groundviews is a Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiativeregister here.login.find out more
inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

Gender and Journalism

February 20, 2007 at 10:32 am · Categories: Colombo, English, Peace and Conflict | by niacharpentier

For the past three decades, journalism in Sri Lanka has been dominated by men, and as a career it has generally been discouraged amongst women. Things are changing and female journalists are now employed in nearly all newsrooms in print, broadcasting, as well as electronic and online media. Furthermore, the issues covered go far beyond food and fashion: Women are now taking an increasingly active role where issues such as education, conflict and human rights are concerned.

However, the number of female journalists in high ranking, decision making posts is still alarmingly low. According to the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), even though women make up 40 per cent of Sri Lanka’s working journalists, they only make up 3 to 5 per cent of editors, heads of departments and directors.

It was against this backdrop that the Sri Lanka Press Institute commended Hannah Ibrahim, Editor of the Sunday Standard and Champika Liyanarachchi, Editor of the Daily Mirror for being the first Sri Lankan women to become Editors of mainstream newspapers. The ceremony, organized by local NGO, Women and Media Collective, took place on the 30th January 2007 and was attended by special guest Mrinal Pande, a well known broadcaster and novelist and the current editor of Hindustan. The event was also a chance for Mrinal to reflect on how journalism has changed for women over the past twenty years: “I do realize that I must have been standing out like a sore thumb when I started way back in the 80s. I’ve had people opening the door to my office and saying ‘oh a woman editor’ as though I belonged to an extinct species!”

So why is it so important that more women go into professional journalism? According to Hannah Ibrahim, “There are some issues that, as a woman, you take up with more of a sense of sensitivity than a man would take up.” In the current media landscape, in which the press is splattered with defamation and hatred on a daily basis, perhaps that is just what is needed: A little sensitivity. On the other hand, war is not pretty, and perhaps this hard line and fierce masculine approach is closer to the truth than one that looks at the issue through rose tinted spectacles. But what Hannah Ibrahim was referring to was probably not the approach, but the content of contemporary journalism. In the case of Sri Lanka, the journalism that is fuelling tension between the different communities, encouraging divides rather than diversity.

2006 saw a sharp increase in media coverage laden with nationalism, and also saw a rise in racial debates on internet blog sites and chat forums. Whereas on the one hand it is important that the media provides a space for free expression, it is also vital for journalists to spread messages promoting peace, in order to transform cultural identities towards a more inclusive society in which reconciliation can be established on a long term basis. For this to happen, all voices need to be heard. So with this in mind, the issue at hand is not whether women are more sensitive than men, nor is it whether women make better journalists than men. What is important is that equality is encouraged in all sections of society to ensure that everyone has their say, and furthermore, that there is a means by which these different voices can communicate with one another in a constructive way. According to Champika Liyanarachchi, “There are a lot of responsibilities. We have to play the role of catalyst in the people and also there’s a role for us to play in highlighting issues that have plagued the country.” Issues such as the hopes and aspirations of Sri Lanka’s minority groups; What these groups are doing in their communities to help foster peace and diversity; What do all these different ethnic groups have in common? How are the widows of war victims coping? How are landmine accident victims rebuilding their lives? These questions are simply not addressed as they are overshadowed by mainstream media feeding on stereotypes, misconceptions and mistrust.

By and large, very few female journalists take an active role in peace journalism, mainly due to the fact that the majority of women do not have the decision making powers and have limited opportunities in the media field. However, it is important that more women are encouraged to join the journalism field and are also given more freedom and more chances to report on sensitive issues, many of which the male dominated Sri Lankan media has so far failed to draw attention to.

By Nia Charpentier

Listen to a YATV podcast of this story at http://radio.voicesofpeace.lk/page.php?0/v/331


858 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:
  • Bloggers and mainstream media: Media ethics in a digital age The Editor of the new English newspaper Lakbima grievously irked the Sri Lankan blogosphere recently by publishing articles based on blog posts without any acknowledgment of the sources. There are already many posts on Kottu on the issue, from the bloggers themselves whose content was used without attribution to others expressing their opinion on the... Sanjana, July 12, 2007
  • Is ethical and balanced journalism needed? In my view, there are reporters and there are journalists. Reporters do exactly that. They report. But journalists on the other hand, should not be mere instruments of describing, but should be the activists who are working for change through their role as advocates. Journalists are blessed with something that most advocates have to look for:... Duckie, July 25, 2008

| Share this article on Facebook

Che said,

February 20, 2007 @ 3:03 pm

As a fully paid up feminist, I find this a typical outpouring of banal nonsense from the grievance brigade against a non-existent problem. I have never encountered a workplace situation in SL, nor female colleagues so incompetent, that required polically correct policing so as to realise their potential.

As for the manifestly absurd assertion (if made by a man it would have been described as boorish) that women are somehow more “sensitive”, well, we have the experience of two Bandaranaike chief executives is this country who could give any man a run for his money on the autocracy stakes. Unless Dudley Senanayake was a woman in reverse drag…

Rang said,

February 22, 2007 @ 6:45 am

Sorry, I disagree niacharpentier, journalists are there to report on the facts, not “spread messages of peace.” Ideally journalists shouldn’t have an agenda at all, but in this day and age that is utopian.

Chee Lanka said,

February 22, 2007 @ 8:27 am

While congratulating both Hannah and Champika, I have to point out that there was a well respected and accomplished woman journalist of yesteryear who rose to the rank of Editor of (old) The Sunday Times when it was published by the now defunct Times of Ceylon Group. Her name was Rita Sebastian. The young turks of the Sri Lanka Press Institute might not have heard of her name, but the slightly older generation of readers would surely remember who Rita was and what she did.

Rita died in March 1996, and the (new) Sunday Times carried this brief tribute: http://www.sundaytimes.lk/960331/frontm.html#Pioneer

There is nothing wrong in congratulating anyone who reaches commendable heights in their careers, but organisations like SLPI need to be more cautious in making sweeping statements that are not factually correct or supported by history. After all, one of journalism’s basic tenets is: facts are sacred, comment is free.

SLPI will do well to remember the words of the poet and philosopher George Santayana: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Ameen said,

February 22, 2007 @ 8:32 am

Che,

I agree with you that the simplistic assumption that women are by nature or nurture more sensitive is a typical fallacy that should be eschewed in favour of a more rigorous examination of women, gender and media.

The problem of gender equity, representation ad equality, however, is far from banal or non-existent - and I take it that you are not a media person or journalist. This is not about being politically expedient. It is about better and more professional journalism, by men and women, by recognising gender as a cross cutting issue that affects all reporting, and for a country like Sri Lanka, esp. issues like development and peace.

See as interesting interview here - http://www.nwmindia.org/Newsmakers/gloria_steinem.htm:

“There are a lot more women employed in the media as a result of the women’s movement, but rarely at decision-making levels. There’s no shortage of terrific writers, editors, journalists, and scholars who report women’s experiences — and thus present a more accurate story, whether it’s about local health or globalised labour — but they’re either in alternate media, or they’re fighting to get a story past a white male mainstream boss.

What some people mean by “feminisation” is that salaries go down once a category of work is about a third female. What others mean is that, say, Oprah has become successful by telling stories about real people. Since many men have been taught that real peoples’ stories are less important than statistics from the top, they resent this success and dismiss it as trivialising.

Currently, only about a third of news items — in print, broadcast, and Internet combined — cite any female source at all. After the terrorist attack of September 11th, the number of female authorities interviewed on US TV plummeted, even though the heads of all the relevant Congressional committees were women, and even though the only prosecutor to successfully prosecute a case of foreign terrorism in the U.S. was a woman. Instead, TV producers dug up retired generals who knew very little, all because terrorism is “hard news” and women are relegated to “soft news.” How gendered is that?!

Even now, the Sunday morning TV talk shows that set the political agenda have nine times more male guests than female guests. On newspaper op-ed pages, the usual rule is that one female writer and/or one writer of colour is enough. Women are fewer than 10 percent of board members of major media companies, and only 3 percent of so-called “clout” titles-positions with the power to set budgets and make news decisions.

Yes, we got as far as tokenism, but nothing much has changed for a decade. For example, it’s now okay to have a female “co-anchor” — a big change from the 1970s when TV executives said audiences would never accept “hard news” in a female voice — but the male is still the “anchor,” not the “co.” Not until late last year did we get the first solo female anchor of a major news show on American television, Katie Couric.

There’s also the double standard. Because women on camera are still expected to be ornamental, they’re about fifteen years younger than men. They also may be fired just as they become experienced and authoritative. That’s why there’s no female Walter Cronkite or Ed Bradley.

You can see why we started the Women’s Media Center. It’s a not-for-profit foundation composed of women media professionals who might not have been there ten or 20 years ago, and who now can band together to help get women into decision-making positions, and to create a bridge of media training and pitching stories to make the female half of the world more visible. We have space for briefings, press conferences, etc. And we have a website — http://www.womensmediacenter.com — with hotlinks to progressive women columnists, and original WMC reporting. Last spring, we broke the story of the abortion ban in South Dakota — which wouldn’t have been overturned in the last election if it hadn’t got national attention — and right now, we’re running otherwise unreported stories, from a U.S. military rape of a 14-year-old and murder of her and her family in Iraq to women’s access to sports.

The point is not only to get women jobs in the media, but to make the news more accurate and useful. Instead of stories about whether a starlet is pregnant or not, we need reports on the international crime of sex trafficking. Instead of a national security that’s measured in fighter jets and nuclear weapons, we need one that’s also measured in access to fresh water, education, jobs, contraception, health care.”

Sonique said,

February 22, 2007 @ 8:33 am

Hi Ranga,

Can you tell me how journalists know “facts”? Do “facts” exist outside of subjective interpretation?

Dilrukshi said,

February 22, 2007 @ 6:01 pm

This story overlooks, not only Rita Sebastian, but also Sonali Samarasinghe, Editor of The Morning Leader. Sonali si the second woman to become an editor and has held the post since June 2005- a fact overlooked.
While comment is free, facts are sacred. And if in doubt, one certainly has to find out- another cardinal, inviolable rule in journalism .
I am a woman journalist, working with a group of women journalists who hold the highest positions in this newspaper establishment. I find it somewhat farfetched to find women working in the mainsteam English media being plagued by male dominance. I can only speak for English mainstream.
I am happy for both Hannah and Champika. It is good to see more women at the top.
II would also like to add that a journalist needs to be read, his/her byline remembered and valued. Some of our male and female colleagues leave a lot to be desired when it comes to the quality of their output. Some male and female journalists in certain media establishments have reached their career zenith, but leave us baffled and a trifle sad for their basolute lack of contribution to the industry. Forget the advocacy roles!

Che said,

February 23, 2007 @ 1:14 am

Ameen,

Many thanks for your thoughtful and extremely informative response, which deserves an explanation as to where I am coming from. Mine is a classical liberal worldview that places a high premium on individual autonomy and self-worth. While an antipathy to the pervasive State is the traditional focus of this worldview, in societies such as Sri Lanka, it would extend to an opposition to socio-cultural practices, and religio-ethical and moral norms that undermine individual freedom. I believe that the emancipatory potential of both religion (within its limits) as well as pre-colonial morality (again within limits) has been subsumed under the late 19th Century dominant trope of revivalism, which although primarily an anti-colonial political project, nevertheless has deep moral and cultural implications (and therefore gender-related consequences) by virtue of its brutally majoritarian nature. This as we know is a continuing phenomenon, with a recently acquired new lease of life. I would therefore view such practices as illegitimate in the extreme where they serve to undermine the full realisation of potential and the self-worth of women.

However, the key here is that defeating this has to be undertaken through the liberal discourse of individualism, not through the collective language of group rights and affirmative action where the individual identity of a woman is subordinated to the greater interest of the group, even one formed for the utilitarian and just purpose of defeating a larger history and experience of oppression. Women are not some amorphous anthropological category negotiating rights in the abstract. They are individuals who are entitled to pursue the good life as INDIVIDUALS.

It should be added nevertheless, that I am not a libertarian fundamentalist who sees the free market as the universal equalising mechanism, once procedural equality is guaranteed through constitutionally protected fundamental rights and the Rule of Law. Thus I am willing to recognise the concern implicit in your comments, that something more by way of substantive equality is needed. In this respect, and some of the initiatives on gender inclusivity you have mentioned are to be entirely welcomed.

But my admonition here would be that we need to be very careful in conceptualising that substantive vision of both equality and participatory democracy, so as not to undermine the non-negotiable requirement of freedom, namely individual autonomy. If we get this wrong, then we have conceded the conceptual battleground to the phallocentric communitarianism that we are both trying to defeat, in my case in this respect, as a (male) feminist.

Finally, by way of explanation of my initially peremptory tone, it has been my experience (and I note that it has perhaps been your’s too) that women’s journalism in Sri Lanka is of generally poor quality, and certainly intellectually barren (with some very significant exceptions), never more so than in the annoyingly frequent blunder in engaging the imagery of gender stereotypes that can be expected of your common or garden misogynist. This is, to say the least, wholly unhelpful both in terms of constructing the intellectual case for complete and unequivocal gender equality as well as advocacy.

InfoShare Research Unit » Blog Archive » Weekend Consumption said,

February 23, 2007 @ 9:39 am

[...] Groundviews stimulates some rich discussion through a post on gender and journalism and one on exit strategies for the US in Iraq (written before the announcement by the UK and Denmark of significant troop reductions). The PCR blog has a good entry on reactions to Blair’s announcement. [...]

Ameen said,

March 21, 2007 @ 7:19 pm

Che, you are confusing women’s journalism with gendered reporting. It is a common mistake and yours is a common argument. I defer with your assertion that women and men need to stand up individually - sometimes they can’t, sometimes they won’t, sometimes they want to but don’t know how. Engendered journalism is about all journalists learning to respect gender perspectives - not as something biological, but as a complex social, political, economic, cultural, religious, societal, temporal and geographical construct. I’m not asking women to be men or vice versa, but to recognise that sexist, masochistic reporting, the usual style of journalists of both sexes in a country like Sri Lanka, requires group awareness raising - since individuals, as you may know, often get shot down by Editors and Owners of media institutions. Groups rights are essential and liberalism, and your liberal worldview, is limited, and is a dead giveaway that you are not a practicising journalist.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

This is a moderated forum. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy.

Please read our full submission guidelines before you comment.

Comments that do not adhere to these guidelines will be edited or deleted and those who repeatedly abuse this forum will be banned. Thanks in advance for your civil and constructive engagement.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free