Greer, J., Hardin,
M.,
and Homan, C. (2009) ‘”Naturally” Less Exciting? Visual Production of
Men’s and
Women’s Track and Field Coverage During the 2004 Olympics’, Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2):
173–189.
There is a common
view
that women’s sports are inherently less interesting, which explains
their
coverage in the media.However, this
ignores commentary and visual production as factors in their own right.This study explores visual production
techniques
and compares how these are used when covering men and women doing
athletics.Lots of past studies have
looked at commentary [references page 174], but this study choice to
pin down
the effects of visuals.
Coverage of the
2004
Olympic track and field telecasts are analysed using Zettl’s* ‘applied
media aesthetics
approach’.The argument is that
particular production techniques increase visual excitement and
therefore
emotional engagement, making coverage more interesting.The Olympics is an excellent case study,
showing good proportions of men and women competing in the same events,
and
with a large worldwide audience.
The ‘sports/media
complex”, a term invented by Jhally, reinforces male hegemony.Women athletes are both ignored and presented
as inferior or marginal.Lots of
previous studies have argued this.In
particular, women are seen as a naturally less suitable for sport,
‘weaker,
more prone to emotional outbursts, and less able to handle the stress’
(175),
and are often sexualised. Analysts include Messner.Previous analysis has shown that women
athletes have stories written about their personal lives, or their
attractiveness, while male athletes’ performance is more commonly
mentioned, and
they were seen as more courageous or more skilful.Whole sports are seen as gender appropriate—those
with body contact are masculine, while those featuring aesthetic
performances
are feminine.Some are also gender
neutral, as rated by particular groups, including college students.They include track and field events, with
some obvious exceptions such as shot put, discus and javelin.Visual representations can obviously
reinforce these perceptions.
Zettl’s analytic
framework looks at two dimensional space, three dimensional space, and
four
dimensional space.For two dimensional
space, the ‘field of view’ is analysed in terms of camera shots
used: long
shots take a detached and impersonal stance, whereas close-ups focus on
individual subjects, and ‘invite more viewer involvement’ (177).In three
dimensional space, the ‘point of
view’ is important, this can involve looking up, straight on or down,
and these
represent different comments on the importance of the subject [compare
with the
open university work on pitch-level cameras shooting players against
the
background of the crowd].In four
dimensional space, time and motion are the elements.Motion can be manipulated to depict real
time, or slow motion: slow motion is significant in demonstrating
athletic skill.There are other options
such as ‘rail-cam’,
where the camera moves along the rail to keep pace with the athletes,’
simul-cam’ where several images can be seen on the screen at the same
time,
enabling comparison of athletes, and ‘stro-motion’ where a motion is
broken
down into a series of static images.[What about steadicam, where the cameraman moves as
if he were a companion?This is often seen
at work after the event
when the athletes finish a race, for example].
These different
effects relate to viewer interest, and this can be supplemented by
matters such
as the length of shot [frequency of cuts].One study cited ‘concluded that varying the camera
shots prompted
viewers to rate a news story as more credible’ (179).Zettl has been also used to analyse political
coverage, and soap operas.Using these
techniques becomes a matter of producers’ assessment of events.
Some analysis has
explored the visual presentation of athletics or basketball, including
the use of
onscreen graphics (which varied for coverage of men and women’s
basketball).Another study of camera shots
in women’s
volleyball noticed the emphasis on chests and buttocks.However, this study is on Olympic coverage.The researchers wanted to see whether men’s
and
women’s events differed in terms of running time and prime time, and
then to
apply Zettl.62 hours of primetime
coverage was analysed.This form of
content analysis does have problems, especially in handling ambiguous
or
contradictory images.Segments were
isolated according to type of coverage (interview, background, event
etc) , these were divided by gender (a
majority of coverage used to decide mixed cases), then the analysis of
shots,
fields of view, of points of view and so on was pursued.Individual scores were kept and were then
averaged.Intercoder reliability was
checked by comparing coders with an expert rater.Intercoder
reliability scores were
acceptable.
Results found that
time spent focusing on male athletes was nearly twice that spent on
female
ones, although there were no differences in terms of primetime.Scores of shots were averaged to allow for
this real difference.Men’s events had
higher levels of shots of all kinds, with significant differences for
long shots
and extreme close-ups.There were also
more shot changes for men than for women.Tallies of camera angles were averaged.The number of high level shots were higher for men
and there was a
significant difference with women.Low
or high angle shots seemed more similar.Again, men’s coverage showed more changes in shot
‘between 10 and 11
times per minute [for men] and only six and seven times per minute for
women’
(184).Of the new technological devices,
only rail-cam appeared, and again twice as often in men’s coverage.The same is found for slow motion ‘almost
four slow motion uses per minute [for men] nearly double the women’s
average’
(184).
These production
techniques produce emotional impact, especially excitement.The effects of different uses makes women’s
sport look less exciting, and less of everything—‘coverage of male
athletes
used more of everything’ (184).[audience responses are not measured here, and the
authors rely on
another study of audience responses, in a focus group, are not
particularly
related to gender].Perhaps news values
simply reflects the greater success of the men’s team?This might well explain the greater quantity
of air time devoted to men, although some women’s events were also
given a lot
of time, including the long jump where Marian Jones was competing (she
was controversial at the time).News
values do not fully explain the actual
differences in visual production techniques.Nor does the claim that the circumstances of
coverage were different,
since both took place at the same Olympics event.It
is also ‘unlikely’ that different
production crews produced the differences, since the events were often
close
together.It is more likely that producer
values provided the difference [so why not interview some producers?].The mechanism here seems to be ‘(unconscious)
adoption of …prevalent ideology’ (185).This ideology affects even gender neutral
events: elite men are still considered to be the benchmark.
Producers may
rationalise these differences also by looking at ratings.Viewer ratings do seem to affect the amount
of coverage.However, ‘a less exciting
presentation generates low viewer demand; that, in turn, rationalises
decisions by gatekeepers not to increase quantity or quality’ (185).
Further research
is
needed, including some to interrogate viewers.Additional sports media coverage might also be
analysed in this way to
see if there are any general patterns in production.Producers themselves should also be
researched, including how their gender might be related to their
decisions.