Women still second best

2005-08-18 11:26

Every year, before, on and after National Women's Day, there is a surge in "women's stories". (Oh, apologies to those disappointed with this week's topic. There's no way that one cannot write on women around Women's Day, you know. Read on. It might be good for you.)

So the surge in "women's stories". But then nothing happens for another eleven months. While the news decision makers enjoy a somewhat impotent afterglow. Didn't they do their duty and dedicate a good percentage of columns to "women"?

To be fair, it is clear that media in general support the fight for gender equality.

What with a constitution that - what else - ensures equality for women, a president that is committed to it, and now a deputy-president that IS one - the media, although still male-dominated, cannot but join the choir. So, on a moral level, the media is committed, up to its inspiring policies on equality.

The problem, as with everything, of course lies in the execution of these policies. In "praxis", where age-old practices and habits need to be changed. And not the least a mindset.

So, news as he has been practised for centuries, needs to be executed in a new paradigm. After eleven years of freedom, one would think we would at least have the theory right by now.

The way we cover "women's issues" means we still sideline them, when they should be mainstreamed.

They are "event-driven" - as other topics, like the 16 Days of No Violence against Women. Typically, an upsurge before, during and after the event, and then nothing till the next one.

Not good, because it means the old (bad) news habits are perpetuated - as evidence shows in various studies of the "who makes the news"-type.

But let's take some inspiration from some media.

What happened last year around Women's Day?

The Media Monitoring Project (MMP) monitored the media around August 9. The top-three to "mainstream" women were the Mail & Guardian, This Day (one year later, no more), and the Sunday Times.

The MMP commented that the M&G, despite being a weekly, out-performed the others. It "mainstreamed women in their paper, including female journalists, sources, female perspectives, diverse images of women, famous and ordinary women as authors and contributors".

In the process it succeeded in determining its own news agenda, ensuring "meaningful" and not just "event- based reporting" on some of the Women's Day functions.

According to the MMP other media, including TV, provided "reactive" rather than "proactive, investigative coverage" of women's rights and issues, and in doing so, "only paid lip service".

Why?

Do we need this re-thinking on how we practise news?

It's simple, really. It's not about women's issues or "women's rights". It is about human rights.

How can we be a thriving society if women - those who traditionally do not have economical or societal power - are treated the way they are?

You, reading here, are an empowered human being. Hopefully, if you are female, you will not accept any discrimination so many generations of women had to endure as "the way it is". (And one day, when women rule the world, there will be no wars, and there will certainly be no rugby in-fighting...)

But, for the now and here: think of those at the bottom of the human food chain, literally and figuratively. Those whose lives consist of looking into poverty's hungry eyes every single day of their lives. Let's see their stories in our media. Let's hear their voices.

Let's transcend accepted news practices. Without doing that, the refrain of a "better life for all" will remain empty.

Let's adopt a gendered news agenda. There's still a long way to go, sista and brother.

And the P-word - again

Ag, and that P-word raised its most ugly head again.

Once again, sigh of relief, not a journalist who did not understand the basic principle that you do not steal anyone else's words and present it as your own, but a poet. Who won an award for her work.

But in the process the media did pick up some flak. It was accused that it found the poet guilty of this terrible word crime. What really happened was an "osmosis" of words.

The person who tried to defend the offender is herself a noted literary figure - and one greatly admired, also by this columnist. While it was honourable to step in, you cannot defend someone by accusing a third party of behaving badly.

Try however you might to defend a plagiarist, the evidence is literally black on white. In this case it was a direct translation of the original poem, without any attribution, reference, acknowledgement or indication of source.

How could it not be plagiarism? And how could the media be blamed? Disappointment, thy name is Blame the Messenger?

But, more importantly, once again a lesson to all of us who work in the world of words: thou shalt not steal words.

Book of the week:
With the inspiration of Women's Day, from now on there'll be a book recommendation every week.

For this week, a book on women (of course):
Women and Journalism, by Deborah Chambers, Linda Steiner and Carole Fleming, published in 2004 by Routledge, tracks women journalists' development. If you order it from Amazon.com, it will cost you about $32. Or kickstart your closest library into ordering one.

Lizette Rabe is head of the postgraduate Department of Journalism at the University of Stellenbosch, a Sanef council member and Sanef-convenor for the Western Cape. And she's addicted to news.

Send your comments to Lizette or discuss this column now in our debating forum.

Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.

- News24