VALENCIA, 5 Mar. (EUROPA PRESS) –
An investigation by the professors of the University of Valencia (UV) María Iranzo and Vicent Gozálvez points out that self-regulation through Twitter speeds up the learning process of journalism with a gender perspective.
Researchers have manually analyzed 7,424 tweets published between May 1, 2018 and May 1, 2019 by the accounts of 14 professional women’s communication associations in Spain. Most of these platforms have been established since the feminist strike of March 8, 2018, as a result of which hundreds of journalists became aware as a community after a process of communication of individual experiences.
The tweets of these associations propose improvements in the expression and writing of news, denouncing biased, stereotyped or denigrating uses of the language of the large Spanish communication and information media; and at the same time they recognize and applaud the contents that dignify women or place them in the public place that corresponds to them.
Where the lack of a gender perspective is most evident is in the treatment of gender violence (25%), in the sexist use of language (10%) and in the promotion of stereotypes (8%), among the 51 topics culled from the complaints.
The request most frequently demanded by feminist communicators groups is to ensure that the news about gender violence focuses on the aggressor and not on the victim. In this sense, they demand the use of verbs that show violence – instead of “dying” – and ask to place the criminal as the subject of the sentence to highlight responsibility for the facts.
Along these lines, another of the most repeated suggestions aims to not speculate on the reasons for the attack and to avoid lurid details that only add morbidity to the information and that can hurt the sensitivity of the victim and / or their family and friends.
Likewise, it insists on the need to avoid testimonies that normalize the aggressor’s attitude or highlight the positive aspects of his personality. It is also recommended to avoid the narcotic effect of presenting the aggression as “just another case.” Therefore, they require less details and more context through the testimonies of professionals and surviving women, as well as the explanation of the criminal consequences that these acts entail.
DISCRIMINATORY USE OF LANGUAGE
The discriminatory use of language is observed especially in the headlines, where the proper name of the women who are protagonists of journalistic information is not visible; they are presented by describing attributes. Another aspect that is recommended is to avoid considering sexist attitudes as positive.
Serving as speakers of macho opinions of interviewees or collaborators is also condemned. And with regard to the stereotypes and prejudices that promote inequality between the sexes, the main complaint points to pieces where women are not the subject but the object of the information and in which the focus of the information is placed on their physical characteristics or personal conditions, such as motherhood. This prejudice is detected above all in the sports and society section.
If we look at the sex of the people who sign the denounced pieces, except those in which the authorship is unknown, 34% have been prepared by a man, 28% by a woman and 9% by both together. For this reason, it is striking that in the issues of gender violence and stereotypes, the number of women authors of the denounced pieces is slightly higher, which shows a lack of awareness of the profession in general; while there are more men who sign pieces criticized for their machismo or lack of deontological values (#periodigno is the hashtag used by these associations).
In this line, the researchers have indicated that the majority of unknown pieces would generally point to cover pieces, which are generally not signed, or news extracted from teletypes, “hence the important responsibility of the news agencies,” they have stated.
However, they have added, if the applauded pieces with recognized authors are analyzed, 80.5% have been made by women, 16.5% by men and 3% by both.
Other objectives of this study, published in Feminist Media Studies, has been to analyze the reactions aroused by mentions to the media and / or journalists. Only three generalist newspapers have agreed to the requested correction. In two other cases, journalists responsible for the information indicated have reacted justifying the reason for their decisions and have welcomed the debate. The vast majority of reported content is accessible on the Internet.
Regarding the creation of new sections dedicated to guaranteeing the gender perspective –El País, eldiario.es–, although they have promoted the publication of information where the gaze of women is inserted, it is shown that it is not a exempting deontological errors.
This lack of professional self-demand and citizen commitment is observed especially in the mass media with the greatest circulation and dissemination. From there, “we conclude on the need to influence practices of self-regulation and professional dialogue such as those presented,” Iranzo and Gozálvez have pointed out.
The direct mention of the medium or the author responsible for the piece “allows a certain moral reparation for the damage caused to the affected people, in this case, women, to be resolved faster and at less cost,” said María Iranzo, researcher of the Mediaflows group of the University. In addition, “by being public denunciations and applause, the digital society can witness and learn from this dialogic ethic in such a way that journalism is regulated by collective interaction”, has added Vicent Gozálvez, specialist in research and teaching of the subjects of Philosophy of Education, Education for Citizenship, Intercultural Pedagogy and Media Education.
–
