This is a topic that I have just begun to be involved in, so this blog will be as much of an exploration for you as it is for me.
The Background
In discussing possible sexism in sports commentary I will turn one (or two) source texts, and one early piece of criticism. The source text I will be using is commentary from the UK on the 2007 Women's 10,000 meter World Championships (this is a track and field race we're talking about here), while the main commentary I will be drawing from is Michael A. Messner, Margaret Carlisle Duncan and Kerry Jensen's 1993 article “Separating the Men from the Girls: The Gendered Language of Televised Sports” that appeared in the journal Gender and Society.
Messner et al. studied the language associated with professional tennis and college basketball, mostly in the 1980s, and noted a great many diminutives being used in women's sports commentary. Most of these were associated with
1. referring to men as "men" while women were called "girls"
2. women being largely referred to by their first name only, versus men who were often referred to by their last name only
3. titles of given events "other" women's sports by utilizing names like "The Women's 1989 NCAA Tournament" versus "The 1989 NCAA Tournament", where the masculine is considered the standard and the feminine is considered the other.
It is important to realize that, as I said, the source material used in this study is twenty or more years old, and as a result much of the patterns observed in this study no longer exist (or exist to a limited degree) in the present day. In fact, according to my research *most* of the in-text (meaning what announcers and commentators actually say when unscripted) occurrences of sexism no longer exist in the same, or similar, form as those described by Messner et al.
In fact, the only major, observable othering of women that has really bled through to present day commentary from twenty years ago is the above mentioned NCAA basketball tournaments. This can be observed here (the ESPN page for the men's tournament) and here (the women's tournament page) in reference to 2009's installment.
Also, before I go further, let me note that at this point I do not bring these issues to light in order to comment on them extensively. I will not be bringing many (if any) outside thinkers in to this discussion, nor will I be providing extensive analysis of what my research has led me to believe. I still need to do a fair amount of research before I'm willing to do that. Today, I would just like to familiarize you with this topic and inundate you with data
.Some Perspective
Speaking of data, let's take a peak at the 2007 World Championship race I mentioned earlier.
Here is an excerpt of the race I will be discussing, in case you're curious.
The above link will take you to a YouTube video of the UK version of the race. I have also taken some time to analyze the American version of the race, and the results are really quite interesting. This is primarily so when considering that sports commentators are essentially story tellers. They point to central characters and significant events and report on what they see. Given this fact, depending on who is competing and who is reporting, different athletes will find themselves at the center or the periphery of the story. Certainly those who are winning or are seen has having the chance to win a given are will receive much attention, but in addition to that one can expect the "hometown" competitor to also receive significant attention, that is, if they are seen as a legitimate contender in the race (no one wants to laud a hometown athlete for leading a race for two miles then see them fade to last place by the end, that would be embarrassing
).This last fact is the rationale for my analysis of the American version of the race. Kara Goucher, who is at present likely the most popular distance runner in the United States, was little-known at the time of the race beyond the fact that she is married to former Colorado U. star, Adam Goucher. The fact that she (spoiler alert!) eventually finishes third in this race is a major surprise to the casual fan. Considering the fact that American track and field commentators (there are really only four or five individuals that cover the sport on mainstream television in this country, and they all work for NBC) have been roundly criticized for lacking knowledge on the sport they discuss, it is no surprise that those assigned to the 2007 World Championships did not see Goucher as a serious medal contender until the final one hundred meters. (And as a note, if you don't believe me on the commentators lacking knowledge, just take a look at dyestat.com or letsrun.com for similar opinions).
The above is significant because the story being told by the NBC commentators is not one that includes Kara Goucher to any great extent. Contrarily, the British athlete who eventually finishes fourth in this race, Jo Pavey, was a central character in the UK-told storyline. As such, the British version provides more extensive discussion of a "hometown" athlete's actions than the American version does.
Getting to the Numbers
In order to understand where I'm going with this, take a look at the raw data below. Below statistics can be seen on the frequency naming for all athletes discussed in the race where "Full Name" refers to one's first and last name being used as a descriptor.
Source Full Name First Name Last Name
British 52.4% 6.3% 43.6%
American 58.9% 3.6% 37.5%
For the most part these results are similar, especially given the fact that the sample size here is limited (of course give the sport we are discussing, there aren't a lot of texts we can look at from the last five or even ten years in the first place). However, the interesting part comes in to play when we discuss exactly who is referred to by their first name only (which, as you recall, is defined as serving as a diminutive in sports in general - not just women's sports. Also, please note that I haven't taken data for men's races yet - these are my preliminary findings, but I'll get to it
).In the American version the first name only is used sparingly and is divided up between several athletes. However, in the UK version, Jo Pavey (the British athlete) makes up nearly the entire 6.3% of first name only references. What does this mean? I'm not quite sure yet, but it is indeed interesting.
To me it seems that American commentators are very aware of the importance to be politically correct in their descriptions and naming of women. As a result, the first name + last name combination is hyper-present in many cases. This can be seen in this example quite clearly. In the 2008 US Olympic Trials Lolo Jones won the 100 meter hurdles and was the clear favorite to win the race and as such, was the "central character" of the storyline - which was assisted by the fact that she wins as well. In any case, the race commentators here (American) refer to Jones nine times, each time using her first + last name. In fact, in discussing all athletes (and these statistics do not include one-on-one interviews following the race because I believe that is a different genre entirely), the last name only was used once, and the first name only was never used.
Developing Conclusions and Directions for Further Research
Given this information (and the fact that all athletes in the hurdles race are "hometown athletes" to the commentators) it is very interesting the the UK version of the 2007 World Championships discuss Jo Pavey using her first name only as often as they do. I believe this instance goes deeper than the mere female diminutive discussed by Messner and his colleagues, though I believe I would like to do more research (particularly in similar men's races discussed by UK announcers) before making any theories as to what it means.
Comments:
From "Sancho Panza":
"However, in the UK version, Jo Pavey (the British athlete) makes up nearly the entire 6.3% of first name only references. What does this mean?"
Probably that the viewers were more familiar with, more likely to identify with Jo than with the other contestants. The reporter used this to connect emotionally. It's "our" Jo out there running for "us". For the same reason, German reporters of both genders would often simply say "“Boris" or "Steffi".
Even if we disallow the above, six times out of one hundred doesn't seem to be that big of a deal to me. You have to show a significantly greater %, and that it's significantly greater for women's events than for men's, all based upon a reasonably big sample size.
From Daniel:
I tend to agree, on both counts. The concept of the viewer "owning" an athlete from their own country makes sense.
Also, I think you're right that (especially with a tiny sample size) 6% is pretty insignificant. But I still love the fact that just about all that six percent came in reference to one person. I know that isn't any basis for reserch or anything, I just think it's cool
I do plan on taking a look at more races, included men's. Just haven't gotten that far yet. This is my initial grope in to the night, so to speak.Thanks for the response, Sancho, you always seem to point out good stuff (or bad, depending on the context haha)
No comments:
Post a Comment