. 11:. x, JV? 1 . Hunguffix‘i , . A . . 4533‘ 9:. 'i y ? g; u "‘ ‘ 093,-, . 'K #9. 13:"5", «- . N; .am: fm' I. 3" Q g. 95 1‘9 I a ' t ‘31 ya», ”’1" w A: "J. : “‘2‘ rm.-.» m. .m- rm .. .fi. 0. .... 2' ‘" .L rut-‘1 .10: F \u ~. . 4331‘- A . .W. nr 13,. - 1 0" “fl fl-.."- '9“ ' f. :3»: 9527* :54; ‘4‘? ll ‘1, .1" . r’ “ ‘... L .. ‘~ . k... 4.. - , .u up- .. m" I" I J! \ X' “at.“ ‘r‘ ’ .\) ff.“ 3:4.“ ' av ., ,- £37.; ’ ”1:49“.- “r “3% .. -.m~...:.w‘ 1'1““- “u". £~au¢v &. n. , “mi? ' . .. 3.- "c: .. . :4 u" . . : : ‘33:; ‘1 5 9" . ' l ;; “ii-:g-W: :‘ _ a 5 -32} 2 5. .4 ' 2-2-9: .3;- ( ‘fid 2.. '7‘. . .."‘3’. 'o- I’ ‘b‘ifi' “.23. ... “MA-w -: a..." ‘7" ‘ ‘1- 5‘11" .5, .— V! I! r. 5 — 35.” 1K .. ”a I' W fr 1 \ , wfivhi au- ' 2'! 'i‘: fiat-2232:: ‘ "9M" 1 . \y lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 301415 3419 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled An Analysis of the Relationship Among Personal Characteristics, Market Factors, Attitudes and Programming Patterns for Women in Radio Talk Shows presented by Carolyn Boulger Miller has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. mgmem Mass Media JZ¢ZV 7 Major professor Date 10/7/94 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Mlchlgan State University PLACENIIETURN BOXtoromthuMoufmnmnoord. TOAVOIDFINESMunonorbdmmM MSU IIM motive O Initiation . ActkWEqunl mom-any AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, MARKET FACTORS, A'I'ITTUDES AND PROGRAMNflNG PATTERNS FOR WOMEN IN RADIO TALK SHOWS By Carolyn Boulger Miller A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Mass Media Ph.D. Program College of Communication Arts & Sciences 1994 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS, MARKET FACTORS, ATTITUDES AND PROGRAMMING PATTERNS FOR WOMEN IN RADIO TALK SHOWS By Carolyn Boulger Miller This study was designed to explore how market factors, personal characteristics and attitudes of radio talk show-hosts and producers affect programming decisions regarding women. Attitudes toward gender-neutral language, women’s programming, and overgeneralized traditional stereotyping were collected by surveying a national stratified sample of radio talk show hosts and producers. The questionnaire asked for responses to statements about 12 attitudes concerning the portrayal of women on radio talk shows. Data regarding callers and listeners to shows, competition, percentage of women in management positions, and station size and market were also collected. An open question asking how respondents would define women’s programming also was included. Some respondents also submitted audio tapes to demonstrate an example of ”women’s programming” on their talk shows. The underlying theme to all hypotheses sought whether consistency exists between the beliefs and actions of talk show hosts and producers. For example, if they claimed to believe that gender-neutral language was important, how likely were they to use it on their talk shows? Although the analysis of talk show content remains exploratory, this study suggests that there is little continuity between what talk show hosts say and do. Interestingly, gender held no significance in this association, expect when women held a higher percentage of management positions at the station. The strongest association was found between attitudes; if hosts/ producers said they believed that it is important to avoid overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, they also were more likely than not to believe in the importance of gender-neutral language. The reverse relationship, as well as a similar pattern regarding the importance of ”women’s programming,” also was apparent. This study was inspired by 1992 legal decision by US. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, then a member of the US. Court of Appeals. Thomas eliminated the Federal Communication Commission’s gender preference policy, stating that there was no evidence of the existence or need for "women's programming” in radio. This study initiated a debate among talk show hosts and producers of whether women’s programming exists and how it may be defined. Copyright by CAROLYN BOULGER MILLER 1994 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my father, Richard F. Boulger (1935-1990) who, along with my mother, taught me that anything is possible if you finish what you start. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the guidance and support of the members of my dissertation committee: Stephen Lacy, whose endless patience and kindness represent the epitome of excellence in a teacher, advisor, researcher, and friend; Todd Simon, who showed me how to captivate a classroom with enthusiasm, intelligence, and wit; Connie Ono, who taught me to challenge inequities and stand up for justice, at no matter what cost; and Sue Carter, who inspired me to never leave my soul at the door of MSU’s Communication Arts and Sciences Building, or for that matter, anywhere. Without the support of my mother, Mary Boulger, I never would have come to Michigan State University. Her love and pride in me is only surpassed by the respect and admiration I hold for her. Many thanks to my beautiful stepchildren, Peter and Emily, who have never really understood what I have worked so hard on and why, yet who have always offered constant and unconditional love and support. For me, companionship from an unusual source has provided a steady flow of happiness over the past four years. Without apology, my thanks and love to my four-footed family: Myah, Jessica, Lora, Marley, Matilda, Paika, Parmalee, Alphonso, Akiba, and Feliz. Most of all, I acknowledge and thank my husband and best friend, Jonathan, who has always found a way to make things happen rather than an excuse to see them fail. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Rationale for the Study Limitations of the Study Assumptions CHAPTER II. BACKGROUND Theoretical Framework Review of Literature CHAPTER Ill. HYPOTHESES 8: RESEARCH QUESTIONS Hypotheses and Rationale Research Questions and Rationale CHAPTER IV. METHOD Variables Sampling Operational Definitions Questionnaire Content Analysis iii Page must—s 14 26 26 35 41 41 45 50 CHAPTER V. RESULTS Hypotheses 1-3 Hypotheses 4-7 Hypotheses 8-10 Hypotheses 11-15 Research Questions 1-3 Open-Ended Survey Question Results Research Questions 4-6 Research Questions 7-9 Research Questions 9-12 CHAPTER VI. DISCUSSION Implications of Findings Conclusion APPENDD( A. THE SURVEY APPENDIX B. COVER LETTERS APPENDIX C. CODING SHEET APPENDIX D. CODING DEFINITIONS APPENDD( E. OPEN-ENDED QUESTION RESPONSES BIBLIOGRAPHY iv 53 53-58 59-63 69-76 79 82 83 92 103 109 111 115 118 123 136 Table LIST OF TABLES Page Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Language by Gender of Talk Show Host / Producer 54 Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional stereotyping by Gender of Talk Show Host/ Producer 56 . Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Attitudes Toward Women’s Programming by Gender of Talk Show Host / Producer 58 Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Attitudes Toward Gender of Callers by Gender of Talk Show Host/ Producer 60 Percentage of Women in Management Positions by the Number of Female Guests on Talk Shows 62 Multiple Regression of ”Percentage of Women in Power,” ”N umber of Other Stations in Market,” ”Station Power” (watts), ”Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Communication” and ”Attitudes Toward Women's Programming” on ”attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping” 63 Multiple Regression of ”Percentage of Women in Power,” ”Number of Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping” and ”Attitudes Toward Women’s Programming” on ”Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Communication” 65 10 11 12 13 14 Multiple Regression of ”Percentage of Women in Power,” ”Number of Other Stations in Market,” ”Station Power" (watts), ”Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Communication" and ”Attitudes toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping” on ”Attitudes Toward Women’s Programming” Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender- Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming, by Geographic Region Percentage of respondents (employed by radio stations with policies or manuals on gender-neutral communication) who said they believe it is important that their show use gender -neutral communication (based on 100 percent) Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming, by Competition vi 70‘ 73 75 76 78 15 16 17 18 Means and Standard Deviations for the Number of Topics and Time Devoted to Indicators of Over-generalized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming 85 Radio Talk Show Hosts’ Attitudes vs. Actions Regarding Gender-Neutral Communication 87 Radio Talk Show Hosts’ Attitudes vs. Actions Regarding Over-generalized Traditional Stereotyping 88 Radio Talk Show Hosts’ Attitudes vs. Actions Regarding Women’s Programming 90 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Analysis of Attitudes and Content of Women’s Programming on Radio Talk Shows viii 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study explored the relationship between attitudes toward ”women’s programming” held by producers and hosts of radio talk shows and radio content. Specifically, the study measured whether images of women held by radio talk show hosts and producers are reflected in the content of programming for which those producers and hosts are responsible. The study also examined factors which may affect those images, such as demographic and market variables. . Through a national survey and subsequent content analysis, this study examined ”women’s programming” as a content category in radio. In examining radio programming, this study addressed how women are portrayed on talk shows. This analysis included: a review of programming that incorporates images of women; an inquiry into attitudes of producers and hosts; and an examination of whether females subsequently make programming decisions differently than their male colleagues based on those viewpoints. Often the expectation is that female programmers (or editors) will choose to emphasize different subjects that relate to women -- such as glass ceilings in the workplace or breast cancer -- more than male programmers or editors. This study began to explore what factors cause decisions to be made affecting content as it pertains to women in talk radio. Rationale for the Study For 24 years, the Federal Communications Commission offered female applicants for new and existing radio and television stations an additional credit 2 through its gender preference policy1 -- one of many credits it used to determine applicants’ suitability for new licenses and ownership changes. In 1992, the gender preference policy was declared unconstitutional -- a violation of the equal protection of laws - as defined by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 2 in his opinion in lamprecht 0. FCC. 3 Thomas stated that because no evidence of a need for "women's programming" was presented by the defendant -- a woman seeking a FCC permit for a new radio license -- the FCC's gender preference was unnecessary. In concluding his opinion, Thomas pointed to the lack of ”any statistical meaningful link between ownership by women and programming of any particular kind/’4 He stated that ”when the government treats people differently because of their sex, equal protection principles at the very least require there be a meaningful link between the government’ 8 means and its ends.”5 In eliminating the gender preference policy, Thomas only considered evidence presented by the FCC and Iamprecht. Yet the FCC restricted its definition of ”women’s programming” to a Congressional Research Study6 (CRS) on the percentage of programming allotted to ”women’s issues” broadcast on stations owned by women. Station owners’ attitudes toward programming as they pertain to women were not included in the study, nor were the attitudes and opinions of radio gatekeepers, such as radio talk show hosts and producers. Further, Thomas and the FCC overlooked that station owners who are not women may be just as interested in women’s programming, and just as likely to tailor programming to a large percentage of their listeners who happen to be women. The Congressional Research Study, on which the Iamprecht opinion is based, only surveyed stations claiming to tailor programming to women, thereby overlooking women who may be interested in a far broader category of programming than one that defines them by gender. 3 Even more disturbing was Thomas’ disregard of data presented by the CRS survey indicating that female ownership dLes increase the percentage of programming of interest to women.7 The CRS report concluded, for example, that 35 percent of stations owned primarily by women are likely to broadcast ”women’s programming,” while just 28 percent of stations owned by men are likely to do so. As Judge Mikva, Chief Judge United States Court of Appeals points out in his Iamprecht dissenting opinion, the CRS survey showed that female-owned stations are 20 percent more likely to broadcast women’s programming than stations owned by men. While smaller than similar correlations between other minority groups and programming,8 Mikva states that ”the Fifth Amendment does not identify the mystical point at whichaan empirical correlation becomes - to use my colleague’s word —- ”’meaningful.’” 9 If FCC policy were taken as precedent by Thomas, there should be no need to make the gender preference policy conditional upon the existence of ”women’s programming.” Members of the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts (NARTSH) claim that in Iamprecht, Thomas applied the ”programming” standard only to women, and failed to acknowledge that the FCC: 1) has not historically reviewed programming in determining whether to award a license or approve an ownership change, because; 2) programming has been known to change at the whim of the owner.10 NARTSH members argue that if other, under-represented groups in radio are not asked to justify their ”entrance credit” through surveys demonstrating a need for the content they seek to offer, why should women be held to this condition? Arguably, there are numerous, non-programming benefits to increasing the percentage of women radio station owners, managers, and producers, and on-air talent. Affirmative action decisions affecting hiring, salaries, promotions of women, as well as the value of providing female role models for women 4 hoping to enter the radio business are goals just as critical to the future of the commercial radio industry as those related to content.11 However, this study is dedicated to a better understanding of attitudes and content, and how women in positions of power at radio stations may affect portrayals of women in American society. Questions this study addressed included: How do attitudes toward women’s programming differ between male and female talk show hosts? How common are traditional stereotypical portrayals of women in talk show programming? Are male or female talk show hosts more likely to use gender- neutral communication in programming? What types of issues do male and female talk show hosts believe to be of interest to female listeners? If traditional stereotypical portrayals do exist, are they more likely to be found in talk shows based in certain geographic markets, or on shows broadcast on stations of certain sizes? And are attitudes toward women’s programming applied in programming selections made by radio talk show hosts and producers? Limitations of the stu_dy This study did not include attitudes of women’s programming held by radio talk show listeners. Rather, the study focused on opinions of radio talk show hosts and producers, who could be referred to as gatekeepers,12 as they are in positions to influence radio content as it pertains to women. Content analyzed in this study was selected by respondents as a representation of their opinions of women’s programming on their talk shows. Due to the self-selection nature of radio programming content, this content analysis was limited, therefore, to respondents’ perceptions of what constitutes ”women’s programming.” While this provides a greater understanding of 5 women’s programming, it cannot be assumed that those areas falling outside these content selections would not also appeal to women. A study of ”women’s programming” implies the existence of two other types of programming: ”men’s programming” and ”gender-neutral programming.” While the exploration of each would undoubtedly help to broaden and strengthen the understanding of ”women’s programming,” this study was limited to a thorough understanding of the latter concept. Assumptions The assumption was made that respondents to whom surveys were addressed (radio talk show host or talk show producer) actually completed those surveys and selected the content which best reflected their opinions of ”women’s programming.” Further, it was assumed that survey questions accurately measured respondents’ attitudes of ”women’s programming,” and that respondents provided forthright answers to those questions. The identity of respondents was confidential. It also was assumed that content provided by respondents for the purpose of analysis was selected from programming for which they are responsible. Finally, it was assumed that reliability of measures was obtained through pretesting the survey, and through the training of coders for a maximum intra- coder reliability. 6 1The roots of the FCC’s gender preference policy dissolved by Iamprecht were established in 1968, falling under the "minority-ownership umbrella" used by the FCC to diversify ownership of radio and broadcast stations. Besides providing gender preference in the awarding of new licenses for radio stations, the FCC notice required broadcasters to show nondiscrimination in employment practices. Ten years later, the FCC took decisive steps to give preferences to women in its comparative licensing program. Credits for gender were applied at the portion of the application concerning integration, a criterion the FCC uses to determine the potential level of participation by aspiring radio station owners in the communities they serve . Under the FCC’s integration rules, radio station managers are integrated into management when their involvement amounts to full-time active participation in day-to-day operations. Only women who agreed to take full-time management positions with the stations they sought to acquire were awarded the gender preference credit. 2Justice Thomas was a member of the US. Court of Appeals when the lamprecht 1). FCC. case was briefed and argued. He is identified in his opinion on the case as a Circuit Justice. 3Lamprecht v. F.C.C., 958 382 (DC. Cir. 1992). 4Ibid., p. 398. 5Ibid. Interestingly, the dissenting opinion in Iamprecht points out that ”judges have no basis, except their own policy preferences, for concluding that the degree of correlation shown here is not enough, since the Fifth Amendment does not identify the mystical point at which a correlation satisfies the dictates of equal protection. See Iamprecht, p. 413. 6Minority Broadcast Station Ownership and Broadfcast Programming: Is There a Nexus? Congressional Research Service, June 29, 1988. 7It should be noted that the CRS study never defines what this programming is. 8For example, the CRS study showed that 50 percent of stations owned by Indians/ Alaskans broadcast women’s programming; as do 42 percent of Hispanic as well as Black-owned stations. 9Iamprecht 2). FCC, at 413. 10Since 1984, the FCC has recorded more than 6200 changes in call letters, or about 700 per year. Larry Eads, chief of the Audio Services division of the FCC’s Mass Media Bureau, explained: ”What we’re seeing frankly is that almost every time there’s a format change, there’s a call-letter change that goes with it.” See ”As Goes Format, 80 Go Call Letters” Broa_dcasting, Nov. 23, 1992, p. 30. 11According to a 1990 survey conducted by Vernon Stone, University of Missouri, more than half of graduates from journalism school are women. In Maurine Beasley and Sheila Gibbons, Taki_ng Their Place. A Documentary History of Women 1n Journalism (Washington. American University Press, 1993) p. 269. 12Originated by David Manning White in 1950, ”gatekeepers’ are the decision makers at news organizations; those people who select from the day’s events that which will become ”news.” See David Manning White, ”The Gatekeeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News,” lournalism Quarterly, Fall 1950, 27:383-390. CHAPTER I] BACKGROUND Theoretical Frfiamework This section examines several perspectives on women and media coverage hypothesized by researchers, namely that 1) an increased presence of women in media organizations will decrease traditional stereotypical images of women in the media; and 2) increase the use of gender-neutral communication; while 3)broadening the types of programming perceived to be of interest to women. - Numerous media gender studies have documented how women are stereotypically represented in certain roles while under-represented in others. A stereotype is a broad generalization about an entire class of phenomena based on some knowledge of some aspects of some members of the class. 1 According to Severin and Tankard, the failure to distinguish between these class or group members results in categorization with language and undue identification based on overgeneralized distinctions.2 These stereotypical statements can take the form of cultural jokes or labels for certain types of people (for example, mothers- in-law are often stereotyped as being meddlesome and disliked by sons or daughters-in-law). Stereotypes also can take the form of ”subtypes,” defined by Fiske and Taylor3 as ”sub—categories developed in response to isolated cases that disconfirm a stereotype.” A subtype occurs when a woman holds a non- traditional role and therefore becomes a model of how all women are portrayed in that role, such as a ”female construction worker.” 9 While it may appear that subtyping reduces stereotypes, some researchers suggest that subtyping is deceiving because it actually allows the overall stereotype to remain intact.4 This is because the ”female construction worker” is perceived as the exception rather than rule, and therefore atypical. Therefore, the implication becomes that the ”typical” construction worker is male, not female. Research on stereotypical portrayals of women in media has focused on advertising5 and television programs,6 newspaper and magazine content,7 photographs,8 cartoons and comics,9 and more recently, MTV .10 With the exception of the Congressional Research study on minority programming, a similar study has not been conducted with radio programming, and of those who would affect its content. Sex role stereotyping in media content has been a leading concern of feminist leaders since 1963, when Betty Friedan published The Feminist Mystique.11 Feminist scholars such as Ellias,12 Wood,13 Beasley and Gibbons14 believe that stereotypical media images of women contribute to creating and maintaining limited social roles for women. Several major goals of the feminist movement have included 1)opening up all job categories to women, 2) compensation tied to job description, not gender, 3) a more equal division of labor within the home, 4) less emphasis on the female as an ”object” whose primary function is attracting the opposite sex, and 5) the right for each individual to develop to her full potential. 15 All these goals relate to the elimination of stereotypical portrayals of women. Feminists suggest that groups oppressed by class, gender, and race see dominant groups differently than dominant group members see themselves. These perspectives are not based on biological differences, but rather are formed through culturalization, interaction with family and peer groups, and the degree of media exposure. 16 According to some feminists, the human thought process 10 is inexplicably tied to this dominant group self-perception , thereby affecting the ability to support goals (such as those listed in the previous paragraph) that strive to eliminate stereotypical portrayals of women. 17 As women gain positions of power in radio, it is anticipated that radio programming content managed by women would rely less on traditional stereotypical images and more on issues of interest to women who choose to either enter the work force or stay at home. However, research has shown that women managers may not always break stereotypical molds in making content selections when given the opportunity. This is because they do not see themselves as dominant group members, and therefore haven’t been conditioned to do so. Shoemaker suggests that education, socialization and- organizational constraints may negate most individual differences between communicators.18 She also cautions that women media managers may not automatically understand the needs of female listeners, as they may have become acculturated to the predominately male mass media to increase their employment opportunities. 19 While a popular theme for feminists and others who study media effects, gender may be an inconsistent predictor of content with regard to women’s programming. Among other researchers, Johnson and Christ 20 found no correlation between increasing numbers of women in the work force, and the percentage of women depicted in Time magazine in roles other than wives or mothers. Lacy, Davenport and Miller21 found that an increased number of females in management positions in newspapers did not affect the percentage of women hired in the newsroom over time. Robertson, however, found that the number of stories, the amount of space and the prominence of stories relating to women increased as the percentage of women in decision-making positions at newspapers increased. 22 1 1 Why would women not understand what other women want to read or listen to? Speaking a century apart from each other, both Susan B. Anthony and Gannett’ 5 Al Neuharth assumed that an increasing number of women in the news room would generate an increase in content of interest to women. Said Anthony: Just as long as newspapers and magazines are controlled by men, every woman upon them must write articles which are reflections of men’s ideas. As long as that continues, women’s ideas and deepest convictions will never get before the public. 23 And Neuharth: A segment of our reading audience or potential audience that wasn’t being adequately considered in our treatment of news was the majority segment - females. It seemed to me that it made professional sense to have more females make these decisions and see if their orientation would be different.24 Effects of gender in ownership and management of radio stations trace to Lasswell's suggestion that the proper study of the media was "who said what to whom in what channel and with what effect."25 As effects, impressions are important determinants of behavior. According to Berger and Luckman, we live in a socially constructed reality.26 Therefore, female employees’ perceptions of their work environment may be as much a factor in their impressions and decisions, and subsequent behavior as the reality itself. Lippmann suggested that people’s impressions form the reality to which they react, creating a ”pseudo environment” depicting the way we think things are. 27 Therefore, the reality constructed by females who work as radio producers or talk show hosts should vary from that constructed by males -- especially in cases where females hold a greater percentage of management positions. 12 Nisbett and Ross suggest that increased exposure to non-dominant groups can offset prior stereotypical evaluations when making judgments about an individual.28 However, sex role stereotyping of women has been found to be an inhibiting factor in their promotion to management-level positions.29 Glick, Zion and Nelson suggest not only individual, but also occupational stereotypes fuel the discrimination process. If a woman or minority member has not held a certain position previously, it may be hard for a potential employer to ”see” her in that role. Kalin and Hodgins30 said that this type of social categorization produces stereotypical personality inferences in job applicants, leading to an increased potential for discrimination. Based on her model, Tuchman might argue that this discrimination will . remain until a ”critical mass” of women managers is secured to topple it. Tuchman said that because few women hold positions of power in media organizations, the content of the media distorts women's status in the social world. If the media do not present women who are viable role models, they indirectly prevent and impede female accomplishments by limiting their options. Women are defined either as men perceive them to be, or with their historical definition of wives and mothers. 31 A 1981 study of radio station programming in London, England, seemed to support Tuchman’s assertion, finding that greater numbers of female managers resulted in fewer traditional stereotypical portrayals of women (homemakers and mothers), and more female voices used in advertising voice-overs. 37- In radio, women also are judged by the sound of their voices. Offers Stark on the realities of radio broadcasting: ”Besides the difficulty of breaking through in a male-dominated field, female voice talent must tackle the long-held belief that women don’t want to hear other women.”33 13 This perception has limited support through research, though most has been conducted on television rather than radio broadcasters. Stone found that television audiences generally did not favor male over female newscasters, but when they did, it was because of the male voice and what audiences were used to, or habit.34 However, Stone speculated that like all other broken habits, an increased in the number of female broadcasters would reduce preference based on newscaster gender.35 Others counter that repeat exposure will not decrease the preference for male voices until professional communication incorporates more than just masculine communication. Generic language -- that which gives preferential treatment to masculine pronouns yet assumes to incorporate both men and . women (i.e., chairman, mankind) -- is a constant reminder of women’s marginalized role in society. 36 Says Wood on the effects of male generic language: ”It makes men seem more prominent and women less prominent than they are in real life. To the extent that our language refers to men and not women, we come to perceive men as more visible than they are, while women become invisible.” 37 Communication bias against female voices -- which are generally higher- pitched than men’s and are therefore perceived by some to be more feminine and less credible -- may also impede women’s acceptance as radio talk show hosts. Early researchers in this area such as Addington (1968) found that listeners judge speakers’ personality types and intelligence by the sound of their voices. Men with deep voices were judged to be more mature, intelligent and sophisticated, while women whose voices were judges as ”feminine” also had other aspects of the gender stereotype assigned to them - such as being petite, shallow, and immature.38 Fiske and Stevens said that because men have more status and power, their stereotypical traits -- of which a deep voice is one -- are 14 viewed as more deserving of respect. 39 Some evidence exists that a lower- pitched voice can be learned, as much a factor of socialization as biology. 40 Adds Wood: ”Deference, inclusivity, collaboration, and cooperation, which are prioritized in women’s speech communities, are linked with subordinate roles rather than with leadership. To the extent that women engage in traditional feminine communication, then, they may not be recognized as leaders or marked for advancement in settings where masculine standards prevail.”41 Review of Literature A search of current literature revealed no research on television or radio talk show hosts/ producers and ”women’s programming” patterns. It seems that the issue of gender has been analyzed in the media literature in regard to under- representation of women in newspapers/12 magazines,43 television44 and advertising,45 but rarely, radio. Nonetheless, the Radio Advertising Bureau reports that women comprise more than half the listening audience for stations using Top 40, Easy Listening and Country formats. Communication research as early as the 19405 indicated that listeners were more likely to be female -- often home makers-- who preferred listening to soft music, informative tidbits, and female hosts over dramatic programming/ll6 Interestingly, Lazarsfeld and Dinerman concluded that many female radio listeners were likely to experience ”psychological difficulties” when listening at the same time as they did their housework. That study aside, the impact of radio on women has been largely ignored, charged Karpf, who wrote: ” While virtually all of the mass media have come under feminist scrutiny in the past few years, radio has got off scot-free.”47 An exception, perhaps, is study of radio content effects on adolescents - especially females. Research has shown radio to be a major influence on 15 teenagers, with the average listening time being five hours a day (slightly less for Caucasians and slightly more for African Americans, especially African- American females).48 While most popular music reflects sex stereotypes/19 this is less true of work composed and/ or sung by women.50 However, because most songs are written and sung by males, rock & rap music generally reflects a male point of view51 in which women are depicted sexually and negatively.52 Of existing literature on women employed in radio broadcasting, the most longitudinal approach was a ten-year random survey of minorities and women in television and commercial radio broadcasting conducting by Stone53 and the Radio-Television News Directors Association (RTNDA). In 1986, Stone found that under-representation of minorities and women was greater in newsroom. management than in the rank and file jobs of broadcast news. However, women fared better than minorities in achieving management positions between 1981 and 1986. During this five year period women54 doubled their numbers as radio news directors, moving from an estimated 886 (16.1 percent of 5,500 operations in 1981) to 1,863 (27.4 percent of 6,800 in 1986). A subsequent study conducted by Stone and RTNDA in 1990 showed that women had lost some ground in radio management positions held since 1986, but were still better off than in 1981. In 1988 and 1989, Women were news directors at 25 percent of the commercial radio stations surveyed Stone (6,505 stations), and 28 percent of the public radio stations (405 stations). Although 32 percent of the total work force in radio was female, 44 percent of new hires were women. 55 Women also have improved in their ability to hold sales management positions in broadcasting, particularly in commercial radio. In 1990, Warner and Spencer found that women held more positions of power in the nation’s top 99 radio markets, and that the radio business provides more opportunities for 16 women hoping to obtain positions in sales and sales management. Female salespeople accounted for 57 percent of sales management professionals at radio stations in markets ranked 1-99 -- more than twice the national average for women in sales positions (27.9 percent).56 Weaver and Wilhoit report similar trends in women holding management positions in print and broadcast journalism. In 1983, women comprised about one-third of all broadcast journalists, up from one-fifth in 1971. Weaver and Wilhoit also found that more of the top management positions were held by women. In 1982, 18 percent of radio news directors, 8 percent of television news directors, and 20 percent of newspaper managing editors were women.57 However, the job satisfaction of women who both seek and hold- management positions appears to be threatened -- at least in newspaper newsrooms. According to Pease, the newsroom culture has the propensity to limit the career aspirations of minorities and women. A 1991 study of job satisfaction in the newsroom showed that women were least likely to seek out higher level management positions, and that women who also happened to be minorities were at the greatest risk of leaving the news business within five years.58 In 1972, Patterson and Prostak surveyed female employees of public radio stations. Their findings showed that women employed full-time in 103 public radio stations constituted 14 percent of management and 16 percent of on-air personalities. Among part-time workers, women were two percent of management and again, 16 percent of on—air personalities.59 The Corporation for Public Broadcasting conducted its own study of women in public broadcasting programming and employment two years later in 1974, when it surveyed a sample60 of female employees of stations seeking license renewals.61 At that time, the survey found that women were unlikely to 17 hold top executive positions in public broadcasting stations -- men outnumbered women in the positions of owner and general manager by ten to one. Of 682 female respondents, four percent reported a job title of radio station general manager. Women were more likely to hold middle management positions, with 12 percent reporting to be radio "station managers," 19 percent reporting to be "operations managers" and 17 percent reporting to be "program manager."62 The Canadian government also has studied opportunities for women as upper-level managers of radio stations. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's Office of Equal Opportunity was established following the release of 1974 report prepared by a Canadian task force on sex-role stereotyping in the broadcast media.63 Studying a staff of 10,445, of whom 25 percent were women,- the Task Force found that women were 8 percent of management in 1974 (three percent higher than in 1970) and 15 percent of the producers (also three percent higher than in 1970). Included with other affirmative action proposals of the report was a plan to increase the proportion of women in management and other key jobs within Canadian radio stations. 64 As women advance in positions of power in radio, some researchers question whether industry changes will impede women's ability to affect content, even though they have reached the ranks of producer or talk show host. Schiller asks whether the technological advances of programmed radio, as well as increased participation among viewers and listeners in the content selection process, have made the decisions of radio programmers virtually inconsequential. Writes Schiller: The active audience, according to its technological boosters, is for the most part made up of button pushers and channel changers, a restless crowd, creating individualized viewing packages and becoming in the process an increasingly l8 fragmented population. What derives from this collage of the current media scene is that fear of the influence of concentrated media power as a bogeyman is no longer (if it was ever) warranted. People may be distracted by or even surrounded with incoherent symbolic environments, but they are not being socially influenced. How can they be, since they are their own agents of selection?65 Johnson adds that a ”deskilling” trend in the telecommunications field has left many female radio programmers virtually powerless. She explains that many women entered the radio work force in the 19703, at approximately the same time as radio automation and computerization arrived. Increased opportunities for consolidation, provided by the ability to buy more stations in shared markets, also affected employment trends. In the last decade, radio research consultants have assumed the decision-making power once claimed by . programmers. Audience demographics and corporate policy also have played a greater role in the decision-making process regarding content, leaving less opportunity for programmers to do so. ”Formatting decisions are made by those in power now,” writes Johnson, ” the consultant and the corporate vice presidents of programming. As women slowly advance into programming positions, consultants hired increasingly by corporations dictate many of the programming strategies -- once under the exclusive reign of the program director.”66 As national music cable systems become competitors to radio stations, permitting subscribers to program their own mix of music, it is not unlikely that local and regional talk shows also will face competition within broader geographic markets. These changing forces of competition could ultimately place female listeners in a better position than the traditional gatekeepers to affect radio talk show content as it pertains to women. 19 1Julia Wood, Spinning the Symbolic Web: Human Communication and Symbolic Interaction, (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1992), p. 70. 2Werner J. Severin and James W. Tankard, Jr., Communication Theories: Origins Methods and Uses in the Ma_ss Media, (New York: Longman Press, 1992), p. 78. 3ST. Fiske and SE. Taylor, Social Cognition, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1991), cited in Stuart Oskamp and Mark Costanzo, eds., Gender Issufes in Contemporary Society, (Newbury Park, Calif: Sage, 1993), pp. 185-186. 4L. Johnston and M. Hewstone, ”Cognitive Models of Stereotype Change: Subtyping and the Perceived Typicality of Disconfirming Group Members,” Iournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28:260-386, (1992). 5See for example, Daniel Riffe, Patricia C. Place and Charles M. Mayo, ”Game Time, Soap Time and Prime Time TV Ads: Treatment of Women in Sunday Football and Rest-of-Week Advertising,” Jggrnalism Quarterly, 70: 437-446 (Summer 1993); William Kilbourne, ”Female Stereotyping in Advertising: An Experiment on Male-Female Perceptions of Leadership,” Journalism marterly, 67:25-31 (Spring 1990). Also, Thomas W. Whipple and Alice E. Courtney, ”Female Role Portrayals in Advertising and Communication Effectiveness: A Review,” lournal of Adyertising, 3:4-8 (1985); James G. Benze and Eugene R. Declercq, ”Content of Television Political Spot Ads for Female Candidates,” Iournalism marterly, 62:278—283 (Summer 1985). 6See for example, Diana C. Reep and Faye H. Dambrot, ”Effects of Frequent Television Viewing on Stereotypes: ’Drip, Drip’ or ’Drench’? Journalism anrterly, 66:542-550(Autumn 1989); Anthony J. Ferri, ”Perceived Career Barriers of Men and Women Television News Anchors,” Journalism @arterly, 65:661-667 (Fall 1988); Anthony J. Ferri and Jo E. Keller, ”Perceived Career Barriers for Female Television News Anchors,” lournalism anrterly, 63:463-467 (Autumn 1986). 7Linda J. Busby and Greg Leichty, ”Feminism and Advertising in Traditional and N on-traditional Women’s Magazines 19505-19803,” lournalism Quarterly, 70:247- 264 (Summer 1993); Stephen Lacy, Lucinda D. Davenport, and Carolyn Miller, ”Women in Newspaper Management: 1949 to 1979,” Presented to the Commission on the Status of Women, Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, Mo., 1993; Sammye Johnson and William G. Christ, ”Women Through Time: Who Gets Covered?” lournalism marterly, 65:889-897(Winter 1988). 20 8See for example, Roy E. Blackwood, ”The Content of News Photos: Roles Portrayed by Men and Women,” lournalism Quarterly, 60:710-714 (Winter 1983); Susan H. Miller, ”The Content of News Photos: Women’s and Men’s Roles,” lournalism Qdarterly, 52:70-75 (Spring 1975). 9 See for example, Sarah Brabant and Linda Mooney, ”Sex Role Stereotyping in the Sunday Comics: Ten Years Later,” Sex Roles 14:141-148 (February 1986); Sanda L. Mayes and KB. Valentine, ”Sex Role Stereotyping in Saturday Morning Cartoon Shows,” IouLndl of Bgadcasting, 24: 41-45 (Winter 1979). 10 Nancy Signorielli, Douglas McLeod, and Elaine Healy, ”Gender Stereotypes in MTV Commercials: The Beat Goes On,” loumal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38: 91-101 (Winter 1979). 11Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique, (New York: Dell Publishing, 1963). 12Marian Ellias, ”No Happy Medium: oPRESSion,” in Rooms with N 0 View: A Wom_an’s Gdide to the Man’s World of Media; Ethel Strainchamps, ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), pp. 235-245. 13Julia T. Wood, Gendegd Lives: Communication Gender and Culture (Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1994). 14Maurine H. Beasley and Sheila J. Gibbons, Taking Their Place: A Documentary History of Women and lournalism, (Washington: American University Press, 1993). 15Myra Marx Ferree and Beth Hess, Controversy and Coalition: The New Feminist Movement (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1985). 16Joseph Dimmick and Gail Rausch, ”The Portrayal of Women in Network TV Commercials,” loumal of Broadcasting, 16: 259-265 (1972). 17Linda Steiner, ”Construction of Gender in Newsreporting Textbooks, 1890- 1990,” ngalism Monographs, Vol. 135., Oct. 1992. Also, see Sanda Harding, Whose Science. Whose Knowledge: Thinking From Women’s Lives, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991). 18Pamela J. Shoemaker and Stephen D. Reese, Mediating the Messdgg, (White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Inc., 1991), p.64. 19Ibid., p. 164. 21 20Sammye Johnson and William G. Christ, ”Women Through Time: Who Gets Covered?” lournalism Qdarterly, 65:889-897 (Winter 1988). 21Stephen Lacy, Lucinda D. Davenport, and Carolyn Miller, ”Women in Newspaper Management. 1949 to 1979,” Presented to the Commission on the Status of Women, Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, Mo., 1993. 22Kay Morgan Robinson, Women Newspaper Man_agers_ and Coverage of Womep, Master's Thesis, School of Journalism, Michigan State University, 1991. 23Susan B. Anthony 8: Ida H. Harper, eds., The History of Women’s Suffrage 4, (New York: Arno & New York Times, 1969). 24Kay Mills, A Pldce in The News, (New York: Dodd, Mead 8: Co., 1988), p. 277. 25Harold Lasswell, 'The Structure and Function of Communication in Society," in The Communication of Ideas, Lyman Bryson, ed., (New York: Harper & Bros., 1948), pp. 37-51. 26Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Soci_al Constrdction of Realig, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966). 27Walter Lippmann, P_ublic Opinion ,(New York: The Free Press, 1965), p. 10. 28Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross, Human Inference: Strategiesgd Shortcomings in Social ludgment, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1988). 29Peter Glick, Cari Zion and Cynthia Nelson, ”What Mediates Sex Discrimination in Hiring Decisions?” lournal of Personaligg and Social Eyschology, 55:2, 178-186 (1988). 30Rudolf Kalin and David Hodgins, ”Sex Bias in Judgments of Occupational Suitability,” Canadian Iourndl of Behdviorgl Science, 16:311-325 (1984). 31Gaye Tuchman, 'The Impact of Mass Media Stereotypes upon the Employment of Women," in Women in a Full Employment Economy: A Compend__ium Prepared for the Use of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1977), pp. 247-68. 32Helen Baehr and Michele Ryan, Shut Up and Listen! Women and Local Radio: A View from the Inside, (London: Comedia, 1984). 22 33Phyllis Stark, ”More Women Getting Their Say on Radio,” Billboard 103, 32:10, (Aug. 10, 1991). 34Vernon A. Stone, ”Attitudes Toward Television Newswomen,” lournal of Broadcasting, 18:49-62 (Winter 1973-74). 35Ibid., p. 60. 36Wood, op. cit., p. 125. 37Ibid., p. 127. 38D.W. Addington, ”The Relationship of Selected Vocal Characteristics to Personality Perceptions,” Speech Monographs, 35:492-503 (1986). 39Susan T. Fiske and Laura E. Stevens, ”What’s so Special About Sex? Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination,” in Stuart Oskamp and Mark Costanzo, eds., Gender Issues in Contemporary Society, (Newbury Park, Calif: Sage, 1993), pp. 185-186. 40D.H. Zimmerman and C. West, ”Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation, in B. Thorne and N. Henley, eds., Langdage and Sex: Differences and Dominance (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1975), pp. 105-129. 41Wood., op. cit., p. 273. 42See for example, Julie L. Andsager, "Perceptions of Credibility of Male and Female Syndicated Political Columnists," lournalism Quarterly, 67:3, 485-491; Ford N. Burkhart and Carol K. Sigehnan, "Byline Bias? Effects of Gender on News Article Evaluations," J_o_1Lrnalism Qdarterly, 67:3, 492-500; Evelyn Trapp Goodrick, "Editorial Writers' Approaches to Selected Women's Issues," Newspaper Research lournal, 12:3, 20-31; and Glen L. Bleske, "Ms. Gates Takes Over: An Updated Version of a 1949 Study," Newspaper Research lournal, 12:4, 8897. 43See for example, Sammye Johnson and William G. Christ, "Women Through Time: Who Gets Covered?" lournalism gmarterly, 65:4, 889-897; Josephine A. Ruggiero and Louise C. Weston, "Work Options for Women in Women's Magazines: The Medium and the Message," Sex Roles 12:535-547 (March 1985); and L. Ann Geise, "'The Female Role in Middle Class Women's Magazines from 1955 to 1976," Sex Roles 5: 51-62 (February 1979). 23 44$ee for example, Anthony J. Ferri and Jo E. Keller, "Perceived Career Barriers for Female Television News Anchors," lournalism @arterly , 63:3, 463-467; Vernon A. Stone, "Trends in the Status of Minorities and Women in Broadcast News," lournalism Qdarterly, 65:2, 288-293; Marilyn J. Matelski, "Image and Influence: Women in Public Television," lournalism Quarterly, 62: 147-150; and Muriel G. Cantor, "Women and Public Broadcasting," lournal of Communication, Winter 1977, pp. 14-19. 45$ee for example, Alison Poe, "Active Women in Ads," lournal of Communication, Autumn 1976, pp. 185-192; Alice E. Courtney and Thomas W. Whipple, "Women in TV Commercials," lournal of Commdnication, Spring 1974, pp. 110-118; Thomas W. Whipple and Alice E. Courtney, "Female Role Portrayals in Advertising and Communication Effectiveness: A Review," lournal of Advertising, 3:4-8 (1985); and William J. O'Donnell and Karen J. O'Donnell, "Update: Sex-Role Messages in TV Commercials," lournal of Communigcation. Winter 1978, pp. 156-158. 46Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Helen Dinerman , ”Research For Action,” in Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Frank N. Stanton , eds., Communication Research 1948-1949, (New York: Arno Press, 1979), p. 104. 47Anne Karpf, ”Women and Radio, ” in Helen Baehr, ed., Women and Media ,( London: Pergamon Press, 1980), pp. 41-54. 48].D. Brown, K.W. Childers, K.E. Bauman, and co. Kock, ”The Influence of New Media and Family Structure on Young Adolescent’ 3 Television and Radio Use,” Communication Research 17:65-82, (1990). 49C.M. Lont, ”The Roles Assigned to Females and Males in N on-Music Radio Programming,” Sex Roles 22:661-668, (1990). 50$.B. Groce and M Cooper, ”Just Me and The Boys? Women in Local-Level Rock and Roll,” Gender and Society, 4:220-229 (1990). 51]. D. Brown and K.Campbell, "Race and Gender in Music Videos: The Same Beat But a Different Drummer,” lournal of Commdnication, 36, 94-106, (1986). 52IS. St. Lawrence and DJ. Joynder, ”The Effects of Sexually Violent Rock Music on Males’ Acceptance of Violence Against Women,” Psychology of Women Qdarterfl, 15:49-63, (1991). 53Vernon A. Stone, "Trends in the Status of Minorities and Women in Broadcast News," lournalism marterly, 65: 2, 288-293. 24 54This percentage includes women identified as Hispanic, African American, Caucasian, Asian American, Native American, or other. See Stone, p. 292. 55Vernon A. Stone, ”RTNDA Research,” Radio-Television News Directors Association Communicator (August 1990), 32. 56Charles Warner and James Spencer, ”Radio and Television Staff Profiles, Compensation and Practices,” in Readings in Media Mmement, Stephen Lacy, Ardyth Sohn and Robert Giles, eds. (Columbia, South Carolina: AEJMC, 1993) p. 49. 57 David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, The American Journalist: A Portraj of US. News People anfid Their Work,_(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), p.70-71. 58 Ted Pease, ”Race, Gender and Job Satisfaction in Newspaper Newsrooms,” in ‘ Readings in Mtfiia Management, Stephen Lacy, Ardyth Sohn and Robert Giles, eds. (Columbia, South Carolina: AEJMC, 1993) p. 97. 59Matilda Butler and William Paisley, Women and the Mass Media: Soprcebook for Research and Action. (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980), p. 194. 60Radio and television stations were chosen for the survey from cells based on geographic region, type of license and budget size. The country was divided into regions as set out by CPB. In each region, all radio, television and joint stations were broken down by type of license (community, university, etc.) and by operating budget size. In each cell, one third of the stations of each type were selected at random for the survey, for a total of 86 stations per cell. The survey was pretested at a public radio station, television station and joint station. 61Caroline Isber and Muriel Cantor, Report of the Task Force on Women in Public Broadcasting, (Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1975). This survey has not been repeated to date. 621bid., p. 11. 63Im Images of Women. Report of the Task Force on Sex-Role Stereotyping 1n the Broadcast Media (Quebec, Canada. Canadian Government Publishing Centre, 1982). 25 64The Canadian position comparable to "general manager" is "MS V." Ownership was not considered a variable in the Canadian study because Canadian radio stations are not independently owned. 65Herbert I. Schiller, Culture Inc. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 147. 66Phylis Johnson, ”'The Scientific Management of Radio, 1919-1993,” paper presented to the Commission of the Status of Women, Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, 1993. Z 6 CHAPTER III HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study addresses 15 hypotheses1 and 12 research questions. Each statement is followed by its rationale as well as definitions for concepts contained within. Unless otherwise stated, definitions of like items are consistent for all subsequent mentions in hypotheses and/or research questions (for example, ”traditional stereotyping” is defined in the same manner for all hypotheses and research questions). Definitions are listed after the hypothesis or research question containing the first reference to the concept. Hypothesis 1: Female talk show hosts add prod_ucers will be more likely than male codnterparts to have attitddes favoring gender-neutral comminication in rfiio talk show content. Hypothesis 2: Fem_ale talk show hosts and producers will be less likely than male countegparts to have attitudes that favor tra_ditional stereotyping in Qdio talk show content. Hymthesis 3: Female talk show hosts afl prod_ucers will be more likely than male countegparts to hycfltddes that favor rafiio talk show content directed toward women. Rationale: In ”Ms. Gate’s Takes Over,”2 Balsa’s updated version of the 1949 Gatekeeper case study by White, there was insufficient evidence to predict the possible effects of a female gatekeeper. As no attempt was made by White to assess gender and news choices in the original study, there was no ground for comparison in the 1991 study. 27 However, Bleske’s study showed that 18 stories, or 8.5 percent of news selected during the five day study period, featured women as the main news subject or the main source of news. Open-ended questions posed to Ms. Gates also indicated that she was ”more likely to run a story about women instead of men when last-minute extra space opens in the newspaper.” A similar study of Ms. Gates’ habits as a radio gatekeeper is not known to exist. However, it is logical that the gatekeeping function exists in news organizations besides newspapers. Just like newspaper gatekeepers such as Mr. and Ms. Gates agreed that the No. 1 reason to reject a story was ”lack of news hole” or space, 3 radio gatekeepers would likely cite ”time restrictions” as a reason to reject a story. But if Ms. Gates as a newspaper employee is likely to. select stories about women’s issues or those featuring women, it is argued that her radio colleague may do the some. Even 8.5 percent of stories, or 142.25 inches of women’s news as selected by Ms. Gates, is better than nothing. Definitions of Concepts Introduced in Hypotheses 1-3 Ho_sts_ - Individuals assuming the gatekeeper role who work on-air in radio talk shows, either speaking directly to callers, interviewing prearranged guests, or using the show to express personal viewpoints. It is not uncommon for smaller talk shows to have one individual acting as both producer and host. Producers - Also gatekeepers. Commonly referred to as program directors and program managers, producers are responsible for the overall planning and implementation of talk show programming, a job which often includes selecting topics and screening guests and callers. 4 Attitudes - Opinions or positions on a given issue, in this case women’s programming. The gatekeeping process assumes that opinions are related to decisions affecting content in the news selection process. In the 1949 study, Mr. 28 Gates picked the stories he liked and believed his readers wanted. Ms. Gates behaved in a similar fashion 50 years later. Likewise, it is assumed that talk show hosts and producers will think and act in a similar fashion when determining programming content. Talk Show - Radio talk shows incorporate two-way communication between on-air hosts and guests; on-air hosts and listeners who call in to participate; or between guests and listeners. Music shows which include informal ”chit chat” between DJs and listeners are not considered talk shows, nor are news programs where no two-way communication occurs. Talk shows were selected because as a programming format they allow the greatest opportunity for communication and interaction with users of media (listeners, callers, guests). and the host/ producer gatekeepers. Traditional Stereotyping - References to roles women historically have held based upon their gender, with no mention of whether they chose those roles. For example, traditional stereotyping would refer to a woman’s role as a homemaker and/ or mother, with no mention of her decision to choose to remain at home or any other role. Traditional stereotyping also refers to physical, emotional and intellectual descriptors applied to women which imply inferiority to men. These would include labels such as ”weak,” ”immature,” ”feminine,” and ”submissive.” This definition also incorporates the use of ”subtyping” to call attention to the fact that a woman is holding a non-traditional role, such as a ”female brain surgeon.” This label acts as a traditional stereotypical image because it implies that women are not likely as men to be employed as brain surgeons (the term ”male brain surgeon is rarely, if ever, encountered). Gender-neutral communication - refers to communicating in a fashion that does not mention gender in pronouns or as part of occupations. For example, 29 instead of referring to people with a collective use of ”he” or ”his,” gender- neutral communication rephrases the statement so neither or both genders are identified. This is often accomplished by using the plural form of the pronoun (their). Also, gender-neutral communication does not refer to ”man” or ”men” when describing occupations and roles traditionally held by men. Rather, the word ”person” or another gender-neutral term is substituted (for example, ”fireman” becomes ”fire-fighter;” ”chairman” becomes ”chairperson.” Hypothesis 4: Female talk show host_s will receive more gal_l_s from women than will male talk show hosts. Hypothesis 5: As the ndmber of women in power increases, the ndmber of female gdests will increase. Hypothesis 6: The more women in positions of power at radl) stationa the less likely hosts anfid prodgers will believe their progr_amming uses over- generalizations or traditional stereotyping of women. Hypothesis 7: The more women in msitions of power at radio stations, the more likely hosts m progrcers will believe garfier-nedtral commdnication i_s_1§e_d on their shows. Hypothesis 8: The more women in positions of power at r1110 station_s, the more likely hosts and prod_ucers will believe that their £11k show content should contain women’s programming. Rationale: ”Influence” speaks to the agenda setting function, defined by McCombs and Shaw5 as being the ability to structure the unseen environment of symbols. As Cohen said, 'The press may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about."6 Women in a position to influence content may be more willing to 30 do so, based on Iyengar and Kinder’ s assertion that social-structural influence on agenda-setting is affected when attributes of age, race, sex and economic circumstances causes people within these social groups to exhibit agenda setting responses that are more group based than individually based. 7 They may be even more willing to do so at stations where the avoidance of sexism in programming has been made a management goal, such as through the implementation of guidelines on how to use gender-neutral communication and avoid subtyping. An increase in the number of women in power suggests an increase in the ability to influence, with the outcome hypothesized as being an increase in women’s programming, female callers, and guests. Sex role stereotyping of women by males holding positions of power has been found to impede promotion rates of women.8 There is no evidence that this is any less true in radio station management than in other workplaces. An increase in the number of women holding upper level positions should also increase the percentage of women able to hire, fire and promote radio station employees. Research by Stone, Weaver and Wilhoit, and Warner and Spencer has shown a consistent growth in the percentage of women holding positions of power in the nation’s top 99 radio markets. In fact, Stone reports that female news directors have surpassed their male counterparts in yearly salaries, despite that men have been employed on average one year longer in their present job than women. 9 Based on Tuchman’s assertion, this increase should translate into media content that reflects women as ”viable role models, rather than distorting their status in the social world.” 3 1 Definitions of Concepts Introduced in Hypotheses 4-8: Power - Studies by Stone, Weaver and Wilhoit, and Weaver and Stone incorporate several ”positions of power” in their surveys on salary and employment trends. In radio, these positions include sales manager, news director, executive producer, station manager, general manager and owner. These positions are powerful because often the ability to hire, fire, promote or demote personnel is granted through job descriptions. Guests and Callers - The two-way communication process of talk radio assumes that in most cases, hosts are not talking by themselves, for themselves. The interactive nature of talk radio allows high accessibility and heavy participation by media users (listeners). Critics of uses and gratifications research say that those who would treat ”audience activity” as a universal variable (by not differentiating between audience ”activity” and ”behavior”) overlook that different types and levels of participation (or activity) may affect the media product (or content) in different ways. 10 Therefore, it is assumed that a two-way communication process that includes more women and programming of interest to women will encourage higher levels of participation by female callers and guests. Women’s programming - While there is no limit to the number and scope of issues that could interest women, this definition is limited to programming which women are most likely to be interested in. The definition assumes that women would be interested in content which mentions women by gender, names or in groups, or that which pertains to biological situations unique to women, or that which mentions the traditional roles of women juxtaposed with other roles. 32 Hypothesis 9: Radio tag show hosts employad_at station_s of gr_ea_te_r power (watts) are less likely to have attitudes that favor traditional stereotyping of women in programming. Hypothesis 10: Ra_dio talk show hosts employed_at station_s of grea_ter power (wattsiare more likely to have attitufis that favor gender-neutral communication in programming Hypothesis 11: Radio talk show hosts employeiat station_s of gmtpr power (watts) are more likely to have attitrrdes that favor women’s prograrrmring. Hypothesis 12: Radio talk show hosts roducers em 10 ed at stations in different geographic regions will vary in attitlrdps towagl tra_ditiorrp_l_ . stereotyping of women in radio programming. Hypothesis 13: Radio ralk show hosts / producers employed at stations in different geographic regions will vary in attittgles toward gender-neutral communication in radio programming. Hypothesis 14: Radio talk show hosts / proddcers employed_at stations in different geographic regions will vary iuttitrgles favoring women’s programming. Rationale: Few theories directly address the variables of broadcast power (watts), market size and geographic region within radio. While many studies have incorporated these issues with regard to newspapers, the radio market offers a dramatically different mix of these factors. With upwards of 11,000 commercial stations operating in the United States, it is not uncommon to see 10 or more stations sharing a single Metropolitan Service Area. This means that with radio, advertisers generally have more outlets and media users (listeners) have more 3 3 choices than with newspapers, the latter’ 8 best scenario being a two-newspaper town. This means that theories and research generated to study newspapers cannot automatically be adopted to radio. However, the effect of station power and market size on attitudes and content are included in this study because, just like in other media outlets, it is presumed that these factors affect the media product. In doing so, they also may intermittently affect attitudes toward that content. Lacy and Riffe found that the presence of competition between all news radio stations resulted in an increase in percentage of staff-prepared news and the time devoted to such news, with the interaction of market size and proportion of all time given news negatively correlated to time devoted to local . news. 11 Further, public attitude about women’s roles in society has been known to vary by geographic region and culture. Some regional cultures are more accepting of women holding non-traditional roles, and may demonstrate this acceptance by electing a women as a role model such as Governor. Other cultures may be more traditional in their expectations of women’s roles, and encourage activities which are more traditional in nature. The prominence of talk shows as a radio format also varies by state, with more than 40 talk shows based in New York and California , while fewer than five talk shows are based in Arkansas, North Dakota, New Mexico, or Utah. Therefore, it is expected the combination of geographic distinction plus radio talk show availability would have some affect on how ”women’s programming” is defined. 34 Definitions of Concepts in Hypotheses 9-14: ME: ”Station power” is measured in watts (w) and is a measure of a station's reach. It is assumed that more powerful stations will have a longer reach and therefore be more assessable to more listeners. However, it is not assumed that more listeners will automatically choose to listen to the most powerful stations, as other factors such as station format and on-air talent play heavily into listeners’ station selection process. Geographic Regions - Each state was assigned to one of six geographic regions. These include: 1) New England -- Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut; 2) Mideast -- New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware. Virginia, West Virginia, District of Columbia; 3) Southeast -- Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi; 4) Midwest -- Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota; 5) West -- Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah; 6) Pacific - Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico, Alaska. Programming - Limited by the scope of this study to talk show content. While the Tuchman model suggests that an increase in the number of women in positions of power would decrease stereotypical portrayals of women in news coverage, advertising, music and other programming, the economics of this study only allow for talk show content to be included. Hypothesis 15: Hosts and producers who worlaat stations with style gdidelines for gender-neutral communication are more likely to have attitudes favoring the lrse of gender-neutral commdnication on talk shows. 35 Rationale: Hypothesis 15 will gauge if the presence of a style manual on gender- neutral communication affects attitudes and use of such communication on talk shows. Newspapers such as USA Today and other Gannett publications have published guidelines on words to use and avoid when making references to gender, so it is logical that radio stations may offer this assistance as well. The act of producing and distributing such a manual would serve to increase awareness to the issue, and possibly cause hosts to ”think twice” before making sexist references to women while on air. Definition of Concepts Introduced in Hypothesis 15: Style Grri_dglines - Instructions in written form that explain to employees the differences between gender-neutral and non-gender neutral communication (firefighter vs. fireman); subtyping (female brain surgeon); and the default use of the male pronoun his, he or him. In addition, the following 12 questions were asked of the data.12 Research Qdestion 1: Does the presence of competition between talk shows affect attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping of women in programming? Research Qaestion Q Does the presence of competition between talk shows affect attitudes toward gender-neutral communication in programming? Research Qaestion 3: Does the presence of competition between talk shows affect attitudes toward women’s programming? Research Question 4: Are radio talk show hosts / producers employed at stations of greater power more likely to use gender-neutral communication in programming? 36 Research Question 5: Are radio talk show hosts/ producers employed at stations of greater power less likely to use overgeneralized traditional stereotyping of women in programming? Research Question 6: Are radio talk show hosts/ producers employed at stations of greater power more likely to use women’s programming? Research SE estion 7: Are radio talk show hosts / producers more likely to use gender-neutral communication in some geographic regions than others? Research mestion 8: Are radio talk show hosts/ producers more likely to use overgeneralized traditional stereotyping in some geographic regions than others? Research Question 9: Are radio talk show hosts/ producers more likely to use women’s programming in some geographic regions than others? Research Question 10: Are talk show hosts / producers with attitudes favoring gender-neutral communication more likely to use gender-neutral communication on their talk shows? Research Question 11: Are talk show hosts/ producers with attitudes that do not favor overgeneralized traditional stereotyping less likely to use overgeneralized traditional stereotyping on their talk shows? Research Question 12: Are talk show hosts / producers with attitudes that favor women’s programming more likely to use women’s programming on their talk shows? Definition of term introduced in Research Questions 1-12 Competition - A measure based on the number of talk shows in the same market, competition is created in talk radio when more than one station or show competes for listeners and advertisers in a shared market. In other areas of media and business, the presence of competition is assumed to create a better product, 37 or at least a different product, because product use and acceptance cannot be assumed. It is expected that competition will have a similar affect in talk radio. The purpose of this question is to measure whether the presence of competition affects hosts and producers’ attitudes toward ”women’s programming” and subsequently how women are portrayed on talk shows. The underlying assumption of these hypotheses and research questions is that a relationship exists between radio producers and hosts’ attitudes of ”women’s programming” and content applications in talk shows. The study asserts that gatekeepers’ attitudes of ”women’s programming” are predictive of their selections of content reflecting women’s programming. The predictive model based on these hypotheses and research questions is . presented graphically in Figure 1. Overlap exists between the hypotheses, which are tested using the survey and primarily address attitudes; and the questions, which are exploratory and concern the content analysis portion of the study. 1Due to small sample size, hypotheses concerning the relationship between attitudes held by talk show hosts and the content for which they are responsible could not be answered using regression analysis. Hypotheses originally proposed and unable to be tested with inferential statistics were as follows: Hypothesis 16: Radio talk show hosts employed at stations of greater power (watts) are less likely to use traditional stereotyping of women in programming. Hypothesis 17: Radio talk show hosts/ producers will use traditional stereotypical images of women in programming more often in some geographic regions than others. Hypothesis 18: Talk show hosts and producers who have attitudes that do not favor traditional stereotyping of women will be less likely to have such stereotyping on their radio talk shows. Hypothesis 19: Radio talk show hosts employed at stations of greater power (watts) are more likely to use gender-neutral communication in programming. Hypothesis 20: Radio talk show hosts/ producers will use gender-neutral communication in programming more often in some geographic regions than others. 38 Hypothesis 21: Talk show hosts and producers who have attitudes that favor gender-neutral communication will be more likely to use gender-neutral communication on their radio talk shows. Hypothesis 22: Hosts and producers who work at stations with style guidelines for gender-neutral communication are more likely to use gender- neutral communication on talk shows. Hypothesis 23: Radio talk show hosts employed at stations of greater power (watts) are more likely to use women’s programming. Hypothesis 24: Radio talk show hosts/ producers will use women’s programming more often in some geographic regions than others. Hypothesis 25: Talk show hosts and producers who have attitudes that favor women’s programming will be more likely to have women’s programming on their radio talk shows. 2Bleske, op. cit. 3 Ibid., p. 94. 4Herbert H. Howard and Michael S. Kievman, Radio and TV Programming, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986), p. 129. 5Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald Shaw, ”The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media, Public Qpinion marterly, 36:176-187, (1972). 6Bernard Cohen, The Press and Foreigu Poligy, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962). 7A. Iyengar and D. Kinder, ”More Than Meets The Eye: TV News, Priming, and Public Evaluations of the President,” In G. Comstock, ed., Public Communication anal Behavior. (Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1986), pp. 135-174. 8Glick, Zion and Nelson, op. cit. 9Judith A. Cramer, ”A Woman’s Place is On The Air,” in Pamela J. Creedon, ed., Women in Mass Communication (Newbury Park, Calif: Sage, 1993), p. 158. 10Alan M. Rubin, ”Uses, Gratifications and Media Effects Research,” in Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, eds., Perspectives on Media Effects, (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986), pp. 281-297. 11Stephen Lacy and Daniel Riffe, ”'The Impact of Competition and Group Ownership on All-News Radio,” lournalism Quarterly. in press. 39 12Nine research questions were downscaled from hypotheses due to the inability to make predictions based on a small sample size. 40 00:60:30: 10308 On 3083030008 9020: 50350030: AéoBga $2.8: won—53 9N0 0m 9020: 000:6: mica — cram—mam 0n twang—08 0:0 00:92: 0.. 5033.8 anon—.0553“ 0: ”0&0 HE.» @538 war—o $053 5 0500.58 0028 2:808 H0203” o 02.08-2005: gmcwma . 0.30502: 90:03:95 o 20:50.8 mamas—swam C80 0..” . 00:08-205a: gsmcwmn oaaaioza mpmnooaiam 0 2038.8 wqomaaaim o 00:08 on 0:88 o 08:08 0.. 00:88 + , , o E2830: o >mo o 20% mun—8:008 0.250 5 30:8" 41 CHAPTER IV METHOD This section explains the study’s independent and dependent variables, describes how the data were analyzed and hypotheses tested, reviews procedures used to select stations for the study, and lists operational definitions. A discussion of the questionnaire follows, including its creation and distribution. Coding and training procedures for the radio programming content analysis of the study also are explained. Variables This study first measured effects of talk show format (dedicated to women’s programming), gender of host producer and market variables of station power and geographic location on attitudes toward women’s programming. Attitudes regarding gender-neutral communication, traditional stereotyping and women issues were analyzed through hypotheses 1-15 and research questions 1- 3, while use or ”content” applications based on those attitudes were measured by research questions 4-12. The primary dependent variables for this study were attitudes of hosts / producers and content of radio talk shows. Attitude variables included: attitudes toward gender-neutral language; attitudes toward women’s programming; and attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping. Content variables included: traditional stereotyping of women, including subtyping; percentage of female guests and callers; the number of mentions of 42 women issues; and the frequency of gender-neutral communication on talk show programming. Independent variables for this study included gender, station market, station (broadcast) power, station format (whether it designates itself as tailoring programming for women), percentage of women in positions of power at radio stations, and competition by other talk shows. In addition, variables of age, years in the radio talk show business, education (journalism degree?) and years in the market were collected to use as controls. This type of personal demographic information is important because it sometimes affects attitudes. Information on attitudes of hosts / producers was collected through the . survey, with the content analysis designed to measure applications in programming. However, several questions on use were included in the questionnaire to gain some sense of content or use over time (as the content analysis portion of the study only allows for a review of one 10-minute tape from each respondent). These were questions 23 and 24, which ask if callers and guests over the past month were more likely to be male or female. Data regarding ”attitudes” of hosts and producers were collected with survey questions 1-12. Survey questions 13-17 corresponded to the gender and age variables, with the other demographic variables of length of time in talk, time in current position, time in current market and education measured with questions 18-21 respectively. The number of women in power were measured by survey questions 25-26. Control variables of station power, frequency, geographic market region, competition, and station style manual were measured through survey questions 26-34. An open-ended question asking ”How would you define women’s programming in radio?” concluded the survey with question 35. 43 The five content variables are were analyzed through a study of talk show programming as follows: ”percentage of female callers" = coding questions 3-4; ”percentage of female guests” = coding sheet questions 5-6; ”use of gender neutral communication” = coding sheet questions 7-12; ”women’s programming” = coding sheet questions 13-20; and ”traditional stereotyping” = coding sheet questions 21-24. As descriptive statistics, gender, women’s programming format (census/ subgroup member), geographic region, job title, and information on callers and guests were dummy variables. The content variables of use (frequency) of gender-neutral communication, traditional stereotyping, women’s programming, females callers and guests were interval-level measures, as was _ the independent variable of the number of women in positions of power. Data measuring effects of talk show’ 8 tailored to women, gender, market size, region, competition, and presence of station style guidelines on attitudes toward women’s programming were first analyzed, followed by the second step of measuring what effect these attitudes have on the content variables of gender- neutral communication, traditional stereotyping, women’s programming, female callers and guests. Variables not found to be significantly connected with attitudes in the first step of the analysis were dropped for the second step, the analysis of content/ use. The data were first examined with cross tabulations to determine measures of association between variables. T-tests were then conducted to detect differences in means between the male and female populations. Related survey questions concerning attitudes toward women’s programming, gender-neutral communication and over generalized stereotyping were combined to create attitude scales. This increased the variance by widening the response range from 1-to-7 to l-to- 21. Cronbach’s alpha was used to test for 44 how many questions should be included in the scale, as well as the scales’ reliability. With each scale consisting of three variables, standardized item alphas were: 1) Attitudes toward over generalized traditional stereotyping = .80; 2) Attitudes toward gender-neutral communication = .92, and 3) attitudes toward women’s programming = .76. This scale was then incorporated into regression equations with other interval data variables, namely ”percentage of women in management positions;” ”number of other talk shows in market” ”years in talk,” ”years in II II current market” ”location of station age of respondent” and ”power of station” (in watts). ”Gender” and ”Education of respondent” were also included as dichotomous variables. Sampling Radio producers and talk show hosts were selected from a national directory, Talk Show Selects, that annually catalogs more than 700 radio and television talk show stations. Commercial AM and FM radio stations listing shows in Talk Show Selects were included in the study. Television stations were not included, nor were nationally-syndicated radio talk shows or shows broadcast on non-commercial stations. The study sought responses from 210 talk show hosts/ producers. Sampling to select these respondents (from a population of 422) was done using the stratified random method. Stratification helped ensure that a proportionate number of stations with and without female talk show hosts were included in the study, as well as account for geographic and station-size controls. The number of cells was determined by: 1) identifying five geographic groups; 2)three station- size groups; and 3)gender of host/ producer. 45 A review of a Talk Show Selects showed 115 women listed as ”host” or ”producer” for radio talk shows. Men were listed as host or producer for 307 radio shows. By geographic region, totals of female-male producers / talk show hosts were: Region One, male = 85, female = 28; Region Two, male = 51, female = 24; Region Three, male = 87, female =30; Region Four, male = 42, female = 16; and Region Five, male = 42 , and female = 17.1 All stations listing women as ”hosts” or ”producers” were selected, and a random sample to select 115 of the 307 stations listing men as ”hosts” or ”producers” were be drawn. For the content analysis portion of the study, four respondents from each of 30 cells (one of each sex, totaling 120 requests for tapes) were randomly selected and asked to send a tape of a talk show representing their definitions of . women’s programming. Respondents were asked to make their tape selections from programming broadcast on their talk show within the past month. They also were asked to keep tape running time to 10 minutes or less, and provided with tapes of 30 minutes in length (total - both sides) to discourage longer submissions. Submitting portions of talk shows was encouraged. Respondents identified to provide content selections were asked to do so when returning completed questionnaires. Qparational Definitions Producers and hosts were selected because in the radio talk show setting, they have the most direct contact with listeners, and are most responsible for programming selections. Also called program directors and program managers, producers are responsible for the overall planning and implementation of talk show programming, a job which often includes selecting topics and screening guests and callers. 2 Hosts work on-air in radio talk shows, either speaking 46 directly to callers, interviewing prearranged guests, or using the show to express personal viewpoints. It is not uncommon for smaller talk shows to have one individual acting as both producer and host. ”Talk Show” was defined as a non-syndicated, commercial, state-based (rather than national or syndicated) radio program moderated by a host or hosts. Talk shows may be on any subject, of any length (although respondents will be asked to excise a 10-minute segment of a show) and broadcast at any time of day or night. The decision to eliminate nationally-syndicated radio talk shows was made because: 1) an analysis of T_alk Show Selects revealed that none listed ”women’s programming” as a topic area; 2) station contacts listed in Talk Show _ S_ele_cts_ were, for the most part, limited to executive producers for entire programming departments rather than specific talk show hosts or producers; and 3) national-syndicated talk shows constitute less than 10 percent of all radio talk shows in the United States. The decision to eliminate non-commercial or public radio stations was made because of the differences in content provided by each outlet. As public radio was designed as an educational alternative to commercial radio through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, it is highly possible that distinct differences in content may be apparent in talk shows broadcast on public stations than commercial ones. Audience research has shown listeners of public radio to be more affluent and highly educated than commercial radio listeners.3 However, a greater access to households is consistently provided by commercial radio. 4 Interestingly, several hosts referred to the effects of the advertising function on their shows when answering the open-ended question regarding the definition of women’s programming, saying ”advertisers drive much of talk programming and many advertisers prefer a more modest approach to women’s 47 issues,” and ”If the survey includes non-commercial programming, or if I myself were working for public radio, my answers would be different and probably more honest.” ”Broadcast origination” was the geographical region from which the talk show originates. Each show was assigned to one of five geographical regions for the purpose of sampling. These regions are: Region 1 - Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland; Region 2 - District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida , Alabama; Region 3 - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana; Region 4 - North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; Region 5 - Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah , California, Arizona. These regions were identified by attaching colored strips to side ”B” of the cassette tapes. Strip color identifications were as follows: Region 1: red, Region 2: blue, Region 3 = yellow, Region 4 = green, and Region 5 = orange. The three station power variables for this study were: 5,000 watts and under (small); 5,001 to 50,000 watts (medium); and upwards of 50,000 watts (large). 5 Power categories were identified as a follows: 1: yellow sticker on tape / stations up to and including 5,000 watts; 2=green sticker on tape/ stations of 5,001 watts through 50,000 watts, and 3=blue sticker on tape/ stations upwards of 50,001 watts. Of the total population from which the sample was drawn, stations reported power as follows: 5,000 watts and under, 257 stations; 5,001 to 50,000 watts, 151 stations;6 and upwards of 50,000 watts, 14 stations . 48 ”Competition” was self-reported by survey respondents. They were asked questions regarding: 1) size of station and market; 2) number of other talk shows in market, and of those shows; 3)how many they perceive to be in competition with their show for listeners. ”Gender-neutral Communication” refers to communicating in a fashion that does not mention gender in pronouns or as part of occupations. For example, instead of referring to people with a collective use of ”he” or ”his,” gender-neutral communication rephrases the statement so neither or both genders are identified. This is often accomplished by using the plural form of the pronoun (their). Also, gender-neutral communication does not refer to ”man” or ”men” when describing occupations and roles traditionally held by men. Rather, the word ”person” or another gender-neutral term is substituted (for example, ”fireman” becomes ”fire-fighterf’ ”chairman” becomes ”chairperson”). ”Subtyping” is a form of traditional stereotyping and is defined as calling attention to the fact that a woman holds a non-traditional role, such as a ”female brain surgeon.” This label acts as a traditional stereotypical image because it implies that women are not likely as men to be employed as brain surgeons (the term ”male brain surgeon is rarely, if ever, encountered). @estionnaire This two-page survey used Likert-scale questions for 12 of its 35 questions (see Appendix A). It was printed on back-to-back pages to reduce copying costs and lower postage expense. A stamped, addressed envelope was be included with each survey. Respondents asked to submit content selections also were provided with a blank cassette tape for dubbing purposes. Return postage for these respondents was increased to cover the additional weight of the cassette 49 tape. Each request was accompanied by a cover letter explaining the project and assuring confidentiality (see Appendix B). Following approval of the survey by the Michigan State University Human Subjects Committee, a pretest of the instrument was concluded with 20 talk show hosts/ producers. This pretest was conducted in January, 1994. The pretest yielded a response rate of 20 percent (four surveys from three females and one male). Of the ten tapes requested, only one was returned, from the female respondent from California. All questions on the surveys were completed however, and all respondents answered the open-ended question regarding the definition of women’s programming. As no questions were left unanswered, there appeared to be no reason to change the content or format of _ the survey. To learn more about the survey’s effectiveness, several talk shows hosts who had not taken part in the pretest and were not selected in the sample were interviewed about their impressions of the survey and accompanying tape requests. They concluded that the survey’s short length would help in generating a high response rate, but fulfilling tape dub requests (which require time and effort) could threaten response. While consideration had been given to reducing the number of tape requests from four to two per cell (for budgetary reasons), it was discarded in light of this observation by talk show hosts. The first wave of survey and tape requests was sent to respondents in February, 1994, with a second wave (survey only) conducted in March 1994 and the final wave (tape requests only) in April 1994. The survey response rate was 42 percent (89 returned of 210 solicited), while tape requests for the content analysis had a response rate of 10 percent (12 of 120 returned). 50 Content Analysis The analysis of radio talk show content was conducted with two coders. While some coding was straightforward -- such as determining the gender of a host, caller or guest - other portions of the analysis required both interpretation of definitions and mathematical calculations of time devoted to, by, with or for women. To improve inter-coder reliability, coders trained together for about a week before beginning the analysis. This training was important because coders calculated data in a nontraditional fashion -- based on what they hear rather than see or read. Coder training began in January, 1994 to coincide with the pretest of the study’s questionnaire (some pretest respondents also were asked to submit tapes). Definitions were refined and resolved to improve intra-coder reliability as a result of this training and prior to beginning the formal analysis.7 Coders listened to their respective tapes twice to accurately code all pertinent data - once to establish running times and a second time to record content categories. Measurement of the content variables of ”gender-neutral II II II communication,” ”traditional stereotyping, women’s programming, ”female callers” and ”female guests” were conducted by timing frequencies of the above- mentioned categories heard on each tape. Each coder used a stop watch to record time in seconds. Coders also were asked to list specific examples of content falling into the above-mentioned content categories. This allowed comparisons to be made between frequencies of usage (or examples) of subtyping, traditional stereotyping and women’s programming, with talk shows 1) experiencing 5 1 competition; 2) based at stations of similar power; 3)in similar geographic regions; or 4) hosted by males or females. Tapes also were coded according to their region and power variables, and gender of respondents. Color-coded stickers attached to tapes prior to delivery to respondents identifed these variables to coders. For a definition and list of color codes, see ”Operational Definitions.” After timing each tape, coders recorded content categories as indicated below. For a sample coding sheet and complete list of definitions and coder instructions, see Appendix C. Coders were asked to count and list all instances of traditional stereotyping, women’s programming and gender-references to women heard _ throughout each tape, as well as the number of female callers and guests. Coders itemized each specific traditional stereotyping and instance of gender-neutral communication (or non-gender neutral) and listed the time (in seconds) consumed by each reference. This allowed comparisons of types of traditional stereotypes and gendered communication to be made across the variables of station size, geographic market, competition and the existence of the style policy. Coders recorded times devoted to female callers and guests, as well as for programming assumed to be of interest to women because of biological factors (such as breast cancer). This generated a total time for content devoted to ”women’s programming.” 52 1Geographic regions were divided as follows: Region 1 - Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland; Region 2 - District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida , Alabama; Region 3 - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana; Region 4 - North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; Region 5 - Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Utah , California, Arizona. 2Herbert H. Howard and Michael S. Kievman, Radio and TV Programming, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986), p. 129. 3Ibid. 4James H. Duncan Jr, American Radio, 1992 Market Edition, (Indianapolis: Duncan’s American Radio Inc., Vol 17, No. 1.,1992). 5Radio stations using amplitude modulation (AM) use power of 250 to 50,000 watts (50 kw), the maximum power permitted by the FCC. Radio stations using frequency modulation (FM) broadcast in a higher band of the spectrum than AM stations, and have power ranging from 3 kw to 100 kw. 6These power variables were selected to reflect the power distribution of AM and FM radio stations in the United States. Of the 5,001 to 50,000 watt group, 30 stations reported power of less than 50,000, and no station reported power of less than 10,000 watts. It is the perception of the author that the 22 stations reporting power of 10,000 watts had more in common with ”midsize” stations than with those in the 1,000-5,000 watt range. 7Intra-coder reliability, expressed as Scott’ 5 Pi, was as follows: Gender of host =100; Number of callers=100; Number of female callers=100; Number of Guests=100; Number of Female Guests=100; Host gender-neutral terms =92; Caller gender-neutral terms=83; Caller gender-neutral terms=92; Host non- gender-neutral terms=83; Guest non-gender-neutral terms=100; Caller non- gender-neutral terms =88; Topics=92; Women’s topics=71; biological situations unique to women=79; traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles=96; Host subtypes =100; Guest subtypes=92; Caller subtypes=88; Traditional stereotyping=83. 53 CHAPTER V RESULTS This study addressed 15 hypotheses1 and 12 research questions. Hypotheses one through eight measured attitudes of respondents toward gender-neutral communication, overgeneralized stereotyping of women, and women’s programming. These questions also asked if respondents perceived gender and the percentage of women in management positions at radio stations to affect show programming, interactions between hosts and callers, or use of gender-neutral language. Hypotheses nine through 15 focused on the impact of , market size, station power, and the presence of bias-free communication policies on the above. Research Questions 1-12 (which are exploratory due to the lack of a sufficient sample of talk show content) concern how station power, geographic region, and attitudes of talk show hosts or producers affect programming choices regarding traditional stereotyping, use of gender-neutral communication, and women’s programming. Cross tabulations, one-tailed T-tests2 and multiple regression were used to analyze the data. Prior to conducting the regression, the data were examined for violations of regression assumptions. A review of scatterplots revealed no evidence of non-linearity and no sign of extreme outliers. An examination of residuals showed that no variable was beyond three standard deviations from the mean. 3 Hypothesis one stated that female talk show hosts and producers will be more likely than male counterparts to have attitudes favoring gender-neutral communication in radio talk show content. As seen in Table 1, this hypothesis 54 Table 1 Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Language by Gender of Talk Show Host / Producer Male Female T (1-tailed) Sig. (p<.05) All radio personalities should use -.51 .22 -1.70 *.045 gender-neutral language (.28) (.32) My show should use gender— .3 .5 -.44 .33 neutral language (.29) (.32) All radio talk shows should use -.12 .45 -1.33 .09 gender-neutral language (.28) (.32) N=49 N=40 Attitudes toward gender-neutral language were coded as follows: -3 =strongly disagree, -2 = disagree, -1 = somewhat disagree, 0 = not sure, 1 =somewhat agree, 2=agree, 3=strongly agree. 55 received limited support. Females were more likely than males to agree that all radio personalities should use gender neutral language. Of females, 55 percent said that they agreed (strongly to somewhat) with this statement, while 33 percent of males reported doing so. However, females were no more likely than males to agree that their show should use gender-neutral communication, or that all shows should do so. To test overall attitudes toward gender-neutral communication, the above three dependent variables were incorporated into one scale and tested with the independent gender variable using a two-tailed T-test. The T value of -1.23 was not significant. A pattern was apparent for the non-significant dependent variables . displayed in Table 1. Regardless of gender or job description, respondents appeared more willing to agree with what is important for their shows, but not apply those same conditions to all radio talk shows. In both cases, females were more likely than males to agree with the statements, with 63 percent of women saying they agree when referring to ”their shows” compared with 53 percent of men. For all radio shows, the agreement levels dropped by about 9 percent, to 55 percent of females and 43 percent of males. Hypothesis two stated that female talk show hosts and producers will be less likely than male counterparts to have attitudes that favor overgeneralized traditional stereotyping in radio talk show content. As seen in Table 2, this hypothesis was partially supported. T was significant at the p<.05 level when respondents were asked about the importance of all radio personalities not using overgeneralized traditional stereotyping. Of the remaining two dependent variables (”my show” and ”all shows”) , both males and females were more likely to agree than disagree. However, they were more likely to agree when 56 Table 2 Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping by Gender of Talk Show Host / Producer Male Female T Sig. (l-tailed) *(p<.05) All radio personalities should avoid 1.3 2.0 -2.04 .021 overgeneralized traditional stereotyping (.26) (.23) My show should avoid overgeneralized 1.63 1.77 -.49 .31 traditional stereotyping (.19) (.21) All radio talk shows should avoid 1.3 1.8 -1.53 .07 overgeneralized traditional stereotyping (.25) (.22) =49 N=40 Attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping were coded as follows: -3 =strongly disagree, -2 = disagree, -1 = somewhat disagree, 0 = not sure, 1 =somewhat agree, 2=agree, 3=strongly agree. 57 referring to their own shows than when commenting on all radio talk shows. Ninety percent of females and 84 percent of males agreed that their shows should avoid portraying women in an overgeneralized stereotypical manner -- a standard they were slightly less willing to apply to all radio talk shows. For all radio talk shows, 74 percent of males agreed, compared with 88 percent of females. T-test results for the other two dependent variables (”my show” and ”all shows”) statements were not significant, although the latter relationship came close with a significance of .07. Nor were significant differences obtained when the three statements were incorporated into a single scale measuring ”attitudes toward over generalizing and traditional stereotyping,” using gender as the . independent variable. Hypothesis three stated that female talk show hosts and producers will be more likely than male counterparts to have attitudes that favor radio talk show programming directed toward women. This hypothesis was not supported by the data. As seen in Table 3, the slight difference between percentages of female and male respondents agreeing with the first statement (2.3 percent) was not statistically significant. A T-test for ”important all radio talk shows use women’s programming” was not significant, despite that 75 percent of females and 78 percent of males agreed with the statement. Nor was the T—test significant (T=.30) after incorporating all three statements into a single scale measuring ”attitudes toward women’s programming.” When asked about their shows, however, agreement levels were considerably lower (especially for males) but still not statistically significant. Of males, 59 percent thought it was important that their show use women’s programming, compared with 70 percent of females. Agreement dropped off 58 Table 3 Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Attitudes Toward Women’s Programming by Gender of Talk Show Host / Producer Male Female T Sig. (1-tailed) *(p<.05) Female hosts/ producers are more likely 3.7 3.2 1.19 .11 to use women’s programming (.29) (.28) My show should use women’s .81 .77 .11 .45 programming (.22) (~29) All radio personalities should use -.06 1.5 -.52 .30 women’s programming (.26) (.3) All radio talk shows should use 1.3 .90 1.4 .08 women’s programming (.19) (.25) N=49 N= Attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping were coded as follows: -3 =strongly disagree, -2 = disagree, -1 = somewhat disagree, 0 = not sure, 1 =somewhat agree, 2=agree, 3=strongly agree. 59 sharper still when respondents were asked if they believed all radio personalities should use radio programming. Females were more likely that males to agree with the statement, at 55 percent and 43 percent respectively. None of these differences reached statistically significant levels. Hypothesis four gauged what affect respondents believe gender plays on the interaction between hosts and callers, stating that ”Female talk show hosts will receive more calls from women than will male talk show hosts.” As seen in Table 4, it was not supported by the data. Cross tabulations show that males and females ”agreed in disagreement" on the statement: ”I believe female callers prefer talking with female hosts and male callers prefer talking to male hosts.” Ninety-five percent of females indicated that they disagreed (strongly to ‘ somewhat) with this statement, compared with 88 percent of males. Interestingly, a statistically different difference of p<.05 does exist between self-reports of the ’typical caller’ over the past 30 days, although it is opposite of what was predicted by the hypothesis. More than half of the female respondents (55 percent) report that more men than women called their shows, while 51 percent of male respondents said the ratio of male to female callers was ”about the same/'4 Hypotheses five through eight associated an increase in the number of women holding management positions with increases in the number of female guests (H5); a decrease in the likelihood of respondents saying they use over- generalizations of traditional stereotyping (H6); and an increase in the likelihood of respondents agreeing with the importance of using gender-neutral communication (H7) and women’s programming (H8). The percentage of women holding management positions was calculated by dividing the number of management positions at stations by the number of women holding those positions (each reported by respondents and not 60 Table 4 Means and Standard Error (in parentheses) of Gender of Callers by Gender of Talk Show Host / Producer Male Female T Sig. (l-tailed) *(p<.05) Female callers prefer female hosts, and 5.2 5.1 .45 .62 male callers prefer male hosts"' (.16) (.14) Gender of callers over the past month" 1.3 .92 1.75 *.04 (.14) (.18) N =49 N=40 *Coded as follows: 1=strongly agree, 2=agree somewhat, 3=agree 4=somewhat disagree, 5=disagree, 6=strongly disagree, 7=not sure. “Coded as follows: 0=more men than women, 1=more women than men, 2=about the same. 61 independently verified). To produce cells with frequencies of at least five for cross tabulations, the ”percentage of women in management positions” data was collapsed into three categories: 1) ”low” or 20 percent or less; 2) ”medium” or 21- 49 percent; and 3) ”high” or greater than 50 percent. Hypothesis five predicted that as the number of women in power increased, the number of female guests would increased. As seen in Table 5, the data did not support this hypothesis. In fact, more than 60 percent of respondents in all groups (low, medium and high) reported that their show had featured about the same number of males and female guests over the past month. T-tests also showed no significant relationship between the percentage of women in power and the likelihood of respondents saying they believe gender-neutral communication and women’s programming are important, and that over- generalizations and traditional stereotyping are to be avoided. Hypothesis six was supported by the data. As seen in Table 6, about 34 percent of the variance in ”attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping” (H6) was associated with five variables used in the regression equation. ”Percentage of women in power” yielded a T significant at the p<.05 level, a Beta of .20, and partial correlation of .24. The Multiple R was . 61 and F was significant at the p <.001 level. An examination of squared part correlations to explain unique variance revealed the greatest indicator was ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication,” accounting for about 20 percent of the variance in ”attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping. ”Percentage of women in positions of power” was the next best predictor, accounting for almost four percent of unique variance. 62 Table 5 Percentage of Women in Management Positions by the Number of Female Guests on Talk Shows (number of cases in parentheses) N=83 Stations where Stations where Stations where women hold 20 women hold 21 to women hold 50 to percent or less of 49 percent of 100 percent of management management management positions positions positions More male than 12.5 (4) 19.6 (10) 22.7 (5) female guests More female than 12.5 (4) 13.7 (7) 13.6 (3) male guests About the same 74.8 (24) 66.7 (34) 63.6 (14) DF=4 Chi Squ. was not Chi Squ. was not Chi Squ. was not significant at the p <.05 level. significant at the p <.05 level. significant at the p <.05 level. 63 Table 6 Multiple Regression of ”Percentage of Women in Power,” ”Number of Other Stations in Market,” ”Station Power” (watts), ”Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Communication” and ”Attitudes Toward Women’s Programming” on ”Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping.” Independent BETA variable % of women in .20 power # other stations in market -.10 Station power -.11 (in watts) Gender-neutral attitudes .51 Women’s programming .18 attitudes DF=5, 76 Multiple R: .61 Adjusted R Square= .34 PART. COR. PARTIAL .19 -.10 -.11 .45 .16 .24 -.13 .14 .49 .20 F: 9.21 Sig F: .001 T (l-tailed) 2.15 -1.11 -1.25 4.93 1.75 Sig. T *.017 .134 .106 *.001 *.041 * = significant at the p<.05 level or better 64 Interestingly, there was a negative correlation with the number of women in positions of power and attitudes toward gender-neutral communication and women’s programming. Hypotheses seven and eight predicted that an increase in the percentage of women in positions of power at radio stations would result in an increase in the perceived degree of importance in gender-neutral communication (H7) and women’s programming (H8). As seen in Table 7, hypothesis seven received support from the data, but not in the direction anticipated. With a Multiple R of .66, 39 percent of the variance associated with the five variables used in the regression equation. The partial correlation for ”percentage of women in power” was -.22, and T was significant at the .05 level. Besides ”percentage of women in power,” ”attitudes toward - overgeneralized traditional stereotyping” and ”attitudes toward women’s programming” explained the greatest amount of unique variance, with the latter two variables accounting for 18 percent and five percent respectively. Using women’s programming as the dependent variable to examine hypothesis eight, which was not supported, the beta and partial correlation for ”percentage of women in power” was -.08, with a Multiple R of .50. As seen in Table 8, the five variables were associated with less of the variance in the dependent variable ”attitudes toward women’s programming than in the above two regressions. In this case, the five variables only accounted for 20 percent of the variance. Looking to the squared part correlations to explain unique variance, the greatest indicator was ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication,” accounting for about eight percent of unique variance, with ”attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping” accounting for just two percent. 65 Table 7 Multiple Regression of ”Percentage of Women in Power,” ”Number of Other Stations in Market,” ”Station Power” (watts), ”Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping” and ”Attitudes Toward Women’s Programming” on ”Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Communication.” Independent BETA PART. COR. PARTIAL T Sig. T variable (1-tailed) % of women in -.18 -.18 .-.22 .96 *.025 power # of other .13 .13 .17 .98 *.034 stations in market Station power .16 .16 .20 .97 *.016 (watts) Traditional stereotyping .47 .43 .49 .82 *.001 attitudes Women’s programming .25 .23 .29 .82 *.025 attitudes DF= 5, 76 Multiple R: .66 F=11.57 Adjusted R Square .39 Sig F: .001 * = significant at the p<.05 level or better 66 Table 8 Multiple Regression of ”Percentage of Women in Power,” ”Number of Other Stations in Market,” ”Station Power” (watts), ”Attitudes Toward Gender-Neutral Communication” and ”Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional I Stereotyping’ on ”Attitudes Toward Women’s Programming.” Independent BETA PART. COR. PARTIAL T Sig. T variable (1-tailed) é % of women in -.08 -.09 -.83 .20 power # of other -.009 -.009 -.01 .09 .42 stations in market Station power .07 -.06 -.08 -.69 .24 (watts) Gender-neutral attitudes .33 .26 .29 2.63 *.05 Traditional stereotyping .22 .17 .19 1.76 ".041 attitudes DF= 5, 76 Multiple R: .50 F: 5.08 Adjusted R Square .20 Sig F= .0004 * = significant at the p<.05 level or better 67 Hypotheses nine through 11 examined the size or power of the radio station from which the talk show is based (measured in watts) as a predictor of attitudes toward overgeneralized stereotyping, gender-neutral communication and women’s programming. The hypotheses stated that radio talk show hosts employed at stations of greater power (watts) are less likely to have attitudes that favor traditional stereotyping of women (H9); more likely to have attitudes that favor gender-neutral communication (H10); and more likely to have attitudes that favor women’s programming (H11). Prior to conducting regression analysis, one-tailed T-tests were conducted to examine whether females were less likely to be employed as hosts and/ or producers in any particular power group. Males were more likely than females to be employed at stations of 5,000 watts or less (T =1.70, sig.=.046) at the p>.05 level of significance. T-tests for gender representation for the medium and high power groups were not significant. As a predictor of attitudes, station size was negatively correlated with the importance of ’avoiding over-generalizations and traditional stereotyping of women.” The regression equation was not significant, although the relationship was in the direction anticipated by hypothesis nine. As seen in Table 9, the Multiple R was .23 and the part correlation for station size was -.08. Part correlations for the other independent variables entered in the equation also were insignificant, with ”number of other stations in market” at -.02, and ”percentage of women in power” at .08. Nor was hypothesis 10, which predicted that respondents at more powerful stations are more likely to believe in the importance of gender-neutral 68 Table 9 Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender- Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming Independent Variables Dependent Variables H9 H10 H11 Attitudes toward Attitudes toward Attitudes toward overgeneralized gender-neutral women’s trad. stereotyping communication programming BETA BETA BETA (PART. COR.) (PART. COR.) (PART. COR.) Station Power (watts) .-.09 .09 -.04 (-.09) (.10) (-.04) Gender of respondent 19 .12 -.03 (.19) (.12) (-.03) % of women in power .08 -.17 -.12 (.08) (.17) (-.12) # of other talk shows -.02 .13 .05 (-.02) (.13) (-05) Multiple R .23 .27 .14 Adj. R Squ. .002 .02 -.03 DE 4, 76 4, 76 4,76 F was not statistically significant at the p<.05 level. 69 communication, supported by the data. As seen in Table 9, a regression with ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication” as the dependent variable and the above-mentioned independent variables resulted in a Multiple R of .26 with a negative Beta and part. correlation of .09 for station power. Neither the regression equation or any of the other variables were significant at the p<.05 level. Station size was not a predictor of attitudes toward women’s programming either -- the relationship anticipated in hypothesis 11. As seen in Table 9, the station power variable was statistically insignificant, with a Beta and part. correlation of -.04. Additional variables of ”number of other stations in market” and ”percentage of women in power” also failed to contribute significantly to the explanation of ”attitudes toward women’s programming,” reporting Betas of .04 and -.12 respectively. Hypotheses 12 through 14 anticipated that the geographic region where the talk show is based would have some impact on attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping (H12), gender-neutral communication (H13), and women’s programming (H14). Respondents were assigned to one of six geographic regions for this analysis. Regional response rates varied, with the greatest number of responses coming from the Midwest, and the least originating from stations based in New England. Response rates for the six regions were: New England N=10; Mideast N=12; Southeast N=16; Midwest N =24; West N=14; and Pacific N=13. Hypothesis 12 stated that radio talk show hosts/ producers employed at stations in different geographic regions will vary in attitudes toward traditional stereotyping of women in radio programming. This hypothesis was not supported by the data, as the regression equation was not significant. As seen in Table 10, the Multiple R for this equation .32 and Adjusted R Squ was only .05. 70 Table 10 Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming, by Geographic Region Independent Variables Dependent Variables H12 H13 H14 Attitudes toward Attitudes toward Attitudes toward overgeneralized gender-neutral women’s trad. stereotyping communication programming BETA BETA BETA (PART. COR.) (PART. COR.) (PART. COR.) New England .05 (.04) -.01 (-.009) .07 (.07) Mideast *.29 (.26) *.26 (.24) .13 (.13) West -.07 (-.06) .02 (-.06) -.26 (-.23) Pacific -.02 (-.02) -.02 (-.02) -12 (-.11) Multiple R .32 .27 .35 Adj. R Squ. .05 .02 .07 DP. 4, 68 4, 68 4, 68 F was not significant at the p>.05 level. *=T-test p<.05. 7 1 Despite the lack of statistical significance, cross tabulations indicated some general patterns. Of 12 Mideast respondents, 10 (or 83 percent) said they strongly agreed that their show should avoid over-generalizations or traditional stereotyping, with the remaining two respondents reporting to agree. R Conversely, four of 14 respondents from the West (28.6 percent) reported to ”strongly agree” with the statement, as did only three of 13 (23.1 percent) of respondents from Pacific Coast states. Overall, six respondents said they disagreed with the statement, with two from the Southeast, one from the West, and two from the Midwest each reporting to ”somewhat disagree” or ”disagree.” The only respondent to ”strongly disagree” was from the West. Hypothesis 13 stated that radio talk show hosts/ producers employed at stations in different geographic regions will vary in attitudes toward gender- neutral communication in radio programming. The regression was not significant, and the hypothesis was not supported by the data. The Mideast (with a part. correlation of .24) was the only region to yield a significant T of p<.05, with a Multiple R of .27. However, the Adjusted R Square was even lower, at .02. Cross tabulations show that respondents from the Mideast were most likely to agree it is important for their shows to use gender-neutral language (with four of 12 or 33.3 percent saying they ”strongly agreed”); although it is noted that four respondents from the West (28.6 percent) and four from the Midwest (16.7 percent) also said they ”strongly agreed.” The Midwest and Pacific regions logged the most disagreement with the statement, with about 46 percent of respondents from each region saying they did not think it was important for their shows to use gender-neutral language. The only region to not generate ”strongly disagree” responses was the Mideast. The final statement to address geographic region as a predictor of attitudes was hypothesis 14, stating that radio talk show hosts/producers 72 employed at stations in different geographic regions will vary in attitudes favoring women’s programming. The regression was not significant and the hypothesis was not supported by the data. As seen in Table 10, the West was the only region to show a T significant at the p<.05 level using ”attitudes toward women’s programming” as a dependent variable . In this case, Multiple R was .35 and the Adjusted R Square was .07. Respondents from the Southeast were most likely to ”strongly agree” that it is important their show use women’s programming, with seven of 16 (about 44 percent) logging agreement. However, five respondents (about 42 percent) from the Mideast also reported to ”strongly agree” with the statement. The greatest percentage of disagreement originated from respondents in the West, with 50 percent (7 of 14) saying they disagree (strongly to somewhat) with having women’s programming on their talk shows. Hypothesis 15 stated that hosts and producers who work at stations with style guidelines for gender-neutral communication are more likely to have attitudes favoring the use of gender-neutral communication on talk shows. A regression analysis could not be run due to the small number of stations that reported having either policies or manuals. As seen in Table 11, only three respondents reported having gender- neutral communication policies, and all strongly agreed it is important that their shows use gender-neutral communication. An additional three respondents reported having style manuals, with two ”agreeing somewhat” and one disagreeing with the importance of gender-neutral communication on their talk shows. The vast majority of stations -- 97 percent -- reported not having a policy or style manual, or not knowing for sure if they do. Of this group, 55 percent agreed (strongly to somewhat) it is important that their show use gender-neutral 73 Table 11 Percentage of respondents (employed by radio stations with policies or manuals on gender-neutral communication) who said they believe it is important that their show use gender neutral communication (based on 100 percent) (number of cases in parentheses) Style Station Not sure None manual policy Strongly 0.0 10.0 17.2 18.5 agree (3) (5) (10) Agree 66.7 0.0 20.7 13.0 somewhat (2) (6) (7) Agree 0.0 0.0 17.2 24.1 (5) (13) Somewhat 0.0 0.0 13.8 3.7 disagree (4) (2) Disagree 33.3 0.0 13.8 27.8 (1) (4) (15) Strongly 0.0 0.0 6.9 9.3 Disagree (2) (5) Not sure 0.0 0.0 10.3 3.7 (3) (2) N = =3 N=29 =54 Total N =89 74 communication. Of the group that reported having neither a policy or a style manual, 41 percent disagreed with the importance of their shows using gender- neutral communication. To learn more about what may affect attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, gender-neutral communication and women’s programming, three additional regressions were calculated using the independent variables of age, sex, years employed in talk in current market, and whether respondents held journalism degrees. As seen in Table 12, only in the case of attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping did any of these variables hold significance. Using attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping as a dependent variable, the ”years in current market” variable was significant at the p<.05 level, I with a negative beta of -.25 and part. correlation of -.21 (Multiple R =.29). However, the regression equation was not significant as the adjusted R square never rose above .04. The greatest explanation of attitudes appears to come from other attitudes. This relationship was not predicted by the hypotheses. These relationships are displayed in Tables 13. ”Attitudes toward women’s programming” and ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication” were both statistically significant when used as independent variables to explain ” attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping.” With a Multiple R of .55, the equation’s betas were .43 for ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication” (sig. at the p<.001 level) and .19 for ”attitudes toward women’s programming" which was not significant. Highly significant relationships also exist when the dependent variable is ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication” (Multiple R =.61). As seen in Table 13, squared part correlations show that about 13 percent of the unique Table 12 Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming Independent Variables Journalism degree holder Female Age Years in market Multiple R Adj. R Squ. D.F. *=T-test p<.05. Attitudes toward overgeneralized trad. stereotyping BETA (PART. COR.) -.11 (-.11) .15 (.15) .22 (.18) *-.25 (-.21) .29 .04 6, 74 F was not significant at the p>.05 level. Dependent Variables Attitudes toward Attitudes toward gender-neutral women’s communication programming BETA BETA (PART. COR.) (PART. COR.) -.08 -.14 (-.08) (-.14) .09 -.06 (.09) (--06) .03 .02 (.02) (-.02) -.05 -.16 (-.04) (-.13) .20 .17 -.008 -.02 6. 74 6' 74 76 Table 13 Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming Independent Variables Attitudes toward overgeneralized trad. stereotyping Attitudes toward gender-neutral communication Attitudes toward women’s programming Multiple R Adj. R Squ. D.F. *=T-test p<.001. Dependent Variables Attitudes toward Attitudes toward overgeneralized gender-neutral trad. stereotyping communication BETA BETA (PART. COR.) (PART. COR.) N / A *.39 (36) .43 N/ A (.38) *.19 *.34 (.16) (.31) .55 .61 .29 .36 3, 78 3, 78 Attitudes on women’s programming BETA (PART. COR) .19 (.16) .40 (34) N/A .53 .26 77 variance in the dependent variable is associated with ”attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping,” while an additional 10 percent is contributed by ”attitudes toward women’s programming.” Using ”attitudes toward women’s programming” as the dependent variable produces a similar pattern of significance. Squared part correlations show that ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication" explains about 12 percent of unique variance, (Multiple R =.53), with a statistically significant T at the p<.001 level. Research Question Results The variables of ”number of other stations in market” and ”number of stations considered to be competitors” measure competition in the talk show marketplace, a factor addressed by Research Questions one through three. The I two variables were not highly correlated, with the mean for ”other stations in market” being 5.5 with 6.6 standard deviations, and the mean for ”number of competitors being 1.7 with 2.2 standard deviations. The research questions asked: Does the presence of competition between talk shows affect attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping of women in programming? Does the presence of competition between talk shows affect attitudes toward gender-neutral communication in programming? And does the presence of competition between talk shows affect attitudes toward women’s programming? A As seen in Table 14, the regression equation was not significant. Neither of the independent variables affected attitudes toward traditional stereotyping, gender-neutral communication or women’s programming. Adjusted R squares were never above .001, and squared part correlations failed to explain more than one percent of unique variance in any case. 78 Table 14 Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Attitudes Toward Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming, by Competition Independent Variables Number of other stations in market Number of competitors in market Multiple R Adj. R Squ. D.F. Dependent Variables Attitudes toward Attitudes toward Attitudes toward overgeneralized gender-neutral women’s trad. stereotyping communication programming BETA BETA (PART. COR.) (PART. COR.) -.05 .12 (-.043) (.10) .009 .005 (-007) (004) .05 .12 -.02 -.008 2, 78 2, 78 F was not significant at the p>.05 level. BETA (PART. COR.) .08 (.07) -.10 (--08) .08 -.01 2, 78 7 9 ngn-ended survey question results As part of the survey, respondents were asked how they would define women’s programming in talk radio. Of the 89 respondents, 62 or 70 percent responded to this open-ended question. Full responses may be found in Appendix E. Of this group, females accounted for 47 percent (N =29) while males accounted for 53 percent (N =33). Responses broadly fell into three categories: 1) those who said women’s programming exists; 2) those who said women’s programming does not exist; and 3) those who said they wouldn’t want women’s programming to exist. Response #1: Women ’5 Programming Exists Female responses outnumbered males by 15-11 in this category. The most A frequent response to the question ”how would you define women’s programming in talk radio” was ”any programming or topic that is uniquely interesting to women, and therefore would draw the attention of female listeners.” However, more than 50 percent of respondents did not offer examples on what that topic might be. Of those who did offer topics they considered women’s programming, the leading responses were ”personal relationships,” ”breast I! ll cancer,” ”home and family issues, sexual harassment,” ”menopause,” ”glass ceilings,” and ”feminist issues.” Response #2 : Women ’3 Programming Does Not Exist Of the 19 respondents who said that women’s programming does not exist in talk radio, 16 were male and three were female. Reasons offered as to why women’s programming does not exist include: 1) Shows are programmed according to content rather than gender issues; 2) males and females are 80 interested in the same things; 3) women’s programming has not been allowed to exist because males still hold the majority of positions of power in news organizations; 5) too few female talk show hosts result in little emphasis on women’s programming; 6) males are not qualified to define women’s programming; 6) it not wise to divide audience among gender lines; and 7) it would be sexist to say that women’s programming exists. Response #3: Women ’5 Programming Should Not Exist Females outnumbered males by 2-1 in this final category, with the majority of respondents saying that women’s programming as a content category could do more harm than good. The 15 (10 female and five male) respondents said that if women’s programming is acknowledged as a content category, it would imply that mainstream programming is somehow inappropriate for ' female listeners. By selecting programming that both men and women can enjoy, talk show hosts avoid fragmenting their audience and creating a class system of programing in which women’s programming would rank below discussion of more serious issues, such as political or business news. Several respondents added that they believe all programming is of interest to women, so all programming must be women’s programming. Exploratory Analysis of Talk Show Content Besides learning more about attitudes of radio hosts and producers toward traditional stereotyping, women’s programming and gender-neutral communication, this study also sought to understand how those attitudes may transcend into programming decisions made by hosts on talk shows. Due to a return rate of only 10 percent (12 of 120 tapes mailed), regression analysis was not possible due to a violation of regression assumptions. However, an 8 1 examination of means and correlations revealed shows several patterns of behavior. Talk show content varied considerably. The follow programming samples are examples of content measured by the five dependent variables referred to in Research Questions 4-12. Overgeneralized traditional stereotyping examples included comments of ”women infiltrating the bar,” ”that’s what you get when you marry a redhead,” ”she’s a female and a flirt,” ”keeping women in their place,” ”they’ re not capable of thinking for themselves,” ”housewives and the family budget,” ”back in the I! ll kitchen where she belongs, women spend money when depressed,” ”eating a quart of ice cream helps when boyfriends leave,” ”I’d rather have a hooker than a wife," and ”there’s a chemical imbalance in blondes that makes them more stupid than the rest.” Examples of gender-neutral communication (or lack thereof) included: women police officers (rather than policemen); broads, chics, and babes. A Topics referring to women by gander, name, or as up members included: teen dating in Alabama; interracial marriage; women working in Nicaragua; domestic violence; Italian-American women’s club; female rape victims and date rape; and famous African-American women in history. Biological situations unique to women included references to menopause, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and pregnancy and eating. References to women’s traditional roles juxtaposegvith other roles included: mothers’ concerns with sidewalk safety; things for mothers to do with children in the summer; black women in the church; and working women and glass ceilings. Eight male and four female hosts returned tapes. Of the 12 shows, five submitted tapes featuring talk show guests, while seven tapes included talk only 82 between hosts and callers. Ten of the 12 respondents who submitted tapes also answered the open-ended question (how would you define women’s programming in talk radio). Means and standard error for variables (all interval data) included in this portion of the study are displayed in Table 15. None of the two-tailed T-tests (by gender of host) were not significant at the p<.05 or p<.01 level. Research Questions 46 asked if the power of the station had an effect on the talk show host’ 5 use of gender-neutral language, overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, and women’s programming. This series of questions is difficult to answer from the data at hand, because the majority of respondents reported working for stations with less than 5,000 watts. Based on station power as previously defined, five hosts work for stations I with power of 1,000 watts or less, three hosts work for stations with power of 5,000 watts, one host works for a 10,000 watt station, and two hosts works for 50,000 watt stations. It was anticipated that respondents in larger markets with more talk shows would have more competition for listeners, and therefore would face choices such as: 1) either use ”shock value” to grab and hold listeners from other stations, or 2) use ”politically correct” speech to avoid offending listeners and therefore loosing them to competing talk shows. Either way, it was anticipated that the power, or reach, or the station would have some bearing on hosts’ use of gender-neutral language, overgeneralized stereotypes, and women’s programming. Interestingly, of the two respondents (both male) who were least likely to use gender-neutral communication5 and women’s programming (both whom said women’s programming does not exist in response to the open-ended question), and most likely to use overgeneralized stereotypes, both worked for 83 5,000 watt stations. However, both these stations were based in larger markets -- one in Chicago and the other in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Both also reported having at least 10 other talk shows in their immediate market which they considered to be competitors -- far more so than any other respondent (including the two who work for 50,000 watt-stations, which reported to have two and five competing stations respectively). It is possible then, that the power of the station is secondary to the market size in which the talk show is based. Of the two respondents from 50,000 watt-stations, one (a female )stated that women’s programming does exist and offered a definition in the open- ended question (shows of particular interest to women such as PMS, menopause, and glass ceilings), while the other respondent (a male) said he tries ' to find programming that appeals to both sexes. Both submitted tapes featuring a woman as the guest speaker, and both talk shows included five or more mentions of women by name, by gender or as members of groups. Neither of the 50,000—watts shows used subtyping, and between the two shows, overgeneralized traditional stereotyping was used only once (”women aren’t capable of thinking for themselves”). One non-gender neutral reference was made by the female talk show host (who referred to adult females as ”girls” ), while three gender-neutral references were made by the male host (two mentions of police officer vs. police man, and one reference to ”law enforcement officials”). Research Questions 7-9 asked if the geographic region where the station was based had an effect on the talk show host’s use of gender-neutral language, overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, and women’s programming. Geographically, the group was represented as follows: New England, 2; Mideast, 1; Southeast, 2; Midwest, 6; West 1. 84 Due to small sample size, comparisons for these research questions were difficult to calculate and remain highly speculative. It appears from this limited sample that geographic region has no effect on the above-mentioned dependent variables. Of respondents from the Midwest, two said that women’s programming is almost non-existent (both male), two said that it does exist and offered definitions (one male, one female), and two said that it should not exist (both male). The data revealed no consistent patterns of use either within the Midwest group, or between the Midwest group and other groups. The final three research questions (10-12) asked if hosts who have attitudes favoring gender-neutral communication (10), overgeneralized traditional stereotyping (11), and women’s programming (12) are more likely to use the three respectively on their talk shows. As seen in Table 15, the use of non-gender neutral language was more frequent than gender-neutral language, especially among talk show hosts. Regarding overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, subtyping was used far less frequently than instances of traditional stereotyping - again, especially among hosts. Of the three indicators of women’s programming (biological situations unique to women, topics mentioning females by name, gender or as members of groups, and mentions of women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles), the most prevalent indicator was topics mentioning females by name, gender or as members of groups. Respondents were sorted according to whether they agreed (strongly to somewhat) or disagreed (strongly to somewhat) with survey questions one through twelve, designed to measure attitudes toward gender-neutral communication, overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, and women’s programming. The data were then examined to see if those hosts agreeing or 85 Table 15 Means and Standard Error for the Number of Topics and Time Devoted to Indicators of Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping, Gender-Neutral Communication, and Women’s Programming Variable Mean Std. Error Number of topics mentioning females 4.0 .94 Time devoted to female topics 4.83 .99 Number of topics mentioning 1.0 44 traditional roles with other roles Time devoted to traditional / other .67 .43 roles of females Frequency of female subtyping .25 .18 by hosts Time devoted to female subtyping .25 .18 Frequency of stereotyping by hosts 4.08 2.29 Time devoted to stereotyping 1.58 .49 Number of topics mentioning .42 .19 biological situations unique to women Time devoted to biological situations 4.58 3.32 unique to women. Number of gender-neutral references .25 .25 made by hosts Number of non-gender neutral 1.17 .82 references made by hosts Number of gender-neutral references .08 .08 made by guests Number of non-gender neutral .08 .08 references made by guests Number of gender neutral .17 .11 references made by callers Number of non-gender neutral 1.8 .93 references made by callers 86 disagreeing with certain attitude statements were more or less likely handle talk show content in a manner consistent with their stated beliefs. As seen in Table 16, five respondents disagreed (strongly to somewhat) with all statements regarding the importance of gender-neutral language, while four respondents agreed (strongly to somewhat) with all statements. Three respondents had mixed responses or were unsure. Although those respondents reporting to disagree with the importance of gender-neutral language were slightly less likely to use it on their shows, the data does not provide conclusive evidence of this relationship between attitude and action. It is interesting to note that males who believe women’s programming exists were more likely than females who believe the same to agree with the ' importance of gender-neutral language. Males who do not believe women’s programming exists had mixed responses, while the one female who said women’s programming should not exist still believed in the importance of gender-neutral language. Of those who did not respond to the open-ended question concerning women’s programming, the female respondent agreed with the importance of gender-neutral language, and the male respondent disagreed. When asked about overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, seven respondents agreed (strongly to somewhat) with the importance of avoiding such communication on talk shows, three disagreed, and two had mixed responses. As seen in Table 17, only one host (#238) who reported to agreed with the importance of avoiding overgeneralized traditional stereotyping actually managed to do so on his / her talk show. All other hosts who reported to agree submitted tapes with at least one example of subtyping or stereotypical references to women. In fact, those 87 Table 16 Radio Talk Show Hosts’ Attitudes vs. Actions Regarding Gender-Neutral Communication Important Important Important # of GN # of N on- Host my show all shows all radio References GN TD # use GN use GN persons on talk show References language language use GN on talk show language WP Exists "males 144 Agree Agree Agree 0 0 238 Agree Agree Agree 0 0 Swhat Swhat 256 Not sure Agree Swhat Not sure 6 0 WP Exists "females 175 Disagree Disagree Disagree 0 0 251 Strongly Disagree Strongly 0 1 Disag. Disag. WP Does Not Exist -males 153 Agree Agree Disagree 0 30 Swhat 163 Strongly Agree Agree 0 0 Agree 164 Disagree Strongly Strongly 0 0 Disag. Disag. 246 Strongly Strongly Strongly 1 4 Disag. Disag. lDisag. Did not respond to open-ended question 186 Disagree Disagree Strongly 1 1 (m) Disag. 195 Strongly Not sure Not sure 0 0 (I) agree WP Should Not Exist -females 206 Agree Strongly Strongly 0 1 Agree Agree *=total references hosts, callers and guests Host Important ID # my show avoid OTS WP Exists "males 144 Agree 238 Agree 256 Strongly Agree WP Exists "females 175 Agree Swhat 251 Agree WP Does Not Exist -males 153 Strongly Disag. 163 Agree 164 Disagree Swhat 246 Agree Did not respond to open-ended question 186 Disagree 195 Strongly Agree WP Should Not Exist -females 206 Strongly Agree 88 Table 17 Radio Talk Show Hosts’ Attitudes vs. Actions Regarding Overgeneralized Traditional Stereotyping (OT S) Important all shows avoid OT S Agree Agree Agree Agree Swhat Agree Strongly Disag. Agree Disagree Swhat Disagree Disagree Disagree Strongly Agree Important all radio persons avoid OTS Agree Agree Agree Swhat Agree Swhat Agree Strongly Disag. Agree Disagree Strongly Disag. Strongly Disag. Strongly Agree Strongly Agree *=total references hosts, callers and guests # of subtypes HON ON # of stereotyp. references OOH 11 003 89 reporting to agree with the importance of avoiding overgeneralized traditional stereotyping were more likely to use such communication than those who disagreed. As was the case with gender-neutral language, all males who said they believe women’s programming exists also said they agree with the importance of avoiding overgeneralized traditional stereotyping. Additionally, all females who said they believe in women’s programming also said that overgeneralized traditional stereotyping should be avoided. Males who do not believe women’s programming exists were more likely to disagree than agree with the importance of avoiding overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, as was the male respondent who did not answer the open-ended question. The two remaining female respondents both reported to agree with the importance of avoiding” overgeneralized traditional stereotyping. Respondents seemed most divided over the importance of women’s programming. As seen in Table 18, five respondents agreed (strongly to somewhat with the importance of women’s programming, two respondents disagreed, four had mixed responses and one was not sure. While the small sample size makes the association preliminary, it appears that those hosts reporting to agree with the importance of women’s programming were more consistent and likely to use the three indicators of women’s programming on their talk shows. Those hosts least likely to use such programming answered ”not sure” to at least one question regarding the importance of women’s programming. Hosts disagreeing with the importance of women’s importance were less likely to make references to biological situations unique to women and women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles, but just as likely to mention women by gender, name or as members of groups. 90 Table 18 Radio Talk Show Hosts’ Attitudes vs. Actions Regarding Women’s Programming Host Imp. my Imp. all Imp. all # of Bio / Sit # mentions ID show use shows use radio pers. References by gender, # women’s women’s use name, group prog. prog. women’s # of trad. prog. References WP Exists "males 144 Not sure Not sure Not sure 0/ 0 2 238 Strongly Not Sure Agree 0/ 0 0 Agree Swhat 256 Strongly Not Sure Disagree 0/ 2 5 Agree WP Exists "females 175 Strongly Agree Swhat Agree 4 / 0 5 Agree Swhat 251 Strongly Disagree Strongly 2 / 0 6 Disag. Disag. WP Does Not Exist -males 153 Agree Disagree Disagree 1 / 0 7 Swhat 163 Agree Agree Agree 1 l4 6 164 Agree Agree Agree 0/ 0 1 1 246 Agree Agree Swhat Agree 1 /2 7 Swhat Did not respond to open-ended question 186 Strongly Disagree Strongly 0/ 1 2 (m) Disag. Disag. 195 Agree Agree Not Sure 1 / 0 1 (0 WP should not exist -females 206 Agree Agree Agree 0/ 0 3 Swhat Swhat Swhat *=total references hosts, callers and guests 91 A high level of inconsistency exists between those respondents who indicated through the open-ended question that women’s programming exists, and those who said it is important. Of males who said women’s programming exists, most were hesitant to say it was important enough to use on their show or any show. Females who said women’s programming exists also were mixed on its importance in programming decisions. Oddly, males who said women’s programming does not exist were the group most likely to agree with the importance of using it on their talk shows. The non-respondents to the open- ended question were, again, mixed, while the female who said women’s programming should not exist agreed somewhat with the importance of women’s programming. 1Due to small sample size, hypotheses originally proposed concerning the relationship between attitudes held by talk show hosts and the content for which they are responsible could not be answered using regression analysis. For a list of these hypotheses, see Chapter 3. 2The T-test is a statistical test to determine if differences are due to chance. The .05 level indicates that the probability of perceived differences occurring because of chance or sampling error is less than 5 percent. 3Standardized residuals were used for the variables created from scales. 4 Of male respondents, 30 percent said that more men than women had called their show in the last month, 18 percent said more women than men had called, and 50 percent said the ratio was about the same. Two percent (one station) did not take callers. Of female hosts, 60 percent said more men than women had called, 7.5 percent said more men than women did, 30 percent said it was about the same, and one talk show (2.5 percent) did not take calls. 5Between the two talk shows, hosts or callers used 34 non-gender neutral terms and 18 overgeneralized stereotypes -- in ten minutes. 92 CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION Summary of Findings The underlying assumption of many of the hypotheses and research questions presented in this study is that the gender of a talk show host affects attitudes toward women’s issues and subsequently, talk content as it pertains to women. This study’s findings appear to indicate that as a predictor of attitudes and content, gender is insufficient, inconsistent and unreliable. ‘ For example, females were more likely than males to agree that all radio personalities should use gender neutral language, but unwilling to place that same condition of all radio talk shows or their talk shows. When asked about their attitudes toward all radio personalities limiting overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, females were more likely than males to agree it was necessary, but again, not on their shows. Nor does a talk show host’ 5 gender determine the likelihood of male or female callers. While it was anticipated that female callers might be more receptive to female hosts, female hosts said that more men than women call their shows. Conversely, male hosts reported that the ratio of male to female callers was ”about the same.” It does appear that an increased percentage in the number of women holding management positions at stations does affect talk show hosts’ attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, and gender-neutral communication. Respondents from stations where more women hold positions of 93 power were more likely to say that it is important that overgeneralized traditional stereotyping be avoided on talk shows. However, a similar effect on gender- neutral communication was not in the direction anticipated by the hypothesis. Interestingly, there was a negative correlation with the number of women in positions of power and attitudes toward gender-neutral communication, indicating that women holding positions of power may be less likely to support bias-free communication policies. It is also possible that hosts are reacting against the women who hold management positions by purposefully using non-gender- neutral language. One interesting finding was radio stations’ lack of style manuals or policies regarding gender-neutral communication and overgeneralized stereotyping. However, of those stations where policies or manuals exist, there is a high- consensus on the importance of using gender-neutral language. Of 89 stations, only six reported to have either a policy or a manual. Of this group, five agreed with the importance of using gender-neutral language on their talk shows. Variables of station size, region, education of talk show host, and competition failed to contribute to the variance in the three dependent variables in any meaningful way. However, the ”years worked in current market” variable contributed to the variance in ”attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping." In that case, hosts who had been in their current markets the longest were least likely to agree that it is important to avoid overgeneralized traditional stereotyping. However, as the overall regression equation was not significant, little support can be given to this finding. Rather than relying on exterior factors, attitudes toward gender-neutral communication, overgeneralized traditional stereotyping and women’s programming appear to feed off each other. Hosts’ attitudes were consistent toward gender-neutral communication, overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, 94 and women’s programming, as was expected. In each case, the greatest amount of variance explained came not from this study’s prescribed independent variables, but from other attitude variables. ”Attitudes toward women’s programming” and ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication” were both highly significant II when used as independent variables to explain attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping.” Similarly, ”overgeneralized traditional stereotyping” and ”women’s programming” attitudes explain the bulk of the variance in ”attitudes toward gender-neutral communication,” and attitudes toward ”gender-neutral communication” and overgeneralized traditional stereotyping” explain the most variance in ”attitudes toward women’s programming.” A review of talk show content revealed that talk show hosts were more likely to use non-gender neutral language than gender-neutral language, especially those who had indicated on the survey that gender-neutral language was not important to them. Subtyping was rarely heard on the tapes, but traditional stereotyping was commonly used by hosts, even though most agreed that it was important to avoid such stereotyping. In fact, those reporting to agree with the importance of avoiding overgeneralized traditional stereotyping were more likely to use such communication than those who disagreed. Of the three indicators of women’s programming (biological situations unique to women, topics mentioning females by name, gender or as members of groups, and mentions of women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles), the most prevalent indicator was topics mentioning females by name, gender or as members of groups. While the small sample size is noted, hosts reporting to agree with the importance of women’s programming were more consistent and likely to use the three indicators of women’s programming on their talk shows. Hosts who said they disagreed with the importance of women’s programming 95 were less likely to make references to biological situations unique to women and women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles, but just as likely to mention women by gender, name or as members of groups. Respondents were divided over whether women’s programming exists, and if it should exist. Females were more likely than males to say that women’s programming does exist, but also more likely to say that it should not. Much of the concern about categorizing programming according to gender appeared to stem from the assumption that only subjects of traditional interest to women (such as recipes and child care) could be called ”women’s programming.” One- third of all female respondents said that programming should be gender-blind to avoid fragmenting the audience and to appeal to as wide a range of listeners as possible. Of those who said women’s programming does not exist, 84 percent were male. However, there was little consensus as to why women’s programming does not exist. While some said that its appeal as a program category died out in the 19508, others insisted it was never allowed to exist, because males hold the majority of positions of power at radio stations, and there are too few female talk show hosts. Another subset of respondents claimed that women’s programming did not and does not exist because it doesn’t have to, as shows are programmed according to content rather than gender issues, and males and females are interested in the same things. Those who believe women’s programming exists are most likely to define it by referring to biological situations unique to women. However, of the three indicators of women’s programming (mentions of women by name, gender, or as members of groups; women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles; and biological situations unique to women), ”biological situations” was the least 96 likely topic category to be heard on tapes that respondents consider representative of ”women’s programming.” While the number of other talk shows in a market, the geographic region where a station is based, and a station’s power do not appear to affect attitudes and content regarding women’s programming, the size of the market may. It is possible that the study’s assumption that competition exists between talk shows is flawed, with competition for listeners perhaps a better predictor of behavior through content selection. Hosts may make choices for content based on what they think listeners want, rather than in response to what choices other hosts might make in a similar market. Hosts at smaller stations (such as those who tallied the highest number of non-gender-neutral references, overgeneralized stereotypes, and said women’s programming does not exist) based in larger markets may need to use more of a ”shock” factor to allow their programs to be picked out of the crowd. And at least in the 19905, ”shock” talk is rarely gender- neutral. Implications of Findings Shoemaker and Reese hypothesized that the effect of journalists’ demographics on news values and content is minor, given the importance of organizational routines and constraints.1 It appears that this also be the case in talk radio, except in situations where women hold a majority percentage of management positions. Even then, a perfect translation of attitudes into actions that could be considered favorable to women is far from predictable. It was expected that female talk show hosts would be less likely to incorporate traditional stereotypes in programming, and more likely to use gender-neutral communication, cultivate a greater number of female callers and 97 guests, and use women’s programming. It was expected that those actions would be especially apparent in cases where women hold a large percentage of the positions of power at a radio station. Only the first expectation was supported by the data. Talk show hosts at stations where women hold a greater number of management positions were more likely to agree that overgeneralized traditional stereotyping should be avoided. A similar pattern did not exist for an increase in the percentage of women in management positions and attitudes toward the importance of gender-neutral communication and women’s programming - in fact the reverse relationship was supported. It is possible that, as managers, women may concern themselves with correcting what they perceive as the most offensive behavior (overgeneralized traditional stereotyping) rather than focusing their energies on concerns many co-workers might perceive as ”non-problems.” As director of research for the National Foundation for Women Business Owners,2 Julie Weeks says that female managers often must pick their fights.3 Otherwise, they risk being perceived as overly sensitive and out of touch with more immediate business priorities. ”Women may not make the changes that they would like to because they fear not being taken seriously by the mainstream, ” says Weeks. ”They are not forgetting their gender, but they have other, bigger concerns. They don’t want to go outside the bounds of what is considered acceptable.” Part of this fear may stem from the reality that as managers, women are less likely to hold positions of power in the communications industry than in other industries. According to the Handbook of Labor Statistics, 53 percent of the total population age 16 and over are female, while 45 percent of the total workforce age 16 and over are female. As managers in television stations however, females hold 26 percent of positions considered in the ”upper-four” 98 (officials and managers, professionals, technicians, and sales), by the FCC’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) requirements. ”Anytime women are in the vanguard, when you’re the first wave, you’re a whole lot more careful about what you say and do,” adds Weeks. ”Often you have to pretend that you’re not female, black or Hispanic if you want to fit it.” A 1992 survey of more than 1,400 general managers, news directors, promotions managers, program directors and general managers in the nation’s top 200 television stations offers support for Week’s claim. Almost 90 percent of female managers said they are at a disadvantage when it comes to salary, promotions, and power at broadcast stations, compared to 45 percent of men. Both men and women saw the 19805 as the decade that offered the greatest workplace advancements for women, but males said that women would likely achieve equality in the workplace by the 19905, if they hadn’t already found it. Not one of the 708 female respondents indicated that equality in the workplace had been achieved, but 60 felt that it was attainable within the next 20 years. 4 Despite disparity in employment at management levels, a recent study from the National Foundation for Women Business Owners shows that males and females often use very different management styles with roughly equal success. The study concluded that men tend to make quick decisions with limited consultation and put some distance between themselves and their employees. Women, on the other hand, had success with creating a family-like atmosphere at their companies and seeking more outside advice. 5 ”Be it radio, television or anything else - that’s why so many women start their own businesses,” says Weeks. ”They get tired of having the mainstream telling them what to do and think.” For many program directors and talk show hosts however, the ability to make format and policy decisions has diminished as the number of commonly- 99 owned stations continues to increase. ”Same service” simulcasting allows up to 25 percent of air hours per week to be simulcast by commonly-owned stations in the same community. Also, the FCC now allows common, nationwide ownership of 18 AM and 18 FM stations,6 with an additional three stations in each band if these additional facilities are controlled by minorities or small business entities. [The minority/ small business provision was adopted to encourage direct investment in entities that traditionally have had limited access to capital but whose activity in broadcasting would further the Commission’s goal of expanding diversity in ownership.7] The above-mentioned revisions to the FCC’s radio ownership and time brokerage rules, in place since March 1993, have even further changed the competitive nature of radio stations and subsequently, talk programming. It was expected that the presence of competition in talk radio would act in similar fashion to the motivation it provides for newspaper and television markets - differentiating the news product to provide options for media users. As part of that differentiation, it was expected that some stations would appeal to female listeners by using gender-neutral communication and avoiding stereotypical portrayals of women in programming. This expectation existed because talk shows must appeal to a certain ”critical mass” of listeners to survive in station ratings, and thereby justify their existence on air. While women likely enjoy listening to programming other than that concerning their gender, it is unlikely that a majority of female listeners would ”tune in” on a regular basis to talk shows that presented women and programming pertaining to women in a sexist and stereotypical manner. For example, women may be interested in gender-neutral topics such as investing money and buying automobiles, but are unlikely to be regular listeners of 100 programs using traditional stereotypical references to discuss investing and car shopping in a condescending manner. But in radio, competition no longer exists just within markets. Local talk shows compete with syndicated ones, while decisions regarding programming are often made by mangers who may not live in and understand a community’s needs. Such could explain the lack of policies or style manuals concerning gender-neutral language.8 ”Radio stations are often owned by large parent organizations,” says Weeks. ”Policies tend to come down from above.” As small stations are managed differently than larger ones, another possible explanation is that employees of smaller stations -- which comprised more than 30 percent of the survey’s responses -- do not think about gender issues because the FCC does not require that they meet the same Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) conditions as larger stations. Stations located in areas where minority representation in the labor force is less than 5 percent are not required to have formal EEO programs for minorities. However, women comprise more than 5 percent of the labor force in all areas, so every station must have an EEO program in place for women. However, stations with fewer than five full-time employees are exempt from having a m EEO program. Stations with more employees are required to be in compliance with EEO requirements, overseen and enforced by the FCC, and therefore may think more about gender issues. Stations with 5 to 10 full-time employees should have minority groups and/ or women employed on their full-time staffs at a ratio of 50 percent of their workforce, and 25 percent in the upper-four categories. Finally, stations with 11 or more full-time employees should have minority groups and/ or women employed on their full-time staffs at a ratio of 50 percent of their overall workforce and 50 percent in the upper-four job 101 categories.9 It is plausible then, that more responses from respondents employed at larger stations would have generated responses indicating: 1) more station polices or manuals concerning gender-neutral communication; and therefore: 2) more hosts who believe that attitudes toward gender-neutral communication are important. Conversely, it is possible that the conversational style essential to radio delivery is inconsistent with the precision of gender-neutral communication. Attitudes do not automatically transfer into habits. Using gender-neutral communication also often requires forethought -- perhaps a luxury less practical to a talker than a writer. Responding to the open-ended question regarding women’s programming, one host commented that although gender-neutral communication is a noble idea, ”it is too cumbersome and too formal for talk.” This study was created to learn more about two underlying questions: is there such a thing as women’s programming in talk radio and, if so, how it is defined. Like Supreme Court Justice Thomas, more than one third of respondents stated that there is no such thing as women’s programming. However, the majority of respondents believe that it does exist, even though almost half of that majority believes it should not. Of those who say that women’s programming should not exist, many refer to radio programming that was traditionally designated for women - that which relates to home and family issues -- and overlook that the definition could extend well beyond its original perimeters. Writes Marzolf: ”We are caught in a familiar dilemma: women wanting to be fully equal as human beings yet realizing that there are gender differences that must be acknowledged. Ironically, the fear is that acknowledging differences will push women back to the marginalized, powerless spheres and separate sections of the past.” 10 102 It seems fair to say that female talk show host do not want women’s programming to exist if it limits content which pertains to women, thereby segmenting them from mainstream listeners. Yet in newspapers, the lack of women’s news has resulted in a reduction of female readers, with many women ”dropping out” of newspapers because they no longer see themselves reflected in them. In 1991, 60 percent of women read newspapers, down from 77 percent in 1970.1 1 In an attempt to lure some female readers back to newspapers, at least 10 news organizations have re-introduced women’s sections which are pitched as being ”non-patronizing, with no fluff or irrelevance.” 12 The largest, most visible, and consistent effort to regain female readers is Womanews, a Sunday section introduced in May 1990 by the Chicago Tribufi. The section pitches its ' mission as ”presenting news from a woman’s point of view for all colors, nationalities, ages and sizes.” Yet the debate continues on whether ”mainstreaming” women’s news into all sections of newspapers or all programming of talk shows is a more equitable approach to covering diversity and gender issues. While some talk show hosts view mainstreaming as the only non-sexist approach to developing programming, others feel that under mainstreaming, women’s issues are treated as exceptions to the programming menu; receiving only ”spot-light” coverage rather than serious, day-to-day coverage. As a content category, it appears that ”women’s programming” is as unresolved in talk radio as in newspapers. However, this study hints that a form of women’s programming does exist, even if it is not acknowledged as a programming category by those who work in radio. The following assertions are offered in support for the existence of women's programming: 1) All radio programming appeals to males, females, or both: 103 2) Not all programming appeals to all listeners; 3) Interests in programming are sometimes a function of demographics; 4) Radio stations select programming to attract listeners who advertisers consider desirable; 5) Demographics are gender-specific; 6) Talk show hosts rely on demographics to schedule programming. It is asserted, therefore, that hosts and producers at least think about gender in their programming decisions, if only on a subconscious level. In the case of many hosts and producers, it appeals that this thought process exists without being acknowledged. However, if there is an ability above chance to appeal to women, then there has to be such as thing as women’s programming. Conclusion Like most people, talk show hosts and producers do not exhibit a perfect transition of feelings into actions. Those who merely speak about action far outnumber those who indeed make change. Action may not be taken due to habits required and/ or perpetuated by the radio industry, and biases that exist among talk show hosts. Or, it could be that because gender-neutral communication is not immediately pressing as an issue; hosts may see no need to take immediate action in their behavior. The reliance upon these biases and habits in making editorial decisions is indicative of gatekeepers such as talk show hosts.13 People who work on-air in radio are not paid to contemplate their decisions -- like their colleagues in the news room, they often just don’t have time. They may not know why they think 104 and act like they do; their work habits are reactions based on biases rather than statements of political correctness. While women in positions of power appear to hold some influence over attitudes of talk shows hosts, this study shows this influence to be limited to instances of overgeneralized traditional stereotyping. It is difficult to determine how much of female managers’ success in this area is due to their influence, or the realization by male hosts that stereotyping acceptable in the 19705 is inappropriate in the politically-correct 19905. Responses to open-ended question regarding the existence of women’s programming cross-referenced with hosts’ beliefs in the importance of avoiding overgeneralized traditional stereotyping were consistent in agreement. However, it is important to note that the number of women in positions of power was self-reported by respondents, and may therefore be artificially high or low. Expecting a perfect transition between talk show hosts/ producers attitudes toward women’s programming and their use of programming through content pertaining to women is unrealistic and unfair. However, this study does show that attitudes can be used to predict other attitudes toward overgeneralized traditional stereotyping, gender-neutral communication, and to a lesser degree, women’s programming. While it may be premature to say talk show hosts think and act in a similar fashion with regard to women’s programming, it can be said that when they think about women’s programming, they do so consistently. It also seems fair to say that women’s programming exists, even if its existence is not acknowledge by those who work in talk radio. However, it is not implied that women’s programming is a mutually exclusive content category. Women’s programming is probably not of exclusive interest to females, as males who are sons, husbands, brothers and fathers could be expected to also have 105 interests in biological situations unique to women, women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles, and women as individuals or as members of groups. As a population, the chances are good that women have a greater interest in women’s programming than do men, and that some women may prefer women’s programming more than others. This study shows that this is the case with female talk show hosts. However, females responding to this survey strongly asserted that women’s programming is not the only programming of interest to women, whose interests extend beyond biological situations unique to them, women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles, and women as individuals or as members of groups. It is possible that women’s programming is a programming subset, overlapping with men’s programming in some cases, and standing alone in others. Hosts may be reluctant to explore these subsets of listeners -- be they male or female - because dividing listeners by gender serves to fragment their much- prized market share. Therefore, hosts may make decisions about programming without identifying and specifying gender. However, they must subconsciously recognize the importance of gender to rely on demographics information as heavily as they do. With an increasing number of media products and less free time available for media users -- including talk show listeners -- it is encouraging, at least, to witness concern by talk show hosts, who, like editors, must think about how their product is delivered and perceived. It is noted, however, that of those hosts doing the thinking, males outnumber females by four-to-one. To quote one female respondent: ”Where are the female talk show hosts?” As took place in the newsrooms of the 19705,14 women may need to reach a critical mass in talk radio before women’s programming as a content category can receive serious debate and discussion. 106 One radio program in which women are frequently and prominently featured is National Public Radio’s ”All Things Considered, ” which, according to Weeks, ”provides a model for what women can accomplish. ”So many of the women of stature in talk radio work for National Public Radio.” 8 However, the non-commercial nature of public radio likely contributes to an environment in which non-mainstream programming may thrive. An interesting area for future study would be to compare talk show hosts’ attitudes and actions regarding women’s programming at commercial vs. public radio stations. While the definition of women’s programming presented in this study may not be complete, or embraced by all talk show hosts, it appears to have support from a majority of talkers. While it is premature to state that the definition applies to all talk shows featuring women’s programming, it is fair to say that it provides a framework from which a more intricate definition may evolve. For example, Marzolf offers this description of women’s programming: One way to define women’s news is to frame it as information with the greatest impact on women as a category, regardless of race or class, linking all women across their educational and financial divides to the physical, social and cultural characteristics they share. Women bear the children and provide more of the care giving in our society. They are still treated differently and compensated less well in the workplace. The Equal Rights Amendment failed for a second time in a century. Women are still vulnerable to sexual abuse, rape and harassment. Their legal right to abortion is eroded and perhaps more bitterly contested in the past year than in the previous decade. Women are still culturally stereotyped and objectified as sex objects to sell products from soap to wrenches to pop culture to blue jeans. 1 5 107 To proclaim, as Justice Thomas did, that women’s programming does not exist is to essentially assume that the inequities presented by Marzolf do not exist, are not news worthy, and are not of interest to women. Perhaps the definition of ”women’s programming’ should include an additional caveat; that in the non- visual medium of radio, women are not invisible listeners. 1Shoemaker and Reese, op. cit., pp. 85—112. 2The Foundation is the research arm of the Maryland-based, 5,000-member National Association of Women Business Owners. 3Julie Weeks was interviewed by telephone on July 27, 1994. 4”The Female Maze," is an unpublished survey conducted by Pinnacle Communications and presented at the American Women of Radio and Television ' Annual Convention on May 30, 1992. Of a total 5,330 surveys were mailed to department heads, vice presidents, general managers and presidents of 200 television stations affiliated with either ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox. Of this group, 708 women and 730 men completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 27 percent. 5Jay Mathews, ”Different Strokes for Different Genders,” The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, Vol. 11, No. 39 (July 25-31, 1994), p. 22. 6In September, 1994, the 18-18 ”base” maximum will be expanded to 20-20. 7The FCC defines ”small business” as an individual or business entity that, at the time of application to the Commission, had, including all affiliated entities under common control, annual revenues of less than $500,000 and assets of less than $1,000,000. 8It is not uncommon for media organizations to have style guides on how to avoid sexist language, or to offer gender sensitivity training for employees. See ”USA Today Style Guide,” written by news copy chief Don Ross, Gannett Company, Arlington, VA, 1990. 9Linda J. Eckard, Esq., ”Responsibility of Broadcast Licensers to be Equal Opportunity Employers,” paper presented that the 1993 National Association of Broadcasters Conference, Las Vegas. Eckard is a founding member of the communication law firm of Roberts & Eckard, P.C. located in Washington, DC. 108 10 Marion Tuttle Marzolf, ”Deciding What’ 5 Women’s News,” Media Studies lournal, Vol.7, Nos.1-2, (Winter-Spring 1993), p. 34. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13White, op. cit. 1‘lrln 1970, a group of women brought a class-action suit against Newsweek magazine and won a set of goals and timetables that would bring women into the editorial process. In the summer of 1973, Newsweek management agreed to aim for one-third of the reporting staff to be women and at least one female senior editor to be appointed by 1975. They also agreed to implement classes in writing and reporting to help other women move up in the newsroom. Twenty- one years later, three of N ewsweek’s 17 senior editors are women and at the assistant managing editor level (one step up), two of the four are women. 15 Marzolf, op. cit., p. 35. APPENDD( A 109 Radio Talk Show Programming Survey Please circle the words that best reflect how you as an individual feel about radio talk shows and their role. If you are neutral on the statement, please circle “Not Sure.” Please indicate only one answer for each statement. I believe it is important for all radio arsonalilies to avoid portraying women in an over-generalized or stereotypical manner. Sueagly Agree Agree Somewhat Ayes Nd Sure Sornewlar'uuyee Disagree Stronfly Disagree I believe femle hosts and producers are more likely to tailor programming to female listeners. Strondy Agree Agree Surrewhar Agree Sanewhat Disagree Disagree Not Sure Strongly Disagree I believe it is important that my show use gender- neutral communication (i.e., refer to “chairperson” instead of “chairman"). Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Auee mm Dirayee [league Nor Sine Strondy Disagree Female talkshow hosts probablydoabetlerjobof identifying women with gender-neutral communication. Strongly Agree Ayea Somewhat A'ee Na hire Somewlut Dianne Drapes mi! ““0“ I believe it is important for all W to avoid portraying women in an over-generalized or stereotypical manner. already Agree Apes Somewht Somewlar Dim Drapes Ayee Nettle SueaflyDieagree I believe it is important that my show use women's msmnmins Sumgly Agree Agree Saeewhat Ages Sanewtat Dim Disagree NotSure Strongly Disagree I believe it is important that W use women's programming (programming dial refers to women as individuals or in groups; discusses varied roles held by women; or covers issues that likely would be of interest to women. such as breast cancer). Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Ayes Nor has Somewtur Drayee Disagree Strongly Eagles I believe it is important for W to use gender-neutral language. Strongly Agree Ayes Sornewhat Ayes Nd Sue Somewhat Dim Disagree Strondy Disagree l believe it is important that main)! avoid portraying women in an over- generalized or stereotypical manner. Soongly Agree Agree W Screewnar Disagree Dieagne Apes Nettie. Wthagree I believe it is important for W to u. gender-neuual language. Strongly Agree Agree Saleem A'ea Not Sue Scrum Dirapee Disagree Sturdy Dingle. I believe W prefer talking with m m. and male callers prefer talking torr_1_al_r_: hosts. Strongly Agree Agree Sonnewhat Ayes Nu Sue Scum Dru” Disagree My Disagree I believe it is important that We: women’s programming. 7 Strongly Agree Agree Sornewlut Ayes Nu an Son-owner bungee Dream Suonfly Disagree (WWoaofienfle) 110 Please tell us a little about your background and that of your station, callers, and guests. Circle, fill in, or check the appropriate response. Are you: Male Female Age: _ Are you a talk show: Host Producer Both If you are a host, is your producer: Male Female If you are a producer, is the host you work with: Male __Female Who decides what topics are discussed on your talk show? Host Producer Both Other How long have you worked in talk? Years__ Months How long have you been in your current position? Years____Months How long have you worked in your current market? Years___ Months Do you have a journalism degree? Yes No Over the last month, my callers have tended to be (check one): __More men than women More women than men _About the same _Not sure Over the last month. my guests have tended to be (check one): _More men than women _More women than men ___About the same Not sure Of the management positions at your radio station (sales manager. news director, executive producer, station manager, general manager and owner), how many would you say are held by women? No. of management positions __ No. held by women __ What is your station’s power (in watts) ‘ AM _ FM How many other talk shows are in your market area? Of these shows, how many would you consider to be competitors? __ Do you compete for listeners with these shows? __.Always __Often Sometimes Never Do you compete for guests with these shows? _Always Ofim Sometimes Never What state is your station located in? Does your station have a policy-or style manual on gender-neutral communication (sometimes relerred to as bias-free communication)? __Style manual Not sure _Policy __.Nouc How would y_or_r_ define women’s programming in radio? Thank you for your help. Please place the completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope and send it back to us. If you would like a report on our findings, please check the box below and include your return address. 0 Yes, I’d like a copy or the study results. Send to: APPENDIX B 1 1 1 APPENDD( B Cover Letter to Accompany First Round of Survey I am writing to ask your help in learning more about how talk radio programming pertains to women. As the 1993 recipient of the fellowship award from the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts (NARTSH), I had the privilege of meeting many of you at last summer’ 3 Chicago convention. As a result of the positive feedback and interest expressed by talk show hosts and producers like yourself, I have designed a study focused solely on radio talkers, and on women’s programming in particular. To answer many questions about this type of programming, I need your help. The enclosed survey is designed to study how radio talk show hosts and producers perceive programming as it pertains to women. I have a long-term commitment to this subject, as I am pursuing this project as work toward my Ph.D. in Mass Media at Michigan State University. I also am a member of the journalism faculty at Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan, where I teach courses in radio and television news and media law. Your participation in this project is voluntary. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Completing the survey will take no more than ten minutes. There are no right and wrong answers and no person or radio station will be connected to any specific answers. All responses will remain confidential. If you desire a report on the study’s findings, please check the box requesting one on the questionnaire. You will receive this report by Fall, 1994. Thank you for your help with this project. Enclosed is a stamped, addressed envelope to return the completed questionnaire. It would be most helpful if you could do so by February 18, 1994. 1 1 2 Sample letter for first round of survey and requests for tape submissions I am writing to ask your help in learning more about how talk radio programming pertains to women. As the 1993 recipient of the fellowship award from the National Association of Radio Talk Show Hosts (NARTSH), I had the privilege of meeting many of you at last summer’ 5 Chicago convention. As a result of the positive feedback and interest expressed by talk show hosts and producers like yourself, I have designed a study focused solely on radio talkers, and on women’s programming in particular. To answer many of the questions about this type of programming, I need your help. The enclosed survey is designed to study how radio talk show hosts and producers perceive programming as it pertains to women. I have a long-term commitment to this subject, as I am pursuing this project as work toward my Ph.D. in Mass Media at Michigan State University. I also am a member of the journalism faculty at Grand Valley State University in Allendale, Michigan, where I teach courses in radio and television news and media law. Your completion of the enclosed survey will help a great deal in establishing whether ”women’s programming” as a format exists in talk radio. I am greatly indebted to your willingness to take the time to participate in this project. To better understand this dimension of talk radio, I also invite you to submit a sample of a show which, in your opinion, reflects “women’s programming.” While time intensive and voluntary, this portion of the study is critical to a thorough understanding of this issue. I hope you’ll help me out. Enclosed is a cassette tape for you to record just 10 minutes of any show that you perceive is of interest to your female listeners. It would be most helpful if you would make your selection from something broadcast on your show 1 1 3 within the last 30 days. There are no ”wrong" answers and your response will remain confidential. Drop your tape in the same envelope as the completed survey, and send it along in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope by February 18, 1994. If you desire a report on the study’s findings, please check the box requesting one on the questionnaire. You will receive this report by Fall, 1994. Thank you so much for your help in this project. Sincerely, Carolyn Miller 114 Sample letter for second round of survey - please note that requests for tapes in addition to surveys also will contain bracketed information. Several weeks ago, I sent a you a letter regarding my study on ”women’s programming” in talk radio. As of the date of this letter, I have received completed surveys [and tapes, where applicable] from a majority of talkers, but not one from your station. I can’t stress enough how valued you opinion is to this study. It is people like you -- talk show hosts and producers -- who have the most contact with listeners, and are in the best position to comment on how women’s programming is defined. It will take less than 10 minutes to complete this survey [and just a few minutes more to select content from your show that you think would be of interest to your female listeners]. Your efforts are greatly appreciated, and your responses will remain confidential. A stamped, addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience. It would be most helpful if you could return your survey [and tape, where applicable] by March 10, 1994. If you desire a report on the study’s findings, please check the box requesting one on the questionnaire. You will receive this report by Fall, 1994. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions about his project, feel free to call me at my home or office telephone numbers listed below. Sincerely, CarOlyn Miller APPENDD( C 1 1 5 APPENDD( C Coding Sheet - Content Analysis - Talk Show Programming Study Coder ID # MASTER TOTAL RUNNING TIME 1. Gender of Host (1=male, 2=female, 3=both (two hosts), 4=N/ S) 2. Number of different callers heard on program 3. Number of female callers heard on program 4. Number of guests heard on program 5. Number of female guests heard on program 6. Number of gender-neutral references made by hosts 7. Number of non-gender-neutral references made by host__ 8. Number of gender-neutral references made by guests 9. Number of non-gender-neutral references made by guest— 10. Number of gender-neutral references made by callers __ 11. Number of non-gender-neutral references made by callers— 12. Number of topics discussed on talk show Please list topics below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by each topic in right-hand column. Topic Time 13. Number of specific mentions of females by gender, by name, or in swaps 116 Please list topics below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by each topic in right-hand column. Topic Time 14. Number of topics specifically mentioning biological situations unique to women Please list topics below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by each topic in right-hand column. Topic Time 15. Number of topics mentioning women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles _ Please list topics below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by each topic in right-hand column. Topic Time 16. Number of ”subtypes" references made by hosts Please list references below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by reference in right-hand column. References Time 1 1 7 17. Number of ”subtype” references made by guests __ Please list references below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by reference in right-hand column. References Time 18. Number of ”subtype" references made by callers Please list references below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by reference in right-hand column. References Time 19. Number of traditional stereotypical references to females Please list references below in the left-hand column, and seconds consumed by reference in right-hand column. References Time (in seconds) APPENDIX D 118 APPENDD( D Coding Definitions Caller ID # - Jonathan Miller = 1, Carolyn Miller = 2 Master Total Running Time = list the time in seconds of the entire content selection submitted by respondent. 1. Gender of host: 1=male, 2=female, 3 =both (two hosts), 4=not sure. Identify through name and/ or sound of voice. 2. Callers: people who are not guests nor hosts, yet are heard on air during the editorial portion of the talk show. List how many different callers are heard on the talk show (i.e., do not record someone twice if they call back or are on-air for a long time). 3. Female Callers: Many may not be identified by name, so it will be necessary for coders to determine some caller’ 3 gender by the sound of their voices. To be coded female, the caller must have an obviously feminine-sounding voice, or be otherwise identified by the use of a title (such as ”Mrs.”), a pronoun (”she" or ”her”) or a social classification or job description (”wife” or ”mother,” or ”stewardess”). 119 4. Guests: People specifically invited to participate in the talk show by the host and / or producer. Guests may either be ”live" (sitting in the studio with the host), or ”call-ins” (interviews conducted by hosts over the phone as part of the talk show). 5. Female Guests: Those guests who have obviously feminine first names. If the guest is not identified by name, the coder must determine if the guest has an obviously feminine-sounding voice. The female guest also may be otherwise identified by the use of a title (such as ”Mrs.”), a pronoun (”she” or ”her”) or a social classification or job description (”wife” or ”mother," or ”actress”). Coding sheet questions 6-12 deal with gender-neutral or non-gender neutral communication. 6—8-10. Gender-neutral communication: Refers to communicating in a fashion that does not mention gender in pronouns or occupations. For example, instead of referring to people with a collective use of ”he or his,” bias-free communication will rephrase the statement so neither gender is identified. Also, gender-bias-free communication does not refer to ”man” or ”men” when describing occupations and roles traditionally held by men. Rather, the word ”person” or another gender-neutral term is substituted (for example, ”fireman” becomes fire fighter; ”chairman” becomes ”chairperson.” 6. Count the number of gender-neutral terms spoken by hosts. 8. Count the number of gender-neutral terms spoken by guests. 120 10. Count the number of gender-neutral terms spoken by callers. 7—9-11. Non-gender-neutral communication: Uses the male pronouns ”his,” "he,” and ”him” or the female pronoun ”her” or "she” to refer to all people, regardless of gender. Non-gender-neutral communication also refers to occupations and roles in the traditional fashion of recognizing that men once held most of these positions. Examples include: ”mankind,” “postman,” and ”workmen.” 7. Count the number of non-gender-neutral terms spoken by hosts. 9. Count the number of non-gender-neutral terms spoken by guests. 11. Count the number of non-gender-neutral terms spoken by callers. Coding sheet questions 12-15 deal with women’s programming. Women's programming is defined as talk show content that meets one or all of the following criteria: 1) ”Women’s programming” identifies women or girls as individuals or members of groups; 2) deals with biological situations unique to women, such as breast or cervical cancer; and/ or 3)mentions the traditional roles of women juxtaposed with other roles, such as work, or deals with non-traditional roles. 12. Topics: Count and list the number of different topics discussed during the talk show. This includes everytime a host, guest or caller moves onto a new or different subject. Do not count an topic twice if the host, guest or caller returns to an earlier-mentioned subject later in the program. 121 13. Women’s topics: Count and list the number of specific mentions of females by gender, by name, or in groups. Be sure to include the time (in seconds) consumed by each of the mentions in the right-hand column under ”time.” 14. Biological situations unique to women: Count and list topics specifically mentioning biological situations unique to women. Be sure to include the time (in seconds) consumed by each of the topics in the right-hand column under ”time.” 15. Women's traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles: Count and list topics mentioning women’s traditional roles juxtaposed with other roles. Be sure to include the time (in seconds) consumed by each of the topics in the right-hand column under ”time.” Coding sheet questions 16-19 deal with traditional stereotyping. Traditional stereotyping is defined as overgeneralized references to roles held by women, or interests which women are presumed to have. These would include mentions of women’s primary roles of home makers or mothers, without mention of whether women purposely chose those roles. Traditional stereotyping also includes references to women in terms of physical, emotional and intellectual descriptors which imply inferiority to men. This would include labels such as ”weak,” "immature,” ”feminine,” and ”submissive,” or references to physical attributes made out of context to the story. Overgeneralized references of this nature often are found in statements that use ”all” or ”none” in reference to women’s interests (i.e., All women like perfume). 122 For example, a reference to a ”blond and petite” candidate for governor would be stereotypical because it is unlikely that a male candidate for the same position would be defined in terms of his hair color and physical stature. The use of ”subtypes” also is a form of traditional stereotyping. Subtypes identify a person’s gender as part of their description, such as ”female brain surgeon.” 16-18. Subtypes: Count and list the total number of ”subtypes” used by hosts (16), guests (17), and callers (18)throughout the tape. Record the time devoted to each subtype in under the column labeled ”time” in each category. 19. Traditional Stereotyping: Count and list traditional stereotypical references heard throughout the entire tape. List each specific reference below item 19 on the coding sheet. These will be recorded as “open-ended” responses.” Include the time (in seconds) consumed by each reference in the right-hand column of the coding sheet labeled ”time." APPENDD( E 123 APPENDIX E Survey Responses to Open-ended Question: ”How Would You Define Women’s Programming in Talk Radio?” Of the 89 respondents, 62 or 70 percent responded to the open-ended question ”how would you define women’s programming in talk radio. Of this group, females accounted for 47 percent (N=29) while males accounted for 53 percent (N=33). Responses broadly fell into three categories: 1) those who said women’s ' programming exists; 2) those who said women’s programming does not exist; and 3) those who said they wouldn’t want women’s programming to exist. Response #1: Women ’5 Programming Exists Female responses outnumbered males by 15-11 in this category. The most frequent response to the question ”how would you define women’s programming in talk radio” was ”any programming or topic that is uniquely interesting to women, and therefore would draw the attention of female listeners.” However, more than 50 percent of respondents did not offer examples on what that topic might be. Of those who did offer topics they considered women’s programming, the leading responses were ”personal relationships," ”breast cancer,” ”home and family issues,” ”sexual harassment,” ”menopause,” ”glass ceilings," and ”feminist issues.” Specific answers were as follows: Responses from females 124 Code # 4 Programming whose primary appeal is to women. 20 Any segments or pieces on women’s issues. Anything from breast cancer and sexual harassment to family lives and relationships with focus being on women. 42 Programs that would draw a female listener. 52 That which addresses issues and concerns of women, but strives to avoid stereotypes or pigeon-holing (i.e., soft topics v. hard news; constant focus on home/ family to the exclusion of other topics. 54 Women’s programming revolves around subjects, guests, news items, conversations and other ”on-air” mentions that are targeted specifically to a female audience. They run the gamut from health, financial, personal relationship matters, crime and so much more. 70 Women’s programming to me is defined as programs whose nature addresses women’ issues, concerns and interests. I don’t believe a talk show has to deal with a controversy or issue to be good radio. Women and men both appreciate interesting, well-informed guests and hosts. 92 Inadequate. Not enough women talk show hosts. 125 175 Making sure women’s current concerns are addressed on the radio. Our show is informal -- to say ”chairperson” all the time sounds stiff. If I have a guest who refers to herself with that title, I’ll use it also. 179 We have three women hosts who all work at having very balanced, informed programming. Two are non-gender and one is gender-oriented. Most programming seems to be non-gendered in our market. 188 I book for a male and a female talk show host, and I must admit that booking for the female is easier. We think alike; I know what she’ll be comfortable taking about. Many of her shows are children-related, unlike the male host. He only likes to do fun and wacky shows. I 204 Reflecting contemporary social, economic makeup of society which is made up of women and men, with problems in common as well as specific challenges. 205 I believe it is letting listeners ”overhear” a women’s perspective on life. For example, I recently had an author of a book ”Member of the Club" which discusses work experiences of women who have made it to the top. I believe there is a unique constellation of obstacles faced by the ”outs” who try to break into the ”in” circle. 209 As programming that shows no difference between male / female gender and treats each sex by merit, and ideally makes information available for both sexes. 126 233 Programming relevant, but not limited to, women’s lives. 251 Shows that are of particular interest to women only, i.e., PMS, menopause, class ceilings, etc. Responses from males 112 It’s a lower priority (in general) at this time. Not treated as serious/ consistent as general issues. 116 Needed/ Good. 117 I look at community issues. Some are about women. 137 Programming that addresses the specific issues / needs of women. 144 Any program that deals exclusively with a women’s problem, viewpoint or interest. Anything else is people programming. 149 In our case women’s programming is aimed primarily toward women; has a feminist consciousness; empowers women; and is sensitive to people of both sexes, nationalities, and sexual orientations. 166 All programming [is women’s programming] - however, those programs with a gender identification, i.e., menopause, or physical or very specific topics -- although I believe men should also listen and communicate. 127 238 What exists is good and getting better, but there is still plenty to work on in the future. Women are very capable and should be given everything possible to let that natural talent come through. 241 I have been a talk show host for 25 years. Talk radio has always been the outlet for conservatism. Therefore it has been slow to acknowledge the changing role of women. There is a need in this profession for more visibility and focus on women’s issues and women’s point of view. Part of the reason for the lack is that advertisers drive much of talk programming and many advertisers prefer a more modest approach to women’s issues. 252 I tend to feel that women want to be treated differently than I treat men. And I do. I’m more tolerant of women callers - and more sensitive to the fact that they tend to be less secure calling my show than a man often is. 256 With the type of show that my host and I run, I would consider most of our programming to be neutral. We deal with topics that both women and men can enjoy, and usually do so. We are always open to new guests and topics. Usually our ”big” guests are women of about female subjects. For example, we have had reps. from N.O.W. and other prominent groups. 259 Any program or topic which wants to be uniquely interesting to women. 128 Response #2 : Women ’3 Programming Does Not Exist Of the 19 respondents who said that women’s programming does not exist in talk radio, 16 were male and three were female. Reasons offered as to why women’s programming does not exist include: 1) Shows are programmed according to content rather than gender issues; 2) males and females are interested in the same things; 3) women’s programming has not been allowed to exist because males still hold the majority of positions of power in news organizations; 4) too few female talk show hosts results in little emphasis on women’s programming; 5) males are not qualified to define women’s programming; 6) it not wise to divide audience among gender lines; and 7) it would be sexist to say that women’s programming exists. Specific answers were as follows: Resmnses from females Code # 13 Fortunately there are a few men who are interested in doing a women’s issue show. But where are women talk hosts?! It is a male dominated field created by a male dominated chain of command. 47 What I would like has little to do with the reality of what I can or should produce topic-wise for our station. Until women have the economic powerbase in this country, our programs will be predominately geared to a male audience. Demographics will show that most people who listen to talk radio are men, age 35-54, largely middle class. It is also no mistake that most of talk radio programming is conservative because conservatives get higher numbers. On my program we do try to include some women’ issues but we do it at the risk of alienating or losing a portion of our audience. All issues, all hosts, all guests are 129 meant to capture the largest audience possible, which is why I, as a producer/ feminist must tell you that there are two answers to every question you posed. If the survey includes non-commercial programming, or if I myself were working for public radio, my answers would be different and probably more honest. 232 It is virtually non-existent unless the show is hosted by a woman (and there are way too few women on the air). We tend to mainly book male guests because they are still the CEOs and presidents of most news-driven organizations. Women are making a remarkable move toward politics, so we’ve had many female politician guests. It’ s slowly getting better. Responses from males 85 1 There is no such thing as ”women’s programming.” 120 No such thing —- we try to be equal opportunity in all of our programming! 128 Are you going to base a doctoral dissertation on this politically correct clap-trap? Jesus. Even my female co-host [can’t decipher word]. It’ d never fly at The UW. 130 What are you referring to? This is too general. When programming talk you look for an equal split of men and women ages 25-54. 130 153 I’m not sure that there is women’s programming except in health, mental health, and jobs etc., which are really the same as men’s programming. Most likely this is another BS report to create more jobs for incompetents who can’t get it done! 160 As a member of the broadcast industry, I don’t believe programming should be characterized by gender. 163 Women’s programming in radio is practically non-existent. There is very little, except on ”special occasions,” such as when sexual abuse, welfare, or domestic violence is in the news. 164 Thirty years ago it was recipes and clothing styles. I don’t know of any station in this area that now carries ”women’s programming” as such. Since nearly 60 percent of women now work away from home, radio must depend on retirees and the remaining 30 percent in daytime programming. 165 I haven’t the slightest idea -- it’ 3 your questionnaire. 168 I’m not sure. We try to provide a balance of programming related to the issues of the day. I don’t believe you can program listeners to participate and I don’t believe that callers represent an accurate sample of listeners. Only 2-3 percent of your listeners participate by calling the station. 170 ”Women’s programming” as a title does not really exist at my station because as a program director and host, I feel it’s important to include topics that are of complete interest to all listeners. Yes, we interview experts on 131 women’ 5 issues and discuss today’s issues as they relate to both men and women. You wouldn’t hear programming referred to as ”men’s programming” these days, so why ”women’s programming?” 173 I don’t believe there is a hard definition which applies. Women are people who will have a wide range of interests in programming topics. I think it is stereotypical by definition to even ask anyone to define ”women’s programming.” 25 I wouldn’t - I’m a man and would never attempt to define what a ”woman’s program” is. All programming including subjects such as - menopause, penile implants, trans-sexual lifestyles, etc., have an impact on both I sexes. I program to elicit audience response, not gander response. On rare occasions, I ask for a gender response, but that’ s only for effect. 241 I do not accept the concept of ”women’s” or ”men’s” talk programming. I’m sure it could be argued that sports talk is aimed at men, but certainly women are interested in sports as well. 246 Programming is programming. Jump in...throw it all out...see what sticks to the wall. Shows based around specific topics are boring and tend to attract fewer callers. My female listeners seem to be interested in all the same topics as myself. 260 I don’t - it would be sexist. I program to people, not to any particular segment of the population. 132 Response #3: Women ’3 Programming Should Not Exist Females outnumbered males by 2-1 in this final category, with the majority of respondents saying that women’s programming as a content category could do more harm than good. The 15 (10 female and five male) respondents said that if women’s programming is acknowledged as a content category, it would imply that mainstream programming is somehow inappropriate for female listeners. By selecting programming that both men and women can enjoy, talk show hosts avoid fragmenting their audience and creating a class system of programing in which women’s programming would rank below discussion of more serious issues, such as political or business news. Several respondents added that they believe all programming is of interest to women, so all programming must be women’s programming. Specific answers were as follows: Responses from females 5 When you say ”women’s programming” I think of programming that’ s of interest only to women or men who are interested in women’s issues. I like subjects that would appeal to both sexes equally. 11 I dislike inten_sely the concept and attitude that there is such a thing as WOMEN’S PROGRAMMING. Women in radio, yes, with a women’s point of view. but I will not stereotype us that way. How about programs of interest to a VARIETY of people -- who says that men don’t care about breast cancer if their mom, wife or sister has it? Who says women won’t listen to auto shows or politics! 133 14 I am not sure what you mean. As a woman in talk radio, I consider all programming to be of interest to women, medical, political, etc. And as a host, I leave no stone upturned. 31 You should identify your audience and program to their needs. 36 I prefer to consider the importance of programming which addresses the problems of the community and our culture at large. Women’s issues obviously constitute a sizable ratio of the total, but I think they are best approached in the perspective of the entire community which, I believe, gives arguments on their behalf more strength. When we exclude, repress or demean _ any segment of society, the act and its consequences belittle and ultimately damage all of us. 73 The more knee jerk reactions I hear about women’s programming, the more convinced I am that we hurt ourselves in the process. I look for the best people. Period. I would never have a guest on for their gender. I am and am considered a strong advocate for women and myself. I call it chairman or chairwomen. My physician guests today were male and female. My God -- let’ 3 start viewing each other as people. That’s the way to end gender bias. 76 Although there are certain things that can be clearly referred to as ”women’s issues” -- breast, ovarian cancer, childbirth, certain other things that are inherent in female biology —- I don’t care for the idea of ”pigeon holing” certain subjects as being of concern to women to the exclusion of all others. My definition of ”women’s programming” is anything that would affect the life and well-being of all of us. 134 206 I don’t believe talking about women’s programming is helpful. I like to try to get people to look at programs and programming which allow for a women’s perspective. Women care about the same issues / activities men care about -- it’ 5 just that they sometimes bring a different frame of reference and concepts to the table. 211 About the same as men’s programming. You must earn your way, it cannot be handed to you on a silver platter. You must pay your dues, earn your way. Learn to do it right, so men will listen to you. No affirmative action needed in my opinion in this field. 226 We book for baby boomers 25-54 years old. Sex or gender is not my uppermost concern -- content is! Responses from males Code # 75 I don’t have the slightest idea. I think women are interested in all facets of life. I resist efforts to ”program” to women because I end up doing recipes, health, child-rearing, etc., exclusively. ”Women’s programming” ghettoizes women. It should be avoided. 79 I program an issues and events-oriented talk radio station and host an issues and events-oriented radio program. Since the majority of women still seem to be listening to mass—appeal FM radio music stations, I am unconcerned about defining so-called ”women’s programming.” 135 113 T h e r e a r e are a few, generally health-related, that appeal nearly totally to women. I don’t program demographically to interest groups. I program to be interesting to the widest possible audience. Play by the golden rule and sexually divisive programming isn’t necessary. 141 I try to think in terms of good programming for people rather than for men or women. But when I perceive something as a ”women’s segment” it usually relates to gender issues (discrimination or pay equity, etc.), food, relationships, women’s health and intuitiveness. We also feature many women leaders in politics, administration, health, etc. 156 I believe that women’s programming just a programming directed exclusively to men limits the programming appeal of a station. I feel programming should reflect the community which is comprised of both men and women who have so many similar cases and concerns in today’ s society. BIBLIOGRAPHY 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY Addington, D.W. ”The Relationship of Selected Vocal Characteristics to Personality Perceptions.” Spgech Monoggaphs. 35 (1986): 492-503. Andsager, Julie L. "Perceptions of Credibility of Male and Female Syndicated Political Columnists." lournalism Quarterly, 67 (Autumn 1990): 485—491. Anthony, Susan B., and Ida H. Harper, eds. The Hi_story of Women’s Suffrage 4., New York: Arno & New York Times, 1969. Baehr, Helen, and Michele Ryan. Shut Up and Listen! Women and Local Radio: A View from the Inside. London: Comedia, 1984. Beasley, Maurine H., Sheila Gibbons. Taking Their Place: A Dogmentgy _I-Ii_story of Women in Journalism Washington: American University Press, 1993. Benze, James G., and Eugene R. Declercq. ”Content of Television Political Spot Ads for Female Candidates,” lournalism marterly 62 (Summer 1985): 278- 283. Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckman. The Social Construction of Reality . Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. 137 Blackwood, Roy E. ’The Content of News Photos: Roles Portrayed by Men and Women.” lournalism garterly 60 (Winter 1983): 710-714. Bleske, Glen L. "Ms. Gates Takes Over: An Updated Version of a 1949 Study." Newspaper Research lournal. 12 (Fall 1991, Vol. 12, No. 4): 88-97. Brabant, Sarah, and Linda Mooney. ”Sex Role Stereotyping in the Sunday Comics: Ten Years Later.” Sex Roles 14 (February 1986):141-148. Brown, J.D., K.W. Childers, K.E. Bauman and CG. Kock. ”'The Influence of New Media and Family Structure on Young Adolescent’ 5 Television and Radio Use.” Communication Reseprch 17 (1990): 65-82. and K.Campbell. ”Race and Gender in Music Videos: The Same Beat But a Different Drummer.” lournal of Communication 36 (1986): 94-106. Burkhart, Ford N., and Carol K. Sigelman. "Byline Bias? Effects of Gender on News Article Evaluations." lournalism marterly, 67 (Autumn 1990): 492-500. Busbt, Linda I., and Greg Leichty. ”Feminism and Advertising in Traditional and Nontraditional Women’s Magazines 19505-19805.” milism Quarterly 70 (Summer 1993): 247-264. Butlet, Matilda, and William Paisley. Women and the NLass Medi_a: Sourcebook for Research and Action. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1980. 138 Cantor, Muriel G. "Women and Public Broadcasting." lournal of Communication (Winter 1977): 14-19. Cohen, Bernard. The Press and Foreign Poligy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962. Courtney, Alice E., and Thomas W. Whipple. "Women in TV Commercials." lournal of Communication (Spring 1974): 110-118. Cramer, Judith A. ”A Woman’s Place is On The Air.” In Pamela J. Creedon, ed., Women in Mgs Communication. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage, 1993: 158. Dimmick, Joseph, and Gail Rausch. ”'The Portrayal of Women in Network TV Commercials.” lournal of Broadcasting. 16 (1972): 259-265. Ducan, James H. American Radio. 1992 Market Edition. Indianapolis: Duncan’s American Radio Inc., 17 (1992). Ellias, Marian. ”No Happy Medium: oPRESSion.” In Room_s with No View: A Woman’s Gu_i_dLe to the Maps World of Med_ig, Ethel Strainchamps, ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1974: 235-245. Ferree, Myra Marx, and Beth Hess. Controversy aml Coalition: The New Feminist Movement. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1985. Ferri, Anthony J. ”Perceived Career Barriers of Men and Women Television News Anchors.” lournalism anrterly 65 (Fall 1988): 661-667. 139 and Jo E. Keller. ”Perceived Career Barriers for Female Television News Anchors.” lournalism Quarterly 63 (Autumn 1986): 463-467. Fiske, Susan T., and Laura E. Stevens. ”What’s so Special About Sex? Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination.” In Stuart Oskamp and Mark Costanzo, eds., Gender Issues in Contemporary Society. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage, 1993:185-186. Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mystigy_e. New York: Dell Publishing, 1963. Geise, L. Ann. 'The Female Role in Middle Class Women's Magazines from 1955 to 1976." Sex Roles 5 (February 1979): 51-62. Glick, Peter, Cari Zion and Cynthia Nelson. ”What Mediates Sex Discrimination in Hiring Decisions?” lournal of Personality and Social Psycholtgy 55 (1998):2, 178-186. Goodrick, Evelyn Trapp. "Editorial Writers' Approaches to Selected Women's Issues." Newspaper Research lournal. 12 (Summer 1991): 20-31. Groce, SB, and M. Cooper. ”Just Me and The Boys? Women in Local-Level Rock and Roll.” Gendfer and Society 4 (1990): 220-229. Harding, Sandra. Whose Science, Whose Knowlegge” Thinking From Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. 140 Howard, Herbert H, and Michael S. Kievman. Radio and TV Proggamming. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1986. Images of Women: Report of the Task Force on Sex-Role Stereotyping in the Broflcast Mega. Quebec, Canada: Canadian Government Publishing Centre, 1982. Isber, Caroline, and Muriel Cantor. Report of the Task Force on Women in Pablic Broadcasting. Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 1975. Iyengar, A., and D. Kinder. ”More Than Meets The Rye: TV News, Priming, and Public Evaluations of the President.” In G. Comstock, ed., Public Commnication and Behavior Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1986: 135-174. Johnson, Phylis. ”T he Scientific Management of Radio, 1919-1993.” Paper presented to the Commission of the Status of Women, Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication, Kansas City, Mo. 1993. Johnson, Sammye, and William G. Christ. ”Women Through Time: Who Gets Covered?” lournalism Quarterly 65 (Winter 1988): 889-897. Johnston, L., and M. Hewstone. ”Cognitive Models of Stereotype Change: Subtyping and the Perceived Typicality of Disconfirming Group Members.” lournal of Experimental Social Psychology 28 (1992): 260-386. Kalin, Rudolf, and David Hodgins. ”Sex Bias in Judgments of Occupational Suitability.” Canadian lournal of Beflvioral Science 16 (1984): 311-325. 141 Karpf, Anne. ”Women and Radio.” In Helen Baehr, ed., Women and Media. London: Pergamon Press, 1980: 41-54. Kilbourne, William. ”Female Stereotyping in Advertising: An Experiment on Male-Female Perceptions of Leadership.” Journalism Quarterly 67 (Spring 1990): 25-31. Lacy, Stephen, Lucinda D. Davenport, and Carolyn Miller. ”Women in Newspaper Management: 1949 to 1979.” Presented to the Commission on the Status of Women, Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication, National Conference, Kansas City, Mo. 1993. and Daniel Riffe. ”The Impact of Competition and Group Ownership on All-News Radio.” Presented to the Radio-TV News Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Montreal, August 1992. lamprecht v. P.C.C., 958 F.2d 382 (DC. Cir. 1992). Lasswell, Harold. 'The Structure and Function of Communication in Society." The Communication of Ideas Lyman Bryson, ed. New York: Harper 8: Bros., 1948, pp. 37-51. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Helen Dinerman. ”Research For Action.” In Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Frank N. Stanton , eds., Communication Research 1948-1949 New York: Arno Press, 1979: 104. 142 Lippmann, Walter. Public Qpinion. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Lont, C.M. ”The Roles Assigned to Females and Males in Non-Music Radio Programming.” Sex Roles 22 (1990): 661-668. Matelski, Marilyn J. "Image and Influence: Women in Public Television." lournalism @arterly 62 (Autumn 1985): 147-150. Mayes, Sandra L., and KB. Valentine. ”Sex Role Stereotyping in Saturday Morning Cartoon Shows.” lournal of Broadcasting 24 (Winter 1979): 41-45. McCombs, Marshall E., and Donald Shaw. ”The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Qpinion Quarterly 36 (1972): 176-187. Miller, Susan H. ”The Content of News Photos: Women’s and Men’s Roles.” lournalism marterly 52 (Spring 1975): 70—75. Mills, Kay Mills. A Place in The News. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1988. Nisbett, Richard, and Lee Ross. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings in Social ludgment. Englewood Cliffs, N .J.: Prentice-Hall, 1988. O’ Donnell, William J., and Karen J. O'Donnell. "Update: Sex-Role Messages in TV Commercials." lournal of Communication (Winter 1978): 156-158. 143 Poe, Alison. "Active Women in Ads." lournal of Communication (Autumn 1976): 185-192. Reep, Diana C., and Faye H. Dambrot. ”Effects of Frequent Television Viewing on Stereotypes: ’Drip, Drip’ or ’Drench’? Journalism marterly 66 (Autumn 1989): 542-550. Riffe, Daniel, Patricia C. Place and Charles M. Mayo. ”Game Time, Soap Time and Prime Time TV Ads: Treatment of Women in Sunday Football and Rest- of-Week Advertising.” Journalism Quarterly 70 (Summer 1993): 437-446. Robinson, Kay Morgan. Women Newspaper Managers agl Coverage of Women. Master’ 5 Thesis, School of Journalism, Michigan State University, 1991. Rubin, Alan M. ”Uses, Gratifications and Media Effects Research.” In Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillman, eds., Perspectives on Med_ia Effects. I-Iillsdale, N .J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986: 281-297. Ruggiero, Josephine A., and Louise C. Weston. "Work Options for Women in Women's Magazines: The Medium and the Message." Sex Roles 12 (March 1985): 535-547. Schiller, Herbert 1. Culture Inc. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Severin, Werner J., and James W. Tankard, Jr. Communiaation Theories: Origi_n_s, Methods and Uses in the Mass Mgija. New York: Longman Press, 1992. 144 Shoemaker, Pamela J., and Stephen D. Reese. Mediating the Message. White Plains, N .Y.: Longman Press, 1991. SPSS -X Statistics Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc., 1988. St. Lawrence, IS, and DJ. Joynder. ”The Effects of Sexually Violent Rock Music on Males’ Acceptance of Violence Against Women.” lfiycholgy of Women marterfl 15 (1991): 49—63. Stone, Vernon A. "Trends in the Status of Minorities and Women in Broadcast News." lournalism Qu_arterly 65 (Spring 1988): 288-293. . ”RTNDA Research.” Radio-Television News Directors Association Communicatg 32 (August 1990). Stark, Phyllis. ”More Women Getting Their Say on Radio.” Billboard 103 (Aug. 10, 1991): 32:10. Steiner, Linda. ”Construction of Gender in News Reporting Textbooks, 1890- 1990.” Journalism Monoggaphs. Vol. 135. (October 1992). Stone, Vernon A. ”Attitudes Toward Television Newswomen.” Journal of Broa_dcasting. 18 (Winter 1973-74): 49-62. 145 Tuchman, Gaye. 'The Impact of Mass Media Stereotypes upon the Employment of Women." In Women in a Full Employment Economy: A Compendium Prepared for the Use of the Joint Economic Committee of Cmress. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977: 247-68. ”USA Today Style Guide.” Written by news copy chief Don Ross, Gannett Company, Arlington, Va., 1990. Warner, Charles, and James Spencer. ”Radio and Television Staff Profiles, Compensation and Practices.” In Readings in Media Management, Stephen Lacy, Ardyth Sohn and Robert Giles, eds. Columbia, South Carolina: AEJMC, 1993: 49. Weaver, David, and G. Cleveland Wilhoit. The American Journalist: A Portrait of US. News People and Their Work. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Whipple, Thomas W., and Alice E. Courtney. ”Female Role Portrayals in Advertising and Communication Effectiveness: A Review.” lournal of Advertising 3 (1985): 4-8. White, David Manning. ”The Gatekeeper: A Case Study in the Selection of News.” lournalism Quarterly 27 (Fall 1950): 383-390. Wood, Julia T. Spinning the Symbolic Web: Human Communication and Symbolic Interaction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1992. 146 , Julia T. Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender and Culture. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1994. Zimmerman, DH, and C. West. ”Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.” In B. Thorne and N. Henley, eds., Language and Sex: Differences and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1975: 105-129. HICHIGAN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES lllIIIMIWIIIHII\llltlll"ltllllllll11101111HI 31293014153419