'It feels like it matters': journalists explain the relative improvement in women’s sports coverage during the Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The representation of women in sports coverage by public broadcasters in Australia, the UK, Canada and New Zealand reflects the broader and historically similar gender ideologies of those societies. Using online coverage of women’s and men’s sporting events as its context, and written portrayals of athletic performances as the texts, content analysis of the 2008 Olympic Games identified differences in the manner in which women’s and men’s sports were framed collectively and on the individual websites of four broadcasters – the ABC, BBC, CBC and TVNZ (Jones 2010, 2012, 2013). A disproportionate focus on male athletes, inferences that the female body is not well suited for sports requiring strength or endurance, frequent and gratuitous attention to women’s marital and family roles, romantic and other relationships to men, and the absence of comparable coverage of men, suggest reinforcement of the traditional ideology of sport as a male domain. This paper reports on the second stage of my study of gendered sports coverage by public broadcasters. Drawing on interviews with 15 national and international sports journalists about the manufacture of sports news for their online and broadcast audiences, it argues that a cocktail of nationalism, opportunity, success and convenience accounts for relative improvements in women’s sports coverage during elite contests such as the Olympic Games. \n
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".