997a).

With all these findings in the background, it is notable that, although preferring

“stereotypes of women politicians as weak, indecisive, and emotional,” the news sometimes reflects the opposite image of the mean and tough female politician, the

“bitch,” who does not fit the conventional profile of the soft woman (Nacos, 2005, p.

437). Indeed, women are most newsworthy when they are doing something “unladylike”

(Braden, 1996). Hillary Clinton was probably one of most unconventional first ladies in the history of United States, and that was one possible reason for her controversial image in the media.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

After November 3, 1992, Hillary Rodham Clinton found herself in a role influenced by years of tradition (Winfield, 1997a). As first lady, like her predecessors, she faced public expectations about this position. The public nature of Clinton’s activities made her a focal point for thinking and talking about gender norms, or, put in another way, for the struggle over which gender norms shall prevail in the culture (Templin,

1999).

The question was whether the media still expected at least the first three roles – the “virtuoso housekeeper” (Greer, 1996), active participant of charitable or public

events, and the proof of “the head of state’s active heterosexuality” (Templin, 1999) – despite immense change over time in the lives of women, and whether the press continues to be critical of the first ladies who adopt a policy role. Answers to this question tell us a great deal about the ambiguities in coverage of Hillary Clinton, as well as ambiguities toward women in positions of power in America (Winfield, 1997a).

Overall, many media outlets made the point that Clinton was “not doing gender right”

(Butler, 1999) by playing too active a role in her husband’s administration. Scharrer and

Bissell (2000) examined newspaper and news magazine coverage of Clinton, Barbara

Bush, and Nancy Reagan. They found that the ventures of each into the realm of political activity were often covered prominently and with a negative tone, whereas stories on

“soft news” aspects of roles were more often positive and less prominent.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton was targeted for being

“incredibly independent” and “an egghead” in a different way (Winfield, 1997a). She was breaking the acceptable boundaries of a presidential candidate’s wife by making public proposals and actively defending them in the Congress and Senate on key political decisions (the proposed health care reforms would probably be one of most prominent examples). Instead of reflecting male power, Hillary Clinton had usurped that power.

Gardetto (1997) analyzed pre-election press coverage of Clinton in 1992 and discovered that she was framed as a “new woman” struggling with a public versus private role and operating both for and against a “social imaginary” notion of family. Brown (1997) suggests that Clinton received negative coverage because she did not fit neatly into simplified media routines regarding the roles of first ladies.

Marshall (1996) examined news coverage of Clinton and Marilyn Quayle, wife of

Republican vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle, during the 1992 presidential campaign, finding that though the two have similar backgrounds that include being successful attorneys and principal advisors for their spouses, news coverage positioned

Quayle as a more “traditional” alternative to Clinton’s “non-traditional” persona.

Franklin (2000) examined the print and broadcast coverage that Clinton received when she headed the National Health Care Reform Task Force in 1993/94, analyzing praise and criticism that appeared in 321 news articles. The standard joke was that Hillary Clinton was running the country – or was, in effect, the president (Templin, 1999).

From 1992 to the present, the images of Hillary Clinton were varied and at times antithetical; Hillary Clinton was depicted as a career woman turned a feared feminist, a sometimes all-powerful first lady who became a more traditional “good mother,” and a

“stand by your man” wife who was victimized by a cheating husband (Parry-Giles,

2000). As her image shifted from a strong, independent feminist to a good mother and sympathetic wife/victim, her public opinion ratings improved (Burrell, 2001). Hillary

Clinton’s image evolved markedly from 1992 through 1998. As her approval ratings improved (Milton, 1999), she became trapped by more traditional images of the first lady.

At the same time, visual portrayals of Hillary Clinton were highly stereotyped. When discussing her educational success, texts often incorporated a still photograph of Clinton delivering her Wellesley commencement address (Parry-Giles, 2000).

The visual images for her success as a career women were not as prevalent. The news networks were much more likely to evidence negative stereotypes than positive

images. The visual images for the negative attributes of Hillary Clinton’s image generally reinforced such negative constructions (Parry-Giles, 2000). Pictorial evidence of

Clinton’s motherhood role and her “standing by her man” image prevailed in the texts after her husband’s infidelities became public. Many of the photographs show Clinton and daughter Chelsea holding hands, hugging, or smiling at one another. In most cases,

Hillary, not Bill Clinton, was the one engaged in conversation with Chelsea or showing affection to their daughter (Parry-Giles, 2000). After the Monica Lewinsky scandal, in which Bill Clinton was found to have had sex with an intern in the White House, the president and the first lady were often featured sharing a warm, smiling embrace. Such images were undoubtedly easy to depict because of archetypal images of motherhood and the supportive spouse (Parry-Giles, 2000). Thus, as the media constructed the narrative of

Hillary Clinton, the visual images selected to evidence or reinforce their messages were of equal if not more importance (Parry-Giles, 2000).

Within the coverage of Hillary Clinton, a troubling depiction resonates: we are to fear women with power, yet, admire women with the status of victim (Parry-Giles, 2000).

Such images reward women who do not challenge the vows of marriage regardless of the circumstance while sending an ominous message to women who aspire to a position of power. Regardless of Hillary Clinton’s life after the White House, mediated images remain as part of the collective memory of her. Images of her juxtapose her “strong” yet

“vulnerable” personae (Hockenberry; cited by: Parry-Giles, 2000).

Everything we learn about Hillary Clinton adds more to the picture of her as a public woman – a woman who has, in many ways, lived the life of a man (Templin,

1999). The number and the virulence of the cartoons, with excessive use of negatively coded images of Hillary Clinton, reveal the strength of the culture’s reaction to a woman whose actions and style place her outside the accepted female paradigm (Templin, 1999).

Frames and Stereotypes

According to Reese (2003, p. 11), “frames are organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world.” Frames are more than topics; they are active, negotiated elements that tap into group mental imagery through sometimes emotional visual and/or verbal prompts and connections (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008). Maher (2003) argues that frames go beyond transferring issue salience from the media to the public, a common second-level agenda-setting notion; media frames provide a way to understand a message and tie into relationships and environment, requiring a stronger emphasis on causal reasoning.

Framing power includes (un)conscious decisions by frame sponsors and frame receivers to negotiate a message’s denoted and connoted meanings (Carragee & Roefs, 2004; Hall,

1980). Framing can and does affect the news in many ways, for example, in the choice of topics, sources, language, and photographs. (Nacos, 2005, p. 436)

Although framing theory has been criticized for lack of methodological consistency (Entman, 1993), it is “uniquely qualified to help make sense of news stories, particularly when applied in cross-cultural studies” (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008, p. 431).

Norris (1997, p. 6) concludes that “journalists commonly work with gendered frames to simplify, prioritize, and structure the narrative flow of events when covering women and men in public life.”

In mass media, most portrayals of both males and females are characteristically stereotypical (Milkie, 1994; Durkin, 1985). Men are strong and work in jobs that require lots of physical strength or in areas that are traditionally occupied by intelligent, upper- middle class people, such as medicine, law, or finance. Men are characterized as either good guys or as bad ones, and aggressive behavior is exhibited and expected in either of these roles (Milkie, 1994). At the same time, women are also depicted in stereotypical roles that are usually related to sexuality in which the woman focuses upon beauty or physical attractiveness or upon traditional family roles (Milkie, 1994). Women are to be, first and foremost, wives and mothers and possibly teachers, waitresses, or secretaries.

As noted, scholars disagree in their research regarding gender-stereotyped media.

Some argue coverage has improved (Rausch et al., 1999; Smith, 1997), while others claim misrepresentations still continue (Ross, 2002). However, the problem with the use of conventional political frames is that they treat the male as normative (Sreberny-

Mohammadi & Ross 1996). Being covered ‘‘like a man,’’ however, may not necessarily mean receiving gender-neutral coverage. The application of conventional political frames to women politicians can result in subtle and insidious forms of gender bias (Gidengil &

Everitt, 2001). The media’s resort to these seemingly sex-neutral, but profoundly gendered, frames may result in a classic ‘‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’’ dilemma for many aspiring women leaders. If they try to adapt to the masculine norms, the media will tend to focus unduly on behavior that is contrary to deeply held stereotypes of feminine behavior. And yet, if women fail to conform to those norms, they can end up receiving less coverage by the media (Gidengil & Everitt, 2001, pp. 106-107).

Thus, the news is not simply reflecting the fact that politics is still very much a man’s world; it is playing an active role in perpetuating a stereotypically masculine conception of politics and politicians (Rakow & Kranich, 1991; Peake, 1997). Kahn

(1996) suggests that schema held by journalists contain gender stereotypes and impact the ways in which male and female candidates are covered by emphasizing certain characteristics over others. Political reporting typically employs ‘‘a masculine narrative’’

(Rakow and Kranich 1991, p. 8), portraying election campaigns in stereotypically masculine terms, replete with images of warfare and the sports arena (Blankenship 1976;

Blankenship & Kang 1991; Gidengil & Everitt 1999; Fiske, 1987). As noted by Gidengil and Everitt (2003, p. 211), “after all, we do not conventionally think of women as either warriors or prize fighters.”

In this regard, scholars have explored media production and discourse within sports events seeking to understand how the electronic press shapes public perceptions and understandings of gender participation in sport (Daddario, 1994, 1997; Eastman &

Billings, 1999, 2000; Halbert & Latimer, 1994; Higgs &Weiller, 1994; Toohey, 1997;

Tuggle & Owen, 1999). Thus, comparison of the sportscasting on ESPN and CNN and sports reporting in The New York Times and USA Today revealed the very high degree of embedded favoritism toward men’s sports and men athletes, even at times when major women’s sporting events were peaking in newsworthiness (Eastman & Billings, 2000).

At the same time, when female candidates for high office behave combatively, they are contravening deeply held notions of appropriate female behavior. Behavior

counter to stereotype is unexpected, and unexpected or surprising behavior is newsworthy

(Fiske, 1987; Bell, 1991). (Gidengil & Everitt, 2003, p. 211)

Miller and Burgoon (1979) and Burgoon, Dillard, and Doran (1983) report that people have definite expectations about appropriate communication behavior for males and females, and that unexpected violations of these expectations can affect persuasion.

Specifically, if message receivers expect a positive or mild message and they receive a negative or strong message, they will probably exaggerate their evaluation of the source and/or message in a negative manner. If the predisposition of the voter anticipates a traditionally “deferential, soft, and feminine” woman (Trent & Friedenberg, 1983, p,

115), the voter may develop a negative image of the candidate, or react negatively to the candidate's message, if those expectations are not met.

In her most recent study on the women political leaders’ media portrayal, Falk wrote: “That the press seemed biased against a woman running for president was not surprising. In fact, historical trends show that women candidates for president consistently receive less press coverage than equivalent men running in the same race”

(Falk, 2008, p.1).

According to Goffman (1979), photographs are powerful, condensed representations of social relationships. He argued that what is seen in a posed picture is not a photographic record of an actual scene; instead, it is staged in response to a conception of what represents the particular person or event – a perception of what the social reality is or should be. Moreover, Glenberg and Langston (1992) contended that mental models integrate two sources of information: information from the text and

information from the picture. They showed that when a picture does not accurately portray the situation described by the text, comprehension is lower than when the picture corresponds to the text. They argue that the mental model improves comprehension by keeping track of the topic of the discourse and facilitating inference making. Of particular interest is their proposal that retrieval of information in long-term memory may be prompted by representational elements in working memory. That is, the working memory, in which mental models are formed, assists readers in recalling previously stored information. They conclude that direct viewing of a picture “may provide relatively effortless maintenance of some of the representational elements corresponding to parts in the picture, freeing up capacity for inference generation” (Glenberg &

Langston, 1992). Glenberg and Langston showed that conflicting pictures will lower comprehension of the intended message and may prevent linking current reading to previous messages stored in longer term memory.

The process of selection takes on a new edge when considering accountability and the use of visual manipulation. Thus, when a photograph is originally made, the visual text is clearly situated within a particular context. Over time, select photographs of presumably a dramatic nature, are placed in a news organization’s video archives, becoming available for the future journalist looking for contemporary visual evidence.

Parry-Giles argued (2000) that these photographs sit “decontextualized” in video archives. Journalists then take such decontextualized visuals and “recontextualize” them within a new story. The original meaning is lost and the new context that is depicted by a journalist narrating the story comes to define the referent for the visual text (Hart, 1999).

As for Hillary Clinton, the negative sentiment surrounding her image seemingly dissipated once she was placed in the role of victim during the aftermath of her husband’s confessional. The first lady has been benefiting from her victim status in some ways, standing behind President Clinton. Parry-Giles emphasized (2000) that “when she

[Hillary Clinton] takes these strong stands on the issues . . . her popularity plummets. . . .

When she’s out there as a candidate having to take a strong stand on issues, multiple issues, that’s when the voters start to stand back and say, ‘Hey, this is too much, I’m not very fond of this woman.’”

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

This study was primarily designed to analyze the portrayal of Hillary Rodham

Clinton compared with that of her closest competitor Barack Obama in the coverage of three leading U.S. television networks during the entire period of Clinton’s participation in Democratic Party’s presidential nomination race of 2007-2008. In this context, this study posed these research questions:

RQ1: To what extent did the mass media employ traditional gender frames

and stereotypes in the portrayal of Hillary Clinton during the 2008

Democratic Nomination Race coverage?

RQ2: Was there significant correlation between frames, stereotypes, and

the context employed by news media to portrayal of Hillary Clinton and

Barack Obama and the fluctuations of popularity of Hillary Clinton and

Barack Obama?

RQ3: What are the main differences in the context and frames employed

in the coverage of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the period

studied?

Another goal of this study was to test for correlation among gender frames, stereotypes, and context attributed to Clinton and Obama and their popularity rate. Thus, based on the conclusions of previous empirical studies and theories discussed in the previous chapters, three hypotheses were stated:

H1: There was a significant positive correlation between the use of

“traditional masculine” context in the portrayal of the candidate and candidate’s overall popularity in the Gallup poll as presidential nominee.

H2: There was a significant negative correlation between the use of

“traditional feminine” context in the portrayal of the candidate and candidate’s overall popularity in the Gallup poll as presidential nominee.

H3: There was a significant negative correlation between the use of

“traditional feminine” frames in the portrayal of the candidate and candidate’s overall popularity in the Gallup poll as presidential nominee.

CHAPTER 4: METHOD

This study analyzed news programs of the three largest U.S. commercial broadcast television networks, including ABC, CBS, and NBC. Selected networks have different owners, as well as differences in the political preferences and the audiences.

Two other popular nationwide networks, Fox and CNN, were not included in this study as their publically announced political leanings could interfere with use of frames and stereotypes in the coverage of candidates, and inclusion of their coverage in this study outside the context of Republicans vs. Democrats competition could affect the findings.

The period selected for study extended from the Labor Day 2007 (September 3) to the date of Hillary Clinton’s official withdrawal from the nomination race on June 7,

2008. The Labor Day of 2007 was selected as the start of the time frame, since it was one year prior to the Labor Day 2008, which is generally assumed to be the starting date for the presidential general elections campaigns.

The full story database of the Vanderbilt Television News Archive was selected as the most reliable search engine for news programs. In order to include as many news videos as possible, a search was conducted and all news stories of selected networks that contained the names “Hillary Clinton” or “Barack Obama” were coded and analyzed. In the selected three networks there were found a total of 914 news stories containing words

“Hillary Clinton” or “Barack Obama” for the selected period of time. The entire population of stories was coded.

The stories were coded for 22 variables, including date, gender of the journalist, emphasis on physical descriptions and appearance of the candidate in the story, and other

factors (see Appendix). The age was separated from the other physical descriptors in an attempt to discover whether physical characteristics other than age were used in the coverage of candidates frequently.

In addition, to test the notion that women leaders /African American politicians are represented as agents of change, the representation of political platform and plans/actions of candidates were analyzed. Lastly, to test whether there was more framing in the coverage of either candidate, the presence of several common frames was checked during the coding process.

All stories were coded by the author. In all cases the variables were coded only when they were clearly mentioned in the story/video. In cases when the same variable was used in the story more than once, it was coded only once.

The inter-coder reliability was tested with two other students, a male master’s student of the School of Journalism and a female doctoral student from the School of

Communication Studies. One tenth of the entire population was coded for the inter-coder reliability test. Overall, the inter-coder reliability was 97.5% with the lowest reliability in two variables: “Appearance and Accoutrements mentioned” (83%) and “Source1” (88%).

Poll results were taken from the Gallup web page (see Gallup in references) and verified with the Gallup polls published on the Lexis-Nexis Database on the same dates.

Once data was collected, frames were coded quantitatively from each news story.

Each news story was the unit of analysis and was analyzed for byline gender, numbers of male and female sources, length (in seconds), type of issue, and overall candidate evaluation (for more details and a complete Codebook please refer to Appendix).

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS

Descriptive Results

In total, 954 news reports were analyzed, comprising 618 news reports by ABC,

220 news reports by CBS, and 116 news reports by NBC (Table 1). The most competitive months of the campaign, January and February of 2008, had a significant share of news reports, as 194 (20.3 %) of all news reports were aired on all three networks in January of

2008, and 236 (24.7 %) of all news reports were aired in February of 2008. The majority of news was either 61-180 seconds long (46.8 %) or longer than three minutes (41.2 %), while there were only 12.1 % of news reports with the length less than one minute (Table

1). At the same time, the vast majority of all news was focused on the nomination race and polls (72.7 %), while the rest of the topics comprised a very low percent (Table 2).

There were significantly more news reports produced exclusively by male journalists (416, or 43.6 %) than by female journalists (Table 1). Candidates’ physical qualities were mentioned in 195 news reports (20.4 %), while the appearance was mentioned in 28 reports (2.9 %), and candidate’s age was mentioned in 6 news reports (.6

%) (Table 2).

As for the frames, “The First” frame (“first potential woman president” or “first potential African-American president”) was used in 50 reports (5.2 %), while the

“Change” frame (“come to make changes,” “will change”) was used in 247 news reports

(25.9 %) (Table 2).

Table 1

Coverage of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Primary Campaigns by ABC, CBS, and NBC Television News, September 3, 2007 through June 7, 2008 Obama Clinton Both Total ABC 60 seconds or less Female reporter 7 (0.7%) 9 (0.9%) 0 16 (1.7%) Male reporter 6 (0.6%) 3 (0.3%) 2 (0.2%) 11 (1.2%) Both/Unclear 15 (1.6%) 35 (3.7%) 6 (0.6%) 56 (5.9%) 61 to 180 seconds Female reporter 32 (3.4%) 39 (4.1%) 26 (2.7%) 97 (10.2%) Male reporter 53 (5.6%) 31 (3.2%) 43 (4.5%) 127 (13.3%) Both/Unclear 26 (2.7%) 33 (3.5%) 12 (1.3%) 71 (7.4%) 181 seconds or more Female reporter 19 (2%) 22 (2.3%) 17 (1.8%) 58 (6.1%) Male reporter 32 (3.4%) 46 (4.8%) 46 (4.8%) 124 (13%) Both/Unclear 27 (2.8%) 26 (2.7%) 5 (0.5%) 58 (6.1%) Total ABC Stories 217 (22.7%) 244 (25.6%) 157 (16.5%) 618 (64.8%) CBS 60 seconds or less Female reporter 1 (0.1%) 0 0 1 (0.1%) Male reporter 2 (0.2%) 0 2 (0.2%) 4 (0.4%) Both/Unclear 6 (0.6%) 11 (1.2%) 3 (0.3%) 20 (2.1%) 61 to 180 seconds Female reporter 9 (0.9%) 17 (1.8%) 11 (1.2%) 37 (3.9%) Male reporter 15 (1.6%) 9 (0.9%) 15 (1.6%) 39 (4.1%) Both/Unclear 11 (1.2%) 9 (0.9%) 5 (0.5%) 25 (2.6%) 181 seconds or more Female reporter 11 (1.2%) 10 (1%) 8 (0.8%) 29 (3%) Male reporter 11 (1.2%) 20 (2.1%) 16 (1.7%) 47 (4.9%) Both/Unclear 6 (0.6%) 11 (1.2%) 1 (0.1%) 18 (1.9%) Total CBS Stories 72 (7.5%) 87 (9.1%) 61 (6.4%) 220 (23.1%) NBC 60 seconds or less Female reporter 2 (0.2%) 1 (0.1%) 0 3 (0.3%) Male reporter 1 (0.1%) 0 0 1 (0.1%) Both/Unclear 2 (0.2%) 1 (0.1%) 0 3 (0.3%) 61 to 180 seconds Female reporter 8 (0.8%) 8 (0.8%) 6 (0.6%) 22 (2.3%) Male reporter 10 (1%) 8 (0.8%) 4 (0.4%) 22 (2.3%) Both/Unclear 3 (0.3%) 2 (0.2%) 1 (0.1%) 6 (0.6%) 181 seconds or more Female reporter 4 (0.4%) 1 (0.1%) 5 (0.5%) 10 (1%) Male reporter 11 (1.2%) 16 (1.7%) 14 (1.5%) 41 (4.3%) Both/Unclear 5 (0.5%) 3 (0.3%) 0 8 (0.8%) Total NBC Stories 46 (4.8%) 40 (4.2%) 30 (3.1%) 116 (12.2%) Total Number of Stories 335 (35.1%) 371 (38.9%) 248 (26%) 954 (100%)

The networks often allowed candidates themselves to become major sources and to speak directly to the viewers (393 news, or 41.2 %), while significantly limiting the share of ordinary citizens as their sources (Table 2).

Table 2

Use of Frames, Stereotypes, and Political Issues before Change in Polls and after that Change in Coverage of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Primary Campaigns by ABC, CBS, and NBC Television News, September 3, 2007 through June 7, 2008 Obama Clinton Both Total Before / Before / Before / Before / After After After After Mention of Characteristics Physical Description 29 (3%) / 27 (2.8%) / 19 (2%) / 75 (7.9%) / 62 (6.5%) 32 (3.4%) 26 (2.7%) 120 (12.6%) Appearance/Accoutrements 10 (1%) / 1 (0.1%) / 2 (0.2%) / 13 (1.4%) / 8 (0.8%) 6 (0.6%) 1 (0.1%) 15 (1.6%) Age Mentioned 0 / 3 (0.3%) / 0 / 3 (0.3%) / 3 (0.3%) 0 0 3 (0.3%) “The First” Frame 8 (0.8%) / 21 (2.2%) / 0 / 29 (3%) / 9 (0.9%) 4 (0.4%) 8 (0.8%) 21 (2.2%) “Change” Frame 73 (7.7%) / 25 (2.6%) / 35 (3.7%) / 133 (13.9%) 60 (6.3%) 16 (1.7%) 38 (4%) 114 (11.9%) Total Mention of Characteristics 110 (11.5%) / 77 (8%) / 56 (5.9%) / 253 (26.5%) / 142 (14.9%) 58 (6%) 73 (7.6%) 273 (28.6%) Main Political Issues of Story Economics 10 (1%) / 3 (0.3%) / 0 / 13 (1.4%) / 6 (0.6%) 6 (0.6%) 0 12 (1.3%) Health & Social 3 (0.3%) / 24 (2.5%) / 1 (0.1%) / 28 (2.9%) / 0 0 2 (0.2%) 2 (0.2%) Iraq/Terrorism/Defense 16 (1.7%) / 13 (1.4) / 4 (0.4%) / 33 (3.5%) / 4 (0.4%) 4 (0.4%) 1 (0.1%) 9 (0.9%)

Race/Polling 115 (12.1%) / 130 (13.6%) / 95 (10%) / 340 (35.6%) / 114 (11.9%) 119 (12.5%) 121 (12.7%) 354 (37.1%) Other/More than One Issue 15 (1.6%) / 41 (4.3%) / 11 (1.2%) / 67 (7%) / 52 (5.5%) 31 (3.2%) 13 (1.4%) 96 (10.1%) Total Main Political Issues of 159 (16.7%) / 211 (22.1%) / 111 (11.6%) / 481 (50.4%) / Story 176 (18.4%) 160 (16.8%) 137 (14.4%) 473 (49.6%)

In addition, there were more news reports exclusively with male sources (476) than female sources (271), thus reports with male sources comprise half of all news

stories in the sample, while the other half is comprised of news stories with either only female sources or the sources of both genders (Table 3).

Table 3

Types of Sources before Change in Polls and after that Change in Coverage of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Primary Campaigns by ABC, CBS, and NBC Television News, September 3, 2007 through June 7, 2008 Obama Clinton Both Total Before After Before After Before After Before After Partisan Female 11 3 10 (1%) 12 0 7 21 23 (1.2%) (0.3%) (1.3%) (0.7%) (22%) (2.3%) Male 16 16 29 (3%) 23 13 6 58 45 (1.7%) (1.7%) (2.4%) (1.4%) (0.6%) (6.1%) (4.7%) Both/Unclear 5 0 3 8 4 0 12 8 (0.8%) (0.5%) (0.3%) (0.8%) (0.4%) (1.3%) Horse Race Expert Female 0 0 2 0 4 2 6 2 (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (0.6%) Male 9 7 23 7 15 25 47 39 (0.9%) (0.7%) (2.4%) (0.7%) (1.6%) (2.6%) (4.9%) (4.1%) Both/Unclear 5 4 6 3 5 11 16 18 (0.5%) (0.4%) (0.6%) (0.3%) (0.5%) (1.2%) (1.7%) (1.9%) Issue Expert Female 3 8 18 15 4 2 25 25 (0.3%) (0.8%) (1.9%) (1.6%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (2.6%) (2.6%) Male 11 26 26 6 18 17 55 49 (1.2%) (2.7%) (2.7%) (0.6%) (1.9%) (1.8%) (5.8%) (5.1%) Both/Unclear 5 6 7 1 3 14 15 21 (0.5%) (0.6%) (0.7%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (1.5%) (1.6%) (2.2%) Ordinary Citizen Female 3 1 1 1 1 2 5 4 (0.4%) (0.3%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.5%) Male 1 0 1 0 4 0 6 6 (0.6%) (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.4%) (0.6%) Both/Unclear 1 7 2 0 1 2 4 9 (0.9%) (0.1%) (0.7%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.4%) Candidate Female 0 0 66 66 4 18 70 84 (6.9%) (6.9%) (0.4%) (1.9%) (7.3%) (8.8%) Male 76 (8%) 78 0 1 3 4 79 83 (8.2%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (0.4%) (8.3%) (8.7%) Both/Unclear 6 14 7 8 20 22 33 44 (0.6%) (1.5%) (0.7%) (0.8%) (2.1%) (2.3%) (3.5%) (4.6%) Other/Unclear Female 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 5 (0.5%) (0.2%) (0.5%) (0.2%)

Table 3 (continued) Obama Clinton Both Total Before After Before After Before After Before Male 4 2 2 4 3 0 9 6 (0.6%) (0.4%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.4%) (0.3%) (0.9%) Both/Unclear 3 4 8 5 7 0 18 9 (0.9%) (0.3%) (0.4%) (0.8%) (0.5%) (0.7%) (1.9%) Total Number of Sources Female 17 12 97 94 15 36 129 142 (1.8%) (1.3%) (10.2%) (9.9%) (1.6%) (3.8%) (13.5%) (14.9%) Male 117 129 81 41 56 52 254 222 (12.3%) (13.5%) (8.5%) (4.3%) (5.9%) (5.5%) (26.6%) (23.3%) Both/Unclear 25 35 33 25 40 49 98 109 (2.6%) (3.7%) (3.5%) (2.6%) (4.2%) (5.1%) (10.3%) (11.4%)

There was a comparatively low number of news stories (67, or 7 %) with a child near the candidate (once again, in order to keep results pure, candidate’s own children were counted as a family and not separately as child). Similarly, archived video was used only in 91 news reports (9.5 %).

Candidates’ families were present in 118 news reports (12.4 %), and in the vast majority of such reports (111 news) candidates were depicted as treating their families warmly and with care. Citizens in military or police uniform were present near the candidates only in 34 news stories (3.6 %). Also, 18 reports (1.9 %) depicted candidates as vulnerable. The presence of candidates’ supporters was recorded in 500 news reports

(52.4 %), while candidates were portrayed with or near the symbols of authority in 109 reports (11.4 %).

Finally, 335 news reports (35.1 %) were focused mainly on Barack Obama, 371

(38.9 %) on Hillary Clinton, and 248 (26 %) on both Democratic candidates almost equally.

Table 4

Video Context Surrounding Candidate before Change in Polls and after that Change in Coverage of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton Primary Campaigns by ABC, CBS, and NBC Television News, September 3, 2007 through June 7, 2008 Obama Clinton Both Total Before After Before After Before After Before After Archival Video 11 10 (1%) 32 13 12 13 55 36 (1.2%) (3.4%) (1.4%) (1.3%) (1.4%) (5.8%) (3.8%) Candidate Who 98 100 106 78 92 111 296 289 Speaks in Video (10.3%) (10.5%) (11.1%) (8.2%) (9.6%) (11.6%) (31%) (30.3%) Presence of 14 7 19 (2%) 11 11 5 44 23 Child (not (1.5%) (0.7%) (1.2%) (1.2%) (0.5%) (4.6%) (2.4%) Candidate’s) Presence of 21 15 39 18 19 6 79 39 Candidate’s (2.2%) (1.6%) (4.1%) (1.9%) (2%) (0.6%) (8.3%) (4.1%) Family (near Candidate) Candidate 20 11 37 18 19 6 76 (8%) 35 Warm with (2.1%) (1.2%) (3.9%) (1.9%) (2%) (0.6%) (3.7%) Family Presence of 7 3 17 1 3 3 27 7 (0.7%) Military of (0.7%) (0.3%) (1.8%) (0.1%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (2.8%) Police Candidate 0 0 15 0 2 1 17 1 (0.1%) Portrayed as (1.6%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (1.8%) Vulnerable Presence of 91 87 103 92 63 64 257 243 Supporters (9.5%) (9.1%) (10.8%) (9.6%) (6.6%) (6.7%) (26.9%) (25.5%) Signs of 21 40 22 12 6 8 49 60 Authority (e.g. (2.2%) (4.2%) (2.3%) (1.3%) (0.6%) (0.8%) (5.1%) (6.3%) Secret Service)

At the same time, in 216 reports (22.6 %) only Obama’s direct words were broadcast, in 218 reports (22.9 %) only Clinton’s direct words were broadcast, and in the remaining 520 reports either both of them or none of them were allowed to speak directly.

Comparative Results

There was a significance in the use of physical qualities of the candidates and month (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; Spearman’s rho=0.018), in particular,

Obama’s race and Clinton’s gender were mentioned more often in 2008 and less often in

2007 (Table 5).

As for the age of the candidate, there was a statistical significance in the use of candidate’s age and date (Pearson Chi-Square=0.002, at 9 df); however, the number of news reports where age was mentioned was too low (6 reports) to make any generalizations.

Table 5

Candidates’ Physical Qualities Mentioned / Date Physical Qualities * YES NO Total September, 2007 8 51 59 October, 2007 5 81 86 November, 2007 15 63 78 December, 2007 3 61 64 January, 2008 44 150 194 Date February, 2008 30 206 236 March, 2008 41 41 82 April, 2008 7 43 50 May, 2008 32 32 64 June, 2008 10 31 41 Total 195 759 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; Spearman’s rho=0.018.

The “Change” frame was mainly used in the periods of Obama’s success, in the winter of 2007/2008. There was also an interesting selection of sources at different periods; the closer the competition, the more networks allowed candidates themselves to speak directly with the viewers (Table 6). In addition, there was a significant relationship between the gender of sources and the date (Pearson Chi-Square=0.001, at 18 df), where

the share of female sources increased in the winter of 2007/2008 and decreased again in the spring of 2008 (Table 6).

The selection of topics for news reports also was significantly correlated with date

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 36 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 4 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000), as health / social aspects and defense issues were mainly raised in the early period of the nomination race, while later the topics were almost exclusively focused on polls and nomination.

Table 6

Selection of Sources and Sources’ Gender / Date Selection of Sources Sources’ Gender * Partisan HR Issue Ord. Candidate Other Male Female Both/Not Total expert expert citizen clear Sept 14 6 14 1 15 9 36 15 8 59 2007 Oct 8 21 18 0 36 3 54 17 15 86 2007 Nov 4 10 25 4 32 3 43 20 15 78 2007 Dec 12 11 11 7 17 6 24 24 16 64 2007 Jan 53 21 27 3 82 8 97 53 44 194 2008 Date Feb 32 32 56 8 107 1 101 83 52 236 2008 Mar 13 5 16 5 38 5 36 32 14 82 2008 Apr 11 8 8 0 19 4 26 11 13 50 2008 May 18 3 12 0 21 10 32 9 23 64 2008 June 1 11 3 0 26 0 27 7 7 41 2008 Total 166 128 190 28 393 49 476 271 207 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.001, at 18 df.

There was also statistical significance recorded in the correlation of the presence of family with the date (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; Spearman’s rho=0.051), as candidates appeared more often with their families during the winter holidays (Table 7).

In addition, except one case, the candidates ha ve been portrayed as vulnerable only in

January 2008 (Table 7).

Table 7

Context: Presence of Family, Portrayal of Candidate as Vulnerable, and Portrayal of Candidate with Supporters / Date Presence of Portrayal of Portrayal of Candidate Family * Candidate as with Supporters ** Vulnerable YES NO Total YES NO Total YES NO Total September, 11 48 59 0 59 59 14 45 59 2007 October, 8 78 86 0 86 86 37 49 86 2007 November, 5 73 78 0 78 78 38 40 78 2007 December, 17 47 64 0 64 64 42 22 64 2007 January, 38 156 194 17 177 194 126 68 194 Date 2008 February, 12 224 236 1 235 236 133 103 236 2008 March, 10 72 82 0 82 82 31 51 82 2008 April, 0 50 50 0 50 50 23 27 50 2008 May, 2008 14 50 64 0 64 64 27 37 64 June, 2008 3 38 41 0 41 41 29 12 41 Total 118 836 954 18 936 954 500 454 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; Spearman’s rho=0.051. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df.

Similar significance was recorded in correlation of date with the portrayal of the candidate with supporters (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df) with especially high numbers in the winter of 2007/2008 (Table 7).

Table 8

Main Character of News Report and Candidate who Speaks Directly in News Report / Date Main Character of News Candidate who Speaks Directly in Report * News Report ** Obama Clinton Both Total Obama Clinton Both Total September, 18 33 8 59 7 19 33 59 2007 October, 27 42 17 86 20 21 45 86 2007 November, 23 39 16 78 24 18 36 78 2007 December, 20 30 14 64 12 20 32 64 2007 January, 71 67 56 194 45 40 109 194 Date 2008 February, 70 86 80 236 40 48 148 236 2008 March, 35 20 27 82 24 14 44 82 2008 April, 18 12 20 50 7 15 28 50 2008 May, 2008 27 32 5 64 18 13 33 64 June, 2008 26 10 5 41 19 10 12 41 Total 335 371 248 954 216 218 520 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 18 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.002, at 9 df

More importantly, there was a statistical significance in the selection of a particular candidate as a central character of the report and date (Pearson Chi-

Square=0.000, at 18 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df), as well as in the allowing candidate to

speak directly in news and date (Pearson Chi-Square=0.002, at 9 df). In particular, while in the first months of the nomination campaign (September-November, 2007) the news reports were more focused on Hillary Clinton, in the winter this trend changed, focusing more on Obama (Table 8). At the same time, starting in the winter months, the networks more often included in their news reports either direct words of both candidates or none of them (Table 8).

There was an interesting correlation between the use of physical qualities of the candidate and the gender of the reporting journalist (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df;

ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000). Thus, while male journalists mentioned a candidate’s physical qualities in approximately one-fourth of their reports, females mentioned it in one-fifth of their news reports (Table 9).

Table 9

Candidates’ Physical Qualities Mentioned, “The First” Frame, and “Change” Frame Used / Reporter’s Gender Candidates’ Physical “The First” Frame “Change” Qualities Mentioned * ** Frame * YES NO Total YES NO Total YES NO Total Male 114 302 416 29 387 416 133 283 416 Reporter’s Female 56 217 273 20 253 273 63 210 273 Gender Both/Not 25 240 265 1 264 265 51 214 265 clear Total 195 759 954 50 904 954 247 707 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.001

Similar correlation was found in the use of “The First” frame (Pearson Chi-

Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.001) and “Change”

frame (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000) by male and female journalists. In particular, females more often used “The

First” frame (Table 18), while male reporters more often used the “Change” frame (Table

9).

Another interesting correlation was in the selection of sources (Pearson Chi-

Square=0.000, at 10 df; ANOVA=0.015, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.007) by male and female journalists and their sources’ gender (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 4 df;

ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.006). Thus, there was higher share of issue experts and ordinary citizens in the reports of female journalists, while male journalists selected more “horse race” experts (Table 10). At the same time, female journalists selected male and female sources equally, while male reporters decided to talk more often with male sources (Table 10).

Table 10

Selection of Source and Source’s Gender / Reporter’s Gender Selection of Source * Source’s Gender ** Partisan HR Issue Ord. Candidat Male Female Both/Not Total expert expert citizen e clear Male 57 89 83 15 153 216 79 121 416 Reporter’s Female 44 36 71 12 97 107 107 59 273 Gender Both/Not 65 3 36 1 143 153 85 27 265 clear Total 166 128 190 28 393 476 271 207 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 10 df; ANOVA=0.015, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.007. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 4 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.006.

In addition, in the reports of female journalists the share of news where candidates appeared with their families was higher than in the reports of their male colleagues

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.010)

(Table 11). Also, male journalists portrayed candidates with symbols of authority more often than did female reporters (Pearson Chi-Square=0.041, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.041, at 2 df) (Table 11).

Table 11

Candidate Appeared with Family and Candidate Appeared with Symbols of Authority / Reporter’s Gender Candidate Appeared Candidate Appeared with with Family * Symbols of Authority ** YES NO Total YES NO Total Male 54 362 416 58 358 416 Reporter’s Female 53 220 273 21 252 273 Gender Both/Not clear 11 254 265 30 235 265 Total 118 836 954 109 845 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.010. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.041, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.041, at 2 df.

As for the physical qualities, it is important to note that Obama’s race was mentioned more often than Clinton’s gender (Pearson Chi-Square=0.001, at 2 df;

ANOVA=0.001, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.003) (Table 12), similarly, Obama’s appearance was mentioned more often than that of Clinton (Pearson Chi-Square=0.004, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.004, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.002) (Table 12).

There was an important statistical significance in the correlation of use of “The

First” frame and the gender of source (Pearson Chi-Square=0.001, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000), as female sources used that frame more often than male sources. There was no statistical significance in the use of “The First” frame in the reports about Clinton or

Obama (Pearson Chi-Square=0.156, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.448). At the same time, there was a significant correlation in the use of “The First” frame and Obama’s support

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 9 df), and while that frame was steadily used in the first months of the nomination campaign, later there were only sporadic uses.

Table 12

Physical Qualities and Appearance Mentioned / Candidate Obama Clinton Both Total YES 91 59 45 195 Physical Qualities * NO 244 312 203 759 Total 335 371 248 954 YES 18 7 3 28 Appearance ** NO 317 364 245 926 Total 335 371 248 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.001, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.001, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.003. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.004, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.004, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.002.

Another correlation was recorded between the use of “Change” frame and the gender of the source (Pearson Chi-Square=0.042, at 2 df): male sources used the frame more often compared with the female sources. The “Change” frame has been also used significantly more often in reports about Obama than in those about Clinton (Pearson

Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000).

The use of “Change” frame was significantly correlated with both Obama’s

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 9 df) and Clinton’s (Pearson Chi-

Square=0.000, at 7 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 7 df) support (Table 13). There was also a significant correlation between the source’s gender and his or her occupation (Pearson

Chi-Square=0.000, at 10 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000): there were ten times more male

“horse race” experts than female experts.

Table 13

Use of “Change” Frame / Candidate’s Support Obama’s Support

21.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 33.00 44.00 47.00 49.00 50.00 52.00 Total YES 11 6 10 19 87 11 77 5 17 4 247 “Change” Frame * NO 67 53 76 43 109 53 159 77 33 37 707 Total 78 59 86 62 196 64 236 77 33 37 954 Clinton’s Support

40.00 42.00 43.00 44.00 45.00 47.00 48.00 51.00 Total

YES 17 5 4 77 106 16 11 11 247 “Change” NO 33 77 37 159 152 129 67 53 707 Frame ** Total 50 82 41 236 258 145 78 64 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 9 df. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 7 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 7 df.

In addition, partisan sources and “horse race” experts talked more often in the news about Hillary Clinton, while in the news about Barack Obama there were more ordinary citizens and Obama himself as main source (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 10 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000).

Furthermore, females were six times more often sources of the reports about

Clinton, while males were twice more often the sources in the news about Obama

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 4 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 9 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000)

(Table 14). In addition, there was significant correlation of the main topic of the report and its main character (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 8 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 4 df; 43

Spearman’s rho=0.000). Thus, while there were twice as many news reports about

Obama focused on economic issues, there were eight times more reports about Clinton focused on healthcare and social issues (Table 14).

Table 14

Gender of the Source and Main Topic of News Report / Candidate Obama Clinton Both Total Male 246 122 108 476 Female 29 191 51 271 Gender of the Source * Both/Not clear 60 58 89 207 Total 335 371 248 954 Economics 16 9 0 25 Health&Social 3 24 3 30 Def/Iraq/Terr 20 17 5 42 Main Topic of News Report ** Other 67 72 24 163 Race/Polls 229 249 216 694 Total 335 371 248 954 * Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 4 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 9 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 8 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 4 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000.

Also, Obama directly spoke twice as often in news about economics, while

Clinton’s direct words were included five times more often in the reports about healthcare and social issues (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 8 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000).

Furthermore, there was a significant correlation between the portrayal of the candidate as vulnerable and main character of the report (ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df): the candidate who was portrayed as vulnerable was Hillary Clinton (Table 15). There was also a significant correlation between the presence of the attributes of authority and the main character of the news (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s

rho=0.000), as Obama was portrayed twice as often with the symbols of authority compared with Clinton (Table 15).

Table 15

Candidates Portrayed as Vulnerable and with Symbols of Authority Obama Clinton Both Total YES 0 15 3 18 Portrayed as Vulnerable * NO 335 356 245 936 Total 335 371 248 954 YES 61 34 14 109 Portrayed with Symbols of Authority NO 274 337 234 845 ** Total 335 371 248 954 * ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df. ** Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000.

Other Findings

There was a significant difference between the networks in a journalist’s gender

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.11, at 4 df; ANOVA=0.003, at 4 df). In particular, while ABC and CBS had the ratio between males and females of about 60 % to 40 %, NBC had almost twice as many news reports produced exclusively by male journalists, compared with the news produced exclusively by female journalists.

There was no significant difference between networks in the frequency of mentioning candidates’ physical qualities (Pearson Chi-Square=0.912, at 2 df), appearance (Pearson Chi-Square=0.746, at 2 df), and age (Pearson Chi-Square=0.404, at

2 df). Neither was there any significant difference in the use of “The First” (Pearson Chi-

Square=0.545, at 2 df) and “Change” (Pearson Chi-Square=0.522, at 2 df) frames between the networks. In addition, networks were nearly identical in their selection of

sources (Pearson Chi-Square=0.184, at 10 df) and the gender of sources (Pearson Chi-

Square=0.866, at 4 df). At the same time, there was slight significance in the selection of topics between the networks (Pearson Chi-Square=0.047, at 8 df; ANOVA=0.011, at 2 df). Overall, results of the coverage by all three networks were generally identical in the rest of the categories.

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION

It should be noted prior to the discussion of the findings that the news media were not entirely responsible – or, to say it differently, the masterminds – of the use of different frames and stereotypes. Occasionally, candidates or their staffs themselves triggered a particular perception by the news media. Thus, for example, in the middle of the nomination race, Obama’s staff promoted “Change” as the slogan of their candidate and as a result the slogan was present in the background or in front of many televised speeches delivered by Barack Obama. Similarly, Obama triggered in January 2008 the discussion of his race. At the same time, it was Clinton’s staff decision at some point to involve the candidate’s daughter, Chelsea Clinton, in the campaign, and the media covered the activities organized by the campaign with the participation of Hillary Clinton and her daughter rather than making a decision to be focused on Chelsea Clinton.

With that being said, the role of decisions made by media representatives concerning the coverage of the campaign was vital for the formation of the candidates’ public images. In particular, the selection of sources, portrayal of the candidate surrounded by supporters or with the symbols of authority, selection of certain video materials, emphasis on particular topics in the coverage of candidates’ meetings with voters (as during each of these meetings a wide range of issues were usually discussed) – these all were decisions made by reporters or editors, who were the gatekeepers and thus had power to add bold strokes to the public images of the candidates.

Research Question 1

To what extent did the mass media employ traditional gender frames and

stereotypes in the portrayal of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic

Nomination Race coverage?

Overall, the results of this study discovered that the researched television networks did not bluntly use traditional gender frames and stereotypes in the portrayal of

Hillary Clinton (Table 2). Thus, while in previous decades media paid less attention to women politicians (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993a, 1993b; Kahn, 1994a, 1994b; Kahn and

Goldenberg, 1991; Niven & Zilber, 2001), this study found that Hillary Clinton received more attention in the media than Barack Obama (Table 1). The researches of the past campaigns’ portrayal had shown that women received significantly more physical descriptions compared to their most equivalent male counterparts in news stories (Falk,

2008). This study showed that Clinton’s physical qualities and appearance were seldom emphasized in the reports and appeared in the media coverage less often than physical qualities and appearance of Barack Obama.1

Nevertheless, a delicate evaluation of the media coverage allows revealing more subtle yet not less powerful stereotypes embedded in the portrayal of Clinton. In particular, the topics of economics, foreign policy, and defense make up less than one percent (each) of Clinton’s overall nomination campaign coverage, while health and social issues were notably stressed in Clinton’s coverage. At the same time, the lion’s

1 One may argue that this study to a certain degree differs from traditional male/female politician studies as it analyzes the coverage of political competition between a White woman and an African-American man, rather than classic (White) female candidate vs. (White) male candidate campaign. This issue will be discussed in the last chapter, as it is one of the limitations of this study. 48

share of the coverage was focused almost exclusively on the “horse race” approach to the nomination. These findings were consistent with previous studies (Heldman et al., 2005;

Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993a, 1993b; Nacos, 2005), which found that in the media coverage typical female policy competence issues usually consisted of education, poverty, and health care, as women were traditionally perceived as more capable at dealing with the elderly and children because they were viewed as more compassionate

(Deaux & Lewis, 1984), sensitive and soft (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1992). This perception of women politicians reinforced by the media can significantly deteriorate their chances to be elected at highest levels of office, as policy areas in which males are perceived as more skillful, such as defense or the economy, are regarded as more important for higher levels and types of office (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008).

The gendered content was also deeply embedded in the media coverage of Hillary

Clinton rather than apparent on the surface of news reports (Table 4). Thus, unlike

Obama, Clinton was portrayed as vulnerable either because of her gender or her campaign’s financial troubles. In addition, during the period when Clinton was the

Democratic nomination frontrunner, she and Obama were equally portrayed with the signs of authority; however, once Obama became the frontrunner, he was portrayed with the signs of authority three times more often than was Clinton. The media attention to campaign resources traditionally has been an important element of campaign coverage; however, the lack of resources was discussed by the media more frequently for female candidates (Kahn, 1996), which can serve to undermine women’s credibility with voters

(Kahn, 1992; Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991). In particular, the discussion of scarcity of

campaign resources contributes to the portrayal of women politicians as less viable than their male competitors (Bystrom, Robertson & Banwart, 2001).

Research Question 2

Was there significant correlation between frames, stereotypes, and the

context employed by news media to portrayal of Hillary Clinton and

Barack Obama and the fluctuations of popularity of Hillary Clinton and

Barack Obama?

The results show that the use of frames and stereotypes in media coverage was significantly correlated with changes in popularity of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

In particular, the use of the “Change” frame (Table 13) significantly correlated with both

Obama’s popularity (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 9 df) and

Clinton’s popularity (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 7 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 7 df). It should be stressed that although the “Change” frame almost always originated in candidates’ staffs, journalists readily transferred in their reports the frame served them2 by candidates’ strategists.

At the same time, the use of “First” frame, which traditionally stresses uniqueness of a successful woman leader in the political arena (Falk, 2008; Norris, 1996), was significantly correlated with growing Obama’s support (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 9 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 9 df).

2 In particular, in the middle of the primaries, when Obama’s staff made “Change” an unofficial motto of their candidate’s campaign, journalists very often included the sign with the word “Change” on the background of the video in their reports about Barack Obama. 50

Research Question 3

What are the main differences in the context and frames employed in the

coverage of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the period studied?

As mentioned above, there were no blunt and prominent differences in the context as well as frames and stereotypes employed in the coverage of Clinton and Obama.

However, some delicate distinctions could potentially influence the perception of the candidates. Thus, for example, a popular 3 in 2007 “Change” frame was used three times more often in the stories about Barack Obama (Table 2). At the same time, the “First” frame, which presents women as “unnatural” in the public sphere (Falk, 2008) was used twice as often in the reports about Hillary Clinton in the period when she was a frontrunner (Table 2). In addition, Hillary Clinton was portrayed more often talking about health and social issues, while Barack Obama was presented as talking slightly more on economics and security issues (Table 2).

The context surrounding candidates provide even more interesting differences.

Thus, the number of female sources in the reports about Hillary Clinton was six times more frequent than the number of female sources in the reports about Barack Obama, while number of male sources in reports about Obama was twice more frequent than the number of male sources in the stories about Clinton (Table 3 and Table 14). What is interesting, though, despite the overall higher number of male sources in the stories about

Barack Obama, the number of male sources of Clinton’s staff representatives (partisan

3 According to Gallup poll (LexisNexis, 2007), on September 4, 2007, Democrats by a large margin attached more importance to a candidate who would bring about change than to one who had experience. 51

sources) in the stories about her is almost two times higher in comparison to Obama

(Table 3).

In addition to that, Hillary Clinton’s family members were more often present in the video with her, and she was slightly more often portrayed with a child4 than Barack

Obama (Table 4). What is more important, Clinton was portrayed as a vulnerable candidate in 15 news stories about her (1.6% of total), while Barack Obama was never portrayed as vulnerable in a single news story about him (Table 4). Also, Obama was portrayed three times more often with signs of authority in the period when he became a frontrunner, while in the period when the frontrunner was Clinton they each were portrayed with signs of authority in an equal number of stories (Table 4).

Hypothesis 1

There was a significant positive correlation between the use of “traditional

masculine” context in the portrayal of the candidate and candidate’s

overall popularity in the Gallup poll as presidential nominee.

The overall coverage of Obama and Clinton in the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries was heavily focused on the “horse race” (Table 2), which in turn was beneficial for the male candidate, as the major topic of the coverage distinguishes the male candidate as a superior participant of the horse race due to his perceived image as an assertive, ambitious and strong candidate (Devere & Davies, 2006), who, therefore, is more skillful for higher levels and types of office (Cantrell & Bachmann, 2008). Clinton remained the frontrunner in the first months of the campaign, when the selection of topics

4 Note that candidates’ children were counted only as family members. This category only counted non- candidates’ children, who were portrayed near them. 52

was more diverse, however, in the later months, when the topics were almost exclusively focused on polls and nomination (Table 2), Obama’s support shot ahead into first place

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 36 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 4 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000).

Even a trivial fact that there were ten times more male “horse race” experts than female experts (Table 3) supports the notion that the “horse race” issue remains primarily a male-dominated area.

Moreover, “horse race” experts talked more often in the news about Hillary

Clinton, while in the news about Barack Obama there were more ordinary citizens and

Obama himself as main sources (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 10 df; ANOVA=0.000, at

2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000). To further emphasize “masculine” context around Obama, news networks aired twice as many news reports about Obama focused on economic issues (Table 14), while they reported eight times more stories about Clinton focused on healthcare and social issues (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 8 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 4 df;

Spearman’s rho=0.000). Obama directly spoke twice as often in news about economics, while Clinton’s direct words were included five times more often in the reports about healthcare and social issues (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 8 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000).

Also, Obama was portrayed twice as often with the symbols of authority compared with

Clinton (Table 15). Overall the evidence collected during this research is enough to support the hypothesis about positive correlation between the use of “traditional masculine” context in the portrayal of the candidate and candidate’s overall popularity as a presidential nominee.

Hypotheses 2 and 3

H2: There was a significant negative correlation between the use of

“traditional feminine” context in the portrayal of the candidate and

candidate’s overall popularity in the Gallup poll as presidential nominee.

H3: There was a significant negative correlation between the use of

“traditional feminine” frames in the portrayal of the candidate and

candidate’s overall popularity in the Gallup poll as presidential nominee.

The portrayal of a woman as a less viable candidate in the media can have a great impact on the public’s perceptions of women candidates and their campaigns (Bystrom,

Robertson & Banwart, 2001, p. 2002; Kahn, 1996). One of the ways to portray a woman candidate as “unnatural” in highest political offices is to limit female policy competence issues to education, poverty, and health care (Heldman et al., 2005; Huddy & Terkildsen,

1993a, 1993b; Nacos, 2005). Thus media “outlined” Clinton’s competence (Table 14) by reporting eight times more stories about her focused on healthcare and social issues

(Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 8 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 4 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000). In addition, Clinton’s direct words were included five times more often in the reports about healthcare and social issues (Pearson Chi-Square=0.000, at 8 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000).

This also reinforced the (false) assumption that females are more sensitive than males and hence are less competent to handle the issues that deal with military, war, and the economy and require cool judgment (Huddy & Terkildsen, 1992).

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton was portrayed as a vulnerable candidate in 15 stories with her as the main character of the story (Table 15), while Barack Obama was not

portrayed as vulnerable in a single story focused mainly on him (ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df). The deterioration of Hillary Clinton’s support has been also correlated with the increased portrayal of Barack Obama near the attributes of authority (Pearson Chi-

Square=0.000, at 2 df; ANOVA=0.000, at 2 df; Spearman’s rho=0.000), as Obama was portrayed twice as often with the symbols of authority compared with Clinton (Table 15).

This clearly framed Clinton as a less powerful and less weighty player in the political game compared to Obama (Carroll & Schreiber, 1997; Clawson & Tom, 1999; Devitt,

1999; Niven & Zilber, 2001).

Overall, hypotheses two and three were also supported by the data obtained during this research, as there was a significant negative correlation between the use of

“traditional feminine” context and frames in the portrayal Hillary Clinton and her overall popularity in the Gallup poll.

Gender and Adoption of Industry Standards

An interesting and rather accidental finding of this study shows that despite widespread opinion, women do not adopt many negative standards employed by men in the industry. Thus, women journalists mentioned physical qualities of the candidates less often than did their male colleagues. Similarly, in the reports prepared exclusively by female journalists, there were fewer frames and stereotypes employed. In addition, the reports of female journalists had more diversity of experts and topics and were less focused on the “horse race” aspect of nomination. Eventually, female journalists selected male and female sources equally, while male reporters chose male sources more often.

CHAPTER 7: NOTES ON QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

This chapter was not intended to be included in the discussion of the study and was rather a by-product of quantitative research. Nevertheless, the chapter on qualitative analysis was included in this thesis as an essential supplement for thorough evaluation of quantitative results and a complete picture of the Democratic primaries’ coverage on

ABC, CBS, and NBC. The purpose of this chapter is to serve as a supplement to quantitative data rather than a separate source of new findings.

Portrayal of Barack Obama

In September and early October 2007, Barack Obama was portrayed as a weak but sincere candidate, and until the time when he gradually became a frontrunner in winter 2008, none of the three networks attempted to initiate discussion about Obama’s race. Thus, at first Obama was rather an unexpected, a “surprise candidate,” and his coverage was more focused on non-political issues such as “Obama Girls” videos (Sept.

24, 2007, on ABC, for example) or discussions about his family. At that time, Obama often was talking on television about his mother, her social and medical conditions, and the future he hoped to help create for such people as her in the United States. Barack

Obama’s high level of patriotism was also among the most common story themes of the media to a degree that it was even stressed in stories about Hillary Clinton (for example, on NBC on Dec. 14, 2007). The patriotism has also been the topic of a rare discussion about Barack Obama’s appearance (an absence of the flag pin), which, in fact, was initiated by Obama himself.

Interestingly, while in the fall of 2007 Barack Obama was often pictured alone

(even when he was delivering a speech in front of his supporters, which was obvious from the sound), starting in January - February 2008, Obama often appeared surrounded by supporters and with symbols of power (security agents around him, flags in the background while he speaks).

As for the racial issue, it is important to stress that the discussion about Obama’s race was in the majority of cases initiated in the media either by Obama himself or by his staff members and supporters. Thus, Barack Obama’s race was widely discussed as a response, after Obama himself mentioned race in his speeches in January of 2008 (“This election is not about black vs. white, this race is not about gender or race” on ABC, Feb.

2, 2008), and after his famous speech aired on Feb. 22, 2008 (“There is no black America and white America”).

The role of race was frequently mentioned by Obama’s campaign strategists after significant “black voters support” that he received in North Carolina, as well as by

Barack Obama’s celebrity supporters such as Oprah Winfrey (“I’m supporting Obama not because he’s black but because he’s brilliant”). During the primaries, journalists themselves rarely used race independently, without responding to the words of Obama’s staff members (an exceptional case was ABC’s Feb. 1, 2008, program, where the journalist noted: “A black male, a white woman – the image was stunning”). Overall, the racial issues were mainly initiated on all three networks by either Obama (“I am a son of black man”) or by his supporters. It is important to note that except for two examples

(one has been already mentioned above), there was not recorded any case when the racial

issue was discussed or mentioned independently on any of three channels, without being initiated by either Obama and his supporters, or the high percentage of African American voters in several states. At the same time, all three networks were very tolerant of

Obama’s supporters, who were never criticized for calling Obama a “black candidate”

(“this black male [who] is stealing my heart” – NBC), while non-supporters were frequently criticized for calling Obama “black” rather than “African American.”

“Change” and “the agent of change” were probably the most common frames associated with Barack Obama in the media. On all three networks the “change” theme became Obama’s brand to the extent that as a background many journalists speaking on camera about Barack Obama used the “change” poster (CBS); the “change” poster was also almost always shown as an official logo of Obama’s campaign (ABC).

From January 2008 and till the end of the primaries, the coverage of Barack

Obama included additional elements: Obama started using the “the first” frame in his speeches and appeared often with his family on camera and in front of his supporters. At that same time, interviews with Michelle Obama appeared on all three networks. At the end of the primaries the most popular theme was the calculation of funds raised by

Obama’s staff (vs. Clinton’s fundraising) and delegates and super-delegates, who were pledged to vote for him at the party convention.

Portrayal of Hillary Clinton

In the early stages of the Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton’s leadership as a frontrunner was emphasized by the networks even on a technical level. Thus, all three TV channels had selected journalists permanently attached to Clinton’s staff and covering

solely issues related to her campaign, while other Democratic candidates’ activities were covered by journalists on rotating assignments.

Since Hillary Clinton had been viewed as a Democratic Party frontrunner in fall

2007, the gender issue was frequently discussed either with her (in an interview about a female presidency with Michelle Bachelet on Sep. 27, 2007 on ABC) or with political and “horse race” strategists. The gender issue was again regularly discussed in early winter 2008, after the first Democratic debates (for example, the expression “A bunch of men against a woman” repeated several times on ABC in January of 2008). As opposed to Obama’s race, Clinton’s gender was often discussed on all three networks by itself, not related to the voters’ activity or preferences. For example, there were frequent discussions about Clinton competing in the “all-boys’ club” of presidential candidates.

Overall, Clinton’s gender was mentioned significantly more often than Obama’s race, while journalists often noted in their questions to the guests that Hillary Clinton was “the only woman in the all-boys’ club.” Obama’s race difference was never mentioned in the same context.

As a result of gender being highlighted, the media expected Clinton to act and behave in the framework of traditional gender stereotypes, and any trespass of the norms was emphasized if not criticized on all three networks. Thus, Clinton’s tough stand during the debates with other Democratic Party candidates was often labeled as aggressive, while, at the same time, her ability to rule independently as a president was questioned. Furthermore, the “buy one, get one free” early Bill Clinton motto was recalled; however, at this time there was an apparent widespread opinion that Hillary

Clinton would play the same role as she played during Bill Clinton’s presidency and overall her victory would in fact mean Bill Clinton’s third term. For example, Hillary

Clinton was frequently asked (and constantly denied) whether Bill Clinton would participate in the National Security Team meeting, despite the fact that she never mentioned an intention to offer Bill Clinton any position in her administration (for example, on ABC on Dec. 31, 2007). Even after she gave her answer, the same question was asked again to Bill Clinton, as if he needed to validate her answer. Similarly, there was a discussion about the consequences of “having President Bill Clinton on the train” while Hillary Clinton would be in the White House.

It should be noted here that from time to time Hillary Clinton herself provided grist for gender discussions; however, any such evidence was often exaggerated in the media. For example, Hillary Clinton’s famous emotional answer (about being a woman candidate) prior to the New Hampshire primaries was widely discussed. Although she never actually cried, all networks mentioned her “tears” (while the cameras had shown no trace of tears on her face at that time). Also, immediately after that, the networks covered audience members’ sexist remarks (“Hillary, iron my shirt” on ABC on Jan. 7, 2008, for example). After the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton was often called a “female candidate” in the media and all networks emphasized her “unnecessary anger” during the

Democratic debates.

Republican Party candidates also played a role in the sexist coverage of Hillary

Clinton. Thus, John McCain, who was at that time the main candidate of the Republicans, replied “That is an excellent question” in response to being asked: “How do we get rid of

the bitch?” At the same time, it contrasted with McCain’s official apologies after one of his supporters used Barack Obama’s full name (Barack Hussein Obama). Overall, any action of Hillary Clinton that opposed the gender stereotypes was vividly highlighted.

Thus, in the same week, all three networks portrayed Hillary Clinton drinking whiskey in her hometown, while Barack Obama was pictured playing basketball.

Hillary Clinton’s strategy to be portrayed as an experienced candidate (as opposed to Obama) soon had its drawback in two major areas. Firstly, she constantly had to reaffirm her image as being the candidate “ready on day one” and lost a privilege to make mistakes. Secondly, Hillary Clinton’s experience was traced to Bill Clinton’s presidency; thus, she inherited all major failures of that period (including the attempt at health care reforms), while all advances were presented as Bill Clinton’s achievements.

As a result, the image of an experienced leader equated to the image of a candidate who would not bring change to Washington because of the formula: experienced = being for a long time in politics = inherited traditions of dirty politics.

Thus, Hillary Clinton lost twice. She was suffering from all the negative consequences of a woman politician’s stereotype (not tough enough, not actually self-contained, but rather dependent of her husband) and almost never enjoyed any positive consequence of that stereotype (an agent of change, an honest participant of a dirty political game). Similarly, her image was affected by the negative consequences of an experienced politician stereotype (blurred by corruption, hypocritical), and rarely benefited from the positive shades of that stereotype (prudent and with strong leadership abilities).

In January 2008, Hillary Clinton also attempted to actively use the “change” frame, but in the media her attempts were diminished as she was more of “a Clinton” than “a woman,” more “a former first lady” than “a potentially first female president.” At the same time, Barack Obama was portrayed as “a potentially first African American president” rather than as “a former Harvard graduate” or as a lawyer.

In February 2008, Hillary Clinton’s campaign changed. After the resignation of campaign advisor Patti Solis Doyle in February, there was a palpable decision to emphasize the “woman politician” side of her campaign, which was also reflected in the media. Thus, starting in February she frequently appeared on camera with her family

(including not only Bill and Chelsea but also her mother). However, a month later her campaign changed the vector again and she returned to the “ready on day one” frame, attempting to diminish the gender issue, probably because the emphasis on gender did not yield expected results.

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, media enthusiastically portrayed the nomination race in the frame of

“woman versus man” but almost entirely rejected framing it as “white vs. African

American.” While the first frame is considered ethically acceptable in the society, the second is reasonably taboo because of negative historical heritage. However, in this situation the best decision by the media – which has not been made – would be to refuse the use of any stereotyping frames (including “woman vs. man”), as it spoiled Clinton’s chances. The problem occurred when during the competition of the two candidates, one was constantly portrayed within the framework of stereotypes related to her socio- physical qualities (gender), while the other was rarely portrayed with the employment of stereotypes associated with his socio-physical qualities (race).

There were of course discussions of “black votes” and their role in Obama’s success. Furthermore, these discussions were even more frequent than discussions of the significance of “women votes” for Clinton. However, and this is the most important difference, while Clinton’s gender was personalized and constantly discussed in relationship with her character, Obama’s race has never been personalized.5 When discussing the potential number of African American votes for Obama, never did the media or the experts overtly state that they assumed in the Democratic nomination that

African Americans would vote for Obama because he was African American, or because he knew their problems better, or because they identified themselves with him. However,

5 Except for one case, when Oprah Winfrey said that she would vote for Obama “not because he’s black” but “because he’s brilliant.” 63

in the case of Hillary Clinton, the news media and their sources did not hesitate to say that women primarily would vote for Clinton as she represented them, as she better knew their problems, and eventually as she was a woman, too. Questions such as “Is it hard for a woman to compete with men?” or “What will be the role of Bill in Hillary Clinton’s administration?” were normal and frequent in the discussion of Clinton’s candidacy, during which even extremes such “How do we beat the bitch?” occurred and were broadcast directly by the media. Lastly, Barack Obama was in general portrayed without any direct reference to race but rather as a Democratic candidate with significant support of African American voters, who had the right to discuss issues of race, and whose race should not be stressed. This is a positive practice, of course. However, the problem in the coverage of the 2008 Democratic nomination race was that Hillary Clinton did not receive similar treatment by the media, which significantly reduced her ability to win the nomination.

The obligation to provide fair coverage for all candidates involved in any competition is one of the major ethical and legal liabilities of the media. However, that obligation cannot be accomplished if candidates receive different treatment, which at the end of the day negatively affects one of them.

This study had a number of limitations associated with the methods and selection of networks. First of all, the range of three television networks – even though the most popular – does not allow extending the findings to all media. In particular, it is possible that other digital, print, or online media covered the 2008 Democratic nomination race differently. In addition, more delicate measurements of the candidates’ support –

probably involving other polls besides Gallup – should be used to calibrate the relationship between the frequency of stereotypes and frames used by media and fluctuations of candidates’ public support. Eventually, other factors involving candidates’ actions should be taken into account. Thus, it is possible that Obama never drank alcohol in public during the nomination race and that Clinton decided to appear less often with symbols of authority in the background. It is also possible that Obama indeed talked more often about economic issues during his meetings while Clinton indeed discussed more often issues of health care. All these factors could have played their role in construction of the candidates’ images.

REFERENCES

Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly, 46, 527-545.

Bell, A. (1991). The Language of News Media. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Bem, S. L. (1993). The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Benze, J. G. Jr (1990). “Nancy Reagan: China Doll or Dragon Lady?” Presidential Studies Quarterly 20, 777-90.

Berkman, M., & O’Connor, R. (1993). “Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy.” American Politics Quarterly, 21, 102-124.

Best, D. & Williams, J. (1990). Measuring Sex Stereotypes: a Thirty-Nation Study, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Blankenship, J. (1976). “The Search for the 1972 Democratic Nomination: A Metaphorical Perspective.” In Jane Blankenship and Hermann G. Stelzner (eds.) Rhetoric & Communication, Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.

Blankenship, J. & Kang, J. K. (1991). “The 1984 Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates: The Printed Press and ‘Construction by Metaphor.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 21, 307-318.

Braden, M. (1996). Women Politicians and the Media. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Bretl, D. J., & Cantor, J. (1988). “The Portrayal of Men and Women in U.S. Television Commercials: A Recent Content Analysis and Trends over 15 years.” Sex Roles, 18, 595-60.

Brown, M. E. (1997). “Feminism and Cultural Politics: Television Audiences and Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Political Communication 14, 255-70.

Bryant. J., & Zillman. D. (2002). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Mahwah. NJ; Eribaum.

Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. E. (1983). “Friendly or Unfriendly Persuasion. The Effects of Violations of Expectations by Males and Females.” Human Communication Research, 10, 283-294.

Burrell, B. (2001). Public Opinion, the First Ladyship, and Hillary Rodham Clinton. New York, NY: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bystrom, D. (1999). “Why Not a Woman? Reactions to the Presidential Candidacy of Elizabeth Dole.” Paper presented at the National Communication Association convention, Chicago.

Bystrom, D., McKinnon, L. M., & Chaney, C. (1999). “First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Media Coverage of Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole in the 1996 Presidential Election.” In: Lynda L. Kaid and Dianne Bystrom (Eds), The Electronic Election. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 105-22.

Bystrom, D. G., Robertson, T. A., & Banwart, M.-C. (2001). “Framing the Fight.” American Behavioral Scientist 44 (12), 1999-2013.

Cantor, M. G. (1987). “Popular Culture and the Portrayal of Women: Content & Control.” In B. B. Hess and M. M. Ferree (Eds.), Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cantrell, T. H. & Bachmann, I. (2008). “Who is the Lady in the Window?” Journalism Studies, 9(3), 429-446.

Carragee, K. M. and Roefs, W. (2004). “The Neglect of Power in Recent Framing Research.” Journal of Communication 54(2), 214-33.

Carroll, S., & Schreiber, R. (1997). “Media Coverage of Women in the 103rd Congress.” In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, Media, and Politics, 131-148. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clawson, R., & Tom, R. (1999). “Invisible Lawmakers: Media Coverage of Black and Female State Legislators.” Unpublished manuscript, Purdue University.

Coltrane, S., & Adams, M. (1997). “Work-Family Imagery and Gender Stereotypes; Television and the Reproduction of Difference.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 323-347.

Cooper, V W (1985). “Women in Popular Music: A Quantitative Analysis of Feminine Images.” Sex Roles, 13, 499-506.

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (1992). “Men and the News Media.” In S. Craig (Ed.), Men, Masculinity, and the Media, 154-168. London: Sage.

Daddario, G. (1994). “Chilly Scenes of the 1992 Winter Games: The Mass Media and the Marginalization of Female Athletes.” Sociology of Sport Journal 11, 275-288.

Daddario, G. (1997). “Gendered Sports Programming: 1992 Summer Olympic Coverage and the Feminine Narrative Form.” Sociology of Sport Journal 14, 103-120.

Davis, J. (1982). “Sexist Bias in Eight Newspapers.” Journalism Quarterly, 59, 456-460.

Dayhoff, S. (1983). “Sexist Language and Person Perception: Evaluation of Candidates from Newspaper Articles.” Sex Roles, 9, 527-539.

Deaux, K. & Lewis, L. L. (1984). “The Structure of Gender Stereotypes: Interrelationships among Components and Gender Label.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 991-1004.

Devere, H. & Davies, S. G. (2006). “The Don and Helen New Zealand Election 2005: A Media a Gender?” Pacific Journalism Review 12(1), 65-85.

Devitt, J. (1999). “Framing Gender on the Campaign Trail: Women’s Executive Leadership and the Press.” Unpublished manuscript, Women’s Leadership Fund, New York, NY. On-line: www.womensleadershipfund.org

Devitt, J. (2002). “Framing Gender on the Campaign Trail: Female Gubernatorial Candidates and the Press.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 79(2), 445-63.

Dickerson, D. L. (2003). “Framing ‘Political Correctness’: The New York Times’ Tale of Two Professors.” in: Stephen D. Reese, Oscar H. Gandy Jr and August E. Grant (Eds), Framing Public Life, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 163-74.

Dodson, D. (1998). “Representing Women’s Interests in the U.S. House of Representatives.” In S. Thomas & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Women and Elective Office, 130-149. New York: Oxford University Press.

Durkin, L. (1985). “Television and Sex Role Acquisition.” British Journal of Social Psychology 24, 101-113.

Eastman, S. T. & Billings, A. C. (2000). “Sports Casting and Sports Reporting.” Journal of Sport & Social Issues 24 (2), 192-213.

Eastman, S. T., & Billings, A. C. (1999). “Gender Parity in the Olympics: Hyping Women Athletes, Favoring Men Athletes.” Journal of Sports & Social Issues, 23(2), 140-170.

Edwards, J. L., & Huey-Rong, C. (2000). “The First Lady / First Wife in Editorial Cartoons: Rhetorical Visions through Gendered Lenses.” Women's Studies in Communication 23, 367-392.

Entman, R. M. (1991). “Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents.” Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.

Entman, R. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43(4), 51-8.

Falk, E. (2008). Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Franklin, A. I. (2000). “Criticism and Praise: the Media’s Construction of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA, November 2000.

Fiske, J. (1987). Television Culture. New York: Methuen.

Gallup Web site. http://www.gallup.com/poll/3802/Americans-Mixed-Feelings-About- Prospect-First-Lady-Senate-Bid.aspx

Gans, H. J. (1980). Deciding What’s News. New York: Vintage Books.

Gardetto, D. C. (1997). “Hillary Rodham Clinton, Symbolic Gender Politics, and the New York Times: January-November 1992.” Political Communication 14, 225- 40.

Genovese, M. A. & Thompson, S. (2003). “Women as Chief Executives: Does Gender Matter?” in: Michael A. Genovese (Ed.), Women as National Leaders, London: Sage, 1-13.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M. & Signorielli, N. (1986). “Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process.”

Gidengil, E., & Everitt, J. (1999). “Metaphors and Misrepresentation: Gendered Mediation in News Coverage of the 1993 Canadian Leaders’ Debates.” Harvard International Journal of Press/ Politics, 4(1), 48-65.

Gidengil, E., & Everitt, J. (2000). “Filtering the Female: Television News Coverage of the 1993 Canadian Leaders’ Debates.” Women & Politics, 21(4), 105-131.

Gidengil, E., & Everitt, J. (2003a). “Conventional Coverage/Unconventional Politicians: Gender and Media Coverage of Canadian Leaders’ Debates.” Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(3).

Gidengil, E. & Everitt, J. (2003b). “Talking Tough: Gender and Reported Speech in Campaign News Coverage.” Political Communication, 20, 209-232.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Glenberg, A. M., & Langston, W. E. (1992). “Comprehension of Illustrated Text: Pictures Help to Build Mental Models.” Journal of Memory and Language 31, 129-151.

Goffman, E. (1979). Gender Advertisements. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Greer, G. (1996). “Abolish Her: The Feminist Case Against First Ladies.” New Republic, 21-27.

Halbert, C., & Latimer, M. (1994). “’Battling’ Gendered Language: An Analysis of the Language used by Sports Commentators in a Televised Coed Tennis Competition.” Sociology of Sport Journal 11, 298-308.

Harris, M. B., & Knight-Bohnhoff, K. (1996). “Gender and Aggression: Perceptions of Aggression.” Sex Roles, 35 (1-2), 1-25.

Hart, R. P. (1999). Seducing America: How Television Charms the Modern Voter. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Heldman, C., Carroll, S. J., & Olson, S. (2000). “Gender Differences in Print Media Coverage of Presidential Candidates: Elizabeth Dole’s Bid for the Republican Nomination.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.

Heldman, C., Carroll, S. J., & Olson, S. (2005). “‘She Brought Only a Skirt’: Print Media Coverage of Elizabeth Dole’s Bid for the Republican Presidential Nomination.” Political Communication 22(3), 315-35.

Herzog, H. (1998). “More than a Looking Glass: Women in Israeli Local Politics and the Media. Press/Politics, 3(1), 26-47.

Higgs, D. T., & Weiller, K. H. (1994). “Gender Bias and the 1992 Summer Olympic Games: An Analysis of Television Coverage.” Journal of Sports & Social Issues 18, 234-246.

Huddy, L. & Terkildsen, N. (1993a). “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1), 119-47.

Huddy, L. & Terkildsen, N. (1993b). “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46(3), 503-25.

Jamieson, K. H. (1988). The Interplay of Influence: Mass Media and Their Publics in News, Advertising, Politics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.

Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kahn, K. F. (1992). “Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on Evaluations of US Senate Candidates.” Journal of Politics 54, 497-517.

Kahn, K. F. (1994a). “Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of Sex Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science 38(1), 162-91.

Kahn, K. F. (1994b). “The Distorted Mirror: Press Coverage of Women Candidates for Statewide Office.” Journal of Politics 56(1), 154-73.

Kahn, K. F. (1996). The Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York: Columbia University Press.

Kahn, K. F. & Goldenberg, E. N. (1991). “Women Candidates in the News: An Examination of Gender Differences in U.S. Senate Campaign Coverage.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55(2), 180-99.

Kathlene, L. (1989). “Uncovering the Political Impacts of Gender: An Exploratory Study.” Western Political Quarterly, 42, 397-421.

Kathlene, L. (1994). “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review, 88, 560-576.

Kathlene, L. (1995). “Alternative Views of Crime: Legislative Policymaking in Gendered Terms.” Journal of Politics, 57, 696-723.

Koch, J. (1999). “Candidate Gender and Assessments of Senate Candidates.” Social Science Quarterly, 80, 84-96.

Lafky, S., Duffy, M., Steinmaus, M., & Berkowitz, D. (1996). “Looking Through Gendered Lenses: Female Stereotyping in Advertisements and Gender Role Expectations.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73, 379-388.

Larson, S. G. & Bailey, M. (1998). “ABC's ‘Person of the Week’: American Values in Television News.” J & MC Quarterly 7, 487-99.

Maher, T. M. (2003) “Framing: An Emerging Paradigm or a Phase of Agenda Setting?” in: Stephen D. Reese, Oscar H. Gandy Jr and August E. Grant (Eds), Framing Public Life, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 83-94.

Mandel, R. B. (1981). In the Running. New York: Ticknor & Fields.

Marshall, S. E. (1996). “Marilyn vs. Hillary: Women’s Place in New Right Politics.” Women & Politics 16(1), 55-75.

Matheson, K., & Kristiansen, C. (1987). “The Effect of Sexist Attitudes and Social Structure on the Use of Sex-Biased Pronouns.” Journal of Social Psychology 127, 395-400.

Mayo, E. P. (1993). “The Influence and Power of First Ladies.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 September, A52-A54.

Messaris, P. (1997). Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mezey, S. (1994). “Increasing the Number of Women in Office: Does it Matter?” In E. Cook, S. Thomas, & C. Wilcox (Eds.), The Year of the Woman: Myths and Realities, 255-270. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Milkie, M. A. (1994). “Social World Approach to Cultural Studies: Mass Media and Gender in the Adolescent Peer Group.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 23, 354-380.

Miller, M. D., & Burgoon, M. (1979). “The Relationship between Violations of Expectations and the Induction of Resistance to Persuasion.” Human Communication Research, 5. 301-313.

Milton, J. (1999). The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton. New York, NY: William Morrow.

Mitchell, C. (1993). “Historiography: A New Direction for Research on the Woman’s Rights Press.” Journalism History, 19.

Mukherji, R. (2000). “India's Aborted Liberalization – 1966.” Pacific Affairs 73, 375- 393.

Nacos, B. L. (2005). “The Portrayal of Female Terrorists in the Media: Similar Framing Patterns in the News Coverage of Women in Politics and in Terrorism.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 28, 435-451.

Niven, D. & Zilber, J. (2001). “Do Women and Men in Congress Cultivate Different Images? Evidence from Congressional Web Sites.” Political Communication 18(4), 395-405.

Norris, P. (1996). “Women Leaders Worldwide: A Splash of Color in the Photo Op.” In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, Media, and Politics, 149-165. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Norris, P. (1997). “Introduction: Women, Media, and Politics.” In P. Norris (Ed.), Women, Media, and Politics, 1-18. New York: Oxford University Press.

Parry-Giles, S. J. (2000). “Mediating Hillary Rodham Clinton: Television News Practices and Image-Making in the Postmodern Age.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 17, 205-226.

Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of Order. New York: Random House.

Peake, L. (1997). “Press Coverage of Women Candidates for the UK Parliament.” Paper presented at the ECPR 25th Joint Sessions of Workshops, Universität Bern, Switzerland.

Rakow, L. F. & Kranich, K. (1991). “Women as Sign in Television News.” Journal of Communication 41, 8-23.

Rausch, J. D. Jr, Rozell, M., & Wilson, H. (1999). “When Women Lose: A Study of Media Coverage of Two Gubernatorial Campaigns.” Women & Politics 20(4), 1- 21.

Reese, S. D. (2003). “Prologue. Framing Public Life: A Bridging Model for Media Research.” In: Stephen D. Reese, Oscar H. Gandy Jr and August E. Grant (Eds), Framing Public Life, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 7-31.

Robinson, G., & Saint-Jean, A. (1991). “Women Politicians and their Media Coverage: A Generational Analysis.” In K. Megyery (Ed.), Women in Canadian Politics 6, 127-169. Toronto: Dundurn Press.

Robinson, M. J. & Sheehan, M. A. (1983). Over the Wire and on TV: CBS and UPI in Campaign ’80. New York: Russell Sage.

Rosenthal, C. S. (1997). “A View of their Own: Women’s Committee Leadership Styles and State Legislatures.” Policy Studies Journal, 25, 585-600.

Ross, K. (1995). “Gender and Party Politics: How the Press Reported the Labor Leadership Campaign.” Media, Culture & Society 17, 499-509.

Ross, K. & Sreberny, A. (2000). “Women in the House: Media Representation of British Politicians.” in: Annabelle Sreberny and Liesbet van Zoonen (Eds), Gender, Politics, and Communication, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 79-99.

Saint-Germain, M. (1989). “Does their Difference make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.” Social Science Quarterly, 70, 956-968.

Scharrer, E. (2002). “An ‘Improbable Leap’: A Content Analysis of Newspaper Coverage of Hillary Clinton’s Transition from First Lady to Senate Candidate.” Journalism Studies 3(3), 393-406.

Scharrer, E. & Bissell, K. (2000). “Overcoming Traditional Boundaries: The Role of Political Activity in the coverage of Recent First Ladies.” Women & Politics 21(1), 55-83.

Shoemaker, P. J. & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content, 2nd edn, White Plains, NY: Longman.

Sigelman, L. & Bullock, D. (1991). “Candidates, Issues, Horse Races, and Hoopla: Presidential Campaign Coverage. 1888-1988.” American Politics Quarterly 19(1), 5-32.

Silver, D. (1986). “A Comparison of Newspaper Coverage of Male and Female Officials in Michigan.” Journalism Quarterly 63, 144-149.

Smith, K. B. (1997). “When All’s Fair: Signs of Parity in Media Coverage of Female Candidates.” Political Communication 14, 71-82.

Sreberny-Mohammadi, A. & Ross, K. (1996). “Women MPs and the Media: Representing the Body Politic.” Parliamentary Affairs 49, 103-115.

Sreberny, A., & van Zoonen, L. (1999). An Introduction. In A. Sreberny & L. van Zoonen (Eds.), Gender, Politics and Communication, (pp 1-17). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Stelzer, I. M. (1992). “What Thatcher Wrought.” Public Interest 107, 18-51.

Sullivan, G. L., & O'Connor, P. J. (1988). “Women's Role Portrayals in Magazine Advertising: 1958-1983.” Sex Roles, 15(3/4), 181-188.

Templin, C. (1999). “Hillary Clinton as Threat to Gender Norms: Cartoon Images of the First Lady.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 23(1), 20-36.

Thane, E. (1960). Washington's Lady. New York, Dodd, Mead.

Thomas, S. (1994). How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.

Tien, C., Checchio, R., & Miller, A. H. (1999). “The Impact of First Wives on Presidential Campaigns and Elections.” In L. D. Whitaker (ed.), Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? 149-168. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Toohey, K. (1997). “Australian Television, Gender, and the Olympic Games.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 32(1), 19-29.

Trent, J. S., & Friedenberg, R. V. (1983). Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger.

Van Zoonen, L. (1994). Feminist Media Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

White, D. M. (1950). “The Gatekeeper: a Case Study in the Selection of News.” Journalism Quarterly 27, 383-90.

Whitney, D.C., Fritzler, M., Jones, S., Mazzarella, S., & Rakow, L. (1989). “Geographic and Source Bias in Network Television News 1982-1984.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 33, 159-174.

Wilson, J. G. (1997). “Sexism, racism, and other ‘isms.’” In S. Biagi & M. Kern- Foxworth (Eds.), Facing Difference: Race, Gender and Mass Media, 45-51. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Winfield, B. H. (1994). “‘Madame President’: Understanding a New Kind of First Lady.” Media Studies Journal 8(2), 59-71.

Winfield, B. H. (1997a). “The First Lady, Political Power, and the Media: Who Elected Her Anyway?” In P. Norris (ed.), Women, Media and Politics, 166-179. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Winfield, B. H. (1997b). “The Making of an Image: Hillary Rodham Clinton and American Journalists.” Political Communication 14, 241-53.

Witt, L., Paget, K., & Matthews, G. (1995). Running as a Woman: Gender and Power in American Politics. New York: Free Press.

Ziegler, D., & White, A. (1990). “Women and Minorities on Television News: An Examination of Correspondents & Newsmakers.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 34, 215-223.

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CODING PAGE

N 1. Network 1 ABC 2 CBS 3 NBC

2. Date / / yyyy/mm/dd

3. Length (seconds) 1 60 or less 2 61-180 3 181 and over

4. Gender of the Journalist/Author 1 Male 2 Female 3 Both/Not Clear

5. Physical Descriptors mentioned / emphasized 1 YES 2 NO

6. Appearance and Accoutrements mentioned / emphasized 1 YES 2 NO

7. Age mentioned / emphasized 1 YES 2 NO

8. “The first” Frame 1 YES 2 NO

9. “Come to make changes” frame 1 YES 2 NO

10. Source1 1 Partisan 2 Horse 3 Issue 4 Ordinary 5 Candidate Race Expert Citizen (Obama or Expert Clinton)

11. Source2 Gender of the source 1 Male 2 Female 3 Both/Not Clear

12. Main Topic(s) (one or more) 1 Economics 2 Health 3 Iraq/Terrorism/ 4 Othe 5 Race/ 6 More & Defense r poll than Social one

13. Presence of a child (excluding candidates’ own) 1 YES 2 NO

14. Archive video 1 YES 2 NO

15. Presence of family (near candidate) 1 YES 2 NO 77

16. Candidate is warm with family 1 YES 2 NO

17. Militaries/police 1 YES 2 NO

18. Portrayed vulnerable 1 YES 2 NO

19. Supporters present 1 YES 2 NO

20. Signs of authority (secret service, vehicle etc.) 1 YES 2 NO

21. Candidate – main hero of story 1 Obama 2 Clinton 3 Both/Not Clear

22. Candidate who directly talks in the video 1 Obama 2 Clinton 3 Both/Not Clear

APPENDIX B: CODEBOOK

Variable 4: Gender of the Journalist/Author The gender of the journalist or author of news is coded based on the following characteristics or their combination: name, voice, and look. In cases when the gender of journalist is not clear, or if there are both male and female journalists/authors, select option 3 (Both/Not Clear). Variable 5: Physical Descriptors Some of physical descriptors are race, gender, height, weight, and physical shape. Check “Yes” if any physical descriptor is either mentioned in audio narration or is explicitly emphasized in the video. Video emphasis could be done by either zoom in on the certain physical descriptor (body parts), comparison with similar physical descriptors of other person or of same person in the past (hairstyles or body shape, for example), or explicit emphasis on certain physical descriptor (sexual or racial differences, for example) in the context, where the sole meaning is that same physical descriptor. For example, a hypothetical situation, when videos of Clinton and Obama appear together in the same picture and the author discusses their stand on economy (foreign policy etc.) is not counted as containing physical descriptors – even though the images/videos of candidates are presented in comparison – as the main context of the story is different. Variable 6: Appearance and Accoutrements Check “Yes” if candidate’s outfit, clothing style, or certain accessory is either mentioned in audio narration or is explicitly emphasized in the video. Video emphasis could be done by either zoom in on the certain accessory or garment, comparison with similar item of other person or of same person in the past, or explicit emphasis on certain dress or accessory in the context, where the sole meaning is appearance of the candidate or people related to the candidate. Variable 7: Age mentioned / emphasized Check “Yes” if candidate’s age is either mentioned in audio narration or is explicitly emphasized in the video. Variable 8: “The First” Frame Check “Yes” the frame is either mentioned in audio narration or is explicitly emphasized in the video (with words). “The First” frame can be expressed in several contexts, including: “the first (female/African American) candidate who has real chances to become a president,” “the first (female/African American) president-to-be,” “the first (female/African American) candidate who enjoys support of certain types of voters.” Variable 9: “Come to make changes” frame The frame is also called and should be equated to the “Agent of Change” frame. Check “Yes” the frame is either mentioned in audio narration or is explicitly emphasized in the

video (with words). “Agent of Change” frame can be expressed in several contexts, including: “candidate who will make changes,” “candidate who will do things differently (in Washington).” Note that “The First” frame and “Agent of Change” frame have certain similarity in their emphasis of candidate’s uniqueness; however, “The First” frame stresses candidate’s personal uniqueness, while the “Agent of Change” frame stresses uniqueness of candidate’s current or future actions as president. In some cases, however, both frames can be used at the same time in the portrayal of same candidate. Variable 10: Source 1 1 Partisan source is a representative of the candidate or any expert who openly admits support of either candidate. 2 Horse Race Expert is an independent expert who can discuss political race and candidates’ chances on professional level (sociologist, political scientist etc.). 3 Issue Expert is an independent expert who can discuss the main topic of the story (other than horse race) on professional level (economist, doctor, military expert – depends on the topic). 4 Ordinary Citizen is a person who is neither well-known nor state any expert opinion and who does not represents the position/opinion of any organization. 5 Candidate – any presidential nominee. Variable 11: Source 2 (Gender of the source) The gender of the source is coded based on the following characteristics or their combination: name, voice, and appearance. In cases when the gender of source is not clear, or if there are both male and female sources, select option 3 (Both/Not Clear). Variable 12: Main Topic(s) The main topic of the story represents the issue, to which the majority of the story is dedicated. If more than one topic equally shares the amount of attention in the story, select option 6 (More than one). Variable 13: Presence of a child (excluding candidates’ own) Check “Yes” if a child (excluding candidates’ own children) of pre-teen age is present in the video. If it is impossible to judge about the child’s approximate age based on the appearance, select option 2 (NO). Variable 14: Archive video Check “Yes” if any archive video is used in the story. Archive video can be either labeled as such or can have a specific date label on it. Consider archive video any video dated on or before 2006. Variable 15: Presence of family (near candidate)

Check “Yes” if any member of candidate’s immediate family is present in the same video with the candidate. Variable 16: Candidate is warm with family Check “Yes” if the candidate expresses warmness towards immediate family member present in the video. Warmness can include hugs, kisses, cuddling, holding hands, warm look/smile, or even warm words about family member present in the same video. Variable 17: Militaries/police Check “Yes” if any person in military/police uniform is present in the same video with the candidate. Variable 18: Portrayed vulnerable The candidate can be portrayed as vulnerable in either visual or audio narration or their combination. Video: check “Yes” if the candidate is portrayed in tears, admitting her or his fatal fault/mistake, with his or her head, hands, and shoulders down, with the expression of helplessness on her or his face. Audio: check “Yes” if the audio narration mentions that the candidate has no chances to win or will not accumulate enough funds for campaign, or if the candidate has a specific characteristic that prevents her or him from winning, or has made a fatal mistake that will not allow him or her to win the nomination. Variable 19: Supporters present Check “Yes” if the supporters of the candidate are portrayed in the video with or without the candidate. Variable 20: Signs of authority The signs of authority can include Secret Service agents guarding the candidate, portrayal of the key buildings associated with power (White House, Capitol Hill) on the background of the candidate, meetings of the candidate with international leaders, welcoming parades in front of the candidate etc. Variable 21: Candidate – main hero of story The variable represents the candidate, to which the majority of the story is dedicated. If more than one candidate equally shares the amount of attention in the story, select option 3 (Both/Not Clear/More than one). Variable 22: Candidate who directly talks in the video The variable represents the candidate, who is allowed to talk directly in the news story uninterrupted for more than seven consecutive seconds. If none or both candidates had this opportunity, select option 3 (Both/Not Clear/None).

81 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !