Open Katelynn Hartman Thesis.Pdf

The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School

THE FRAMEWORK OF CELEBRITY IN GENDER PAY GAP DISCOURSE

A Thesis in Communications by Katelynn A. Hartman

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

December 2020

The thesis of Kate Hartman was reviewed and approved by the following:

Stephanie L. Morrow Associate Teaching Professor of Speech Communications Thesis Adviser

Peter J. Kareithi Associate Professor of Communications

Frederika E. Schmitt Associate Professor of Criminology, Sociology and Anthropology Millersville University Special Signatory

Craig Welsh Associate Professor of Communications and Humanities Professor-in-Charge, Master of Arts in Communications

ABSTRACT

Celebrity has long been used as a criterion for newsworthiness due to their name recognition and ability to draw readership. Celebrity involvement in a cause or issue can bring a level of attention that is not attainable by a non-celebrity. However, their involvement also has the ability to shape, change, or overshadow the issue. When the news media frame’s a celebrity’s story as a prime example of a larger issue, complex realities and nuanced components of that issue can be lost in favor of splashy headlines and celebrity names. This comparison of two celebrity stories of the gender pay gap aims to explore how celebrity can be used as a framing device by the media, and what is lost or overshadowed by that framing. The two examples in question are that of the pay gap between actors Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg for reshoots on the 2018 film “All the Money in the World,” and the culminating legislation signing by President Barack Obama in the case of Lilly Ledbetter who rose to prominence as a result of her pay discrimination at her former employer Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Key Words: celebrity, gender pay gap, media framing, #MeToo, Time’s Up, HeForShe

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..vi

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………vii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………...... 1

Chapter 2: HISTORY…………………………………………………………………………...6

2.1 Gender Pay Gap……………………………………………………………...... 6

2.2 Women in News Industry……………………………………………………………..9

2.3 Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co./………………………………...... 12 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act

2.4 HeForShe…………………………………………………………………………….14

2.5 #MeToo………………………………………………………………………………15

2.6 Time’s Up…………………………………………………………………...... 17

Chapter 3: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………19

3.1 Feminist Issues in the Media…………………………………………………………20

3.2 Gender Pay Gap……………………………………………………………………...26

3.3 Celebrity Influence…………………………………………………………...... 30

Chapter 4: THEORY…………………………………………………………………………..35

4.1 Newsworthiness Theory……………………………………………………………..36

4.2 Agenda-Setting Theory………………………………………………………………37

4.3 Framing Theory……………………………………………………………………38

4.4 Encoding-Decoding………………………………………………………………..40

Chapter 5: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………41

Chapter 6: INTRODUCTION OF SOURCES……………………………………………..44

6.1 “All the Money in the World” Sources…………………………………………….45

6.2 Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Sources………………………………47

Chapter 7: ANALYSIS……………………………………………………………………….50

7.1 Analysis of “All the Money in the World” Sources…………………………...... 51

7.2 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act Sources…………………………………58

7.3 Case Study Comparison……………………………………………………………64

Chapter 8: DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………….71

8.1 Interpretations and Implications……………………………………………………71

8.2 Limitations and Recommendations………………………………………………...76

Chapter 9: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………..77

Appendix A: “All the Money in the World” News Coverage…………………………...... 80

Appendix B: Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co…………………………………..82

Sources News Coverage

References……………………………………………………………………………………..83

List of Tables

Table 1.1 – Frame representation in “All the Money in the World” sources

Table 1.2 - Frame representation in “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act” sources

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thank you to my thesis adviser, Dr. Stephanie Morrow, for her ongoing support during this process, and to my other committee members, Drs. Peter Kareithi and Frederika Schmitt, for their input and guidance. Special thanks to my family and friends who allowed me to bounce ideas off them and put up with my frustration during this process in an especially challenging year.

vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The gender pay gap has been a reality for working women for more than half a century.

The knowledge that a woman needs to work twice as hard for half as much as her male counterparts is so commonplace that it is hardly shocking. What is shocking is the continued lack of clarity around the causes of the gender pay gap, and the continued work that is necessary to balance the scales between male and female workers. While the United States as a country has come so far—from job listings that deliberately limited female applicants in the 1940s and 1950s

(Darity & Mason, 1998) to women achieving advanced degrees at a higher rate than men in the

2010s (Blau & Kahn, 2017)—the conversation about the gender pay gap is as prevalent in the public discourse as it ever was.

Many issues have been identified as the cause of or contributing to the gender pay gap, which is defined as the “median annual pay for all women who work full time and year-round, compared to a similar cohort of men” (Vagins, 2019, para. 1). Causes include occupational sex segregation, female education, the child penalty, and direct pay discrimination. Some of these are still identified as underlying causes today. The American Association of University Women

(AAUW)’s “The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap” report, states that the typical

American woman earns $45,097, and the typical American man earns $55,291 (2019). This equates to an average statistic of women earning only “82 cents for every dollar paid to men”

(“The Simple Truth,” 2019, para. 2). This does not represent the larger pay disparities experienced by women of color. For instance, black women earn 62 percent of what white men earn, and Hispanic women earn just 54 percent (“The Simple Truth,” 2019).

Additionally, the way this topic is understood by the larger society is influenced by the context of the time, the environment in which it is being discussed, and the way it is being

framed by the media. The complexity of the gender pay gap as a topic makes it difficult to

discuss in its entirety in the public realm. Often one or two stories are used as simplified

examples of an intricate issue.

In 2017 and 2018, in the context of the media’s coverage of the #MeToo, Time’s Up and

HeForShe movements, when feminist issues were receiving renewed media coverage and public

awareness, female celebrities in the entertainment, music, and sports industries were given the

platform to expose their own pay disparities. Celebrity stories became the most visible examples

of the gender pay gap, and shaped the way the public understood the issue. The most famous

example during this time was the pay disparity between actors Michelle Williams and Mark

Wahlberg for reshoots on their film, “All the Money in the World.” This example serves as one of the case studies in this thesis and is explained further in this chapter. Celebrities, such as

Williams, who chose to speak publicly about their own pay disparities served to further feminist rhetoric during this time and provided concrete examples of the gender pay gap as an issue in the national conversation. This story and others made the gender pay gap a critical component of the zeitgeist of these times.

This recent experience of a celebrity story bringing a spotlight to the gender pay gap as an issue is juxtaposed with the historic example of Lilly Ledbetter who, in the late 1990s and early

2000s, gained public notoriety when she sued her former employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber

Co., for pay discrimination over the course of her employment. Ledbetter did not start her quest for equal pay as a celebrity, but she became one through news coverage both in papers and on television. President Barak Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act into law

in 2009 as the first legislation of his presidency. His own celebrity status centered public

attention on this case and the gender pay gap in general.

These two cases are compared in this thesis to answer the following questions:

a. How is celebrity used as a device to explain the gender pay gap in public discourse?

b. How is the use of celebrity shaping the public’s understanding of the issue—both

currently and historically?

c. What aspects of the discussion are omitted or overlooked based on the way the topic is

framed through the lens of celebrity?

Celebrities, through their public recognition and cultural cache, are able to bring attention to an issue and assert pressure for change through publicity. That is precisely what celebrities attempted to do with the gender pay gap both in 2018 through social and traditional media and

2009 through legislation and news coverage. These tactics combine to demonstrate how deeply rooted this discrimination is in our society. And the mainstream media—defined as, “the elite media” or “the agenda-setting media because they are the ones with big resources, they set the framework in which everyone else operates” (Chomsky, 1997, p. 6)—utilized celebrity stories because of the viewership that comes with a celebrity name. The large sums of money being discussed in these stories also served to shock audiences and spur conversation.

These tactics work. Coverage of celebrity pay disparities dominated the media landscape during the height of the #MeToo Movement, and particularly in the years 2017 and 2018, which is the primary timeframe being explored in this thesis. However, while celebrity stories can focus a cultural conversation, they also unavoidably shape that conversation. By focusing on celebrities’ stories, less titillating examples of pay disparities in industries more pedestrian than

Hollywood or professional sports can be overshadowed or overlooked entirely. The public narrative then becomes centered on affluence, popularity, and shock versus a broader look at the issue as a whole, encompassing all female workers and their varied experiences. By contrast, a

broader look at the issue as a whole was accomplished through Ledbetter’s case due to the fact

that she worked in a less revered industry. When one type of story is employed as the lens to

understand an issue, it is unavoidable that the whole issue will not be understood. The aspects of

the gender pay gap being overlooked in current discourse include pay disparities between the

races and among the classes—two areas of discourse that are ripe with their own specific issues.

Additionally, the influence of the patriarchy in the broadest sense is not fully incorporated into

these discussions. The preferences of the sexes, or stratification of occupations, tend to also be

overlooked when only a few select industries are observed. The structural nature of the issue is

often overlooked in favor of individualistic narratives that paint those involved as one person

being treated unfairly.

During early 2018, the pay disparity between actors Michelle Williams and Mark

Wahlberg for reshoots on their film, “All the Money in the World,” received widespread and

varied media coverage. This example of the gender pay gap in Hollywood is used as a case study

in this thesis due to the caliber of celebrities involved—Michelle Williams has won two Golden

Globes and been nominated for an additional six (“Michelle Williams,” n.d.), while Mark

Wahlberg has been nominated for eight Golden Globes (“Mark Wahlberg,” n.d.) and is

reportedly the “highest paid actor in Hollywood,” according to reports by “Forbes” and “Town and Country.” Additionally, the film received much acclaim during award season earning an

Academy Award nomination, a British Academy of Film and Television Arts nomination, and three Golden Globe nominations. The story of this pay gap stood firmly at the center of the

#MeToo, HeForShe, and Time’s Up movements as a result of the sexual assault allegations against the film’s original star, Kevin Spacey, necessitating the reshoots in the first place. The publication of this story in news outlets including “NBC News,” “USA Today,” “Washington

Post,” “National Public Radio,” and others helped to introduce the gender pay gap to a broad section of the population who may not have sought out an economics story on the gender pay gap due to lack of interest. It also firmly tied the gender pay gap as an issue to the overarching themes of the #MeToo, HeForShe, and Time’s Up movements including sexual assault, discrimination, and inequity.

This recent example of the gender pay gap is compared with the historical case of Lilly

Ledbetter who filed a complaint and then went on to sue her former employer Goodyear Tire &

Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Alabama for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her case, which was first heard by the District Court, and subsequently heard by the

Eleventh Circuit Court and the United States Supreme Court, received numerous and varied media coverage in outlets including “New York Times,” “Washington Post,” “LA Times,” and others. President Barack Obama’s signing of Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act in 2009 received widespread news coverage as well, which reintroduced the case and the implications to the public consciousness. It is this media coverage of the law that is explored specifically in this research.

Through a comparative framing analysis of a small number of articles on these two case studies, this thesis attempts to explore how celebrity status has the ability to center public attention and shape the public conversation about the gender pay gap. This research looks at what aspects of the issue are overshadowed or omitted entirely from the discourse as a result of framing around celebrity.

CHAPTER 2: HISTORY

2.1 Gender Pay Gap

The labor force has long been divided along gender lines, with men and women historically occupying different spheres of public life—men working outside the home and women working inside the home. In the workforce, men and women have also tended to pursue jobs in different industries; sometimes due to preference, sometimes due to unforeseen circumstances like World War II, and sometimes due to discrimination. During World War II, when many male workers were recruited for the war effort, female workers, along with male workers who were not drafted, took more jobs in traditionally male industries. “During the early years of the war, relatively more men than women shifted into manufacturing (U.S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics 1942a:5; 1943), but war-time labor shortages soon reversed this trend” (Aldrich,

1989, p. 417). While women’s presence in male industries increased during this time, data shows that it did not do much to help the relative earnings of women in general (Aldrich, 1989, p. 417).

In 1942, the National War Labor Board urged employers to voluntarily adjust wages paid to females to reflect the salaries paid to men for comparable quality and quantity of work.

Unsurprisingly, most employers did not make that adjustment, and when men returned from war, many women lost their jobs in favor of the returning veterans (Rowen, 2017).

In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, which made it illegal to pay women lower rates for the same job based solely on sex. Employers were required to demonstrate differences in seniority, merit, quantity, or quality of work in order to consider different pay between employees. Two landmark cases, Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co. in 1970 and Corning Glass

Works v. Brennan in 1974, further defined the Equal Pay Act. In the former, it was found that jobs needed to be "substantially equal" but not "identical" to fall under the protection of the act.

This prevented employers from doing things like changing the job titles of women workers in order to pay them less. In the latter, it was found that employers cannot justify paying women less because that is what they traditionally received under the "going market rate" (Rowen, 2017, para. 5).

In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was passed, which prohibited sex discrimination in employment practices (Milligan, 2017). The Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission was also created that year. The gender pay gap, pay parity, and workforce equality are associated with the second wave of feminism, which began in the 1960s. The most recent discourse surrounding the gender pay gap is sometimes referred to as the fourth wave of feminism, which gained momentum around 2012, and has been largely associated with social media where women have found a platform to write about the, "street harassment, sexual harassment, workplace discrimination and body-shaming they encounter" (Cochrane, 2013, para.

2). The third wave of feminism took place between the early 1990s and the early 2000s.

In 1998, the Council of Economic Advisors under the Clinton administration reported that, while the pay gap had decreased in the previous 20 years due in large part to “increases in women’s accumulated labor market experience and their movement into higher-paying occupations…labor market discrimination still exists” (“Explaining Trends,” 1998, para. 5).

Ultimately, the report found it difficult, “to determine precisely how much of the difference in female/male pay is due to discrimination and how much is due to difference in choices or preferences between men and women” (“Explaining Trends,” 1998, para. 6).

In 2009, then President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration

Act into law—named for former Goodyear employee Lilly Ledbetter who “alleged that she was paid 15-40% less than her male counterparts, which was later found to be accurate” (Rowen,

2017, para. 11). This legislation allowed victims of pay discrimination to file a complaint against

their employer up to 180 days after their last paycheck (Rowen, 2017). Prior to the enactment of

this law, employees only had 180 days from their “first unfair paycheck” to file with the

government (Rowan, 2017). This act gave employees more time to advocate for themselves. The history of this case will be explored further in the next subsection.

The origins of the gender pay gap are complex and cannot be distilled down to a single cause. While the gap between male and female workers has narrowed in general, it has not been eliminated. The AAUW identifies occupational segregation, motherhood penalty, gender and race discrimination bias, and lack of pay transparency as continued causes for the gap today

(“The Simple Truth,” 2019, p. 3). Historically, other components including marriage rates, where females were more likely to be supported by their husbands (Blau & Kahn, 2006, p. 37) and education rates of females in typically male-dominated fields (Lavy & Sand, 2015, p.2) have contributed and been seen as understandable reasons for the gap. “Much of the gap has been explained by measurable factors such as educational attainment, occupational segregation and work experience. The narrowing of the gap is attributable in large part to gains women have made in each of these dimensions” (Graf, Brown & Patten, 2019, para. 6).

Recent research indicates that, while the gender pay gap is seen as a workforce issue, the roots of it are present in the “gender biases on boys’ and girls’ academic achievements during middle and high school and on the choice of advanced level courses in math and sciences” (Lavy

& Sand, 2015, p. 1). This continues to be a popular and relevant topic, even as the gap narrows because pay parity affords female workers a freedom and an independence that can be lacking without it. “In a market economy, worth is often measured by money. If women earn less, they are regarded as in some sense as having less worth” (Blau & Kahn, 2006, p. 39).

The gender pay gap became a premier issue in three feminist movements in the latter half

of the 2010s—HeForShe, #MeToo Movement and Time’s Up. The history of these movements

are detailed in the next section to explain how pay disparity was at the foundation of their

creation, and how these movements served as the cultural context within which the case studies

examined in this thesis was able to come to the forefront of media attention.

2.2 Women in News Industry

As with other industries detailed in the previous subsection, women have been underrepresented in the newsroom and at all levels of the news industry. With images like the newsman ubiquitous in culture, it has long been understood that newspapers were a boy’s club.

However, while women have represented a minority of employees, they have always been present, even as far back as the late 1800s. Census data from the end of that century mark an

increase from “2.3 percent to 7.3 percent” of women working in the journalism workforce (Fahs,

2011, p. 17). However, it was understood that this represented only a small number of women

working in the industry, as many worked under the table or were not salaried (Fahs, 2011). They

were often relegated to society pages or “women’s pages,’ writing about topics deemed relevant to women including domestic and social life—establishing a delineation between news and

“women’s stories” that remained the status quo for more than a century, and can still be seen to a

certain degree today (Rhode, 1995).

While there were certain female writers who crossed the line into more typically male

topics, including politics and investigative reporting including Margaret Fuller, Nellie Bly,

Barbara Walters, and others (Fahs, 2011), these women were known to be the exception rather than the rule. Many female workers were relegated to “work as researchers rather than writers or to positions on the women’s page, traditionally limited to food, fashion, furnishings and society

‘dots and doings’” (Rhode, 1995, p. 686-687). These topics were generally treated with less

seriousness by male editors and were covered with less seriousness in general. They were viewed

as topics for women, by women. This pattern of female journalists being assigned fluff pieces

rather than more challenging assignments can be directly attributed to a general lack of

representation of women in the newsroom as well as the sexist nature of management, where

women were represented in even smaller numbers than on the newsroom floor. The National

Press Club, “a popular venue for U.S. politicians and visiting dignitaries,” only began allowing

women to join in 1971 (Barker-Plummer, 2010, p.150). This arguably late policy change

demonstrates the deep seeded sexism female workers experienced in what Barker-Plummer

(2010) calls “pre-feminist journalism” in the early 1960s (p. 150). Female reporters working prior to this change suffered from a lack of access and respect that was necessary for success in the profession. “For women who did manage to get hired or promoted in pre-feminist news organizations, they were often the only woman around” (Barker-Plummer, 2010, p. 150). This pattern began to change in the 1960s, due in part to the women’s movement fighting for female representation across industries, and also to female journalists pursuing stories on the movement,

which in turn moved them off of the women’s page and onto the front page in some cases.

“Between the mid-1960s and the early 1990s, women’s representation among television network news reporters rose from under 5 percent to over 15 percent, and among print journalists it

increased from under 20 percent to almost 40 percent” (Rhode, 1995, p. 687).

Women have continued to gain ground in newsrooms in part through their continued pursuit of journalism as a career. In many nations, women’s enrollment in undergraduate and graduate

journalism programs continues to exceed men’s enrollment in those programs (McLaughlin, et. al, 2018). This gap between men and women in university programs is beginning to narrow in

some places (McLaughlin, et. al, 2018). However, in 2018 “females were granted the majority of

degrees (undergraduate: 66.7%; master’s: 68.9%; doctoral: 62.0%)” (para. 16).

In 2011, the International Women’s Media Foundation conducted the first “Global Report on

the Status of Women in News Media” to fill the gap in information surrounding representation of

women in the industry. They executed a survey of 500 companies in nearly 60 countries and

found that men continued to outpace women in representation at all levels of the industry

(Byerly, 2011). The research revealed that “73% of the top management jobs [were] occupied by

men compared to 27% occupied by women” and that among reporters, “men hold nearly two- thirds of the jobs” (Byerly, 2011, p. 9). In the Americas specifically, the study found the

underrepresentation of women was accurate, but that in general, they are “advancing toward

parity in the highest management roles” (Byerly, 2011, p. 10). In 2019, the Women’s Media

Center reported that “women comprised 41.7 percent and people of color 22.6 percent of the

overall workforce in those responding newsrooms” (“The Status of Women,” 2019, p. 11).

While women continue to pursue degrees in journalism and mass communication at higher

rates than men, they continue to be represented less in the industry as a whole. The shift away

from traditional media newsrooms toward digital platforms has opened the door to more

opportunity for journalists in general, including women. However, this continued inequality in

the news industry impacts not only what stories are told, but also who gets to tell those stories

and how the subjects of those stories are framed for the reader.

2.3 Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co./Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration

Act

Lilly Ledbetter began working for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Gadsden, Alabama in

1979, and served as a supervisor in various departments, which was a predominantly male- dominated position, until her retirement in November 1998 (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &

Rubber Co., Inc, 2005). It has been reported that initially Ledbetter received similar compensation to that of her male counterparts, but over time, she was compensated less. This was due to poor performance reviews, which Ledbetter later alleged were given on the basis of sex (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2007). In March 1998, Ledbetter filed a questionnaire with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) into this issue, after being told privately by coworkers that she was making less than her coworkers. In July of that year she filed a formal EEOC charge, and after she retired in November 1998, she filed suit against her former employer “asserting, among other things, a sex discrimination claim under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2007, p.1). She alleged that, had she been fairly evaluated throughout her time with the company, she would have been fairly compensated. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. maintained that their practices were not discriminatory, but the District Court ruled in favor of Ledbetter, granting her back pay (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2007).

Upon appeal, Goodyear asserted that due to the 180-day statue of limitations, all pay decisions made before September 26, 1997 were not up for review (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire

& Rubber Co., Inc, 2007). Title VII requires that a charge of discrimination “shall be filed within

[180] days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred” (Ledbetter v. Goodyear

Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2007, p.2). As spelled out in the Eleventh Circuit court’s analysis in

2005, this meant “Title VII’s timely-filing requirement limited Ledbetter to challenging the one affirmative decision directly affecting her pay that was made within the 180-day limitations period created by her EEOC charge: Kelly Owen’s February 1998 decision not to increase her salary for that year” (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2005, para. 34). The circuit court found that “there was simply no evidence produced at trial impugning Kelly Owen’s motives in recommending, in February 1998, that Ledbetter receive no raise in 1998” (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2005, para. 63). In conclusion, the circuit court reversed the lower court’s decision and instructed the court to dismiss Ledbetter’s complaint (Ledbetter v.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2005).

Following this reversal, the Supreme Court heard the case in 2007 and Justice Samuel Alito delivered the court’s opinion (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc, 2007). The Supreme Court upheld the circuit court’s reversal, on the basis of previous caselaw which affirmed the statue of intentional discrimination occurring within the stated timeframe (Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,

Inc, 2007). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent to the ruling. She argued that,

The Court’s insistence on immediate contest overlooks common characteristics of pay

discrimination. Pay disparities often occur, as they did in Ledbetter’s case, in small

increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops over time. Comparative

pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the employee’s view…Pay disparities are

thus significantly different from adverse actions “such as termination, failure to promote,…or

refusal to hire,” all involving fully communicated discrete acts, “easy to identify” as

discriminatory. (Ginsburg dissent, 2007, p.2-3)

Ginsburg further argued that Goodyear has been “knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward” (p.19), and as a result felt that Ledbetter’s claim was not time barred.

That same year, House Democrats introduced a bill in opposition of the Supreme Court’s ruling with the goal of establishing law in line with Ginsburg’s dissent, asserting that pay discrimination occurs over the course of time and is not limited to a singular event or occurrence.

Over the next two years, the bill was argued with Democrats and Republicans making competing arguments. In January 2009, President Barak Obama signed the bill into law. It was his first major piece of legislation as president, which brought a lot of media attention to its passage. The law amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967 (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, 2009). It clarifies that “each paycheck that contains discriminatory compensation is a separate violation regardless of when the discrimination began” (Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, 2009, para.2).

2.4 HeForShe

In September 2014, actress Emma Watson, who served as the United Nations Women

Goodwill Ambassador, delivered a speech at the United Nations Headquarters officially launching the HeForShe campaign. In her speech she said,

I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality—

and to do that we need everyone to be involved. This is the first campaign of its kind at

the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates

for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.

(Watson, 2014, para. 2-3)

HeForShe is self-described as, “a social movement campaign providing a systematic approach and targeted platform through which men and boys become agents of change for the achievement of gender equality” (“HeForShe,” 2019, para. 1). The advocacy campaign has four

stated goals, “accelerate women’s economic empowerment, support women’s role in peace and

security processes, advance women’s political participation and leadership, [and] eliminate

gender-based violence” (“HeForShe,” 2019, para. 5). This campaign, and other more targeted efforts to involve men in gender parity issues, presume that, “men have a political or ethical obligation to act in support of gender equality. They emphasize men’s collective responsibility for and complicity in gender inequalities and the need therefore for men to take action to

challenge these” (Flood, 2017, p.50).

The initial goal was to mobilize 100,000 men, which was achieved in just three days

(“HeForShe”). The campaign currently reports that 2,177,058 people have committed to the

cause (“2019 Impact Report,” 2019). The goal is to have people take the pledge, and by doing so,

these individuals and “global ambassadors” will implement policies and change to rectify

inequality in their own companies and lives, in line with HeForShe’s four objectives. HeForShe

also reports that since the launch of the campaign the United Nations is almost at gender parity

among senior leadership (“2019 Impact Report,” 2019). Indicating, that while there has been a

lot of public support for the HeForShe campaign, a lot of work needs to be done to ensure that

advocacy is bearing out results.

2.5 #MeToo

The idea for the #MeToo movement was born in 1997 when activist Tarana Burke, the

movement’s founder, spoke to a 13-year-old girl who had been sexually abused (Garcia, 2017).

A decade later, Burke founded Just Be Inc., “a nonprofit organization that helps victims of sexual

harassment and assault” (Garcia, 2017, para. 4). She started using the phrase “me too” in

conjunction with her work to support those who had been sexually assaulted. In 2017, actress

Alyssa Milano used “#metoo” on Twitter in a post supporting sexual abuse victims who were

making accusations of sexual assault against Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein

(Garcia, 2017). After the tweet was posted, “social media was soon flooded with stories of

harassment and assault, as #metoo became a way for users to tell their experience with sexual

violence and stand in solidarity with other survivors” (Garcia, 2017, para. 8). The hashtag has

been used on all social media platforms. In the wake of the #metoo wave on social media,

women of color criticized the way the hashtag, which had been employed by black activists like

Burke for years, was gaining popularity only because white women—celebrities in particular— were using it. Milano later gave Burke public credit for originating the hashtag. A website was created to collect individual stories into a database, identify advocates and provide resources

(“metoo,” 2019). The movement’s stated goal is to,

…reframe and expand the global conversation around sexual violence to speak to the

needs of a broader spectrum of survivors. Young people, queer, trans, and disabled folks,

Black women and girls, and all communities of color. We want perpetrators to be held

accountable and we want strategies implemented to sustain long term, systemic change.

(“History & Vision,” 2019, para. 4)

The #MeToo movement fits into a larger cultural shift toward digital technologies being used

for advocacy and activism purposes. Researchers have identified #MeToo as “one of the most

high-profile examples of digital feminist activism” executed of late (Mendes, et. al, 2018, para.

2), and a prime example of hashtag feminism (Berridge & Portwood-Stacer, 2015; Dixon, 2014).

The use of feminist hashtags in digital spaces, particularly Facebook and Twitter where they are

most prevalent, serves to create “a virtual space where victims of inequality can coexist together

in a space that acknowledges their pain, narrative, and isolation” (Dixon, 2014, p. 34). The use of

hashtags has been employed by many groups and initiatives as a way of uniting disparate

individual internet users under one common slogan or rallying cry. #MeToo is a very popular

example of this phenomenon. #MeToo and other forms of digital activism “[raised] feminist consciousness and [produced] solidarity” (Mendes, et. al, 2018, para. 4). This collection of stories under one hashtag can help the participating individual feel like they are not alone, and help the larger public understand the issue as a systemic one as opposed to an individual one

(Mendes, et. al, 2018). However, the negative consequence of this unification is the potential for online harassment and backlash to be directed at individuals (Dixon, 2014).

The #MeToo movement’s utility in hashtag feminism served as a catalyst for a renewed focus on feminist issues in the broader culture. The empowerment that was attached to women standing up and telling their stories of sexual abuse or discrimination allowed feminist rhetoric to re-enter the public conversation with a positive association. In contrast to previous iterations of feminist discourse in the media, which is further explored in the following chapter, #MeToo provided an empowered, constructive context for the media to explore broader feminist issues.

Media coverage could be expanded beyond individual cases of sexual misconduct to discuss action and change on a larger level. It is this cultural context created by #MeToo that allowed for the gender pay gap to re-enter the cultural discourse through the use of celebrity disclosure.

2.6 Time’s Up

While #MeToo functions as an awareness-building campaign, Time’s Up, “can be thought of as a solution-based, action-oriented next step” (Langone, 2018, para. 19). Time’s Up was founded by more than 300 women in the entertainment industry in 2018 to identify and actively combat gender discrimination in the workplace including pay disparity.

The group’s focus is getting legislation passed and policies changed. Organizers want to

see the passage of laws for gender parity issues such as equal pay and equal work

environments – as well as increased opportunities, particularly for women in low-wage

industries and women of color. To fund this goal, they created the Time’s Up Legal

Defense Fund, which is a source of legal and financial support for women and men who

want to fight sexual misconduct through the justice system. (Langone, 2018, para. 26)

The Time’s Up Foundation supports the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund, which helps

“survivors of sexual harassment and retaliation, especially low-income women and people of color, achieve justice” (“Our Story,” 2019, para. 4). They report that since its creation, a network of 700 attorneys have worked on cases and nearly 4,000 people have received support (“Our

Story,” 2019).

These three movements—HeForShe, #MeToo, and Time’s Up—serve as the larger cultural context in which the main case study examined in this thesis occurred. These movements were largely propelled by celebrity involvement. Emma Watson’s speech at the United Nations earned

HeForShe public recognition at a level the movement had not been able to garner before.

Actresses coming forward to talk publicly about their own experiences of sexual assault and their own pay disparities in Hollywood incentivized the media to cover their stories because of the large audiences the celebrities brought with them. Celebrities are newsworthy by nature.

Whether they deserve the spotlight they have or not, there is no denying that they make a good story, and that incentivizes the media to report on what they do and say. This newsworthiness and perceived legitimacy also contributes to why celebrities are often used as endorsers for products, people, and actions. In the case of a cultural movement like #MeToo, HeForShe, and

Time’s Up, a celebrity’s involvement acts as kind of endorsement for the movement as a whole.

The power of celebrity in the news media and within movements; and the way that feminist

issues are covered by the news media is explored more extensively in the following chapter.

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW

The gender pay gap, while a workforce issue, has been adopted by feminist causes as a

premier representation of inequality between the sexes. As discussed in the previous chapter, the

topic has been included in feminist discourse for decades. How the gender pay gap has been

covered and represented by the media is of particular importance in this work. Additionally, the

way feminist movements in general have been covered and represented in the media is relevant

since the #MeToo, Time’s Up and HeForShe movements are inherently feminist in their

construction and overarching goal of creating parity and equality amongst the sexes on a variety

of disparate issues. How these topics are framed by the media greatly influences the ways in

which the public understands them.

The framing of an event, or in this case a movement, instills meaning into that event or

movement (Goffman, 1974; Gitlin, 1980; Entman, 1993). The way that journalists interpret

events and then produce them into news—named encoding by Hall (1973)—has an inescapable

influence on that way those events are perceived by the reader. But it is not just the writer with

the influence; Hall’s (1973) model of encoding and decoding media posits that audience

members play an active role in understanding the messages of the media by applying their own

social context. Media frames have the ability to preserve the dominant social order (Hall, 1973), and to be highly influenced by the organizational structures within which they are operating

(Tuchman, 1978). This framing by the media can be a powerful method of social control

(Edelman, 1993).

Research into celebrity as a catalyst for change is also relevant to this work. It is valuable to understand what celebrity is and how it functions to bring attention to an issue, cause or movement in order to better understand how it is influencing the current iteration of the gender pay gap discussion. For example, Oprah Winfrey used the public stage at the 2018 Golden

Globes to bring attention to the Time’s Up Movement. In her speech, she spoke publicly about the injustice she experienced personally and called others in the entertainment industry to put an end to gender discrimination—including pay disparity. Winfrey, as arguably one of the most well-known women in the world, was able to further the Time’s Up agenda in the public discourse in a way a non-celebrity never could.

The explicit combination of these areas of study—the gender pay gap, media representation and celebrity influence—has yet to be studied. This gap in study adds to the validity of this work.

3.1 Feminist Issues in the Media

The media’s coverage of feminist issues, including the second wave of feminism in the

1960s and 1970s, was influenced by many of the issues of representation explored in chapter 2.

In some cases, female reporters were given feminist assignments as a result of sexist attitudes of their editors; while others sought out the stories because they viewed it as a way to get onto the front pages of their publications (Barker-Plummer, 2010). Some female reporters “saw their own struggles in the industry as connected to the larger struggles of the women’s movement” (Barker-

Plummer, 2010, p.153), though not all did. The views of the writers themselves, whether female or male, were influential in the way they covered feminist issues. That continues to be true of the way feminist issues are covered today.

The women’s movement struggled; and in many cases continues to struggle to win media attention for the same reasons many social movements do—they are fighting the establishment, which not only fuels and funds the media itself, but is represented in the beats reporters are assigned to cover (Barakso & Schaffner, 2006). This can make it difficult for a movement to not only win coverage, but to maintain it (Barakso & Schaffner, 2006). A movement is forced to leverage their resources to make their motives newsworthy. Once that is accomplished, they set forth on the path of keeping it in the public agenda long enough to enact change (Barakso &

Schaffner, 2006). For the women’s movement, the war to win and keep media attention was waged over three decades. During the late 1960s and early 1970s, they received little to no coverage at all, but grew steadily into the 1980s indicating, “a period in which ‘women’s equality’ gained some prominence in the media and public’s consciousness” (Barakso &

Schaffner, 2006, p. 27). This increase in coverage was particularly true in print media, such as the “New York Times,” which provided “a much greater breadth of coverage” (Barakso &

Schaffner, 2006, p. 30). Into the 1990s, though, the trend reversed, and more coverage was provided by television stations as print readership declined (Barakso & Schaffner, 2006, p. 30).

In examining stories published by the “New York Times” and television networks between 1969 and 2004, Barakso and Schaffner (2006) were able to track these trends, and also identify which aspects of the women’s movement agenda were covered with the most regularity. They report that “gender equality” was covered most often with “abortion and reproductive rights” covered next (Barakso & Schaffner, 2006), demonstrating how the salaciousness of a topic can contribute to its newsworthiness. “The conflict produced by this issue is particularly appealing to television newscasts where time is sparse and imagery is also important. The abortion issue provides high levels of conflict…and often dramatic imagery” (Barakso & Schffner, 2006, p. 36).

The dichotomy between men and women, and between femininity and masculinity, are

important in understanding not only feminism as a movement, but the way the media often

characterizes it (Baker Beck, 1998).

The mass media play on these dichotomies as they perpetuate Western codes. When the

world is viewed as a series of dualisms, those who do not fit the "good" qualifications

(generally, male/white/middle class/Christian) automatically are cast as "bad." There are

no shades of gray in this black-and-white world. For feminists, being cast as outsiders,

trouble-makers, even evil women, is inevitable since they challenge the very basis of a

patriarchal society. (Baker Beck, 1998, p.140)

In crafting a story, journalists are “taught to think in terms of dichotomies, to develop their stories of right versus wrong, good versus evil” (Baker Beck, 1998, p. 141). This framework has influenced the way feminism has been cast in the news media, particularly in the

1960s and 1970s. The movement was largely uncovered by the media until the 1968 Miss

America pageant, where the label “bra-burner” was born (Baker Beck, 1998, p.142). And so too was the tendency to only cover, or cover more heavily, the most controversial of feminism’s issues, including abortion, while overlooking more popular and less controversial goals (Sisco &

Lucas, 2014). This is where the framing of feminists as “a bunch of man-haters out to destroy

'family values'” was born; creating another dichotomy between feminist and family that

dominated the way the media characterized feminists during this time (Baker Beck, 1998). When

feminism, or the women’s movement, was given coverage in the news, it was largely negative,

casting the women as outsiders or wrong-doers. Rarely was their characterization positive; in fact, it was far more likely their stories were not covered at all (Baker Beck, 1998). This is due in large part to the sexist nature of the news industry described in this chapter.

In the last decade, publications from the New York Times to Vanity Fair to the Nation

have issued a steady stream of indictments against the women's movement, with such

headlines as when feminism failed or the awful truth about women's lib. They hold the

campaign for women's equality responsible for nearly every woe besetting women, from

mental depression to meager savings accounts, from teenage suicides to eating disorders

to bad complexions. (Faludi, 1991, para. 8)

In tandem with the dichotomies of male and female; insider and outsider; and family and

feminist, is the tendency to homogenize feminism into one thing (Baker Beck, 1998). Feminists

can be viewed as a group of women all doing or believing the same thing, but identifying a

singular “women’s voice” or a singular “women’s experience” is too simplistic (Wood, 1992).

This practice serves to dilute feminist ideas or beliefs (Davis, 1991) in a way that minimizes their

efforts and the complexities of the reasons they are fighting for equality.

More recent research by Rebecca Ann Lind and Colleen Salo (2002) affirms many of

these assertions that representations of feminists are largely negative, but also posits that in some

realms, it has been more positive than previously believed. This demonstrates that the way

feminist issues, and women in general, are covered in the media is changing, if only slightly.

Their study examined representations of feminists and feminism in the United States through a

computerized network analysis of “approximately 35,000 hours (about 135 million words) of

television and radio content aired on ABC, CNN, PBS, and NPR from May 1993 to January

1996” (Lind & Salo, 2002, p.212). They parsed out representations into six distinct frames:

demonization, personalization and trivialization, goals, victimization, agency and sites of struggle (Lind & Salo, 2002). Additionally, Rhode (1995) identified marginalization,

personalization and trivialization, polarization, deviance and self-transformation as frames employed by the news media to characterize feminist stories.

In this investigation, we found that feminists are portrayed in a remarkably different

fashion than “regular” women are, yet that is not necessarily a negative

finding…Feminists are less often framed in a personalized and trivialized fashion than

are women. Feminists are less often framed as victims, and more often framed as having

agency, than are women. The goals of the women’s movement are more closely

associated with feminists than with women. (Lind & Salo, 2002, p. 223)

Despite their findings that feminists are trivialized less than women in general, they are still subjected to what Tuckman (1978) calls “symbolic annihilation,” where in social groups are

“absent from, condemned by, or trivialized in, the media” (Lind & Salo, 2002, p. 232). The research identified the words “woman” or “women” more than 40 times as often as the words

“feminist” or “feminism,” and indicated that, “feminism is still routinely ignored by the media”

(Lind & Salo, 2002, p. 224). They concluded that this omission of feminists and feminist stories in the media serve to “actually [frame] feminism as unimportant” (Lind & Salo, 2002, p. 224).

It is dramatic events, like the bra burning at the 1968 Miss America Pageant or the Anita

Hill/Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, that have served to bring attention to feminist issues and

“create a sudden cottage industry of commentary on issues that for centuries had gone unchallenged and unchanged” (Rhode, 1995, p. 688). A more recent example of this frenzied feminist coverage was the 2008 election when Hillary Clinton was running for president and

Sarah Palin was running for vice president across the political aisle. Clinton was often referred to as a “symbol” of feminism or a “long-time feminist” (Sisco & Lucas, 2014). She was

characterized as the face of second wave feminism. Palin, by contrast, was framed as a symbol of

“choice feminism” (Sisco & Lucas, 2014).

It was presented as open to those who were in opposition to traditional feminist issue

stances such as reproductive rights or the ERA, distinguishing it from the previously

discussed post-feminism of younger, ideologically liberal feminists. (Sisco & Lucas,

2014, para. 28)

The political celebrity of these two women served as a platform for feminism to be included in the public discourse during the election. Each woman was donned with a characterization of feminism; and their positioning as opponents in the campaign assisted the media’s framing of these two characterizations of feminism as polar opposites of each other. The women’s political disagreements stood in for feminism’s ideological disagreements. By using these two celebrities as examples of feminism, the larger movement was viewed as a rivalry, both ideologically and generationally fractured (Sisco & Lucas, 2014, para. 38).

Some coverage of the #MeToo movement, which is understood as part of the fourth wave of feminism, has fallen into these traditional paradigms, including coverage in Denmark and

Sweden that has positioned sexual assault as a “personal rather than societal problem” (Askanius

& Hartley, 2019, p. 19). However, broader feminist messages seem to be infiltrating the media discourse. Nicolini and Hansen (2018) found that, in coverage of the Women’s March on

Washington, many organizational messages received media coverage, “both reducing misinformation and engaging journalists in a cooperative, interactive information sharing process” (Nicolini & Hansen, 2018, para. 37). This was particularly true in more liberal news outlets including the “New York Times” and “USA Today,” which along with the conservative outlet “FOX News,” were examined in the study (Nicolini & Hansen, 2018). Conservative

outlets also published the organization’s intended messages on mission, vision, and goals, but

often sought to contradict those messages (Nicolini & Hansen, 2018). While in the past,

women’s protests have been framed as a challenge to the status quo, organizers of the Women’s

March utilized, “a myriad of strategic communication tools (i.e. social media, websites, email

lists) that allow[ed] them to reach audiences, both external publics and the media, directly with

key organizational messaging (Barnett, 2005) and provide visuals to challenge or reinforce

media frames” (Nicolini & Hansen, 2018, para. 39). Women, who have been treated as a

marginalized group in similar demonstrations in the 1960s and 1970s, were able to access and

influence the media during the Women’s March on Washington. This demonstrates that the more

access a marginalized group has to the media, the more it can do to shift the frame.

3.2 Gender Pay Gap

In the 1940s, around World War II, when women entered the workforce in droves, their

participation was framed in the media as a patriotic duty (Goldin, n.d., p. 3). Their participation

was largely viewed as temporary and nationalistic, and it seemed understood that, when the men

returned, women would similarly return to the role of homemaker. However, while some women

left the workforce, many did not, and World War II “radically transformed the economic outlook

of women” (Chafe, 1972, p. 195). However, during this time, help-wanted advertisements “were

structured so that whole sections of the classifieds offered job opportunities separately and

explicitly for men and women” (Darity & Mason, 1998, para. 4). Men, in general, were afforded more opportunities including as managers, auto salesmen, accountants, drivers, welders, and

more (Darity & Mason, 1998). Women, by contrast, were “requested for positions that included

household and domestic workers, stenographers, secretaries, typists, bookkeepers, occasionally

accountants (for "girls good at figures"), and waitresses” (Darity & Mason, 1998, para. 4).

Thus began an occupational sex segregation that has been cited as a continued cause of

the gender pay gap over time (Blau & Hendricks, 1979; Darity & Mason, 1998; Blau & Kahn,

2006). As women have moved into higher paying and more traditionally male fields, the gap due

to sex segregation has diminished (Blau, Brummund & Liu, 2013), though it has not entirely

disappeared. Other causes of the gender pay gap include comparative female education and

labor-market experience (Blau & Kahn, 2008; 2017), the child penalty (Waldfogel, 1998; Budig

& England, 2001; Kleven, Landais & Søgaard, 2019) and direct pay discrimination (Blau and

Kahn, 1997; Altonji & Blank, 1999). Decades of research into wage disparity between male and

female workers has demonstrated a continued narrowing of the gap over the long term (Blau &

Kahn, 2008).

Research from the Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) and the annual

March Current Population Study (CPS), examined by researchers Francine Blau and Lawrence

Kahn, indicates that education and labor-market experience are two important causes of the gender pay gap historically, and that advances in those two areas on the part of women have decreased the gap significantly over time (Blau & Kahn, 2017). In the 1980s in particular, the gender pay gap experienced a significant narrowing. The same is true of labor-market experience, which saw a similar shift toward equality. In the 1980s, men, on average, had seven more years of labor-market experience than women, but by 2011, the gap had shrunk to only 1.4 years (Blau & Kahn, 2017).

In 1981, women had lower average levels of schooling than men and were less likely to

have earned a bachelor’s or an advanced degree. Over the period, women narrowed the

education gap with men and, by 2011, women had higher average levels of schooling and

were more likely to have an advanced degree than men. (Blau & Kahn, 2017, p. 794-795)

With education and labor-market experience gaps closing, research has pivoted to other

potential causes, including the causal versus correlational impacts of the child penalty, which is

defined as, “the percentage by which women fall behind men due to children” (Kleven, Landais

& Søgaard, 2019, p. 182). Research from Denmark indicates the penalty in earnings due to the

raising of children equals approximately 20 percent of the gap between male and female workers

from 1980-2013 (Kleven, Landais & Søgaard, 2019). When women step out of the labor force to

give birth and raise children, their lapse in work experience affects their later wages (Budig &

England, 2001). This penalty can be observed regardless of the amount of time a mother leaves

the workforce, whereas men rarely experience a gap in wages at all (Kleven, Landais & Søgaard,

2019). Workplace productivity has also been cited as a cause of the child penalty (Budig &

England, 2001), though direct research into productivity between mothers and non-mothers, and

between men and woman, is lacking, making it difficult to identify this as a concrete cause

(Budig & England, 2001).

Employer discrimination, whether against mothers (Budig & England, 2001) or women

in general (Blau and Kahn, 1997; Altonji & Blank, 1999), has obvious negative effects on

women’s prospects in the workforce and their relative wage. Discrimination can take a variety of

forms including employers in certain sectors prioritizing the hiring of one sex over another

(Altonji & Blank, 1999), unequal promotion rates (Petersen & Saporta, 2004), inequality in

occupational opportunity (Blau & Kahn, 1997), and general pay disparity for comparable work.

Petersen and Saporta (2004) categorized gender discrimination in the workplace into

three categories: allocative discrimination, within-job wage discrimination, and valuative

discrimination. Allocative discrimination is present “in hiring, in promotion, and in dismissal or

firing” (Petersen & Saporta, 2004, p. 859). Allocative discrimination can be present in all facets

of employment, including who is recruited for a job, who is ultimately hired, how quickly that

worker is promoted, and what infractions constitute termination (Petersen & Saporta, 2004).

Within-job discrimination is understood as when “a man and a woman, equally qualified and

projective and doing the same work for the same employer, are paid unequally” (Petersen &

Saporta, 2004, p. 858). Valuative discrimination takes a more macro approach to workplace

discrimination and attempts to quantify the way industries that primarily employ women are

viewed. “Here the discrimination is not against any specific individual but against classes of jobs

held primarily by women” (Petersen & Saporta, 2004, p. 861). The study finds that while all

levels of discrimination exist, and negatively affect a woman’s prospect in the workplace, some

varieties of discrimination are easier to document and, therefore, easier to track. It is allocative

discrimination—particularly the hiring process—that has the potential to be the most widespread in differential treatment (Petersen & Saporta, 2004). It is harder to track which employees are hired for a job, and why, than say documented proof of why they were promoted or not based on work results. “Whatever discrimination takes place at initial hiring and assignment may have effects for subsequent career developments” (Petersen & Saporta, 2004, p. 864). While legislation has made certain kinds of discrimination—namely what is described here as “within- job discrimination”—illegal, and societal pressure has decreased the prevalence of other kinds of outright discrimination (refer to chapter 2), it has not been fully eliminated; and discrimination continues to negatively impact wage disparity between the sexes.

Coverage of the gender pay gap in the media has followed many of the trends of feminist coverage described in the previous subsection—namely lack of coverage or under-coverage resulting from lack of female writers, sexist patriarchal mechanisms in the industry, and dichotomies of good and bad, or important and unimportant, that are pervasive in the media’s

framing of the topic. As Barakso and Schaffner (2006) discussed, gender equality was the aspect of the women’s movement agenda that received the most coverage between 1969 and 2004 (p.

32). This includes female equality in the workforce, which is a component of the gender pay gap.

However, family issues, including the care of children, were covered the least by the media during this time, which is an equally important component of the gender pay gap discussion

(Barakso & Schaffner, 2006, p. 32). The shifting interests of the news media, and the various intersections between a movement’s agenda and a reporter’s beat that creates newsworthiness, contributes to different aspects of feminism receiving more or less coverage over time. Within the context of the HeForShe, #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, the gender pay gap again became a relevant issue that was deemed newsworthy. As a result, stories of the gender pay gap—particularly those with the added news hook of celebrity involvement—received renewed coverage by print and television news stations.

3.3 Celebrity Influence

Celebrity, at its most basic level can be understood as, “the crowning result of a society that makes a fetish of competition” (Mills, 1956, p. 74). A celebrity is often a person who has achieved the highest regard in their field, though with the proliferation of social media and other technological advances, that is not always true. A person can simply be known for their “well- knownness” (Boorstin, 1961), which removes the sense that celebrity status is always deserved.

But whether a celebrity earned or deserved their status in society does not influence their potential impact.

Fame and celebrity can facilitate the access necessary to influence the media frame or shift it entirely. Celebrities have the power to “help causes make news and capture the public’s attention” (Thrall, et. al, 2008, p 362).

The trick for any cause, then, is to get and maintain public attention long enough to

influence policy outcomes. And in today’s entertainment-centered, soft news world, an

obvious way to get attention is to leverage one of the engines of today’s media system:

celebrity appeal. (Thrall, et. al, 2008, p. 363)

Olivier Driessens (2013) argued that celebrity needs to be redefined as a kind of capital due to its “convertibility into other resources” (Driessens, 2013, p. 545). Giles (2000) defined

celebrity as “essentially a media production” due to ways in which the media highlight an

individual person for their qualities. The concept of celebrity capital has been discussed by many

researchers including Kaikati (1987), Erdogan (1999), Bergkvist and Zhou (2016), Knoll and

Matthes (2017), and Carrillat and Ilicic (2019) in relation to endorsements, and Mishra and

Mishra (2014), Arthurs and Shaw (2016), Sikorski, Knoll and Matthes (2018), and others in

relation to politics.

Celebrity endorsement has been used as a means of marketing for products, brands,

campaigns, and people for many decades (Knoll & Matthes, 2017). Bergkvist and Zhou (2016)

defined celebrity endorsement as “an agreement between an individual who enjoys public

recognition (a celebrity) and an entity (e.g., a brand) to use the celebrity for the purpose of

promoting the entity” (p.644). A celebrity lending their name or their image to a product or

pursuit has been proven as an effective way to get consumers to purchase things, buy into a

brand, support a political candidate, etc. (Knoll & Matthes, 2017). In general, celebrity

endorsements are seen to be positive (Erdogan, 1999; Bergkvist & Zhou, 2016). However, it has

been found that some endorsements are more effective than others. In a comprehensive analysis

of celebrity endorsements, Knoll and Matthes (2017) found that brand endorsements by male

celebrities were generally seen as stronger, or more effective, than brand endorsements by

female celebrities (p.68). Additionally, celebrities that seem to be highly aligned with the brand they are endorsing, or “congruent endorsers,” are viewed more positively than “incongruent endorsers” (Knoll & Matthes, 2017, p.68). This congruency metric can be extended into celebrity endorsement or involvement in social movements. The more closely aligned a celebrity is to a movement, the more legitimacy they can potentially bring to the movement, and the more positively viewed they can be.

In a time of protest or social change, celebrity appeal is more appropriately deemed

“celebrity advocacy,” where a celebrity can use his or her power to “garner attention from the news media and to link a political issue with someone famous and well loved” (Thrall, et. al,

2008, p. 363). Celebrity involvement in social movements is not new; they often get involved in causes that are important to them personally. “The chief asset that celebrities can offer social movements is the visibility that comes with their participation; celebrities carry a spotlight with them” (Meyer & Gamson, 1995, p. 185). By stepping into the limelight for a cause, particularly one they have a personal stake in, celebrities can help fundraise for a cause (Prindle, 1993) and they can help personalize the issue (Meyer & Gamson, 1995). This act can put a face to an issue, creating a visual both the general public and the news media can hang on to when trying to explain an amorphous or difficult topic; as media mogul Oprah Winfrey did during her speech about Time’s Up during the 2018 Golden Globes (Maseda Garcia & Gómez Nicolau, 2018) and actress Emma Watson did during her speech about HeForShe on the floor of the United Nations in 2014 (Stache, 2015; Hobson, 2017).

[Oprah] acted as someone who both witnessed her own victimization, and who bears

witness by facilitating the testimonies of those to dare to speak out, publicly denouncing

the structural violence and creating venues for change (and encouraging others to follow

suit). (Maseda Garcia & Gómez Nicolau, 2018, p. 203)

Watson’s speech called for men to take up the mantle of the feminist label (Stache,

2015), and many men, including other celebrities, did so as a result. This kind of endorsement

and personal call to action from a celebrity can spur public involvement and excitement.

For as much power as a celebrity can exert of traditional media outlets—through the

creating of a news’ hook that incentivizes the media’s coverage of a story (Meyer & Gamson,

1995)—they can also use their power to go around it. Thrall (2008) explained, particularly in relation to presidential campaigns where celebrity endorsement and spectacle is an important part of the campaign process, “emerging celebrity advocacy efforts are better understood as part of a strategy to circumvent the mainstream mass media news than a strategy to leverage its power”

(Thrall, et. al, 2008, p. 364). Celebrities can use their own platforms, including their social media accounts, to throw their support behind an issue; removing the need for news media to legitimize a cause.

Celebrity involvement and influence in a social movement has potential drawbacks as well. The spotlight that comes with a celebrity may shine too brightly on their involvement in the movement, versus on the movement itself (Meyer & Gamson, 1995). While a celebrity can lend a personal story to a large political movement, they run the risk of making their story the only one that is heard. “This pattern of overshadowing the movements is likely to happen all the more quickly and easily when media-anointed celebrity spokespeople lack organic roots in the movements for which they speak” (Meyer & Gamson, 1995, p. 187). Additionally, a celebrity’s personal actions and standing within larger society has the potential to affect the public’s trust in a movement as a whole (Meyer & Gamson, 1995). This can be positive if a celebrity is beloved,

but detrimental if they are vilified for their actions—as was the case with so many male celebrities being publicly accused of sexual misbehavior in the media during #MeToo.

Within the political landscape of #MeToo, and utilizing social media as an advocacy tool, the “celebrity feminist” (Hobson, 2017; Casey & Watson, 2017) and “hashtag activism” (Stache,

2015) haven risen in popularity. Many celebrities including Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Aziz

Ansari—who later encountered his own #MeToo controversy—and others (Stache, 2015) have publicly accepted the term “feminist.” These public admissions have served to reintroduce the public to the term feminist, feminism as a concept, and larger feminist ideas. #MeToo has served as a catalyst for the public’s understanding of feminism in recent years. However, celebrities have also been critiqued for offering a sanitized or lightened version of feminism (Hobson,

2017). In her novel “Bad Feminist,” author Roxane Gay hypothesized that “celebrity feminism” could “serve as a distraction or as a false narrative of feminism” (Hobson, 2017). The “celebrity feminist’s” presence is “non-threatening, privileged and palatable” whereas “feminists who are perceived as more difficult or dogmatic are positioned as outliers or unpalatable” (Casey &

Watson, 2017, p. 1).

This positioning of feminists and feminism in the media fits into larger media frames discussed earlier in this chapter. The term “feminism” carries less negativity in general than it did in decades past, and celebrities are more willing to use the term “feminist” to describe themselves. However, it remains true that while “palatable and unpalatable feminists, and those in between, have their audiences in the mediasphere; it is the feminist spokespeople who maintain their palatability that are having the broadest cultural reach” (Casey & Watson, 2017, p.

15).

The way in which feminist issues, and the gender pay gap specifically, have been covered by the media have been influenced by both the attitudes of specific writers, their editors and the establishment, but also the ways in which these topics have intersected with traditional news beats. Celebrities come with an audience, which serves to make them newsworthy. When celebrities throw their voices behind a cause, they are able to bring attention to that cause that might be difficult to attain otherwise. That is the mechanism through which the gender pay gap has been reintroduced to the public in 2018 and 2019. How celebrity has functioned to earn that attention is the crux of this thesis and will be explored further through the following sections on methodology and purpose.

CHAPTER 4: THEORY

As explored in the previous chapter, the way an issue is covered by the media influences the way the public understands that issue. This coverage includes how frequently a topic is written or broadcast about, the tone of language employed, and the prominence a story is given in the newspaper or on the nightly news. All aspects are influenced by the interests of both the news organization as a whole, but also the journalists as individuals. Additionally, the

“newsworthiness” of a topic contributes to the frequency of its coverage. There are many components of newsworthiness including celebrity (Harcup & O’Neill, 2002). As detailed in chapter 1, the questions central to this research are:

a. How is celebrity being used as a device to explain the gender pay gap in current public

discourse?

b. How is the use of celebrity shaping the public’s understanding of the issue?

c. What aspects of the discussion are being omitted or overlooked based on the way the

topic is being framed through the lens of celebrity?

4.1 Newsworthiness Theory

Galtung and Ruge (1965) famously detailed 12 news factors including “frequency,

threshold, unambiguity, meaningfulness, consonance, unexpectedness, continuity, composition,

reference to elite nations, reference to elite people, reference to persons, and reference to

something negative” (Galtung & Ruge, 1965, p.70-71). This is known as “newsworthiness

theory.” In their research, Galtung and Ruge were trying to determine what factors made an

international news story relevant to a domestic audience. In defining what aspects of a story

brought news into the widest frame of meaning (Goffman, 1974), they found that several

categories accomplished this including “reference to elite people” (Galtung & Ruge, 1965). “The

actions of the elite are, at least usually and in a short-term perspective, more consequential than the activities of others: this applies to elite nations as well as to elite people” (Galtung & Ruge,

1965, p. 68). They determined that due to their “intrinsic importance,” stories of the elite can be used “in a sense to tell about everybody” (Galtung & Ruge, 1965, p. 68).

In 2001, Harcup and O’Neill examined the usefulness of Galtung and Ruge’s original 12 news factors. Through their research, they were able to identify many critical ambiguities and unanswered questions left by the researchers. They presented a “contemporary set of news values” that included “the power elite, celebrity, entertainment, surprise, bad news, good news, magnitude, relevance, follow-up, and newspaper agenda” (Harcup & O’Neill, 2001, p. 279).

They took what Galtung and Ruge referred to as the elite and divided it into two separate categories: “‘the power elite,’ which should include elite organisations and institutions as well as people, and ‘celebrity,’ referring to people who are already famous whether or not they are powerful” (Harcup & O’Neill, 2001, p. 278). In later research, they determined that within this list, there is a hierarchy with celebrity at the top (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017). Celebrity

involvement in a story can serve to bring it into the frame of importance for both journalists who are producing the story and for readers who are consuming the story, by deeming it newsworthy.

4.2 Agenda-Setting Theory

Influenced by the factors of newsworthiness explained above, the media has the ability to tell the public what is important and what they should care about. This is known as agenda-

setting. In the 1968 presidential campaign, researchers McCombs and Shaw (1972) drew a strong

correlation between the opinions of voters and the topics covered in the local media, thus putting

forth the theory that the media have the ability to set the public agenda for the audience. In later

research, they defined “agenda-setting” as, “a sociological concept describing the effect of the

news media on social groups and public opinion” (McCombs & Weaver, 1973, p. 3). They found

that “Voters’ assessments of the important issues more closely matched the agenda suggested by

the total news coverage than it matched the agenda emanating from the candidate they leaned

toward” (McCombs & Weaver, 1973, p. 2). The media can “orient” an individual in relation to a specific issue, which the researchers believed is something people desire inherently (McCombs

& Weaver, 1973). An individual’s “need for orientation leads to media use, which in turn leads to agenda-setting” (McCombs & Weaver, 1973, p. 3). The more an individual seeks and desires orientation, the more susceptible they are to the agenda of the media (McCombs & Weaver,

1973). Shaw (1979) surmised that “agenda-setting occurs usually as a cumulative effect” (p.

102). The frequency with which a news agency covers a particular topic, or the frequency with which an individual exposes themselves to the news agency, the stronger the likelihood that they will align themselves with the beliefs of the media. These effects should be examined over an extended period of time (Shaw, 1979). Further research has demonstrated that repeated exposure

of an issue in the media serves to deepen its salience as an issue (McCombs, Shaw & Weaver,

2014).

There are two levels of agenda-setting. The first, which is explained above, tells the

public what to focus on; it sets “social priorities” (McCombs, et al., 1997, p. 706). Second level

agenda-setting drills down to individual attributes. McCombs and his colleagues (1997) applied

this second level agenda-setting to political candidates, and further divided the salience of these

attributes into “substantive dimensions” and “affective dimensions” (p. 706). Substantive

dimensions are things like descriptions of personality, stances on issues, etc., and affective

attributes are positive, negative, or neutral assessments (McCombs, et al., 1997). Both

dimensions of attributes serve to define candidates in the public sphere. The media has the ability

to set the public agenda of which issues are important, and also what aspects of those issues are

relevant and important.

Agenda-setting can be influenced by a wide variety of things including the individual reporters and their biases and interests (defined as frames in the following section), by the organizational construct of the company, and by the culture at large.

4.3 Framing Theory

Framing, or the use of frames, assists in an individual’s understanding of a concept or idea. Frames are employed in both meaning-making (Gitlin, 1980; Entman, 1993), but also an individual’s ability to interpret meaning based on their own primary frameworks (Goffman,

1974). Primary frameworks, or the biases an individual is not even aware are present, influence the way an individual interprets events (Goffman, 1974). A primary framework allows an individual to “locate, perceive, identify, and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete

occurrences defined in its terms” (Goffman, 1974, p.21). Frames function as expectations a person has based on their previous experiences. These expectations can arouse a set of emotions in a person, and overpower the facts of a situation. A person’s frames can either be natural or social (Goffman, 1974). A natural framework is one that is viewed as purely physical—what is actually happening without a willful agency causally and intentionally interfering (Goffman,

1974). By contrast, social frameworks “provide background understanding for events that incorporate will, aim, and controlling effort of an intelligence, a live agency, the chief one being the human being” (Goffman, 1974, p. 22). How one interprets an event is based on the frameworks a person employs in breaking the event down and understanding it. Goffman argued that people are utilizing frameworks at all times, whether they are aware of them or not.

Since framing has been understood as a tool for understanding, it has been adapted into a wide variety of fields. Fairhurst and Sarr (1996) applied framing to leadership and described it as an art or a skill that can be acquired, giving individuals more agency in employing frames than

Goffman did. They defined framing as the ability to “choose one particular meaning (or set of meanings) over another” (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996, p. 3). In sharing individual frames with others

“we assert that our interpretations should be taken as real over other possible interpretations”

(Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996, p. 3). Framing can be a powerful tool, and one that is employed by the news media routinely.

How a story, topic, or concept is framed in the media can be influenced by what is newsworthy, as explored in the previous subsection. Journalists utilize “principles of selection, emphasis and presentation” to help the reader understand what matters (Gitlin, 1980, p. 7). The frame a journalist employs not only indicates to a reader what is important but also what is not important about a certain topic. “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and

make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation”

(Entman, 1993, p. 52). This ability to frame the story, and shape the narrative, gives journalists a lot of power (Entman, 1993). But the power and influence are not the individual reporter’s alone.

There are organizational demands (Tuchman, 1978) on journalists that influence the stories they write and the frames they apply. By focusing exclusively on the individual reporter—their individual biases and frameworks—the influence of “organizational processes, ideological leanings of the news organization, market constraints, differential power of social and political actors, or national and international cultures and structures” can be minimized or overlooked

(Vliegenthart & van Zoonen, 2011, p. 107). All levels of a news organization can contribute to the way individual stories are framed. Vliegenthart and van Zoonen (2011) argue that news framing needs to be explored at “micro, meso and macro” levels to more fully understand how news is both produced but also consumed (p. 111).

4.4 Encoding-Decoding

As Goffman (1974) argues, the framing of an event instills meaning into that event or movement. The act of framing an event in the news involves a two-step communication process called encoding and decoding (Hall, 1973). The person who is sending a message is called the

“encoder.” They develop the message and attempt to determine how it will be received (Hall,

1973). The “decoder” is the audience that interprets the message for themselves based on their own social contexts, or frames of experience (Hall, 1973). He argues, that meaning is only formed when both sides of this process are executed (Hall, 1980). Further, he argues there are three different ways television, which was his initial study, is decoded: through the dominant or hegemonic position, the negotiated position, and the oppositional position (1973). The first

assumes the audience interprets the message as it was intended, the second refers to the audience

understanding the intended message but also being unwilling to fully accept it, and the third

refers to the audience understanding the intention but decoding the message in a completely

different way, or decoding a different message all together (Hall, 1973).

Inherent in the decoding process is the idea of a sign, an object, which is broken down

into two components: the signifier, or the material form, and the signified, the concept associated

with it (Saussure, 1959). How a person interprets a concept in their mind, based on their primary

frameworks, influences the way they understand the message they are decoding—this is a

constructionist view of representation (Hall, 1997). Signification can both denote a message—

the literal primary meaning of the sign—and it can also connote something—other attributes of

the meaning aside for the literal interpretation (Hall, 1997.) For Saussure, the relationship

between the signifier and the signified is a system of social conventions, and therefore “all

meanings are produced with history and culture” (Hall, 1997, p. 32). The understanding of a

concept, idea, or language is highly influenced by the time in history and the cultural context

within which it is encoded and decoded (Hall, 1997).

Messages that are encoded by journalists and subsequently decoded by an audience can preserve a dominant social order (Hall, 1973). This framing by the media can be a powerful

method of social control (Edelman, 1993).

CHAPTER 5: METHODOLOGY

In order to examine how celebrity was used as a frame in the telling of both the historic

example of Lilly Ledbetter and the recent example of Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg, a

comparative framing analysis of news reports was conducted on six sources—three from each

case study. A comparative framing analysis employs the theory of agenda-setting and framing

explained in the previous chapter, and brings it into a rhetorical analysis (Kuypers, 2009). This

methodology has been utilized by various social scientists in this field to examine media

influence over the public.

A comparative framing analysis involves both a quantitative tallying of instances of news

coverage, which indicates societal priorities, or first level agenda-setting (McCombs, et al.,

1997); but also specific attributes of the reporting, such as keywords, metaphors, concepts and labels (Kuypers, 2009) that go to second level agenda-setting (McCombs, et al., 1997). Once these frames are identified, they are applied to all news coverage being examined to identify framing patterns. The analysis of each case study example is than compared.

The identification and comparison of frames, including keywords, metaphors, concepts and labels in language, will employ components of critical discourse analysis (CDA), a research method focused on “power, ideology, and critique” (Wodak & Meyer, 2008, p. 1). CDA goes beyond the examination of specific words, grammar, or sentence structure to analyze the action and interaction of discourse, and the function of language in use (Wodak & Meyer, 2008).

Unlike other research techniques, the context of the words used is critical to understanding its potential power (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997).

CDA is characterized by the common interests in de-mystifying ideologies and power

through the systematic and retroductable investigation of semiotic data (written, spoken

or visual). CDA researchers also attempt to make their own positions and interests

explicit while retaining their respective scientific methodologies and while remaining

self-reflective of their own research process. (Wodak & Meyer, 2008, p. 3)

Norman Fairclough’s model of CDA (1989) examines texts through the lens of media

production and interpretation within the larger confines of social conditions and context, which

makes it particularly relevant for this study. For Fairclough, discourse is a dialectical relationship

where the event is shaped by situations, institutions, and social structures, but also shapes them

(Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). He posits that not only do people have the ability to influence

story, but also a story has the ability to shape people. This ties back to earlier theories in this

research wherein how journalists choose to cover news influences the way that news is told.

Also, the frequency and proliferation of a story has the ability to influence the audience. The

relationship goes both ways. Fairclough’s model of CDA volleys between focusing on the

structure that produces discourse and the action that discourse takes (Fairclough, 2001).

Like much of CDA study, Fairclough's model is built upon the theories of power and

knowledge by Foucault (1972) who posits that power is diffuse, not central, and is only present

in the exercising of it. Power is systemic, relational, and often based upon societal position with

some able to exert it over others more readily, and with more damaging effects (Foucault, 1972).

Knowledge becomes power when it is widely accepted as common sense. Foucault’s “regime of

truth” lays out a process through which information is codified through social, political, and

economic apparatuses to be solidified as truth (1972). CDA serves to examine discourse to get at

the power structures at play in the creation of it, and to exploit the societal inequalities that are

normalized as common sense.

In this study, the gender pay gap as an issue has been understood as common sense—an

inevitability caused by the female sex’s inescapable burden of bearing children. It is understood that all women experience a pay gap, but there are many aspects of power that go overlooked with that simplified understanding. Power imbalances exist between employers and employees,

between men and women, and between women of different races and socio-economic backgrounds. Components of CDA are utilized in this research to examine some of those power dynamics, and explore the critical aspects of discourse that are not being discussed as part of this debate.

While CDA has the benefit of examining language in larger contexts, those contexts can also be the challenge of this research method. Discourse on any topic is a complex integration of history, present events, and future visions (Wodak & Meyer, 2008). The layered examination of these intersecting aspects may not be fully explored through CDA. Additionally, the impact of new media may not be fully understood or explored as changes occur all the time. CDA has also been criticized for cherry-picking examples that prove assumptions, and omitting challenging examples (Wodak & Meyer, 2008). Despite these critiques, CDA remains a relevant and ever- changing research model that is equipped for examining complex discourses.

CHAPTER 6: INTRODUCTION OF SOURCES

As stated in chapter 1, the pay disparity between actors Michelle Williams and Mark

Wahlberg for reshoots on their film, “All the Money in the World,” received widespread and intensive media coverage in 2018. This recent example was selected as a case study in this thesis due to the caliber of celebrities involved, the widespread recognition for the film, and the variety of media outlets that covered the story. The media framing of this recent case study is juxtaposed with the historic case study of Lilly Ledbetter who received widespread media coverage when

President Barack Obama signed the formative legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay

Restoration Act, into law in 2009. It was the first major piece of legislation he signed in his presidency after championing it as a senator. The celebrity status of the newly minted president added to the renewed interest in this topic and served as a framework through which many news

outlets covered the legislation and the gender pay gap as an issue of the time. Through this

experience, Ledbetter became of celebrity activist in her own right, and has gone on to speak publicly on this issue and advocate for change. This historic example was selected as a case study in this thesis due to the formative nature of the legislation that resulted from her case and

the varied media coverage the case received. The articles examined in both cases were selected

because they were published by large newspapers and news outlets. Additionally, some were the

first to report the story and led the way for a lot of the reporting that would follow. In other

cases, they fit into a larger pattern of reporting by the outlet on the story. While this is a small

sample set, it serves to provide insight into the way the media chose to frame and understand

these stories immediately surrounding their reporting. In many cases, these frames were picked

up and used by other media outlets and additional reporting after the publication of these articles.

6.1 “All the Money in the World” Sources

In late 2017, director Ridley Scott opted to reshoot major portions of his film “All the

Money in the World” after sexual assault allegations were published against the film’s lead actor

Kevin Spacey. The reshoots were completed, at an additional cost of $10 million, in time for the

film’s release around the holidays that year. At the time, this action received considerable media

coverage and general acclaim as Scott was heralded for taking the “unprecedented” action

(Mendelson, 2018, para. 1) of cutting Spacey from the film. This action fit into the larger public narrative surrounding the #MeToo, HeForShe, and Time’s Up movements. The film was nominated for an Academy Award, a British Academy of Film and Television Arts award, and

three Golden Globe awards in 2018. As notification of these award nominations were going

public, so too did a story in “USA Today” on January 9, 2018 about actor Michelle Williams being paid an $80 per diem totaling less than $1,000 for her reshoots in the film and actor Mark

Wahlberg being paid $1.5 million for reshoots of his scenes. An article on this situation was first published in November 2017 by the “Washington Post,” but failed to gain much attention. It wasn’t until “USA Today” published their story around awards season that the news received widespread coverage through January and February 2018, and renewed coverage a year later in

April 2019 when Williams spoke out about the incident in a speech in support of the Fairness

Paycheck Act. While this story was covered by a varied range of news outlets (see full listing of coverage in Appendix 1), the following articles will serve as the primary sources for this framing analysis.

a. “Exclusive: Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than

$1,000” - “USA Today,” January 9, 2018

This article published by “USA Today” in early January 2018 was the first to address the pay disparity story between actors Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg around awards season, and began a series of reporting from various news outlets that followed. As previously stated, this topic was covered by the “Washington Post” in November 2017 but failed to gain much attention. The “USA Today” reporting by journalist Andrea Mandell was cited by many articles that followed it, and laid out the framework of celebrity, shock, and injustice that would be picked up by many other articles. This article included background on the film reshoots, contextualization within the larger #MeToo, Time’s Up and HeForShe movements, and a transcription of an interview with director Ridley Scott from December wherein he states that no one was paid for their reshoots.

b. “The Cruel Reason Michelle Williams Earned 0.07% Of Mark Wahlberg's Pay For 'All

the Money In The World' Reshoots” - “Forbes,” January 10, 2018

Journalist Scott Mendelson published this follow-up article for “Forbes” the day following

“USA Today’s” initial reporting. Similarly, it includes a contextualization of the reasons for the reshoots, which plays in the #MeToo movement. Unlike “USA Today’s” reporting, “Forbes" goes further into the money differential and speaks to the status of the two stars as a way of contextualizing the inequality and unfairness of the pay gap. Mendelson poses several economic questions throughout the article including, “would [Williams] have felt confident asking for more money for more shooting days if she had felt entitled to it?” (Mendelson, 2018, para. 6), placing this situation within larger contexts of female empowerment in relation to money.

c. “Why the pay gap in 'All the Money in the World' creates 'terrible optics' for Hollywood”

- “NBC News,” January 10, 2018

This article by “NBC News” was published on the same day as the “Forbes” reporting.

Journalist Elizabeth Chuck collected various tweets from other celebrities including actress

Jessica Chastain and producer Judd Apatow to demonstrate the industry’s own outrage at the pay disparity between Williams and Wahlberg. The author also weaved in expert interviews with researchers and historians to speak to the optics of the situation amid the larger cultural context that was included in the previous two articles, but not fully explored. This article was the first to put forth a recommendation of how Wahlberg could change those optics and emerge from this situation in a better light publicly. One expert suggested he donate the money, which Wahlberg eventually did do.

6.2 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act Sources

In 1998, following her retirement from Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Lilly Ledbetter filed suit against her former employer asserting sex discrimination under Title VII resulting in decreased pay compensation over the course of her tenure. In 1999, the District Court ruled in

her favor, granting her back pay. However, upon appeal in 2005, the Eleventh Circuit reversed

that finding citing a time limitation of 180 days for review from the first instance of pay

discrimination. In 2007, the Supreme Court heard the case and upheld the reversal citing the

same time limitation. In 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act was signed into law, extending that time limit to begin from the last instance of pay discrimination versus the first.

While the case was moving through the courts, it received moderate media coverage. News stories really picked up in 2009 when the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act was signed into law by newly sworn President Barack Obama. These articles utilized the celebrity status of the new president to propel many of the analyses done in the media. Fueled by the politics of the moment, many stories were published in major newspapers including “The New York Times” and the “Los Angeles Times” documenting the new legislation and analyzing the years of legal battles that preceded it. A full listing of news coverage that spans a decade can be referenced in

Appendix 2. However, the following articles which were published in 2009 will serve as the primary sources for this framing analysis.

a. “The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act is back” – “Los Angeles Times,” January 10, 2009 This op-ed published by the “Los Angeles Times” in January 2009 briefly details the history of Ledbetter’s case, and hangs itself firmly on the presidential election between Democrat

Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. The opinion piece details then-Senator Obama’s experience and involvement with the legislation, tying the bill’s relevance to his own celebrity status as the president-elect. The article also makes a judgement about the legitimacy and importance of this legislation, which a more traditionally reported article would not do.

b. “Closing the gender gap” – “The Guardian,” January 27, 2009

This article was published by “The Guardian” just a few days before the legislation was signed into law by President Barack Obama. This article by journalist Kay Steiger deems this legislation as something to be “celebrated” but also says it is “just one remedy in a long list of injustices” (Steiger, 2009, para. 2), making the case that while this is a step in the right direction there is still a long way to go for parity. The reporting covers the current pay gap between the genders and argues that while this legislation gives more women the right to sue their employers, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will. In advance of the law, Steiger poses many questions about the breadth and depth of impact the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act will have not only on women who have documented proof of a pay disparity, but also on women who are experiencing other kinds of gender discrimination in the workplace.

c. “Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation” – “The New York Times,” January 29, 2009

On the day President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, the

“New York Times” published this article detailing the process of that signing and its significance for workers. Like the “Los Angeles Times’” op-ed, this article utilizes the celebrity status of the president to lead into the relevance of this legislation to the moment. Reporter Sheryl Gay

Stolberg covered the Supreme Court’s upholding of the reversal and Justice Ruth Bader

Ginsburg’s dissent as context for the historic moment of this legislation being signed into law. A quote from the president is used to anchor the article, “It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness,” which serves as a further framework for this issue.

CHAPTER 7: ANALYSIS

As stated in chapter five, the methodology of analysis employed on the following sampling of sources is a comparative framing analysis. This methodology was used to better understand the ways in which the media parceled out the narratives to be understood and digested by the reader. These frames can include keywords, metaphors, concepts, and labels

(Kuypers, 2009) that are used or repeated in the reporting. As discussed in Chapter 4, framing theory has many layers to it, including an individual’s primary frame (Goffman, 1974), but also the way in which a journalist selects, emphasizes, and presents a story to help the reader understand what is important (Gitlin, 1980). This is this second understanding of a frame that is primarily employed in this analysis.

While the example of Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg, and Lilly Ledbetter were covered by many news outlets over the course of years—2018 and 2019 for the former, and 2009 through the following decade sporadically for the latter—the individual articles detailed in the previous chapter serve as a narrow sampling for each narrative. These six articles (three per case study) were selected because they were published either immediately before or immediately after the inciting incident for each case study and demonstrate the ways the media chose to frame each story for the public. While more articles were published on these stories in the ensuing weeks, months, and years, which deepened and diversified the public’s understanding, it is important to examine their initial framing within the cultural context of the time.

This analysis is broken down into three parts. First, an individual analysis of the sources for the “All the Money in the World” example. Then, an individual analysis of the sources for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act example. Finally, the framing of these two examples were compared.

7.1 Analysis of “All the Money in the World” Sources

In reading and examining the three sources in this case study, nine frames stood out. The following characterizations and juxtapositions were employed by the reporters to help the reader not only understand this situation between actors Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg in particular, but also how this situation fit into the larger context of the moment including the

#MeToo, Time’s Up and HeForShe movements, but also the general inequity and discrimination perceived in Hollywood as a whole. The frames identified in this analysis are:

a. contrast between number values

b. a tainted triumph

c. Wahlberg as the highest paid actor in Hollywood

d. Williams as the indie darling on the rise

e. villain vs. martyr

f. Scott as the duplicitous director

g. unempowered women in Hollywood

h. Williams as a representation of all women

i. example of #MeToo, Times’s Up, or HeForShe movements

Table 1.1 demonstrates which frames are employed in which source.

Table 1.1 – Frame representation in “All the Money in the World” sources

Frames “USA Today” “Forbes” “NBC News”

Shock of $ comparison X X X

A tainted triumph X X X

Wahlberg – highest paid actor in X X X

Hollywood

Williams – indie darling on the rise X

Villain vs. martyr X X X

Ridley Scott – duplicitous director X

Unempowered women X X

Williams as every woman X

#MeToo/Time’sUp/HeForShe X X X

Notes – In some cases, these frames are identified through direct quotes from the articles, and sometimes they are interpretations of the text.

In all three sources, the pay disparity between Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg was spelled out using numerical figures, which serves to capture the reader’s attention. In “USA

Today’s” article the sums are included in the headline, “Exclusive: Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than $1,000,” and then reiterated in the first paragraph,

“Mark Wahlberg was paid $1.5 million for reshooting his scenes in All the Money in the World, three people familiar with the situation but not authorized to speak publicly about it tell “USA

Today,” while Michelle Williams was paid an $80 per diem totaling less than $1,000” (Mandell,

2018, para. 1). The stark contrast between the two figures, which is mentioned three different times throughout the story, grabs the reader’s attention due to the egregious disparity, and then

propels the story forward. The comparison of $1.5 million versus $1,000 is framed as shocking and unfair. “Forbes’” reporting follows a similar framing tact by using the word “cruel” in the headline in conjunction with a numerical representation of the percentage Williams received of

Wahlberg’s fee—0.07%. In addition to juxtaposing the figures in the second paragraph like the previous article did, the “Forbes” reporting also included the total sum of money required for the reshoots, which was $10 million. Throughout the story, both Wahlberg’s and Williams’ compensations are referred to four times each. The “NBC News” article omits the figures from the headline but includes them in the second paragraph. In all three articles, the sums of money themselves serve to launch the reporting that follows. The $1.5 million figure is repeated three times throughout the “NBC News” story, and some indication of Williams compensation is covered twice in different ways.

In addition to the inclusion of money figures, Mark Wahlberg is characterized as the

“highest paid actor in Hollywood” either explicitly or implicitly in all three articles, setting up his status within the larger context of the industry. In both “USA Today’s” and “NBC News’” reporting, they refer to “Forbes Magazine” giving the actor that title in the previous year.

“Forbes” also refers to its own ranking and delves into his recent acting roles and says,

“Wahlberg is a working actor with a long track record of opening major studio movies”

(Mendelson, 2018, para. 10). While “Forbes” does not demonize Wahlberg for his negotiating skills outright saying he, “has every right to request additional pay for additional work,” the inclusion of these details ultimately introduces the frame of Wahlberg as the villain who asked for more and Williams as the martyr who didn’t ask for anything, if only to subvert it.

But that Williams chose to participate in reshoots essentially for free does not make her a

martyr, and Wahlberg’s requests to receive additional funds for additional work does not

necessarily make him a villain. Lord knows we shouldn’t be against a professional

getting overtime pay for overtime work (Mendelson, 2018, para. 4).

“Forbes” also takes time to detail Williams’ career and juxtaposes the opportunities she has been given with the opportunities given to Wahlberg. The implication here is that Wahlberg is a major movie star and Williams is still on the rise in her career due to the kinds of roles they have taken and the caliber of films they have appeared in. This juxtaposition of their status within the industry further pins the two individuals against each other in a power dynamic where

Williams is disadvantaged. Neither of the other two articles describe the actors’ careers in the same level of detail, but the juxtaposition of power between the two is apparent through the descriptions of Wahlberg as “the highest-paid actor of the year” (Mandell, 2018, para. 17).

The “Forbes” article introduces the words “villain” and “martyr,” and then asks the reader to not put the actions of each actor into those categories. However, the use of those words at all puts the dichotomy in the reader’s mind and sets up further reporting in the article, which defines the situation as “horrible” (Mendelson, 2018, para. 5). Immediately after laying out a case that this situation is more than it seems, the reporter also lays out the worst case scenario of events, “all parties agreed to come back for free but Wahlberg negotiated in secret for an additional payday” (Mendelson, 2018, para. 5). The inclusion of this scenario at all, even to subvert it as with other aspects of the reporting, reinforces the narrative.

Another component included in the reporting of all three articles is the fact that director

Ridley Scott was quoted as saying that all the actors participated in the reshoots for nothing. This background context sets the director up as duplicitous in the actions that came later. In the case of “USA Today’s” reporting, they included a direct transcription of this conversation the news outlet conducted with Scott in December of the previous year. Both “Forbes” and “NBC News”

referred to this interview as well, and all three also referred to an interview that Williams gave

indicating she was willing to work for free to complete the reshoots. “USA Today” and “NBC

News” included William’s full quote saying, “I said I'd be wherever they needed me, whenever

they needed me. And they could have my salary, they could have my holiday, whatever they

wanted. Because I appreciated so much that they were making this massive effort” (Mandell,

2018, para. 19). The inclusion of this quote, or illusion to the quote, shows Williams as a person

who did not and would not ask for extra money. This characterization of Williams juxtaposes

with Wahlberg as a person who would and did ask for money for his reshoots. Additionally, in

all three reports it is stated that Williams did not know that Wahlberg had negotiated an

additional fee, implying that information was kept from her. The implication of this detail is that

Williams did not feel empowered to negotiate. Additionally, it frames the men (both Wahlberg

and Scott) as keeping the woman (Williams) in the dark. The sexes are pitted against each other

in a power dynamic that replicates larger cultural contexts at play with #MeToo, Time’s Up, and

HeForShe movements. It is not verified in any article if any of these facts were confirmed.

Neither Williams nor Wahlberg were quoted in the stories. The William Morris Endeavor agency, which represents both actors—a fact that was included in all stories—was also not quoted.

All three articles place this situation within the larger context of Hollywood upheaval as a result of sexual misconduct allegations and gender discrimination. All three reports detail the need for the “All the Money in the World” reshoots in the first place, which stem from sexual misconduct allegations against the film’s former star Kevin Spacey. The director opted to reshoot his scenes and replace him with another actor, Christopher Plummer. “Forbes” called this decision “unprecedented” and “USA Today” characterized the decision and the reshoot process

as a “triumph.” As further context for the moment, “USA Today” briefly mentioned the “flood of

sexual misconduct allegations against dozens of other powerful Hollywood figures” (Mandell,

2018, para. 21) and identified the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements by name. “NBC News”

also mentioned the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements. The headline of the “NBC News” story

is, “Why the pay gap in ‘All the Money in the World’ creates ‘terrible optics’ for Hollywood.”

This assessment of “terrible optics” is reiterated by an expert source in the story, which directly

connects this pay disparity to the Spacey scandal. A pay gap this large would be bad for the

production in any time but particularly in the wake of this sexual assault allegation that had been

absorbed as part of the #MeToo movement. All eyes were primed on the film already. The “NBC

News” story also includes quotes from fellow actors decrying the unfairness of the situation. The inclusion of these tweets from other prominent celebrities offers a sense of industry solidarity for the discrimination Williams experienced, which stands in as a representation of the discrimination female actors and other celebrities experienced as a whole during that time.

“Forbes” did not directly name either cultural movement, but did raise questions of female

empowerment around money and negotiation that speak to the underlying themes of these

initiatives. Mendelson posits, “would she have felt confident asking for more money for more

shooting days if she had felt entitled to it?” (para. 6) and goes on to detail Williams’ career in comparison to Wahlberg’s. Williams’ roles where she played “the love interest or the supportive wife” (para. 7) are compared with Wahlberg’s leading roles in studio films. In a reversal of the perceived trend, “All the Money in the World” was a supporting role for Wahlberg and a leading role for Williams, which only serves to underscore the unfairness of the compensation detailed earlier in the reporting.

While the frames identified in these three source examples function separately to paint a full picture of the disparate influences of this moment, they also combine to form the overarching frame of gendered unfairness. It is clear from the reporting that Williams as an individual was treated unfairly in this situation. She was kept in the dark either on purpose or unintentionally about her male costar’s compensation, and she was not empowered to advocate for increased compensation for herself. The difference between William’s and Wahlberg’s sums is large, and those numbers are utilized in the stories to shock the reader and remind them of the unfairness she experienced. Even when more subtle frames of industry nuance are introduced, as in the

“Forbes” reporting, it serves to underscore the point of unfairness more than dispel it.

Additionally, this framing extends beyond one actor’s experience of unfairness in a film. The injustice that Williams experienced is framed as an example of a larger theme of discrimination and disparity in Hollywood through the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements.

Williams is a successful actress in her own right—a fact that is detailed in the reporting; and yet, her career is juxtaposed with Wahlberg’s industry prowess, which puts the two on unequal footing. The reporting repeatedly implies that she never had a chance at parity due to the overarching unfair nature of the industry itself. If Williams—a high-powered celebrity herself— doesn’t have the power to control her career or advocate for her own interests, what chance does any other actress or working woman in any industry have? Without stating it explicitly, Williams is framed as a representation of all women in this story. She is up against a system that does not prioritize or support her. Her fight for what she deserves reflects similar battles for parity across the full range of feminist issues. During this recent iteration of feminist activism and advocacy surrounding the #MeToo, Time’s Up and HeforShe movements, Williams is viewed as an example of what women are up against. Her celebrity status brings readers to articles about her

situation, which is framed as unbelievable and unfair due to the large sums of money associated

with it and the secretive nature of the negotiations.

7.2 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act Sources

In reading and examining the three sources in this case study, seven frames stood out.

The following characterizations and juxtapositions were utilized by the reporters to help the reader not only understand Lilly Ledbetter’s case of gender discrimination against her former employer, but also the significance of the legislation that bears her name as it was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The president’s involvement with this law centered media and public attention on the gender pay gap as an issue. The frames identified in this analysis are:

a. loyal employee done wrong

b. Democrats versus Republicans

c. Ledbetter as a representation of all women

d. Obama righting a wrong

e. long-awaited justice

f. female empowerment

g. feminism

Table 1.2 - Frame representation in “Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act” sources

Frames “Los Angeles Times” “New York Times” “The Guardian”

Loyal employee done wrong X X X

Democrats vs. Republicans X X X

Ledbetter as a representation X X X of all women

Obama righting a wrong X X X

Long-awaited justice X X X

Female empowerment X

Feminism X X X

Notes – In some cases, these frames are identified through direct quotes from the articles, and sometimes they are perceived as interpretations of the text.

The “Los Angeles Times” and “The Guardian” published their story a few days before the legislation was signed, and the “New York Times” published it the day it was signed on

January 29, 2009. Therefore, each take a slightly different approach to covering the story. The

“Los Angeles Times” published their opinion piece in which the staff openly criticizes the

Supreme Court’s decision and supports this new legislation saying, “These measures deserve swift passage and presidential approval” (“Los Angeles Times,” 2009, para. 5). The article by

“The Guardian” puts this legislation into the larger context of the gender pay gap in other industries, and “The New York Times” covers the actual signing of the legislation including backstory of what led up to it and its potential impact.

The establishment of Lilly Ledbetter as a long-standing employee of the Goodyear Tire

& Rubber Co. is the bedrock of all three media examples in this case study. Both the “Los

Angeles Times” and the “New York Times” mention the length of her tenure specifically—19 years—while “The Guardian” includes that she sued her former employer “for $360,000 of back pay” (Steiger, 2009, para. 1). The inclusion of this dollar amount indicates the length of her work experience and therefore accomplishes the same thing as the other two articles. These numbers establish Ledbetter’s loyal service to Goodyear. This context sets up the unfairness of her plight for compensation, not only against her former employer, but also through the court system. She is framed as someone who dedicated years of her life to a company only to be treated unjustly by them. These details characterize Ledbetter as a worker, and a woman, who was taken advantage of.

The details of Ledbetter’s case against Goodyear were included to varying degrees in the different stories. The “New York Times” included the most details from Ledbetter initially winning her case in Alabama to the Supreme Court decision against her. The article also included how Congress initially tried to pass legislation under President George W. Bush, but that was unsuccessful. The “Los Angeles Times” used sarcasm in their description of the

Supreme Court’s decision saying,

Yet in an interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 so narrow the justices must have

been squinting when they read it, the Supreme Court did not deny that Ledbetter had been

discriminated against, but ruled that she should have filed suit within 180 days of her first

unfair paycheck, not 180 days from the time she learned of the difference in pay (“Los

Angeles Times,” 2009, para. 2).

This judgement of the Supreme Court’s decision in the “Los Angeles Times’” opinion piece is the most explicit inditement of the ruling, but an explanation of the court’s reasoning for upholding the lower court’s reversal is included in all three articles. All articles also include a

description of what this new legislation accomplishes. “The Fair Pay Act ensures that each

paycheque is considered a new and separate discriminatory act, essentially reversing the court's

decision and allowing women and other minorities to sue employers ‘each time wages, benefits

or other compensation is paid’" (Steiger, 2009, para. 1).

The inclusion of the details about Ledbetter’s specific case, and explanations of what the

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act accomplishes, provides context for the value of this reporting. The timeliness of this legislation adds to the newsworthiness of all three articles.

Due to the fact that these articles were published around the signing of the legislation, all mention the president, his campaign, or Democrats and Republicans within the background and framing of these stories. The “New York Times” and “Los Angeles Times” articles both state that Republicans were largely against the bill, calling it “anti-business” (“Los Angeles Times,”

2009, para. 3). “The Guardian,” characterizes the bill as a “delight of many Democrats and women’s groups in the United States” (para. 1). These descriptions establish a political frame and the dichotomy of the two parties including where they stand on the gender pay gap and this legislation specifically. Democrats, as a result of Obama’s support of the bill, are seen as being in support while Republicans, as a result of Bush’s critiques, are seen as being in opposition.

Additionally, the dichotomy extends to what is right and what is wrong on this issue. Broadly, the reporting indicates that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong on this feminist issue.

Within this framework of right and wrong, Ledbetter is cast in the middle, and she also functions in a separate framework dichotomy—employer and employee. Ledbetter represents the individual employee being overpowered by her employer. This power struggle frames Ledbetter as the underdog in her battle for fair compensation. She was unfairly treated by first her former

employer and then by the justice system. Within these three articles, Obama is painted as the person who is righting this wrong. His celebrity status as the new president adds to the newsworthiness of the reporting. His familiarity with and advocacy for Ledbetter’s case adds to the legitimacy of his involvement with the legislation. The “New York Times” article states that he is signing this bill, in part, for Ledbetter herself, and that she acknowledges his contribution in bringing justice to her case and making a difference for other workers. The “New York Times” includes several quotes from Obama on the day that refer to the historic nature of this legislation not only for Ledbetter, but also for his daughters.

He said he was signing the bill not only in honor of Ms. Ledbetter…but in honor of his

own grandmother, “who worked in a bank all her life, and even after she hit that glass

ceiling, kept getting up again” and for his daughters, “because I want them to grow up in

a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams.”

(Stolberg, 2009, para. 5)

The perception that Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act for all the women in his life; and also for women everywhere again introduces the frame of Ledbetter as the average worker or as an “every woman” who is fighting for what’s hers. Through her case,

Ledbetter was also transformed into a celebrity in her own right. She is acknowledged as an activist and a “figurehead for pay equity issues” (Steiger, 2009, para. 1) in the reporting. The

“New York Times” article concludes with this quote from Ledbetter: “Goodyear will never have to pay me what it cheated me out of,” she said. “In fact, I will never see a cent. But with the president’s signature today I have an even richer reward” (Stolberg, 2009, para. 13). Reaffirming again the frame as Obama as the savior or the righter of wrongs.

However, “The Guardian” goes further than the other two stories making the argument that while this legislation is a good start, it does not fix the larger problem of gender discrimination and the gender pay gap. The journalist refers to the “long list of injustices done in the last eight years” (Steiger, 2009, para. 2), a thinly veiled admonishment of former President

Bush’s tenure in office, which plays into the partisan frame discussed earlier. The article proposes actions that would be required to move these issues forward beyond just the Lilly

Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, including “pay transparency and more family-friendly workplace policies” (Steiger, 2009, para. 3). The argument is that if more workplaces were open about their compensation practices, more employees—and particularly female employees— would feel empowered to ask for their worth and not accept less. The underlying issue of this argument is female empowerment—that if women had more information and agency, they would demand more for themselves. However, the journalist acknowledges that even with power, not all female employees would utilize it. “Just because more women have the right to sue their employers doesn’t mean that suddenly more women will. A lawsuit against an employer is emotionally and financially taxing, as well as risky” (Steiger, 2009, para. 5). This article introduces many other feminist issues in the workplace including paid sick leave, maternity leave and flexible work hours (Steiger, 2009), putting this legislation more fully in the frame of feminist issues. The other two articles also frame this legislation, and Ledbetter herself, within a feminist framework by condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling and acknowledging Ledbetter’s status as a celebrity for her work on this issue.

These three articles published around the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay

Restoration Act demonstrate how the individual case of Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire Company and the issue of pay discrimination generally was understood at the time. The celebrity status of

both Ledbetter as a feminist activist and Obama as the new president were used to justify the reporting.

7.3 Case Study Comparison

The two situations analyzed in this study occurred about a decade apart. President Barack

Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act in 2009, and the news about the pay differential between actors Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg broke in early 2018. While the pay gap in each example is very different, the reason for coverage and the way these two cases were reported in the media have many similarities. First, the newsworthiness of both cases hinge on the celebrity status of those involved and the timeliness of the reporting. For the

Ledbetter articles, the fact that the president was signing this long-awaited piece of legislation resulted in the need for media coverage of the event. Two of the articles examined here were published in the week leading up to the signing and one was published on the day the legislation was signed into law. This action by the president made the story timely again after years of litigation in various courts. Similarly, the Williams/Wahlberg case was covered extensively around awards season in 2018. The film, “All the Money in the World” was reshot in late 2017 following sexual abuse allegations against the star, Kevin Spacey. At the time, the reshoots received a lot of press, but the details of the pay gap between the two actors did not receive much coverage. It was only when the film was nominated for awards that the revelation about the pay disparity emerged and received wide and varied coverage in the news. The timeliness of awards season contributed to the increased coverage along with the cultural moment of #MeToo and the

Time’s Up movements. The allegations against Spacey fit into a larger pattern of sexual abuse and discrimination allegations being lodged against powerful men in Hollywood. At the time this story was published, a lot of news coverage was being dedicated to covering these stories of men

being called out for bad behavior and women speaking up about the injustices they experienced.

The cultural moment of 2017 and 2018 also contributed to the timeliness of this reporting.

Both examples in this thesis hinge of the celebrity status of those involved. Throughout

the years that Ledbetter was involved in litigating her case and speaking publicly about the pay

discrimination she experienced at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Ledbetter had become a

feminist celebrity in her own right. Her case was well known, especially after the Supreme Court

upheld the reversal of her case—a move that was criticized by many. Justice Ruth Bader

Ginsberg wrote a strongly worded dissent of that decision that brought more attention to it.

While campaigning for the presidency, then-senator Barack Obama took Ledbetter’s case up as a

prime example of the kinds of issues he was passionate about and the kind of change he would

fight for in office, so when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act into law as the

first piece of legislation of his presidency, it received a lot of media coverage. Both the celebrity

status and name recognition of Ledbetter herself, but more importantly the celebrity status and

name recognition of the new president contributed to the validity of this legislation and

contributed to the newsworthiness of this reporting.

In the case of Williams and Wahlberg, celebrity status is the backbone of the news stories. Celebrities coming forward and disclosing their own instances of gender discrimination and abuse in Hollywood is the bedrock of both the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, which are the cultural contexts of this particular story. Williams and Wahlberg are both well-known and well-compensated actors in their field. The details of their careers are detailed in the articles examined in this thesis. Their celebrity status, coupled with the recognition of director Ridley

Scott taking the unexpected step of reshooting his movie because another famous celebrity,

Spacey, was accused of sexual abuse, all add up to a critical mass of media attention. The

celebrity status of all involved brought more eyes to these stories and others that were published around this time.

In both cases, the women at the center of the stories were framed as representations of women everywhere. Ledbetter was perceived as the average working woman—someone who dedicated years of her life working for a company who did not respect her in the end. She was represented as a hard worker with loyal service. She was a manager in the company, which added to the frame of a woman working hard to climb the corporate ladder. Only after nearly two decades working at Goodyear did she learn she was not being paid on par with her male counterparts. This fact introduces another frame that is also seen in William’s case, that of individuals who are wronged by the system around them. Ledbetter worked hard and did not get what she deserved. The unfairness of her situation is a major frame utilized in the telling of her story. Additionally, Ledbetter was not empowered to speak up about her compensation while she was an employee at Goodyear. It was only after her retirement that she initiated the process to inquire and then eventually sue the company for back compensation. While she initially won her case and was granted the back pay she was asking for, that ruling was eventually reversed and upheld by the Supreme Court. This reversal added to her disempowerment—even when she won, she still lost. In the end, Ledbetter did not receive backpay compensation. This is a fact that she acknowledged at the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. The unfairness and disempowerment frames were subverted with the signing of this law. Finally, Ledbetter was seen as getting what she deserved in the public recognition of her pay discrimination and the assurance through the law that future workers will have more of an opportunity to sue for compensation should they experience pay discrimination themselves.

In the reporting of Williams’ story, she is also framed as a representation of women

everywhere who have been treated unfairly by men. While Williams is a celebrity, and the

money in question is much larger than an average worker might experience, her reality of being

paid significantly less than a man and also not being aware of that fact is viewed through the lens

of all women who have been unfairly treated by men either at work or in their personal lives. The depth of unfairness in Williams’ situation seems to go beyond simply making less money than

Wahlberg. Like Ledbetter, Williams was not aware of what her coworker was making. The details of Wahlberg’s compensation were not disclosed to Williams, just like the compensation of male managers at Goodyear was not disclosed to Ledbetter. The fact that the reshoots were so public from the start, and the director and others were on the record saying they would work for nothing, only adds to the perceived deception and unfairness Williams experienced. Williams is also seen as a representation of other women in Hollywood who were taken advantage of in a variety of ways through the #MeToo, Time’s Up, and HeFor She movements. These women were not empowered to stand up for themselves in salary negotiations or in individual conflict with powerful men. Neither Williams nor Ledbetter were treated fairly by the systems they were working in. Also, both women were framed as being directly disrespected by the men they were working with. For Williams, this was Wahlberg himself but also Scott who spoke publicly about actor compensation before the reshoots. For Ledbetter, this was the men who completed her evaluations during her tenure and did not advocate for pay increases on her behalf.

As a result of these injustices and deceptions, both Ledbetter and Williams were framed as representations of feminist plight during their respective moments. Ledbetter’s case against

Goodyear began in 1998 during the third wave of feminism. This wave was characterized by working women speaking publicly about the issues they faced in the workplace. For instance,

Anita Hill’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that was nominating Clarence Thomas

to the Supreme Court occurred in 1991. Throughout her case, Ledbetter became a feminist

activist for gender pay gap and pay discrimination issues. She rose to the status of feminist

celebrity through these efforts. Williams’ story of unfair compensation broke during the same

time that the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements were gaining momentum. The first articles

about this case were published just days after the Golden Globes ceremony where most female

celebrities wore black to symbolize their support of the Time’s Up movement. In the wake of

this large cultural moment, Williams was viewed a prime example of the unfairness and injustice

of the moment. Neither of these women sought out the limelight for their experiences with

gender discrimination. Ledbetter simply filed legal proceedings and Williams participated in the

reshoots. Their stories took on a life of their own in the press.

In both examples, dichotomy is used as a way of understanding the two sides of the issue

and the influences of all actors. The dichotomy of men versus women is present in both

examples—Ledbetter versus her male counterparts and Williams versus Wahlberg and Scott.

Additionally, the dichotomy of employer versus employee—Ledbetter versus Goodyear Tire &

Rubber Co.and Williams versus Scott—and the dichotomy of an individual versus a system are also present in both narratives. Ledbetter was fighting not only the system of Goodyear but ultimately the system of pay discrimination generally. Williams was fighting the system of discrimination that was rearing its ugly head in Hollywood during that time. Within Ledbetter’s case, the dichotomy of Democrat versus Republican is also present and highly influential in the way the reader understood the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act during Obama’s campaign for the presidency and during the sighing of the legislation.

For as much as these two cases have in common in the way they were covered by the media and understood by the public, there are also several key differences in their framing. The first being the celebrity status of the two women. While celebrity is the prime frame being explored in this research, they function differently in the two cases. Williams is a well-known actor and a celebrity in her own right. Her celebrity status really propels the reporting of the articles about her pay gap with fellow actor and celebrity Mark Wahlberg. Williams is defined by her career and her fame. The stories are framed in a way that asks the question how could this happen to someone as famous as this? In the other case, Ledbetter did not start out as a celebrity.

She was very much an average woman from Alabama, and an average employee at Goodyear.

As her case moved through the various courts, she gained more recognition, particularly within feminist circles. By the time the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act was signed into law in

2009, she had become a celebrity in her own right. However, it is really the celebrity status of

Obama that propelled the media interest around the signing. Ledbetter’s celebrity status is not primarily responsible for the media’s interest in her case.

Similarly, while a dichotomy between men and women is present in both examples, they function differently in the reporting. The power struggle between Williams and Wahlberg propels the reporting of their pay disparity. Several comparisons are made between the two actors’ careers, and their compensation for “All the Money in the World” is repeated several times. The interviews that both Scott and Williams did before the reshoots in which they both indicated the actors were not being paid for their work are seen in stark contrast with the action

Wahlberg took in negotiating for a higher salary. Williams statements are juxtaposed with

Wahlberg’s actions, which puts them at odds with each other. Wahlberg’s negotiating skills are directly compared with Williams’ perceived disempowerment to do the same for herself. Their

power and negotiating ability are framed as gendered issues, which again put them at odds with each other. In Ledbetter’s case, she is a woman is in a dichotomy with her male coworkers.

However, in the reporting of these articles that center on the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair

Pay Restoration Act, that frame is in the background. Instead, the more prominent male/female dichotomy is a positive one in which Obama is seen as on Ledbetter’s side and in support of her cause. Rather than utilizing his gender as an opposition to Ledbetter’s, the reporting uses his gender as a complement. Obama is perceived as a savior, a man who is righting the wrongs of the men who have come before him on this issue.

At the time of their reporting, these two situations fit as a small piece in a larger story or a larger context. The signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act is just one piece of

Ledbetter’s fight for compensation and justice. Similarly, the reporting of Williams pay disparity is just one piece of both the film reshoots but also the larger narrative of injustice in Hollywood.

The reporting in both cases center on a moment in time versus attempting to cover the entirety of their situations. The difference in the framing of these individual events is that the signing of the

Ledbetter legislation is viewed as the end of a long and laborious saga, while the disclosure of

William’s compensation is viewed as just the beginning of her fight for parity. Of course, neither of these characterizations are entirely accurate. As “The Guardian” clearly reported in their article, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act is a good start but does not fix all the issues with the gender pay gap. The reporter posits that a lot still needs to be done, both in the protections the law provides but also in righting other wrongs for working women. Following the reporting of Williams and Wahlberg’s compensation, Williams spoke about the experience in an

April 2019 speech in support of the Fairness Paycheck Act. Unlike Ledbetter though, Williams did not file any sort of formal complaint or litigation in the matter.

While the two case studies examined in this chapter are very different, and the three sources utilized for each example are diverse, they provide a contextual lens through which these individual cases were reported in the news and understood by the public. Similar frames were employed in both case studies including feminism, female empowerment, power imbalance, and unfairness, which contribute to the validity of the comparison. However, some of those frames were employed in different ways.

CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION

8.1 Interpretations and Implications

The comparative framing analysis completed in this thesis utilizes a small sample of reporting on two different events that occurred about a decade apart in order to understand how the power of celebrity can influence the reporting and also the understanding of the gender pay gap as an issue. While the articles utilized in this analysis provide a thin slice of all the reporting that was done on these cases at the time in question, they serve to demonstrate the ways in which these issues were framed by the media in a broad context. The articles selected here were published by large newspapers and news outlets, and in some cases were the first in a line of reporting that came after them. This is not an exhaustive dive into every article published, but instead is an example of the kinds of frames employed and their implications.

While there are many frames present in these narratives, celebrity is the primary frame in both. The celebrity status of individuals involved contributes to the newsworthiness of the stories and is utilized to bring eyeballs to the reporting. In both cases, it is celebrity names that are the draw. The names Michelle Williams, Mark Wahlberg, Lilly Ledbetter, and President Barack

Obama are attention grabbing on their own. A reader sees them and wants to know more.

However, in each case, the celebrity frame functions differently. In Ledbetter’s case, it attracts

public attention and educates about the larger issue. In Williams’ case, it attracts public attention

but ultimately obscures from the larger issue.

For the women at the center of the stories, the media’s approach to characterizing them in the articles in question are very different. Details of Williams’ career are included to remind the

reader how famous she is, and to underline the point that the gap between her and her costar’s

wages is outrageous. In contrast, Ledbetter is continually humanized in the reporting about her

case. Her history as a long-time employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.is repeated in all

reporting to humanize her and remind the reader that she is an average worker just like them. The

messages being relayed in the reporting are different. For Williams’ the implication is that it is

unbelievable a woman as famous as her can be so wildly mistreated. In the articles about

Ledbetter, the implication is that blue collar working women are often mistreated and do not

have the opportunity to help themselves. When viewed together, these two narratives combine to

tell the collective story that the gender pay gap is an issue that occurs at every economic strata of

society. However, when viewed and understood separately this message is lost. Ledbetter’s case

is steeped in working class issues. Williams’ story barely touches working class issues at all.

It is understood from both narratives that what happened to these women is unfair to them. Neither woman was treated fairly in their pursuit of equal pay for equal work, regardless of the economic strata within which they were operating. That unfairness boils down to two specific and largely simplified reasons for their pay gap. Ledbetter received unfair work evaluations and

Williams did not negotiate for herself. Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg in each case, respectively. Both women operate in a patriarchal system that is not designed to support them or empower them to advocate for themselves, but the reporting doesn’t go any deeper into what

those systems are and why they function the way they do. In the reporting explored here, neither goes into the complexities of the gender pay gap as a larger issue. As explored throughout this thesis, there are varied and often competing causes of the gender pay gap. These causes are influenced by structural issues including race, economic status, education, sex stratification of the job market, patriarchy, and other things. Instead, both women are seen as individuals, trusting a system that secretly disrespected them. Ledbetter did not learn of her evaluations and unequal pay until the end of her tenure at Goodyear. She did not pursue action until after she retired.

Similarly, Williams did not learn of her pay gap with her costar until it was reported in the press.

She did not negotiate more money for herself either directly or indirectly as a result of the director indicating publicly that no one was being compensated beyond scale. Lack of information seems to be an underlying theme in both situations. For Williams’ that lack of transparency is viewed as coming from her costar and her director. Ledbetter also experienced a lack of transparency from her former employer and the fellow employees who completed her evaluations.

Throughout the trajectory of her litigation, Ledbetter has been seen as an example of the gender pay gap and an advocate for change. Her story, more than Williams’, fits into a larger discussion of the gender pay gap as a whole, and the reasons for its existence and persistence.

While Williams’ celebrity status brings more eyes to this issue in a time of renewed interest in gender equality and an acknowledgement of wrongs in Hollywood, it also seems to overshadow the issue in a larger context. Williams’ is a prime example of the moment, but the sheer enormity of her gap with her male costar shocks the audience as opposed to educating the audience.

Additionally, there are specific complexities about the way pay works in Hollywood that are not fully explored in these initial articles. Some of this nuance was explained in later reporting, but

the initial framing of the media on this issue was that of shock and injustice on the grand scale of

the #MeToo, Time’s Up and HeForShe movements of the moment. Williams’ is a poster child

for the pay gap, but it is not for her relatability to the average worker. It is for the unusualness

and unbelievability of her situation. The framing to Ledbetter’s celebrity is much more rooted in

her relatability. Within feminist circles her importance and fame are well known, but within the

larger public she is less revered. In the framing of these articles examined here, it is President

Obama’s celebrity that is used as the galvanizing force of media attention. He is seen as righting

the public wrongs Ledbetter has experienced, both at the hands of her former employer and at the hands of the Supreme Court, which brought renewed and scrutinizing attention to her case when they upheld the reversal of her judgement based on a very minor detail of her case. Justice Ruth

Bader Ginsburg’s dissent of the court’s majority opinion garnered a lot of media attention at the time. With Obama taking the celebrity heat, Ledbetter is able to maintain her relatability as an average woman and an average worker. In contrast with Williams’, Ledbetter’s experience is more teachable for the reader.

As explored in Chapter 3, celebrity can be a powerful tool in the news media. Celebrities as individuals have long earned media attention and contributed to a story’s newsworthiness.

That historic inclination of the media to cover what a celebrity does and anoint it as newsworthy can be seen in both examples, and that is what is being called the frame of celebrity in this research. Utilizing celebrity as a frame to understand a complicated issue has pros and cons.

Reporters bank on the audience’s interest in celebrity life as motivator for readership. However, when a celebrity’s story is being used as the primary frame through which a more complex narrative or issue is being explored, the pitfalls of salacious simplicity over tedious nuance are imminent. In the cases discussed here, celebrity status drew attention to these narratives, but the

results of that action are mixed. In the case of Williams versus Wahlberg, the status of celebrity seems to overshadow the complexity of the gender pay gap generally and specifically within

Hollywood. Crucial details including what the gender pay gap is and what causes it are lost amid the shock of a large numerical differential. Williams becomes a visible example of pay disparity as a component of gender discrimination within the critical moment of #MeToo, however, her story is not made to highlight the gender pay gap as a long-lasting and complicated issue. Instead it is used to highlight the injustices of Hollywood, the discrimination women have long suffered at the hands of men, and another example of a rotten world that the #MeToo movement and others are working to change.

By contrast, the articles written around this most recent and historic portion of

Ledbetter’s story does serve to educate the public. While the power and celebrity of Obama brings attention to the issue, and does influence the reporting since it was his first piece of signed legislation in office, it does not overshadow the importance of this moment for feminism as a movement and the gender pay gap as an issue. Embedded in the reporting is the background of

Ledbetter’s case and the difference this legislation makes to the larger issue for workers. While

Williams’ situation fits firmly within a movement and a moment in time, Ledbetter’s case fits into the issue as a whole. This is likely due, in part, to the fact that Ledbetter’s case took years to reach completion and was covered by the media extensively throughout it. The reporting examined here comes at the end of that trajectory. By contrast, Williams’ situation was new at the time of the reporting. She had not been given the opportunity at that point to comment on her experience within the larger context. A year later Williams did speak publicly about it, but she has not taken it up as a cause in the way that Ledbetter did.

While there are similarities between these two women, and celebrity is a crucial framing device used in both narratives, they convey a very different story to the reader. The gender pay gap and gender discrimination is at the center of both narratives, but it receives different treatment. In one, the celebrity is the story. In the other, celebrity is a device used to bring attention to an issue.

8.2 Limitations and Recommendations

The limited number of individual articles examined in this research does not fully explore all of the ways these stories were told and how those stories evolved over time. A thin slice approach was employed in this research on purpose to provide a window into the ways these stories were framed by the media in the initial reporting. More information was gathered and relayed in following reporting. However, the ways in which journalists chose to report the stories at the specific and important moments in time has value. That is what this thesis endeavored to explore. Despite the small sample used in this research, these findings are reliable and valid.

They serve as a representation of the larger population of media articles published in both cases, and could be replicated with a larger sample size in the future.

Additional research into both cases would only contribute to findings. Research into articles written about Ledbetter before the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act in 2009 could provide more context into how Ledbetter was utilized as an educational example of the gender pay gap as a larger structural issue. Similarly, more research into how Williams has taken up pay discrimination as an issue after her own pay gap was reported could fit her story into that larger issue as well.

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION

As explored throughout this thesis, celebrity is a powerful tool. It is used frequently by

the media to draw attention to stories. Historically, celebrity has been used as a criterion for

newsworthiness. That criteria was employed in the reporting of both cases explored in this

research. The celebrity of Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg serve as the basis for reporting

on the gap between their compensation for reshoots on the 2018 film “All the Money in the

World.” The celebrity of both feminist activist Lilly Ledbetter and President Barack Obama

serve as the basis for reporting on the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act in

2009. The recognition of these individuals’ names and influence in pop culture contribute to the

reason the media gave their cases so much attention. Celebrities have the power to draw more

readers or viewers to a news story than an average person would. When the story in question

includes a complex cultural issue, celebrities are able to center attention on that issue. This is

particularly useful and powerful when the issue is undervalued and misunderstood. That is the

case in both of these examples. Ledbetter put a face to the gender pay gap and became a recognizable representation for how unfair gender discrimination can be in the 1990s. Through

her court case, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court, Ledbetter kept the gender pay

gap in the public limelight. When President Obama signed the law bearing her name as the first

piece of legislation in his presidency, he also brought media and public attention to her case

within the context of the larger issue. A decade later, the articles on how much less Williams

made than her male costar renewed public interest and attention on gender discrimination. The

revelation about their pay discrepancy occurred in 2018 in the midst of the #MeToo and Time’s

Up movements that saw increased and repeated disclosure of gender discrimination and

harassment from Hollywood’s elite. Amid allegations of sexual misconduct, Williams’ situation

became a representation of the gender pay gap and the continued fight for pay parity within the

cultural conversation.

However, increased attention from both the media and the public as a result of celerity

involvement has a downside. That downside is visible in Williams’ case. While she became an

example of the gender pay gap in the 21st century, her celebrity status overshadowed the

complexity of the issue, especially for working class women of different races and socio-

economic backgrounds. The nuances of the issue, in particular the structural components of pay

disparity, are lost in this example. Williams’ story was shocking, but it was hardly representative

of the plight of working women as a whole. The #MeToo, Time’s Up and HeForShe movements

were characterized by celebrity involvement, and so it makes sense that Williams would be

highlighted in the media for her own struggle. Her pay gap—making 0.07% of Wahlberg’s

salary—is shocking, which is what made it newsworthy, but it does not represent the way the

gender pay gap presents for the majority of working women in America. That is not Williams’

fault. She never proclaimed to represent all women. It is the media who reported on this story

and framed it as another story of women not getting what they deserve. While that narrative is

true for Williams within the context of Hollywood, it is not an accurate depiction of the struggles

of all working women.

While this research uses a small sample of articles in each case to examine the frames that were employed in storytelling, that does not diminish the potential impact of the findings.

These examples represent the larger tone and tenor of articles published on these cases, and further research using a larger sample size would be likely to replicate findings.

Celebrities can create a story, but they can also become the story. The reporting on what

Williams made contributed to a cultural conversation of discrimination that was happening at the

time. This conversation, and Williams’ contribution to it, is important. But it would be unfair to ignore what is lost through the framing of celebrity as an everyman. Broader context can be overlooked in favor of splashy headlines, large dollar figures, and celebrity names. The case of

Lilly Ledbetter provides an example of how celebrity (in the case of President Barack Obama) can highlight an issue. The case of Michelle Williams provides an example of how the nuance of an issue can be lost amid reporting.

APPENDIX A: “All the Money in the World” News Coverage

a. “Michelle Williams is getting a fraction of Mark Wahlberg’s $2 million payday in ‘All

the Money in the World’ reshoots” – “Washington Post,” November 28, 2017

b. “Exclusive: Wahlberg got $1.5M for 'All the Money' reshoot, Williams paid less than

$1,000” - “USA Today,” January 9, 2018

c. “The Cruel Reason Michelle Williams Earned 0.07% Of Mark Wahlberg's Pay For 'All

The Money In The World' Reshoots” - “Forbes,” January 10, 2018

d. “All the Money in the World pay gap reports spark new Hollywood inequality row” -

“The Guardian,” January 20, 2018

e. “How A Massive Pay Gap Occurred In The 'All The Money In The World' Reshoot” -

“NPR,” January 10, 2018

f. “Why the pay gap in 'All the Money in the World' creates 'terrible optics' for Hollywood”

- “NBC News,” January 10, 2018

g. “'All the Money in the World' controversy: Mark Wahlberg reportedly paid way more

than Michelle Williams for reshoot” - “CNN Business,” January 10, 2018

h. “'All The Money in The World' Triggers Wage Gap Debate” - “Hollywood Reporter,”

January 11, 2018

i. “Why did Michelle Williams sacrifice fair pay to replace a predator?” - “Washington

Post,” January 11, 2018

j. “Mark Wahlberg Donated His Hefty All the Money in the World Re-shoot Salary to

Time’s Up” - “Vanity Fair,” January 14, 2018

k. “Turns Out Michelle Williams’s Entire All the Money in the World Salary Was 8 Times

Lower Than Mark Wahlberg’s” - “Vulture,” January 19, 2018

l. “Mark Wahlberg calls pay gap for ‘All The Money In The World’ reshoot “awkward” -

“NME,” February 25, 2018 m. “Michelle Williams felt 'paralyzed' after learning of pay gap between her and co-star

Mark Wahlberg” - “USA Today,” April 2, 2019 n. “Michelle Williams Was 'Paralyzed' After Learning Costar Mark Wahlberg Was Paid

More Than Her” - “People,” April 2, 2019 o. “Michelle Williams says she was 'paralyzed' when she found out costar Mark Wahlberg

was paid more than her... as she advocates for fair pay on Capitol Hill” - “Daily Mail,”

April 2, 2019 p. “Michelle Williams Says She Felt ‘Paralyzed’ After Learning Mark Wahlberg Got Paid

More Than Her” - “US Weekly,” April 2, 2019 q. “Michelle Williams Recalls Feeling 'Paralyzed' Over Pay Disparity With Co-Star Mark

Wahlberg” - “Entertainment Tonight,” April 2, 2019 r. “Michelle Williams Recalls How Helpless She Felt During Pay-Gap Scandal: ‘No One

Cared’” - “Vulture,” April 3, 2019 s. “Michelle Williams Says Pay-Gap Controversy “Paralyzed” Her” - “Vanity Fair,” April

3, 2019 t. “Michelle Williams 'paralysed' by news she was paid $1,000 while male co-star got

$1.5m” - “The Guardian,” April 3, 2019 u. “Michelle Williams: I was 'paralyzed' after learning about pay disparity” - “NBC News,”

April 3, 2019

v. “Michelle Williams recalls being ‘paralyzed’ by news Mark Wahlberg was paid more for

'All the Money' reshoots” - “FOX News,” April 5, 2019

APPENDIX B: Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Sources News Coverage

a. “Justices’ Ruling Limits Suits on Pay Disparity” – “The New York Times,” May 30,

2007

b. “Justices Hear Bias Case on Maternity, Pensions and Timing” – “The New York Times,”

December 10, 2008

c. “The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act is back” – “Los Angeles Times,” January

10, 2009

d. “Lilly’s cause: Obama can correct an injustice of the Bush years” – “Pittsburgh Post-

Gazette,” January 12, 2009

e. “Closing the gender gap” – “The Guardian,” January 27, 2009

f. “Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation” – “The New York Times,” January 29, 2009

g. “Obama's first law: The fight for fair pay” – “CNN Money,” February 2, 2009

h. “Promoting Equal Pay: Lilly Ledbetter States Her Case” – “The New York Times,” June

30, 2009

i. “Lilly Ledbetter, Barack Obama and the famous ‘anonymous note” – “The Washington

Post,” May 14, 2015

j. “Womansplaining the Pay Gap” – “The New York Times,” April 2, 2019

k. “2007: Lilly Ledbetter” – “Time,” March 5, 2020

REFERENCES

2019 Impact Report. (2019). HeForShe. UN Women.

https://www.heforshe.org/sites/default/files/2019-

12/HFS_IMPACT_2019_Onscreen_revised.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec. 2019.

Aldrich, M. (1989). The Gender Gap in Earnings During World War II: New Evidence. ILR

Review, Vol. 42, No 3, pp. 415-429.

Altonji, J. G. & Blank, R. M. (1999). Race and gender in the labor market. Handbook of Labor

Economics, Vol. 3, Part C, 3143-3259.

Askanius, T., & Hartley, J. M. (2019). Framing gender justice. Nordicom Review, 40(2), 19-36.

Arthurs, J. & Shaw, S. (2016). Celebrity capital in the political field: Russell Brand’s migration

from stand-up comedy to Newsnight. Media, Culture & Society. Vol. 38, Issue 8.

Baker Beck, D. (1998). The "F" Word: How the Media Frame Feminism. NWSA Journal, 10(1),

139-153. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4316558

Barakso, M., & Schaffner, B. F. (2006). Winning Coverage: News Media Portrayals of the

Women’s Movement, 1969–2004. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(4),

22–44.

Barker-Plummer, B. (2010). News and Feminism: A Historic Dialog. Journalism &

Communication Monographs, 12(3), 144–203.

Barnett, B. (2005). Feminists shaping news: A framing analysis of news releases from the

National Organization for Women. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (4) (2005),

pp. 341-362.

Bergkvist, L., & Zhou, K. Q. (2016). Celebrity endorsements: a literature review and research

agenda. International Journal of Advertising, 35, 642–663.

Berridge, S., & Portwood-Stacer, L. (2015). Introduction: Feminism, hashtags and violence

against women and girls. Feminist Media Studies 15(2): 341–344.

Blau, F. D., & Hendricks, W. E. (1979). Occupational segregation by sex: Trends and prospects.

Journal of Human Resources, 14, 197–210.

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2006). The U.S. gender pay gap in the 1990s: Slowing convergence.

Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 60, 45–66.

Blau, F. & Kahn, L. (2006). “The Gender Pay Gap: Going, Going…but Not Gone.” The

Declining Significance of Gender? Russell Sage Foundation. New York, New York.

Blau, F. D. & Kahn, L. M. (2008). Women’s Work and Wages. In The New Palgrave Dictionary

of Economics, Second edition, edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume,

762–72. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Blau, F. D., Brummund, P., & Liu, A. Y. (2013). Trends in occupational segregation by gender

1970-2009: Adjusting for the impact of changes in the occupational coding

system. Demography, 50(2), 471-92.

Blau, F. D. & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations.

Journal of Economic Literature 2017, 55(3), 789-865.

Boorstin, D. (1961). The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Harper and

Row.

Budig, M., & England, P. (2001). The Wage Penalty for Motherhood. American Sociological

Review, 66(2), 204-225.

Byerly, C. (2011). Global Report on the Status of Women in the News Media. International

Women’s Media Foundation. iwmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IWMF-Global-

Report.pdf. Accessed 2 September 2020.

Carrillat, F. A. & Ilcic, J. (2019). The Celebrity Capital Life Cycle: A Framework for Future

Research Directions of Celebrity Endorsement. Journal of Advertising. Vol. 48, Issue 1.

Casey, S. & Watson, J. (2017). The Unpalatable-Palatable: Celebrity Feminism in the Australian

Mainstream Media. Outskirts, Vol. 37, pp. 1-20.

Chafe, W. (1972). The American Woman: Her Changing Social, Economic, and Political Roles

1920-1970. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1997). What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream? Z Magazine.

https://chomsky.info/199710__/. Accessed 13 Dec. 2019.

Cochrane, K. (2013). The fourth wave of feminism: meet the rebel women. The Guardian.

www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/fourth-wave-feminism-rebel-women.

Accessed 4 March 2020.

Darity, W. A. & Mason, P. L. (1998). Evidence on discrimination in employment: Codes of

color, codes of gender. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(2), 63-90.

Davis, Flora (1991). Moving the mountain: The women's movement in America since 1960.

New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dixon, K. (2014). Feminist online identity: Analyzing the presence of hashtag feminism. Journal

of Arts and Humanities 3(7): 34.

Driessens, O. (2013). Celebrity capital: redefining celebrity using field theory. Theory and

Society. Vol. 42, issue 5, pp. 543-560.

Edelman, M. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 10,

231–242.

Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communication. 43(4): 51–58.

Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of Marketing

Management, 15(4), 291–314.

Explaining Trends in the Gender Wage Gap. (1998). The Council of Economic Advisors.

https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/gendergap.html. Accessed

22 Nov. 2019.

Fahs, A. (2011). Out on Assignment: Newspaper Women and the Making of Modern Public

Space, University of North Carolina Press.

Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and Power. 3rd ed., Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Fairclough, N. (2001). "Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research."

Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Wodak & Meyer, pp. 122-136.

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse As Social Interaction.

Discourse Studies; Discourse As Social Interaction. Discourse Studies (pp. 258-284)

Sage.

Fairhurst, G. & Sarr, R. (1996). The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership.

Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco.

Flood, M. (2017). The turn to men in gender politics. Women’s Studies Journal, Vol. 31 Issue 1,

p. 48-58.

Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and The Discourse on Language. Pantheon

Books.

Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The Structure of Foreign News: The Presentation of the

Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in Four Norwegian Newspapers. Journal of Peace

Research, 2(1), 64–90.

Garcia, S. (2017). The Woman Who Created #MeToo Long Before Hashtags. The New York

Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/me-too-movement-tarana-burke.html.

Accessed 4 March 2020.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of

the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gledhill, C. (1997). Genre and Gender: The Case of the Soap Opera. In Hall, S. Representation:

Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. pp. 337-386. Sage Publications.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay of the Organization of Experience. New York:

Harper and Row.

Goldin, C. (n.d.) The Role of World Ware II IN the Rise of Women’s Work. National Bureau of

Economic Research. Working Paper No. 3203. https://www.nber.org/papers/w3203.pdf

Accessed 16 Dec. 2019.

Graf, N., Brown, A. & Patten, E. (2019). The narrowing, but persistent, gender gap in pay. Pew

Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/gender-pay-gap-facts/.

Accessed 4 March 2020.

Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse. Centre for Contemporary

Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham.

Hall, S. (1997). The Work of Representation. In Hall, S. Representation: Cultural

Representations and Signifying Practices. pp. 13-74. Sage Publications.

Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2001). What Is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism

Studies, 2(2), 261–280.

Harcup, T., & O’Neill, D. (2017). What Is News? News values revisited (again). Journalism

Studies, 18(12), 1470–1488.

HeForShe. (2019). https://unwomenusa.org/advocacy-3. Accessed 4 March 2020.

History & Vision. (2019). About Me Too. metoomvmt.org/about/. Accessed 4 March 2020.

Hobson, J. (2017). Celebrity Feminism: More than a Gateway. Signs: Journal of Women in

Culture and Society 42, no. 4 (Summer 2017): 999-1007.

Kaikati, J. G. (1987). Celebrity advertising: a review and synthesis. International Journal of

Advertising, 6(2), 93–105.

Kleven, H., Landais, C. & Søgaard, J.E. (2019). Children and Gender Inequality: Evidence from

Denmark. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11 (4): 181-209.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: A meta-

analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 55-75.

Kuypers, J. (2009). Framing Analysis: How to Conduct a Rhetorical Framing Study of the News.

Langone, A. (2018). #MeToo and Time's Up Founders Explain the Difference Between the 2

Movements — And How They're Alike. Time. time.com/5189945/whats-the-difference-

between-the-metoo-and-times-up-movements/. Accessed 4 March 2020.

Lavy, V. & Sand, E. (2015). On the Origins of Gender Human Capital Gaps: Short and Long

Term Consequences of Teacher’s Stereotypical Biases. National Bureau of Economic

Research, Working Paper 20909.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 421 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005).

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., (No. 05-1074) 421 F. 3d 1169, 2007.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009. Public Law No: 111-2 (01/29/2009).

Lind, R. A., & Salo, C. (2002). The framing of feminists and feminism in news and public affairs

programs in U.S. electronic media. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 211-228.

Mark Wahlberg. (n.d.). Golden Globe Awards. goldenglobes.com/person/mark-wahlberg.

Accessed 3 May 2020.

Maseda García, R., & Gómez Nicolau, E. (2018). Time’s Up, celebrities and the transformation

of gender violence paradigms: The case of Oprah Winfrey’s Speech at the Golden Globes

(2018). Teknokultura. Journal of Digital Culture and Social Movements, 15(2), 193-205.

McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. The Public

Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.

McCombs, M., & Weaver, D. (1973). Voters’ Need for Orientation and Use of Mass

Communication. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

McCombs, M., Llamas, J., Lopez-Escobar, E. & Rey, F. (1997). "Candidate's images in Spanish

elections: Second-level agenda-setting effects". Journalism & Mass Communication

Quarterly. 74 (4): 703–717.

McCombs, M., Shaw, D., & Weaver, D. (2014) New Directions in Agenda-Setting Theory and

Research, Mass Communication and Society, 17:6, 781-802.

McLaughlin B., Gotlieb M.R., & Cummins R.G. (2018). Survey of Journalism & Mass

Communication Enrollments. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator.

2020;75(1):131-143.

Me Too. (2019). metoomvmt.org. Accessed 4 March 2020.

Mendelson, S. (2018). The Cruel Reason Michelle Williams Earned 0.07% Of Mark Wahlberg's

Pay For 'All The Money In The World' Reshoots. Forbes.

Mendes, K., Ringrose, J., & Keller, J. (2018). #MeToo and the promise and pitfalls of

challenging rape culture through digital feminist activism. European Journal of Women’s

Studies, 25(2), 236–246.

Meyer, D. S., & Gamson J. (1995). The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social

Movements. Sociological Inquiry 62(2):181–206.

Michelle Williams. (n.d.). Golden Globe Awards. goldenglobes.com/person/michelle-williams.

Accessed 3 May 2020.

Milligan, S. (2017). Stepping Through History: A timeline of women’s rights from 1769 to the

2017 Women’s March on Washington. U.S. News. www.usnews.com/news/the-

report/articles/2017-01-20/timeline-the-womens-rights-movement-in-the-us. Accessed 4

March 2020.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. London: Oxford University Press.

Mishra, A., & Mishra, A. (2014). National vs. Local Celebrity Endorsement and Politics.

International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 27(4), 409-425.

Molla, R. & Kafka, P. (5 Dec. 2019). “Here’s who owns everything in Big Media today.” Vox.

https://www.vox.com/2018/1/23/16905844/media-landscape-verizon-amazon-comcast-

disney-fox-relationships-chart. Accessed 13 Dec. 2019.

Nicolini, K. & Steffes Hansen, S. (2018). Framing the Women’s March on Washington: Media

coverage and organizational messaging alignment. Public Relations Review, Vol. 44,

Issue 1.

Our Story. (2019). Time’s Up. https://timesupnow.org/about/our-story/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.

Petersen, T., & Saporta, I. (2004). The Opportunity Structure for Discrimination. American

Journal of Sociology, 109(4), 852-901.

Prindle, D. F., (1993). Risky Business: The Political Economy of Hollywood. Boulder, CO:

Westview.

Rhode, D. (1995). Media Images, Feminist Issues. Signs, 20(3), 685-710.

Rowen, B. (2017). The Equal Pay Act: A History of Pay Inequity in the U.S.

www.infoplease.com/equal-pay-act. Accessed 4 March 2020.

Saussure, F. (1959). Course in General Linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Shaw, E. (1979). Agenda-Setting and Mass Communication Theory. Gazette (Leiden,

Netherlands).

Sikorski, C., Knoll, J. & Matthes, J. (2018). A New Look at Celebrity Endorsements in Politics:

Investigating the Impact of Scandalous Celebrity Endorsers and Politicians’ Best

Responses, Media Psychology, 21:3, 403-436.

Sisco, T. & Lucas, J. (2014). Flawed Vessels: Media framing of feminism in the 2008

presidential election. Feminist Media Studies, Vol. 15, Issue 3.

Stache, L. (2015) Advocacy and Political Potential at The Convergence of Hashtag Activism and

Commerce, Feminist Media Studies, 15:1, 162-164.

The Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap. (2019). The American Association of University

Women. https://www.aauw.org/files/2016/02/Simple-Truth-Update-2019_v2-002.pdf.

Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.

The Status of Women in the U.S. Media 2019. (2019). Women’s Media Center.

tools.womensmediacenter.com/page/-/WMCStatusofWomeninUSMedia2019.pdf.

Accessed 2 September 2020.

Thrall, A. T., Lollio-Fakhreddine, J., Berent, J., Donnelly, L., Herrin, W., Paquette, Z., … Wyatt,

A. (2008). Star Power: Celebrity Advocacy and the Evolution of the Public Sphere. The

International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(4), 362–385.

Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.

Vagins, D. (2019). “The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap.” The American Association of

University Women. www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/.

Accessed 20 Nov. 2019.

Vliegenthart R., & van Zoonen L. (2011). Power to the frame: Bringing sociology back to frame

analysis. European Journal of Communication. 26(2):101-115.

Waldfogel, J. (1998). Understanding the 'Family Gap' in Pay for Women with Children. Journal

of Economic Perspectives, Winter 1998, 13:1, 13756.

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (2008). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and

Methodology, p. 1-33.

Wood, J. (1992). Gender and moral voice: Moving from women's nature to standpoint

epistemology. Women's Studies in Communication, 15, 1, 1-24.