Much Ado About Cleavage

by
Kaelyn Kelly

Jour 481-Ethics and Trends in News Media

Clem Work
27 September 2010
 Charlotte Allen wrote a highly inflammatory Washington Post article titled “We Scream,

We Swoon, How Dumb Can We Get?” during the primaries for the 2008 presidential election in

which she criticized women as being the stupider sex. Allen argues that women, as a whole, are

less intelligent than men. According to Allen, because of our mental shortcomings, women

should, “revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward

children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home.” She also thoroughly attacked

Hillary Clinton’s political savvy and ability, saying, “By all measures, she has run one of the worst

-- and, yes, stupidest -- presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of

the female sex.” (Allen) When I read this piece I was appalled not only by the blatant sexist tone

of the article but also that a woman would write something like this about other women. I’ve

read many news stories that use biased language against women for a number of reasons.

Whether these so-called journalists are commenting on the attractiveness of an accused Russian

spy or are making broad generalizations about a politician’s sexuality as demonstrated by her

fashion choices one thing remains clear: the media routinely give women more “personal”

coverage than their male counterparts.

When news broke of a large Russian spy ring living in the United States under assumed

identities I immediately thought of the Cold War and what implications an incident like this

could have for US-Russian relations. Apparently, most of the media was thinking about how

“hot” Anna Chapman, one of the alleged spies, is. In fact she is the only accused spy whose

name I learned due to the plethora of articles about her attractiveness that were written this

summer. The New York Post knows Chapman as a, “red-hot beauty” and, “a 28-year-old

divorcee with…a Victoria’s Secret body.” (Golding) Other news outlets know her as a, “sultry

Russian spy” and a, “flame-haired beauty.” (Bates) And Chapman isn’t the only private citizen
who has become famous for her attractiveness rather than her role in a potentially disastrous

international incident. Another woman accused of working for the Russian government (but not

as part of the spy ring,) Anna Fermanova, was sensationalized in an article by Theunis Bates

titled “After Anna Chapman, Another Eastern Bloc Beauty Arrested.” Bates once again focused

inordinately on Fermanova’s physical appearance. He writes, “The former Soviet bloc seems to

have produced a whole generation of danger-loving beauties named Anna. Less than a month

after sultry Russian spy Anna Chapman was shipped back to the motherland, another gorgeous

Anna -- this time with the more Slavic surname Fermanova -- has been busted for allegedly

trying to smuggle high-tech weapons parts from the U.S. to Moscow.” Bates continues,

“Fermanova may share a first name, good looks and a penchant for striking provocative poses in

Facebook photos with the 28-year-old Chapman, but her lawyer insists the similarities with the

flame-haired spy end there. ‘She is quite sexy, you could say, but she is not a spy,’ Fermanova's

Dallas attorney, Scott Palmer, told The Dallas Morning News.” Finally, he concludes with this

essential piece of information, “Fermanova [is] described in court papers as being 5-foot-6, 135

pounds, and having a pierced belly button.” (Bates)

The coverage of these two private citizens reminded me more of reading a lad

magazine than a well-written article by a real journalist published in a real news outlet. These

writers are describing, or rather objectifying, the women they’re writing about as if they are

pieces of meat or people who exist only for the scrutinization of the writer. Reading material

like this raises many questions. Why do these authors write about women in this way? Is it

newsworthy that a Russian spy has red hair, is 28 years old and is considered by some staff

writer to be “sexy”? I believe that the writers of many of these articles disrespect women they
write about because they consider it fair game to comment on a woman’s appearance. It all boils

down to objectification.

Jessica Valenti, founder and executive editor of the blog Feministing, in her book He’s a

Stud, She’s a Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know, writes, “Women

are seen so much as public property, as objects to look at and judge, that people actually think

it’s appropriate to go out of their way to comment on women’s appearance. They think it’s their

right.” (Valenti 46).

I would argue that this attitude is extremely harmful to journalism because writing like

this sends a message that gender bias is acceptable in the news. But, however harmful this

attitude may be to the ethics and practices of journalism, it is far more damaging to the status of

women in our society. The two Russian ‘Annas’ were private citizens when these articles broke.

Their alleged involvement in covert activity for the Russian government is undoubtedly

newsworthy, but their pierced navels and penchants for posting racy Facebook pictures certainly

are not.

The scrutiny that female public figures face over their appearances is arguably far worse

than for any “sultry spy.” During the primaries for the 2008 election an inordinate amount of

coverage was given to Hillary Clinton’s personal appearance. In one 2007 Washington Post

article titled “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory” writer Robin Givhan

devoted nearly 800 words to Clinton’s supposed cleavage. Givhan said the cleavage was “an

exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's

being revealed. It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might

be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No
one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look

away!” (Givhan)

An article discussing the disparity in the amount of “personal” coverage, which is

coverage that focuses on a candidates clothing and physical appearance, that female and male

politicians receive by Maria Puente appeared in USA Today during the heat of the primaries.

Puente writes, “The fact is women in politics get more scrutiny about their appearance than male

candidates. ‘Our research shows that when there's one woman in a campaign, the first thing the

press notices about her is what she's wearing, what her hair looks like,’ says Marie Wilson,

director of The White House Project, a non-profit group promoting women in leadership.”

(Puente) If the first thing the press notices is whether or not a candidate’s suits are tailored well

then they must be ignoring, or at least giving far less attention and therefore coverage, to her

stance on political issues. This can make a candidate seem like a joke. If the press only wants to

discuss trivial matters such as haircuts and purported cleavage then the candidate cannot make

her political voice heard as effectively as her male peers. The Washington Times reports that this

disparity can cost a woman an election, “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the Democratic

nomination for president because of "gender bias" in the news media, according to a Johns

Hopkins University analysis that found the New York Democrat has attracted marked press

discrimination.” The researchers also found that the press has always given more time and

attention to males in political races. “The gents, in fact, got twice as many stories and their

stories were 7 percent longer - a trend [that] could ultimately dampen the political aspirations of

women.” In 2007 when Clinton and Obama both announced their intention to run for president,

Obama was the subject of 59 major newspaper stories compared to 36 for Clinton. The study

also suggested that women could be turned away from running for office for fear of being
scrutinized and ridiculed. “Male candidates received much more ‘substantive coverage,’ with 27

percent of it focusing on their policies and issues, compared with 16 percent of the stories about

the women.” The researchers also found women were more likely to be stereotyped than men.

“Stories about female candidates emphasized their physical appearance and families. For the

women, there were three times as many physical descriptions - references to clothing or age - as

their closest male competitor. Women were also stereotypically portrayed as more emotional and

their professional titles were more likely to be omitted from stories.” Another study from the

Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 37 percent of Americans felt that press coverage

of the Democratic primary favored Obama, while only 8 percent believed it favored Clinton.

(Harper)

If we know that gender bias exists in the news, we know it can negatively affect women

in terms of societal status and we know that it goes against the ethics of journalism what can we,

as journalists, do to prevent this trend from continuing? In a paper titled “Bias, Punditry and the

Press: Where do we go from here?” a section subtitled “Recommendations: Tips for those in the

media industry” suggests papers and news outlets hire a more diverse staff, use more diverse

sources, recognize and avoid “coded’ or biased language in stories and establish set standards

and accountability measures to combat bias. (Siegel)

When I read a story ripe in gender bias I become very concerned for the future of

journalism. I worry that it is becoming acceptable for writers to shape their stories in the favor

of their opinions, including those on gender, race and class. What worries me the most,

however, is the damage this causes to the status and perceived role of women in society. I

believe that if the press continues to make a mockery of women by sexually objectifying them

and making snide comments about their clothing and hair women will never be taken seriously.
I worry that this attitude will permeate through the media and into other facets of life. A CBS

News poll in 2006 asked respondents if they think the country is ready for a female president.

Only 55 percent (plus-or-minus 3 percentage points) said yes. (Lagorio) That means that

equality is still a long way off. If the press continues to provide unfair coverage of women in the

news we can count on living in a culture of inequality for many years to come.
 Works Cited

Allen, Charlotte. “We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?” The Washington Post Outlook &

Opinions. The Washington Post. 2 Mar 2008. Web. 26 Sep 2010. <

http://www.washingtonpost .com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992.html

>.

Bates, Theunis. “After Sexy Spy Anna Chapman, Another Eastern Bloc Beauty Arrested.” AOL News

Nation. AOL News. 28 July 2010. Web. 5 Sep 2010. < http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article

/after-sexy-spy-chapman-another-eastern-bloc-beauty-arrested/19571918 >.

Givhan, Robin. “Hillary Clinton’s Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory.” The Washington Post Arts &

Living. The Washington Post. 20 July 2007. Web. 23 Sep 2010. < http://www.washingtonpost

.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/19/AR2007071902668.html >.

Golding, Bruce., Andy Soltis and Cathy Burke. “Spy Ring’s Femme Fatale: Red-hot beauty snared in

Russia ‘espionage’ shock.” The New York Post. The New York Post. 29 June 2010. Web. 5 Sep

2010. < http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/spy_ring_qzWW8bImf9yEDTbtXcQnUL >.

Harper, Jennifer. “’Gender Bias’ did in Clinton?” The Washington Times. The Washington Times. 6 June

2008. Web. 24 Sep 2010. < http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/06/gender-bias-

did-in-clinton/?page=1 >.

Lagorio, Christine. “Ready For A Woman President?” CBS News Opinion. CBS News. 5 Feb 2006. Web. 22

Sep 2010. < http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/03/opinion/polls/main1281319.shtml >.

Puente, Maria. “Style becomes a real issue in ’08 presidential race.” The White House Project

Newsroom. The White House Project. Web. 22 Sep 2010. <

 http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org /newsroom/inthenews/2007/october/20071014-

USAToday.php >.

Siegel, Deborah. “Bias, Punditry, and the Press: Where Do We Go From Here?” Soundbites Report. The

White House Project. PDF. 22 Sep 2010. < http://www.thewhitehouseproject.org/docs/

SoundbitesReport.pdf >.

Valenti, Jessica. He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know.

Berkeley: Seal Press, 2008. Print.