Fierce civil strife, it was. The battle between South African newspaper editors and the feminist organisation Gender Links, waged in the run up to International Women’s Day on March 8th, was instigated by the “back page”, that disreputable editorial section carrying images of scantily clad women and stories about the sexual shenanigans of (mostly female) celebrities.
Gender Links argued, as has been argued by feminists for many decades, that such images are degrading and reduce women to sexual objects. Worse yet, they said, in a country where violence against women is prevalent, such images contribute to the appalling rape statistics.
The proposal of Gender Links was that the editors scrap the section, in return for which they would provide gender sensitive material. The editors, mostly male representatives of the South African National Editor’s Forum (Sanef), rejected the proposal on the grounds of “editorial interference”
Our editors did, however, make a general pledge to gender sensitive reporting. To this end they said they would, together with Gender Links, conduct gender sensitivity workshops in newsrooms.
But the Sunday Times went on to award Colleen Morna Lowe, executive director of Gender Links, the “Mampara of the week” honour. Then the Sunday Independent gave Lowe a chance to respond. In its next edition the Sunday Times followed up with an opinion piece by Heather Robertson defending the back page, ridiculing Lowe as a “Mother Grundy”, and taking issue with Sanef’s offer to reorient the newsrooms. As its response to the campaign, the Sowetan Sunday World put a man on the back page.
What is one to make of all this?
Clearly, all the players in this debate agree there is a problem with reporting gender issues. Despite the new democratic context, gender inequalities remain a major issue across society. Of course most of those who have decision-making powers on newspapers – from owners and editors to advertising managers – are male. Also, women may be significant readers of newspapers, but men are considered the core readership. The backpage is for their gaze. The pages are run because, as they say in the industry, they sell copy.
So by extension women are being sold and bought! Should this be happening? If something sells copy it also sells advertising, and since newspapers are so dependent on advertising they will run the pages even if it offends their own sensitivities. So where is the editorial independence?
That’s one argument, which favours Gender Links. But Gender Links might also be focusing on only part of a process. Is it the media that has created gender inequalities, or does the media simply reinforce and reflect gender inequalities? Perhaps the editors are not the first place to start if the back pages are to be scrapped. As Gender Links knows quite well, this is about the broader issue of transformation across society. It might also mean gender sensitive workshops for women who appear on back pages!
Gender Links appears to be going for the weakest link, the obvious target. Perhaps instead they should attack the lack of editorial framing techniques. To promote equality they should interrogate the selection of issues, views and opinions that incorporate gender perspectives.
Back to Sanef’s shortcomings. It may be an organisation whose leadership I have great respect for, but it does tend to duck behind promises of workshops when difficult issues arise. I am still waiting to see their intervention on poorly trained journalists, as revealed by the skills audit in 2002, and the guidelines on off-the-record briefings promised in 2003.
Why don’t the editors and trainers in Sanef get on with newsroom mentoring right away? After all, they’re the ones controlling newsrooms and training on a daily basis. And another thing: a once-off workshop will not mainstream gender sensitivity.
Professor Tawana Kupe is head of media studies at Wits University’s School of Literature and Language Studies.