She won a gold medal because she's pretty

Jun 18, 2012

An examination of past Olympic Games television coverage shows notable differences in the way sports commentators talk about athletes, depending upon the athletes' races, gender and nationalities.

Two studies by University of Delaware Professor James Angelini published this month in academic journals show particular . The first details differences in coverage of male and .

"It's all about luck with the females. It's all about ability with the males," said Angelini, assistant professor of communication.

See Angelini talk about his findings in this video:

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The second study shows NBC disproportionately covers American . While it's no surprise that NBC, the network with exclusive rights to the games in the U.S., heavily focuses on Americans, Angelini's findings show it goes far beyond . NBC highlights Americans at three to four times the rate their successes would suggest.

"You see all this coverage of American athletes even when they fail and there's so little coverage of the gold, silver and bronze medal winners (in certain sports)," he said.

Angelini and his research partners record NBC's primetime coverage of each day's games on its flagship channel and code the footage based on 17 categories. The categories include athletic ability, strength, commitment to the sport, intelligence and luck. For the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, they did the same with China's CCTV coverage. This year, they'll also be screening the BBC during the London Games (July 27-Aug. 12).

"The British broadcasts will probably be a bit more balanced than the American broadcasts on NBC," Angelini said. "It won't be fully equitable, but I think it may be better."

The gender-based study published in the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media found:

  • When female athletes succeed, commentators tend to focus on luck and less on physical ability.
  • When female athletes fail, physical ability and commitment are noted.
  • When male athletes succeed, commentators applaud their skill and commitment to the sport.
  • When male athletes fail, it is not necessarily about their failure, but about how their competitors succeeded.
  • In 2010, 75 percent of the most-mentioned athletes were male.
The nationality study published in the International Journal of Sport Communication found:
  • When American athletes succeed, commentators were more likely to focus on their intellect, commitment, and luck (both good and bad).
  • When non-American athletes failed, commentators were more likely to say they failed because they lacked the strength and skill of other athletes.
  • American athletes received enhanced comments about their outgoing/extroverted nature.
  • Non-American athletes received more comments about the size and parts of their bodies.
  • Overall, commentary about American athletes often focused more on the intangible aspects of their performances, rather than strength and skill.
Angelini's findings also included marked differences in commentators' treatment of race:
  • When discussing African-American athletes commentators focused more on and strength.
  • Asian athletes garnered a disproportionate number of comments about intelligence.
  • When discussing white athletes, commentators were more likely to mention commitment and composure.
The danger in these skewed representations, according to Angelini, could be in their effects on viewers' perceptions. People build their belief systems about gender, races and ethnicities, based in part, by what they see on television. Sports tend to draw large audiences, particularly amongst young men. And, the Olympics are by far the largest sporting event worldwide. He worries about how the messaging will interplay with the audience's view of the world.

Explore further: New 'Surveyman' software promises to revolutionize survey design and accuracy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Sexist Olympic coverage

Jan 20, 2010

Pirkko Markula says when it comes to the Olympics, media coverage rarely gives women equal treatment.

Culture shapes people's view of winners

Feb 09, 2006

Everyone has theories of what it takes to win an Olympic gold medal and now a Stanford University study suggests the theories vary according to culture.

Australia's Twitter warning to athletes

Feb 28, 2012

Australian athletes have been warned against using Twitter during competition after officials found competitors tweeting during last week's Olympic diving test event in London.

Female athletes injured more than male athletes

Jan 25, 2010

Female athletes experience dramatically higher rates of specific musculoskeletal injuries and medical conditions compared to male athletes, according to exercise physiologist Vicki Harber in the Faculty of Physical Education ...

Recommended for you

World population likely to peak by 2070

Oct 23, 2014

World population will likely peak at around 9.4 billion around 2070 and then decline to around 9 billion by 2100, according to new population projections from IIASA researchers, published in a new book, World Population and ...

Bullying in schools is still prevalent, national report says

Oct 23, 2014

Despite a dramatic increase in public awareness and anti-bullying legislation nationwide, the prevalence of bullying is still one of the most pressing issues facing our nation's youth, according to a report by researchers ...

Study examines effects of credentialing, personalization

Oct 23, 2014

Chris Gamrat, a doctoral student in learning, design and technology, recently had his study—completed alongside Heather Zimmerman, associate professor of education; Jaclyn Dudek, a doctoral student studying learning, design ...

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Skepticus
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 18, 2012
So, these skewed comments and representations just show the level of racism, jingoism, sexism, bias and level of cited commentators. What's is new here? We have seen and heard it for years, only now it is real because it is writen up and peer-reviewed; as Wikipedia says: "We don't give a f**k about truth, only verifiability of existence of information on the subject from published papers". Next bunch of bigots, next!