Newspaper media representations of athlete experiences with eating disorders: a critical discourse analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletes are at a greater risk (13.5%) of developing eating disorders (EDs) compared to the general population (4.6%). Recently, media attention on athletes with EDs has substantially increased. Given the considerable role of the media in shaping our thoughts, attitudes, and behaviours, the purpose of this study was to examine dominant discourses surrounding newspaper media portrayals of athletes with EDs. Data were collected using the NexisUni Academic database to search for newspaper articles published from 1 January 2021 to 7 June 2022. We included 154 articles for analysis. We performed a critical discourse analysis to examine what journalists say about athlete experiences with EDs, how such experiences are described, and how this constructs athlete identities (i.e. subject positions). Two key discourses were identified, each composed of underlying subject positions. The first discourse, A discourse of healthism, constructed meanings of who to hold accountable for the ED. Within this discourse were two subject positions: The self-destructive woman athlete and The legitimate athlete. The second discourse, A discourse of reductionism, centralised journalists’ reduction of the complexity of EDs. Underlying this discourse were two subject positions: The denialist man athlete and The (hyper)feminised athlete. Findings reveal how journalists drew upon discourses surrounding the body, food, and sport participation that were limiting for both women and men athletes, thus playing an active role in (re)producing gendered and physical stereotypes about athletes with EDs. These findings highlight the importance of media guidelines to resist and avoid perpetuating such stereotypes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".