Content-Type: text/html A Comparison of Magazine Summer Olympic Coverage by Gender and Race: A Content Analysis of Sports Illustrated By Jim Mack E.W. Scripps School Of Journalism Ohio University 21 Ludlow St. Athens, OH 45701 740-592-1322 [log in to unmask] Submitted to: Magazine Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Convention, August 9-12, 2000, Phoenix, Ariz. A Comparison of Magazine Summer Olympic Coverage by Gender and Race: A Content Analysis of Sports Illustrated By Jim Mack Abstract This study content analyzed 212 Summer Olympic articles in Sports Illustrated, seeking to find if the magazine provided representative coverage of women and minority U.S. athletes. The total U.S. medal winners for race and gender divisions was compared to the number of pictures and print references to U.S. athletes in Olympic articles from 1960 to 1996. This study found that, quantitatively, Sports Illustrated did provide representative coverage of female and minority athletes for the Summer Olympics. White women and black men and women were often overrepresented in several years of coverage. A Comparison of Magazine Summer Olympic Coverage by Gender and Race: A Content Analysis of Sports Illustrated Introduction This paper presents a content analysis of Sports Illustrated magazine concerning its coverage of the Summer Olympic Games. Specifically, the study sought to determine how much coverage was given to minority and female athletes, and whether or not that coverage accurately reflects the actual number of medal winners. The study dealt with United States athletes only and used the number of athletes pictured and referred to in print as the basis for comparison. The sample included 212 Summer Olympic articles from 1960 to 1996. It is necessary to monitor the national media from time to time to confirm that it is providing a true picture of the world that it covers. Among the issues which must be considered is whether or not the media accurately represents the subjects on whom it is reporting, and in the case of this study, whether or not African Americans and women-two classically underrepresented groups in American media-are given representative coverage. Work by Culbertson (1976), based on communication theories by Chaffee and McLeod (1968), has shown that journalists draw from two viewpoints when making news judgements. They consider their own beliefs and values, and they consider what they believe their audience values. Chaffee and McLeod called this phenomenon coorientation. If an editor, for example, accurately coorients to his audience, effective mass communication should occur. The audience should gain satisfaction by having their communication needs met. This small aside is used to bring up one important point. What if an editor correctly provides his audience with what it desires to read, but does not fairly represent the coverage? As in this study, what if it is found that Sports Illustrated does not accurately represent women or minorities, but the audience does not particularly care for equal coverage of these groups? If white males are overrepresented, should editors attempt to balance coverage with other groups, even if audience research shows they do not wish this to occur-or have no opinion on the matter? It can be argued that the editors should. After World War II, the Hutchins Commission met to assess and plan the course of media in the United States. Coming out of that commission was the Social Responsibility Theory: that one of the most critical responsibilities of the media is to lead the audience, not merely follow it, as a part of its obligation to report the news in a way that gives it meaning (Nanney, 17). Culbertson acknowledged that a communications leader should follow their audience to some degree to better understand for whom they are writing. But a journalist should be careful to avoid losing his autonomy when doing so. It has been shown the audience often looks to the media to learn what they should consider important. If the media is continually looking toward its audience for direction in news coverage, it might be a case of what Culbertson likes to term "the dog chasing his own tail." Readers may not object to unrepresentative coverage because they do not know of any other type of coverage. In some cases, a reader's view of African Americans can come directly, and exclusively, from the media. If that is the case, an editor does have a social responsibility to present an accurate picture of the subjects his publication covers. So why sports? Is it even important to study whether a sports magazine, with a clearly defined audience, is being "politically correct?" Francis (1990), in his thesis concerning Sports Illustrated's coverage of African American basketball players, states that "sport reflects society" is a tenet of sport sociologists-that the constituents of sport are expected to reflect general attitudes within American society. Francis argues that the depiction of black athletes in sport media is a reflection of blacks in the general media. Each of these depictions can be generalized to the treatment of blacks throughout American society. Davis (1997), in her study of Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue, reasons, "mass media plays a central role in legitimizing and maintaining various forms of stratification in contemporary Western societies" (Davis, 3). She points out several methods by which the media perpetuate stereotypes in society. These ideas will be discussed later. Kane (1996) comments, "The media greatly influence who and what have value, status, and power in this culture. By their symbolic annihilation of the female athlete, the media tell us that sportswomen have little, if any value in this society, particularly in relationship to male athletes" (Kane, 110). The media can have a large role in defining its audience's attitudes, particularly when it is one of the few resources one has to encounter people unlike oneself. The next question should be: So why Sports Illustrated? Sports Illustrated was established in 1954 and has a total paid circulation of 3, 281, 395, by far the largest sports magazine, or men's magazine for that matter (SRDS February, 2000). The Simmons Market Research found that, in 1991, Sports Illustrated reached 19.8 percent of men over 18 years of age and 21.8 percent of men that make over $25,000 in the U. S. It produces one of the highest amounts of advertising revenue, pulling in $247 million in 1986 (Davis, 64-65). Sports Illustrated has the potential to shape a great number of people's views about sport and the world in general. The last question, then, is why the Olympics? There are several reasons. One is the nature of the Olympic Games, namely its emphasis on equality and sportsmanship. While there is difference in numbers between male and female athletes, that gap is narrowing-the 1996 Atlanta games invited 3, 779 women, up 20 percent from Barcelona in 1992. Seoul had 2,438 female athletes in 1988, and Los Angeles had 1,620 in 1984. There were 6,500 positions open for men in Atlanta (Spaid, 10). Increasingly, men and women compete in similar, if not identical, events. The design of Olympic competition is conducive to a study of equality in media treatment. If similar numbers do exist, one would expect similar coverage between genders. Also, because the Games are supposed to be based on fairness and equal opportunity, one expects the coverage to reflect this idea. Treatment of black U.S. athletes should reflect the actual number of black medal winners. Another significant idea is the Olympic tradition of intense competition and nationalism. One would expect Sports Illustrated, being a U.S. sports medium, to emphasize every possible success and potential success of U.S. athletes, regardless of race or gender. Also, Olympic coverage occurs at a specific time, every four years and at a certain time in each of those years. Information can be located and analyzed with relative ease. And the Summer Olympics were chosen to have measurable numbers of minority athletes. Review of Literature Several studies have been conducted that show women and minorities have been underrepresented or negatively represented in American media. Atkin and Fife (1994) compared the frequency and nature of appearances in the news of different racial and gender groups to test the theory that white women have been making progress in their media representation at the expense of minorities. Videotapes of all primary local newscasts in Detroit were content analyzed and compared with U. S. Census data of metropolitan Detroit. White males were found to be overrepresented, appearing five times as much as white females, who appeared only 13 percent of the time. Black men and women were overrepresented, making up 11 percent and 13 percent of appearances. Lester (1994) content analyzed four newspapers to study trends in representation of African Americans over time. He found that representation has increased over the years, but there was also an increase in stereotypical coverage, such as crime, sports and entertainment. Lester's findings mirrored those he found in major American news magazines in a 1990 study. Kane (1996) cites Lumpkin and Williams who found that out of 3723 feature articles in Sports Illustrated between 1954 and 1987, black women were featured in 16. Kane's research has led her to conclude that the media gives the impression that women are absent from sport, and when women are covered, they are often trivialized or sexualized by the media-two techniques that deny women power. She states that women athletes are trivialized when they are portrayed in ways that do not treat them seriously, by focusing on their femininity or personal lives. Women athletes are sexualized by portraying them as sexual objects or overemphasizing physical attractiveness. By sexualizing sportswomen, Kane believes, the media remind us that women are not like male athletes, never can be nor should be. Daddario (1994) looked at video coverage of women's sports during the 1992 Winter Olympics, noting the difference in feminine versus masculine sports. She found that broadcasts contained condescending descriptions of women, compensatory rhetoric, and labeling of female athletes as cooperative rather than competitive. Halbert and Latimer (1994) studied the "Battle of Champions" between Jimmy Conners and Martina Navratilova. They found the commentators to minimize women's athletic competition, focusing on gender marking of the female, only-repeatedly calling Navratilova "a women's tennis player," and emphasizing her extreme preparation for the match rather than her physical skill. Gender and race marking were also prevalent in Messner, Duncan and Jensen's 1993 study, contributing to the construction of gender and racial "hierarchy." They found women's sports and female athletes were often referred to as "other," and that an "infantilizing" of women and athletes of color did occur. Hallmark and Armstrong (1999) focused on broadcasts of men's and women's basketball games and discovered women's games had fewer camera shots, shots of longer duration, and took up less broadcast time. Tuggle (1997) looked at the differences in the reporting of men's and women's athletics on ESPN's Sportscenter and CNN Sports Night and found the two programs devoted only about five percent of their time to women's sports. They found women's stories to focus on individual competition, with almost no attention given to team sports. Riffe, Place and Mayo (1993) looked at ads during male and female traditional programming and found that more male characters occur in sports programming ads and were more likely to have speaking roles in those ads. Sage and Furst (1994), basing their work on extensive research on gender bias in the media, showed that increases in participation in athletics by women has not been mirrored by increased coverage in the media. They studied varying sizes of papers and found that the larger the paper, the less coverage devoted to women. Duncan (1990) did an interesting study on sport photographs from the 1984 and 1988 Olympic Games. She looked at 1369 Olympic pictures in major sport and news magazines and found many that emphasize sexual differences. These photographs, Duncan asserts, tend to confer power on men and limit power for women. She compared some photos to soft-core pornography, noting they depicted sexual invitation, suggestiveness, revealing poses and submissiveness. A very thorough and comprehensive study of gender issues was done by Davis in her study of Sport's Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue. Davis discusses many of the audience/editor issues discussed earlier in this paper. She points out that it wasn't until the mid 1960's when Sports Illustrated started to beckon solely to male viewers-the Swimsuit Issue officially began, it started to place more emphasis on spectator sports associated with masculinity-and it began making a profit (65). Davis is quick to emphasize that the Swimsuit Issue is for men. A man would not read a women's magazine's swimsuit edition, nor does Sports Illustrated's contain men in bikinis-they are not catering to a female audience (31). Davis attempts to define what actually causes what some perceive as a sexist tone, epitomized by the swimsuit issue, in the magazine. She notes that producers of sports coverage seek a male audience, and, in turn, that audience perpetuates the type of coverage it receives-what Davis calls "the use of sport as a masculine preserve." "One wonders," she says, "to what degree these media practices are driven by sexism, and to what degree they are driven by the pursuit of profit" (57). Sports Illustrated targets an affluent male audience, for as one publisher put it, "Publishing is about selling magazines" (58). Davis states that the producers of Sports Illustrated structure the magazine content around the theme of hegemonic masculinity-producers create content that suggests it is a "men's magazine" rather than simply a "sports magazine" (59). (Indeed, SI is not even listed in SRDS under the sports heading. It is with the weeklies such as Time.) How Sports Illustrated does present women negatively is discussed by Davis, as well, but she temporizes these observations with a look toward maximizing profits by the publishers rather than a conscious push for hegemony (61). At any rate, Davis says it does cover women's sports, but "minimizes the opposition that women athletes represent by containing only tokenistic coverage of women athletes by focusing on women's sports and women athletes who do not represent strong challenges to gender norms" (60). Because of this, the male content-oriented reader is not put off. But even this token coverage may attract readers who follow women's or "secondary" sports. Few other media outlets even cover these areas, making Sports Illustrated one of the few sources for this information at all (60). It may seem that Sports Illustrated and other sports media (or all media for that matter) greatly misrepresent women and minorities, but not all studies have proven this. Kinnick (1998) studied the 1996 Summer Olympic coverage of male and female athletes in five leading U.S. newspapers and found less gender bias than anticipated. Kinnick did not find quantitative differences in coverage, or in the placement or prominence of stories. Francis (1990) looked at the coverage of back players in five college basketball seasons from 1954 to 1986 in Sports Illustrated and found increasing amounts of coverage along with a majority of positive articles. The black athletes were depicted in a non-stereotypical nature and concerned success more often than problems or negative issues. Francis suggests that Sports Illustrated's coverage may not reflect other media, and "has broken ground on which other media has yet to tread." Francis did find, though, that the coverage often only focused on the black players as athletes, and not as a "total person." Research Questions The intent of this content analysis, then, was to determine, quantitatively, if U.S. women and minorities, and particularly African Americans, were accurately represented in Sports Ilustrated's coverage of the Summer Olympics. Specifically, did the coverage of these groups match the medal winners from each competition? Did the percent of medal winners match the percentages of athletes pictured and referred to in print across race and gender groups? Has coverage improved over time? Method This study content analyzed 212 Summer Olympic articles from ten years of coverage in Sports Illustrated. It included every Olympic year from 1960 to 1996 (1980 was included even though the U.S. boycotted those Games held in Moscow-there were still some references to U.S. athletes, but no medal data to compare them to). The universe included each Olympic article in every issue published between the dates of the Opening and Closing Ceremonies of the Games, and one issue before, and one issue after each of those dates. Every Olympic article in those issues was coded. An article was deemed Olympic if it had any mention of Olympic athletes or the Games themselves. An article concerning the Olympics was the unit of analysis. After the data was tabulated, the percentages for each group were compared to the percentage of medal winners. The number of medals won was not used-it was the number of athletes who one medals. A gold medal for basketball carried the weight of 12, one for each player. An athlete who won more than one medal had each count toward the total. Coding process Coders looked at the covers of the above specified issues, the number of Olympic athletes pictured in each article and the number of references to athletes in Olympic articles. The coders used one code sheet for each article. The following is the coding process that was followed. 1. Coders first logged the title of the article onto the coding sheet. (The analysis designer later coded and arranged the articles by case number.) 2. The date of the issue in which the article appears in was recorded. 3. Next, the cover was determined to be of an Olympic or non-Olympic theme. If it was Olympic, the picture was then coded as containing a foreign athlete; a US white male; a US black male; a US white female; a US black female; another US minority or a non-human Olympic cover. If there was more than one athlete, whichever type had two athletes depicted, it was coded accordingly. If there were equal numbers of each, the largest picture was coded. If they were of equal size, the picture closest to the center was coded. 4. Then the total number of white male athletes who are pictured in the article was coded. Two athletes in one picture counted as 2, and so on. It was the total number of athletes pictured, not number of pictures. Spectators, coaches, officials, etc. were not to be coded. (In earlier issues, there were hand drawings of Olympic athletes-these were given the same weight as photographs and coded accordingly.) 5. The total number of US black male athletes pictured. 6. The total number of US other minority male athletes pictured. 7. The total number of US white female athletes pictured. 8. The total number of US black female athletes pictured. 9. The total number of US other minority female athletes pictured. 10. The total number of athletes with indeterminable race, gender or nationality pictured. Coders took their best guess when coding pictures, if they were not 85 percent sure of the athlete pictured, then they were coded as indeterminable. Coders were reminded to look in the text for statements of nationality or race of pictured athletes, as well as to look to pictures for information on uncertain references. The names of these athletes were recorded for future research if they were provided. 11. Next, coders counted the number of references to US white male athletes in the article. Coders counted each time an athlete's name appeared in print throughout the article. One athlete's name appearing three times equaled 3; a mention of another US white male athlete was 4, etc. First, last and nicknames were coded. Names appearing in headlines and captions were coded. 12. The total number of references to US black male athletes was coded. 13. The total number of references to US other minority male athletes. 14. The total number of references to US white female athletes. 15. The total number of references to US black female athletes. 16. The total number of references to US other minority female athletes. 17. The total number of references to athletes with indeterminable race, gender or nationality was coded. The names were recorded for future analysis. An example of the coding sheet used is provided at the end of the paper in Appendix 2. Reliability Report Overall intercoder reliability for this study, based on percentage of agreement, was 93% (Stempel and Westley, 1989). The test was based on three coders coding 14 randomly selected Olympic articles. The range of percentage of agreement for each item is as follows: 1. Issue-100% 2. Cover of Issue-100% 3. US White Male Athletes Pictured-95% 4. US Black Male Athletes Pictured-95% 5. US Other Minority Male Athletes Pictured-100% 6. US White Female Athletes Pictured-93% 7. US Black Female Athletes Pictured-94% 8. US Other Minority Female Athletes Pictured-100% 9. Indeterminable Athletes Pictured-69% 10. Print References to US White Male Athletes-91% 11. Print References to US Black Male Athletes-89% 12. Print References to US Other Minority Male Athletes-100% 13. Print References to US White Female Athletes-87% 14. Print References to US Black Female Athletes-100% 15. Print References to US Other Minority Female Athletes-100% 16. Print References to Indeterminable Athletes-82% The title of the article was the first item to be coded, but was not included in the test, as each article was previously selected and was the same for each coder. Results Overall, this study found that, quantitatively, Sports Illustrated's coverage of U.S. women and minorities in Olympic articles was fairly, but not entirely, representative. In terms of comparison to Olympic medalists, the group that was most underrepresented was white males. (But this reflects the high percentage of white male medal winners-stemming from participation issues which will not be discussed in this paper.) The totals of pictures and print references usually mirrored the number of medal winners within a few percentage points. Female athletes were found to be underrepresented to some degree-particularly in terms of print references. Black female U.S. athletes were underrepresented overall in print references and in every year of coverage. They were underrepresented in pictures every year except 1992 and 1996. These are not large differences in percentages, though. The highest difference from medal winners to print references for black females was 8.6% in 1984. The lowest was 1.8% in 1972. The largest difference for pictures of white females was 24.2% in 1968. Black males were overrepresented overall and in every year except 1976 in pictures and print. They were also underrepresented in pictures in 1984. Full data tables are provided in Appendix 1 at the end of the paper. In terms of total numbers, male U.S. athletes were underrepresented in picture form by 5%, but overrepresented in print references by roughly 4%. Females, in turn, were overrepresented in pictures by about 4%, and underrepresented in print by 4%. These percentages are made up almost equally by total pictures and references to white and black females. Black males were overrepresented by 6.9% in pictures and 12.5% in print. White males were underrepresented by 12.5 % in pictures and 11.3 % in print. It is important to note, though, that white males still made up, by far, the largest amount of coverage in both categories. Differences in coverage of other U.S. minority athletes was under 2.2% for each division (the highest coming in print references to other male minorities). Both male and female in the category of other minorities were actually overrepresented in pictures based on total counts from the study. In terms of yearly coverage, white females were underrepresented in both categories every year until 1972. In 1976 there was a slight underrepresentation in both categories (2.6% for print and 0.3% for references), and were slightly underepresented in print for 1984 and 1992 (8.9% and 8% respectively). One interesting trend that appears is the overreprentation of females, particularly white females in pictures. The differences are not large, but in 1972 white U.S. females were overrepresented by 11.5%; 1.7% in 1984; 4.3% in 1988; 2.4% in 1992 and 5.9% in 1996. Black females were also slightly overrepresented in pictures in 1992 and 1996. As mentioned earlier, black males were overrepresented in each category every year except 1976, and in pictures in 1984. Their highest difference in overrepresentation was 47.2% for pictures in 1968. Coverage of women did increase in 1972, but after 1976 (where there was a decrease) there was no discernable trend of increased coverage. In terms of covers, 18 issues containing Olympic articles had a non-Olympic cover, but they contained only 15.6% of the articles. In contrast, there were 4 issues with U.S. black females on the cover, containing 26.4% of the articles. White males were pictured 5 times on covers, also containing 26.4% of the articles. Foreign Olympians were shown 6 times for 16% of the articles, and U.S. black males had four covers containing 8.5 % of the articles. U.S. white females were pictured on 2 covers containing 5.2% of the articles, and a non-human Olympic cover was used for 1 issue containing 1.9% of the articles. Discussion This quantitative analysis suggests Sports Illustrated actually does a pretty good job of representing women and minorities during the Summer Olympics. For total numbers the greatest underrepresentation was only 2.4% for print references to black females. Both white and black women were (slightly) overrepresented in pictures of U.S. athletes. Coverage of Olympic athletes in general has increased over the years. Recent issues have devoted entire issues to Olympic coverage (causing, in large part, the high increase in coverage in the late 1980's and 1990's). Because this study compared measured values to given statistics (counts of the pictures and references to medal winners), a comparison of means is not practical. Nor is a comparison of numbers across years. Each count must be compared to the medal winners from that year individually; then those differences in percentages can be compared for each year. The percentages between U.S. medal winners for each year and the percentages of U.S. athletes pictured and referred to in print never matched absolutely, but the were often very close. A difference of only 0.1% was calculated several times. The highest difference between medal winners and coverage was a 47.2% overrepresentation for pictures of black male athletes in 1968. The highest underrepresentation of black female athletes was only 8.6% for pictures in 1984. The group that was most often underrepresented was white male athletes. But they also had by far the highest number of medal winners, and there is only so much space in a magazine. If there is a lack of accurate coverage of women and minorities in Sports Illustrated, it is not to be found through qualitative means. Qualitative studies, such as Duncan's investigation into suggestive pictures, may be the best method to determine bias-at least in Olympic coverage. (It is interesting to note that Kinnick's study, which did not find much difference in coverage between genders in newspapers' coverage of the 1996 Summer Olympics, also used quantitative methods.) A more telling study may be one that analyses the types of pictures used by Sports Illustrated or focuses on the language used to describe female or minority athletes. As for basic, raw amounts of Olympic coverage, there appears to be no discernable misrepresentation. This study, though, was sensitive to outstanding achievements that can greatly affect coverage. Bob Beamon's world record-setting long jump in 1968 can explain the spike in pictures of black males for that year. (Although the Carlos/Smith award-stand fist-raising incident also resulted in more pictures.) Mark Spitz winning seven gold medals does much to increase coverage of white males (although white males were still underrepresented for that year, 1972), as does the domination of black U.S. sprinters in 1984 or the performances of women's gymnastics in 1996. It can be argued, though, that such accomplishments should be covered intensely by sports media. It cannot be said, either, that the designations of race were 100 percent accurate. Page's book detailing black Olympians was very helpful, but it did not contain every black Olympic participant. The numbers for each race used in this study were used with great confidence, but they were not absolutely accurate. Often the race or nationality was discovered in subsequent articles and previous designations were changed if not originally correct. Also, the study did not look at every Olympic article written by Sports Illustrated. Every article in the universe as it was defined was coded, but that definition necessarily left out some articles. This study does show that, quantitatively, for an event, such as the Olympics, which has a large number of female athletes, and a large and interested audience, there is a representative amount of coverage. Whether or not that coverage reflects the male hegemony explained be Davis was not contemplated in the study. Future research can determine if that is actually the case. In terms of minorities, particularly black male athletes, Sports Illustrated demonstrates more than representative coverage. They can be said to "lead the field" in coverage of African Americans, as Francis has suggested. (I believe, though, that the same can be said for most sport magazines-another area for further research.) The question then, is whether Sports Illustrated only presents black athletes as one-sided, offering no insight into the person off of the court. The high coverage may perpetuate the stereotype of blacks as exceeding only in sport or entertainment-with no real threat to the power of corporate or political America. Does high sports coverage place blacks in an "accepted" role in society, with white spectators paying to see black athletes compete? "Aren't African Americans supposed to be good athletes?" Do sport publications keep this stereotypical thought in the minds of its readers? Is that a societal problem? Further research would do well to examine these issues. Bibliography Atkin, D., and Fife, M. "The Role of Race and Gender as Determinants of Local TV News Coverage," Howard Journal of Communications 5, no. « (Fall 1993-Winter 1994): 123-137. Chaffee, Steven H. and McLeod, Jack. "Sensitization in Panel Design: A Coorientation Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 45, no. 4 (Winter 1968): 661-669. Culbertson, Hugh M. "Gatekeeper Coorientation--A Viewpoint for Analysis of Popular Culture and Specialized Journalism," Mass Comm Review 3, no. 1 (Winter 1975-1976): 3-7. Daddario, G. "Chilly Scenes of the 1992 Winter Games: The Mass Media and the Marginalization of Female Athletes," Sociology of Sport Journal 11 (Fall 1994): 275-288. Davis, Laurel R. The Swimsuit Issue and Sport: Hegemonic Masculinity in Sports Illustrated, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997. Duncan, M.C. "Sport Photgraphs and Sexual Difference: Images of Women and Men in the 1984 and 1988 Olympic Games," Sociology of Sport Journal 7 (1990): 22-43. Francis, Mark Emmanuel. "Coverage of African American Basketball Athletes in Sports Illustrated (1954-1986)," thesis presented to Washington State University, 1990. Halbert, C., and Latimer, M. "Battling Gendered Language," Sociology of Sport Journal 11, no. 3 (Fall 1994): 298-308. Hallmark, James R., and Armstrong, Richard N. "Gender Equity in Televised Sports: A Comparative Analysis of Men's and Women's NCAA Division I Basketball Championship Broadcasts,1991-1995," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 43, no. 2 (Spring 1999): 222-235. Kane, Mary Jo. "Media Coverage of the Post Title IX Female Athlete: A Feminist Analysis of Sport, Gender, and Power," Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy 3, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 105-117. Kinnick, Katherine N. "Gender Bias in Newspaper Profiles of 1996 Olympic Athletes: A Content Analysis of Five Major Dailies," Women's Studies in Communication 21, no.2 (Fall 1998): 212-237. Lester, Paul Martin. "African-American Photo Coverage in Four U.S. Newspapers, 1937-1990," Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 71, no.2 (Summer 1994): 380-394. Lester, Paul, and Smith, Ron. "African-American Photo Coverage in Life, Newsweek and Time 1937-1988," Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 67, no.1 (Spring 1990): 128-136. Messner, M.A., Duncan, M.C., and Jensen, K. "Separating the Men from the Girls: Gendered Language of Televised Sports," Gender and Society 7, no. 1 (March 1993): 121-137. Nanney, Robert. "Do Community Editors Lead or Follow Their Audiences? A Coorientational Study of Small Daily Gatekeepers, Their Audience and Newspaper Content," dissertation presented to the College of Communication at Ohio University, 1993. Page, James A. Black Olympian Medalists. Englewood, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1991. Riffe, Dan, Lacy, Stephen, and Fico, Frederick G. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1998. Riffe, Daniel, Place, Patricia C., and Mayo, Charles M. "Game Time, Soap Time and Prime Time TV Ads: Treatment of Women in Sunday Football and Rest-of-Week Advertising," Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 70, no.2 (Summer 1993): 437-446. Sage, M., and Furst, D.M. "Coverage of Women's Sports in Selected Newspapers," Perceptual and Motor Skills 78, no.3 (1994): 295-297. Spaid, Elizabeth Levitan. "Women Athletes Grapple for Olympic Equality," Christian Science Monitor (March 24, 1995): 10-11. SRDS Consumer Magazine Advertising Source 82, no. 2 (February, 2000). Stempel and Westley. (1989). Tuggle, C.A. "Differences in Television Sports Reporting of Men's and Women's Athletics: ESPN Sportscenter and CNN Sports Tonight," Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 41, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 14-24. Wallechinsky, David. The Complete Book of the Summer Olympics. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1996. Table 2: Yearly comparison of U.S. medal winners to U.S. athletes pictured and referred to in print by race and gender 1960 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 71 (66.4%) 19 (51.4%) 94 (51.9%) Black Males 14 (13.1%) 15 (40.5%) 70 (38.7%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.9%) 0 0 White Females 14 (13.1%) 1 (2.7%) 15 (8.3%) Black Females 7 (6.5%) 2 (5.4%) 2 (1.1%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1964 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 91 (62.8%) 12 (66.7%) 146 (62.1%) Black Males 19 (13.1%) 5 (27.8%) 56 (23.8%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.7%) 1 (8.3%) 20 (8.5%) White Females 27 (18.6%) 0 12 (5.1%) Black Females 7 (4.8%) 0 1 (0.4%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1968 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 77 (51.7%) 4 (22.2%) 37 (31.6%) Black Males 29 (19.5%) 12 (66.7%) 42 (35.9%) Other Minority Males 0 1 (5.6%) 32 (27.4%) White Females 36 (24.2%) 0 4 (3.4%) Black Females 7 (5.7%) 1 (5.6%) 2 (1.7%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1972 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 102 (69.4%) 9 (50.0%) 231 (54.5%) Black Males 18 (12.2%) 4 (22.2%) 52 (12.3%) Other Minority Males 0 0 2 (0.5%) White Females 24 (16.3%) 5 (27.8%) 137 (32.3%) Black Females 3 (2.0%) 0 1 (0.2%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1976 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 77 (50.0%) 19 (67.9%) 237 (60.9%) Black Males 29 (18.8%) 3 (10.7%) 53 (13.6%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.6%) 0 4 (1.0%) White Females 37 (24.0%) 6 (21.4%) 92 (23.7%) Black Females 10 (6.5%) 0 3 (0.8%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1980 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 2 (28.6%) 37 (19.6%) Black Males 1 (14.3%) 56 (29.6%) Other Minority Males 1 (14.3%) 33 (17.5%) White Females 3 (42.9%) 60 (31.7%) Black Females 0 3 (1.6%) Other Minority Females 0 0 1984 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 150 (44.5%) 57 (40.1%) 302 (31.5%) Black Males 48 (14.2%) 15 (10.6%) 356 (37.2%) Other Minority Males 7 (2.1%) 0 0 White Females 101 (30.0%) 45 (31.7%) 202 (21.1%) Black Females 48 (14.2%) 18 (12.7%) 54 (5.6%) Other Minority Females 3 (0.9%) 6 (4.2%) 6 (0.6%) 1988 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 86 (46.7%) 32 (32.3%) 375 (33.9%) Black Males 35 (19.0%) 24 (24.2%) 328 (29.7%) Other Minority Males 5 (2.7%) 7 (7.1%) 59 (5.3%) White Females 33 (17.9%) 22 (22.2%) 242 (21.9%) Black Females 24 (13.0%) 10 (10.1%) 90 (8.1%) Other Minority Females 1 (0.5%) 0 5 (0.5%) 1992 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 66 (33.8%) 43 (47.8%) 423 (33.9%) Black Males 36 (18.5%) 28 (31.1%) 410 (32.9%) Other Minority Males 4 (2.1%) 2 (2.2%) 33 (2.6%) White Females 56 (28.7%) 28 (31.1%) 259 (20.7%) Black Females 27 (13.8%) 17 (18.9%) 120 (9.6%) Other Minority Females 6 (3.1%) 0 2 (0.2%) 1996 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 83 (35.9%) 24 (19.2%) 346 (31.1%) Black Males 40 (17.3%) 35 (28.0%) 294 (26.4%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.4%) 0 0 White Females 77 (33.3%) 49 (39.2%) 386 (34.7%) Black Females 25 (10.8%) 16 (12.8%) 83 (7.5%) Other Minority Females 5 (2.2%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (0.3%) Table 2: Yearly comparison of U.S. medal winners to U.S. athletes pictured and referred to in print by race and gender 1960 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 71 (66.4%) 19 (51.4%) 94 (51.9%) Black Males 14 (13.1%) 15 (40.5%) 70 (38.7%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.9%) 0 0 White Females 14 (13.1%) 1 (2.7%) 15 (8.3%) Black Females 7 (6.5%) 2 (5.4%) 2 (1.1%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1964 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 91 (62.8%) 12 (66.7%) 146 (62.1%) Black Males 19 (13.1%) 5 (27.8%) 56 (23.8%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.7%) 1 (8.3%) 20 (8.5%) White Females 27 (18.6%) 0 12 (5.1%) Black Females 7 (4.8%) 0 1 (0.4%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1968 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 77 (51.7%) 4 (22.2%) 37 (31.6%) Black Males 29 (19.5%) 12 (66.7%) 42 (35.9%) Other Minority Males 0 1 (5.6%) 32 (27.4%) White Females 36 (24.2%) 0 4 (3.4%) Black Females 7 (5.7%) 1 (5.6%) 2 (1.7%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1972 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 102 (69.4%) 9 (50.0%) 231 (54.5%) Black Males 18 (12.2%) 4 (22.2%) 52 (12.3%) Other Minority Males 0 0 2 (0.5%) White Females 24 (16.3%) 5 (27.8%) 137 (32.3%) Black Females 3 (2.0%) 0 1 (0.2%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1976 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 77 (50.0%) 19 (67.9%) 237 (60.9%) Black Males 29 (18.8%) 3 (10.7%) 53 (13.6%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.6%) 0 4 (1.0%) White Females 37 (24.0%) 6 (21.4%) 92 (23.7%) Black Females 10 (6.5%) 0 3 (0.8%) Other Minority Females 0 0 0 1980 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 2 (28.6%) 37 (19.6%) Black Males 1 (14.3%) 56 (29.6%) Other Minority Males 1 (14.3%) 33 (17.5%) White Females 3 (42.9%) 60 (31.7%) Black Females 0 3 (1.6%) Other Minority Females 0 0 1984 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 150 (44.5%) 57 (40.1%) 302 (31.5%) Black Males 48 (14.2%) 15 (10.6%) 356 (37.2%) Other Minority Males 7 (2.1%) 0 0 White Females 101 (30.0%) 45 (31.7%) 202 (21.1%) Black Females 48 (14.2%) 18 (12.7%) 54 (5.6%) Other Minority Females 3 (0.9%) 6 (4.2%) 6 (0.6%) 1988 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 86 (46.7%) 32 (32.3%) 375 (33.9%) Black Males 35 (19.0%) 24 (24.2%) 328 (29.7%) Other Minority Males 5 (2.7%) 7 (7.1%) 59 (5.3%) White Females 33 (17.9%) 22 (22.2%) 242 (21.9%) Black Females 24 (13.0%) 10 (10.1%) 90 (8.1%) Other Minority Females 1 (0.5%) 0 5 (0.5%) 1992 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 66 (33.8%) 43 (47.8%) 423 (33.9%) Black Males 36 (18.5%) 28 (31.1%) 410 (32.9%) Other Minority Males 4 (2.1%) 2 (2.2%) 33 (2.6%) White Females 56 (28.7%) 28 (31.1%) 259 (20.7%) Black Females 27 (13.8%) 17 (18.9%) 120 (9.6%) Other Minority Females 6 (3.1%) 0 2 (0.2%) 1996 Medal winners Pictures Print References White Males 83 (35.9%) 24 (19.2%) 346 (31.1%) Black Males 40 (17.3%) 35 (28.0%) 294 (26.4%) Other Minority Males 1 (0.4%) 0 0 White Females 77 (33.3%) 49 (39.2%) 386 (34.7%) Black Females 25 (10.8%) 16 (12.8%) 83 (7.5%) Other Minority Females 5 (2.2%) 1 (0.8%) 3 (0.3%) Appendix 1 Data Tables Summer Olympic Coverage by Sports Illustrated: 1960-1996 Table 1: Total number of U.S. medal winners compared with U.S. athletes pictured and referred to in print by race and gender Medal Winners Pictures Print References White Males 803 (48.7%) 221 (36.2%) 2228 (37.4%) Black Males 268 (16.3%) 142 (23.2%) 1717 (28.8%) Other Minority Males 19 (1.2%) 12 (2.0%) 203 (3.4%) White Females 405 (24.6%) 159 (26.1%) 1409 (23.7%) Black Females 138 (8.4%) 64 (10.5%) 359 (6.0%) Other Minority Females 15 (0.9%) 7 (1.1%) 16 (0.3%) * The above percentages (and in subsequent tables) also include 5 indeterminable pictures (0.8%) and 25 indeterminable print references (0.4%) for the whole study.  Appendix 2 Coding Sheet-Summer Olympic coverage of US athletes by Sports Illustrated Article Title (Case #) __________________________________ __ __ __ 01-03/ Issue (yy/mm/dd) __ __ __ __ __ __ 04-09/ Cover of Issue __ 10/ 1 = Non-Olympic 5 = US Olympic White Female 2 = Non-US Olympic 6 = US Olympic Black Female 3 = US Olympic White Male 7 = US Olympic Other Minority 4 = US Olympic Black Male 8 = Non-Human Olympic Pictures of US Athletes White Males Pictured __ __ 11-12/ Black Males Pictured __ __ 13-14/ Other Minority Males Pictured __ __ 15-16/ White Females Pictured __ __ 17-18/ Black Females Pictured __ __ 19-20/ Other Minority Females Pictured __ __ 21-22/ Indeterminable Race/Gender/Nationality __ __ 23-24/ Names (if provided) _________________________________________________ Print References to US Athletes White Males __ __ 25-26/ Black Males __ __ 27-28/ Other Minority Males __ __ 29-30/ White Females __ __ 31-32/ Black Females __ __ 33-34/ Other Minority Females __ __ 35-36/ Indeterminable Gender/ Race/Nationality __ __ 37-38/ Names of Indeterminable Athletes __________________________________________