Gendered framing and representation of women in Irish political television programming during the 2020 formation of the government of Ireland

ABSTRACT

The ways in which women are incorporated into Irish political programming is vital in understanding the visibility of women in mainstream media, but also the gendered nature of politics, which tend to be dominated by men. This research investigates how three Irish current affairs television programmes frame and represent women, questioning whether Irish political programmes are gendered. This research employed a quantitative and qualitative content analysis case study of one month of broadcasts from Virgin Media’s The Tonight Show and RTÉ ‘s The Week in Politics and Prime Time. The findings indicate the representation of women was constituted through three dominant themes. Firstly, women are marginalised by being numerically underrepresented. Secondly, women receive significantly less airtime than men, even in relation to their numerical representation and thirdly, female participants are represented in a restrictive and limited manner. Women are more likely to be consulted for their personal experience or opinion, with questions aimed at them centring around “soft” topics. Female participants are also considerably less likely to be portrayed as expert sources. This research outlines the critical need for further and continuous monitoring of political media in Ireland, particularly regarding gender bias and female participation in political programming on television.

KEYWORDS:

• Gender framing
• representation of women
• gender
• political programming
• women in media

Introduction

Women account for 50% of the Irish population, yet their representation in politics and political media do not reflect this. It is critical for society that one gender does not occupy a monopoly in the world of politics and political media coverage. Internationally, there has been considerable research scrutinising the effects of media on politics (Lance W. Bennett 2012; Ken Newton 2016; Peter Weingart, Anita Engels and Petra Pansegrau 2000). Previous to the Irish general election (GE) of 2020, RTÉ’s (Irish public service broadcaster) primary current affairs programme, Prime Time, controversially hosted two separate leaders’ debates, the first and “main” debate scheduled was a head-to-head debate between only two party leaders, Fine Gael’s Leo Varadkar and Fianna Fáil’s Micheál Martin (as commonly accepted alternative heads of government). The second debate was designed to host all other remaining party leaders (Luke Field 2020). Sinn Féin leader, Mary Lou McDonald, argued that she should be included in the first debate based on their poll ratings and her party’s size, given it closely rivalled Fianna Fáil in terms of seats. Sinn Féin threatened legal action if McDonald was not included (John Downing 2020; Field 2020). Consequently, RTÉ resolved to include McDonald in the debate. This article was prompted by incidents such as that of McDonald’s, with the 2020 GE coverage having a notable absence of women within the media coverage. This inequality and invisibility from the political mainstream and current political programming remained present following the outcome of the general election (Fiona Buckley & Yvonne Galligan, 2020; Field 2020).

Research published by the United Nations (UN) demonstrated that women are consistently underrepresented in news sources, as subjects of news stories, experts, reporters or presenters of stories and as authorities commenting on them (UN fourth world conference on women 1995; UN Women Watch 2005: 4). Of the women that do appear, research suggests that many are framed in a stereotypically “feminine” manner such as caregivers or submissive members of society or as domestic workers (Stephanie Craft and Wayne Wanta 2004; Anne O’Brien and Jane Suiter 2017; Sumita Sarkar 2014; Gaye Tuchman 2000; Van Zoonan Liesbet 1998).

A systemic culture of omitting women from the record has sparked a multitude of research exploring how women have been documented and catalogued (Sonia Yaco and Beatriz Betancourt Hardy 2013; Margaret Henderson 2013; Natalya Lusty 2014; Jean Taylor 2018; Rosa Sadler and Andrew Martin Cox 2017). Such research has extended beyond historical enquiry, into Cultural Studies (Cassie Findlay 2016), Social Science (Edith Sandler 2016) and Media Studies (Fiona Buckley, Galligan Yvonne and McGing Claire 2016; Alexander Dhoest, Koen Panis and Steve Paulussen 2022; Heldman Caroline, Susan J Carroll and Stephanie Olson 2005; Karina Horsti 2019; McGing Claire and Timothy J White 2012; Claire McGing 2013; Pippa Norris 1997; Karen Ross and Cynthia Carter 2011). A study by the European Institute for Gender Equality in 2013 titled Advancing Gender Equality in Decision-Making in Media Organizations Report found that Ireland ranked very poorly in relation to other European countries regarding gender equality in media (Anne O’Brien 2017).

The mediated space for women in Ireland concerning politics is not neutral, it is structured on highly gendered terms (Heinz Brandenburg 2005, Buckley & Galligan 2020; Field 2020; McGing 2013). The visibility or absence of women within the intersections of Irish politics and political media coverage is a question that is integral to understanding the inner workings of current politics for Irish women (Buckley & Galligan 2020; Downing 2020). Research has emerged pertaining to elections and electoral processes in Ireland (Brandenburg 2005; Field 2020; Howard Rae Penniman and Brian Farrell 1987) yet lacks in terms of research pertaining to women, politics and the media and overlooks the participation and visibility of women in political media, not solely as politicians but as participants such as experts or presenters, etc. This study aims to address that gap by exploring gender, politics, and Irish media. By examining the intersection and mediated space where women, politics, and political issues meet and examining how women appear and participate within political mediated spaces wholly, both as politicians or political actors as well as experts or presenters, this article will investigate whether political programming in Irish media is gendered. This article will add to the current body of research literature by examining how women are framed in Irish media, how much airtime women’s voices receive and how more likely are women to be interrupted than men.

Literature review

Women, politics, and media framing

One of the main assumptions associated with democracy is that all citizens are considered equal, however this equality does not necessarily reach all citizens, such as women (Eileen Connolly 2016; Downing 2020; Claire and White 2012). In the Irish 2011 GE of the 566 candidates running for election, a mere 86 (15%) were female (McGing 2013). Unlike previous elections, women played a prominent role in the 2016 election, due to a required 30% female gender quota (Buckley, Yvonne, and Claire 2016). Of the 163 female candidates (29.6%) only 35 women (22.2%) were successfully appointed seats (Buckley, Yvonne, and Claire 2016). However, of the six episodes Prime Time aired, female politicians represented 26% of the politicians presented (Buckley, Yvonne, and Claire 2016).

According to Robert M Entman (n.d.) the concept of framing or frames is used to highlight information about a specific topic in order to enhance its salience and power of communication. Research concerning inclusion and diversity in media has become more commonplace, investigating the invisibility of women (Dhoest, Panis, & Paulussen 2022; Caroline, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Norris 1997; Ross and Carter 2011), forms of representation that produce gender stereotypes and manufactured “norms” used to perpetuate gender frames (Dhoest, Panis, & Paulussen 2020; Caroline, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen 1993). Framing is widespread and is commonly noted in research examining mass media and the feminist movement (Laura Ashley and Beth Olson 1998; Barakso Maryann and Brian F Schaffner 2006; Bernadette Barker-Plummer 2010; Maryann and Schaffner 2006; Marie Hardin and Erin Whiteside 2009; Claire and White 2012; Deborah L Rhode 1995; Tauna Sisco and Jennifer Lucas 2015; Nayda Terkildsen and Frauke Schnell 1997). Previous research has found that there are six frames used to structure media content about women: a traditional gender roles frame, an anti-feminism frame, a political roles frame, an economic rights/workplace frame, a feminism or gender equality frame and a frame stressing the fractures within the women’s movement (Terkildsen and Schnell 1997). Numerically, women are underrepresented across all media outlets (Rebecca Ann Lind and Colleen Salo 2002; Norris 1997; Ross and Carter 2011; Gaye Tuchman, Arlene Kaplan Daniels and James Benét 1978). Female voices, expertise and experience continue to be considered as less important than men’s by news industries (Cory L Armstrong 2004; Sung Tae Kim and David H Weaver 2003; Ross and Carter 2011).

In addition to the imbalance of time allocated to women, female politicians are generally linked to domestic issues and soft political topics such as health, education and poverty (Caroline, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993; Louise North 2016) and are not being questioned on political “hard” topics such as defence or the economy (Dhoest, Panis, & Paulussen, 2020; Caroline, Carroll, and Olson 2005; North 2016). Men are subsequently more likely to be presented as expert sources and their views are recognised as more legitimate (Armstrong 2004; Kim and Weaver 2003; Karen Ross 2007). Scholarly definitions of what qualifies as hard and soft news are not universally agreed upon and not all definitions acknowledge the gendered framing at play. Hard news has been defined as referring to factual accounts of events deemed newsworthy (North 2016) commonly focusing on serious content about important topics such as economics, crime/accidents, public interest matters and requires immediate publication (Matthew Baum 2003; Sam Lehman-Wilzig & Michal Seletzky 2010; North 2016; Liesbet 1998). Conversely soft news does not require immediate publication due to it not being of informational value as it often focuses on human-interest stories, personalities, lifestyle trends (Sam N Lehman-Wilzig and Michal Seletzky 2010; North 2016; Liesbet 1998). Soft news is often produced to entertain and evoke emotional responses with research suggesting that this connection with emotions is why women are often framed discussing soft topics as emotions are commonly seen as feminine attributes (North 2016). The majority of media coverage that we consume revolves around male voices, male perspectives and men’s news, thus framing women out of the political conversation (Caroline, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Ross and Carter 2011).

Media frames draw attention to some aspects of reality while concealing other elements (Entman n.d; Daniel Kahneman and Tversky Amos 2000; Pippa Norris, Montague Kern and Marion Just 2004). Media frames are created as a result of the institutionalisation of particular “ideals” regarding the representation of women (Entman n.d.). Many factors contribute to the construction of media frames such as production practices, how people and viewpoints have been represented previously, choices regarding expert sources previously consulted, how journalists perceive phenomena and many more components. All of which merge to produce “standard,” “conventional,” “traditional” and dominant media frames (Entman n.d.; Roger Silverstone 2013) of women in traditional gender roles or as feminists or anti-feminist (Terkildsen and Schnell 1997).

As media systems historically favour male interpretations, it is justifiable to understand that media framing perpetuates the underrepresentation of women by framing them out (Buckley & Galligan 2020; Field 2020; Ross and Carter 2011; Ross 2007). Once established through repetition, the institutionalised framing of women in media produces a “frameworld” which then becomes their only realm of acceptable political existence and suitable channel of access to the public (Lind and Salo 2002; Jane Wambui Thuo and University Of Nairobi n.d.).

Media, politics, and tokenism

The highly gendered and complex nature of contemporary society and media is circular, as media simultaneously creates a frame, and are created within and by those frames. Due to changing and evolving media systems the interaction and ideology of politics is altered, as politics must adapt to meet the needs of the media (Nick Couldry 2008; Downing 2020; David L Altheide 2007; Meyer, 2003). The relationship between politics and the media is vital, as without media visibility and representation or control of mediated spaces there is no power, influence or democracy (Silverstone 2013).

Understanding that politics and media serve to represent the views of the public (Downing 2020; Field 2020), the role of the media in debates becomes crucial within politics (Brandenburg 2005; Anne O’Brien 2014). If women are not part of the media space that presents and defines politics publicly or if women do not appear on equal standing to men (Downing 2020; Field 2020), the political world becomes a place where women are framed out, which will cause women to appear as though they do not to fit within our expectation of political candidates (O’Brien 2014). Often women are only framed as connected to a male political leader as followers or supporters (Buckley & Galligan 2020).

Tokenism refers to the marginal status of women and the selecting of one or a small number of women who are permitted access, but not equal participation in male dominant realms (Elisabeth Gidengil and Richard Vengroff 1997). Tokenism and token culture is a visual tactic used to placate complaints and concerns relating to gender balance across many areas in society (Belle Derks, Naomi Ellemers, Colette Van Laar and Kim De Groot 2011; Jane S Jaquette 1997; Rosabeth Moss Kanter 1977; Janice D Yoder 1991). Research shows placing an isolated token individual in prominent positions does not actually improve opportunities for other members of the same social group (Derks et al. 2011). This research draws upon the breadth of research that currently exists on women and politics and the media both in an Irish context and beyond and attempts to address gaps found relating to how women are presented in Irish political media in all manners and not just as politicians or political actors, by investigating how all women are visually presented, framed and how much airtime women’s voices receive.

Materials and methods

This research employed a mixed method approach by carrying out both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of Irish political television programming, investigating gender bias, gender inclusion and gendered framing relating to the representation of women’s participation with politics in media. This research follows the understanding of mixed method as outlined by John W Creswell (2014) as an approach to research in which “the investigator gathers both quantitative (closed-ended) and qualitative (open-ended) data, integrates the two, and then draws interpretations based on the combined strengths of both sets of data to understand research problems.” This article examined one month of episodes broadcast by the three most popular Irish political programmes, see Table A1. The publicly funded Raidió Teilifís Éireann’s (RTÉ) current affairs series, Prime Time (PT) (Tuesdays & Thursdays at 9:35pm) and The Week in Politics (TWIP)(Sunday at 12pm) and the commercially funded Virgin Media One’s, The Tonight Show (TTS) (Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday at 10pm). The time period of broadcasts coincided with the formation of the new Irish government coalition of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, which showed a significant disparity of women elected for seats in the cabinet and how the media covered it. RTÉ is an Irish semi-state-owned public service broadcaster funded by a combination of Government issued mandatory television licence fee and commercial revenue it generates from advertising (‘About RTÉ’ n.d.). Virgin Media One (formerly TV3 Television Network Ltd.) is a commercial broadcaster, and a subsidiary of the British telecommunications company Virgin Media (owned by Liberty Global).

This study examines the representation of women and engagement in politics in Ireland generally, not solely female politicians. By not restricting this research to only look at political “elites,” I am able to explore the broader notion of how women and politics connect in a general sense, to understand how women and politics are mediated in Irish society. Throughout this study, presenters and reporters have been included as participants as they contribute to the representation of women on screen. The central research question of this article asks: to what extent was media coverage on political programming of the 2020 Irish government formation gendered and how were women framed across these political programmes during this period?

This research analysed content from every programme broadcast from all three shows for a month period, of 23^rd of June until the 23^rd of July 2020. The sample of programmes was chosen to examine the everyday representation and framing of women in politics, as such the timeframe was set after GE 2020, during the formation of the new Government. The analysis examined all relevant content from these programmes, which included analysing opening sequences, recording opening and closing credits, documenting feature and studio panel segments, presenters, scripted content and commentary among presenters and noting the topics discussed on each episode. All broadcasts were acquired through publicly available online media websites such as RTÉ Player and Virgin Media Player.

This study employed a quantitative and qualitative content analysis and drew on Bernard Berelson’s theory of content analysis due to the versatility of content analysis and its ability to analyse the complex nature and biases of media narratives and frameworlds and their evolution over time (Bernard Berelson 1952). Specifically, to analyse each programme’s episodes, measuring the amount of time each participant spoke, number and gender breakdown of participants, topics discussed, frequency of interruptions and numerical gender breakdown of sources represented as experts. Additionally what women said, when they spoke, along with what was said to them by fellow participants was transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis. Topics discussed throughout each episode were recorded and grouped where similarities occurred and codes and themes were generated to draw out general points on the types of issues women and men spoke about and in what capacity, ie as an expert or to give an experiential account, etc. Three main themes were identified throughout each of the three programmes; marginalisation and tokenism, time and gendered framing. Varying other themes recurred throughout the data such as feminized stereotypes and human-interest focus on women politicians, but the data was not exhaustive enough to justify these areas as central themes or findings.

Results

The data collected from the three programmes is presented in separate tables, one table to show the overall findings of all three programmes, and one table presenting an episode breakdown. Table A1 shows the numerical breakdown of gender participation in each program, highlighting the significant disparity of gender representation. Throughout the survey period, there was not one programme where female participants outnumbered male participants. As seen in Table A1, across the study period female participants, constituted 32% of TTS participants, 35% of TWIP participants and 34% PT participants. While male participants constituted 68% of TTS participants, 65% of TWIP participants and 66% of PT participants.

In every episode of TTS, with the exception of episode five and 15, there was a tokenistic female newsreader that presented an account of the news for a short introductory segment. The highest number of male participants in a single episode was nine men in episode four. Table 1 shows that the episode with the greatest disparity of numerical representation of gender in TTS was episode three, where eight male participants were present compared to two female participants, including one permanent newsreader. If the one female and one male presenter are discounted, we can see that seven male participants were invited to partake in this episode in comparison to only one female. Across the three programmes selected TWIP appeared to achieve more balance with regards to gender representation. However, there still remains a drastic numerical disproportion of female participants. It is critical to note that the presenter of TWIP is female and as such is not an invited guest or participant but guarantees at least one female representative on screen every episode.

Table 1. The Tonight show.

Episode	No. female participants	No. male participants	Amount of time women speak	Amount of time men speak	No. of times women are interrupted	No. of times men are interrupted	No. of female expert sources	No. of male expert sources
1	2	7	5 m 35s	41 m 42s	0	0	0	2
2	3	5	9 m 35s	33m37s	1	1	0	0
3	2	8	5 m 45s	38 m 5s	3	3	0	1
4	3	9	8 m 59s	27 m 28s	0	0	0	1
5	2	6	10 m 35s	36 m 21s	9	2	0	0
6	3	6	8 m 50s	35 m 53s	6	2	0	1
7	3	6	17 m 47s	26 m 11s	3	0	0	1
8	4	5	23 m 18s	24 m 48s	0	0	0	2
9	3	6	5 m 54s	41 m 41s	0	0	0	2
10	4	4	12 m 7s	38 m 44s	0	0	1	1
11	2	7	7 m 3s	43 m 4s	0	0	0	1
12	3	7	14 m 58s	32 m 34s	10	4	0	2
13	3	7	6 m 10s	36 m 47s	1	0	0	2
14	5	5	26 m 40s	19 m 53s	22	0	1	1
15	3	7	7 m 41s	39 m 9s	4	5	1	0
Total	45	95	170 m 55s	514 m 57s	59	17	3	17

The data collected on PT mirrors the findings of the first two programmes showing a consistent disparity of female participants present. However, the sole episode across the entire survey period where women outnumbered men was in episode seven of PT (seen in Table 3). This was an outlier, as it occurred just once and this episode was considered a “special report,” a full-length episode report on the impact of COVID-19 on Irish nursing homes presented by one female reporter. The number of female participants was higher in this episode due to a large number of female family members being asked to give an account of their experience losing loved ones to COVID-19 in nursing homes. A conventional episode of PT typically has two separate segments. One segment being a studio-based conversation or debate element that features experts and politicians in a group dialogue facilitated by one or both presenters. The second segment usually involves pre-recorded reports featuring expert sources and members of the public. Subsequently episode 8 of PT hosted 11 male participants while contrastingly only 1 female, furthermore that singular female participant was one of the shows permanent presenters.

The inequality regarding gender representation goes beyond numerical representation to the division of time allocated to participants. Table A1 shows that throughout every programme women’s voices were heard considerably less than men’s voices even in relation to their numerical presence. Women’s voices constituted 25% of TTS airtime, 45% of TWIP airtime and 30% of PT airtime while male voices constituted 75% or TTS airtime, 55% of TWIP airtime and 70% of PT airtime. The TTS episode with the greatest disproportion of time was episode 1, women’s voices were heard for 5 minutes and 35 seconds (12%) and male voices were heard for 41 minutes and 42 seconds (88%) (seen in Table 1). Of the two TTS episodes that secured equal numerical representation; episode 10 and 14. There was still a significant disparity in the division of air time in episode 10, as women spoke for 12 minutes and 7 seconds (24%) while men spoke for 38 minutes and 44 seconds (76%). In episode 14 women’s voices were heard slightly more than that of men’s voices. This was an unusual occurrence and can be explained by the fact that episode 14 was partially used to promote a “special episode” of the Virgin Media Backing Business Campaign, and as such included an additional female presenter from another show. The programme where women’s voices obtained the closest to equal portion of airtime was TWIP where women’s voices constituted 45% of airtime. This is largely a result of having a sole female presenter host the programme. The significance of the female presenter is demonstrated in Table 2. Despite women’s voices having access to more airtime on TWIP the disparity remains prevalent. Across all four episodes, women’s voices were heard for 77 minutes and 29 seconds (45%) while men’s voices accounted for 93 minutes and 4 seconds (55%). It is solely as a result of having a female presenter that the female participants accrued a substantial portion of airtime, yet even with the sole presenter being female airtime is still not split equally amongst women and men. As seen in Table 3 across the PT programme female voices were heard in total for 72 minutes and 13 seconds (30%) while male voices were heard for 167 minutes and 57 seconds (70%). Excluding episode seven, women’s voices were never heard for more than 11 minutes and 5 seconds, less than a third of the episode’s running time. The greatest disparity of balance regarding airtime in PT occurred in episode eight, where women spoke for 2 minutes and 11 seconds (9%) and men spoke for 22 minutes and 35 seconds (91%).

Of the women’s voices that were heard, their airtime was not easily afforded to them; female participants were interrupted considerably more than male participants, resulting in women having to claim and defend their portion of air time (see Table A1, Tables 1 –3). It is crucial to note that the highest number of interruptions occurred in episode 14 of TTS, the sole live episode where women secured more airtime than men. Throughout episode 14 female participants were interrupted 22 times, while throughout all 15 episodes of TTS, men were only interrupted 17 times in total. Table 2 shows that TWIP having a sole female presenter significantly minimises the number of interruptions that occur. Due to the style of PT there were no interruptions recorded, see Table 3. This is a direct result of the pre-recorded report segments.

The findings obtained support the above literature review in relation to the framing of sources as experts. As seen in Table A1 men are significantly more likely to be presented as expert sources across all three programmes. Throughout all 15 episodes of TTS examined, three (15%) female experts accounted for were consulted compared to male experts constituting 17 (85%) of experts consulted. Similarly, across all TWIP episodes examined male sources are considerably more likely to be presented as experts as there was not one female expert source consulted. As a result, female participants constituted 0% of the expert sources consulted while four male participants accounting for 100% of experts consulted. Table A1 also shows that expert sources consulted on PT were likely to be male participants, of the 8 episodes assessed there were five female expert sources (23%) and 17 male expert sources presented (77%). This also further explains why the numbers of female participants in episode seven was uncharacteristically high. Table 3 shows that even though episode 7 had more female participants than male, two of the three experts consulted were men, thus further proving the inconsistency of numerical representation and gendered framing.

Table A1 presents a clear picture of the gender bias and gendered framing active in Irish political programming. There is a significant disparity with female participants across all three programmes Although the privately funded programme was the worst in relation to gender bias and gendered framing the two publicly funded programmes were not much better.

Table 2. The Week in politics.

Episode	No. female participants	No. male participants	Amount of time women speak	Amount of time men speak	No. of times women are interrupted	No. of times men are interrupted	No. of female expert sources	No. of male expert sources
1	5	7	20 m 58s	21 m 16s	0	0	0	0
2	5	14	21 m 38s	23 m 48s	0	0	0	2
3	6	8	17 m 26s	21 m 29s	0	0	0	1
4	8	16	17 m 27s	26 m 31s	1	1	0	0
Total	24	45	77 m 29s	93 m 4s	1	1	0	3

Table 3. Prime time.

Episode	No. female participants	No. male participants	Amount of time women speak	Amount of time men speak	No. of times women are interrupted	No. of times men are interrupted	No. of female expert sources	No. of male expert sources
1	2	7	6 m 41s	27 m 17s	0	0	1	4
2	17	26	8 m 52s	21 m 38s	0	0	1	1
3	3	7	5 m 36s	27 m 6s	0	0	0	1
4	3	9	11 m 5s	15 m 2s	0	0	1	1
5	3	10	8 m 54s	24 m 53s	0	0	1	6
6	4	9	4 m 6s	23 m 42s	0	0	0	0
7	12	10	24 m 48s	5 m 44s	0	0	1	2
8	1	11	2 m 11s	22 m 35s	0	0	0	2
Total	45	89	72 m 13s	167m57s	0	0	5	17

Discussion

The key findings of this study coincide with previous research which found that women are marginalised by being numerically underrepresented across all three programmes (Buckley & Galligan 2020; Norris 1997; Ross and Carter 2011; Tuchman, Kaplan Daniels, and Benét 1978). Additionally, women are framed in a highly gendered manner often discussing political “soft” issues (North 2016) and despite women occupying less airtime than men and accounting for fewer participants women are interrupted significantly more than men.

This research shows that across Irish political media platforms women are systematically underrepresented and omitted from the discussion and dialogue concerning politics and political issues. This study further argues that this contributes to an absence of women in media as active participants in political issues. The number of female participants is increasing; however they remain a minority and are still approached and treated differently.

The visibility of women within Irish political media is integral to understanding the complex nature of contemporary politics for women in Ireland (O’Brien 2017). Media scholars have shown that visibility, representation and framing in mainstream media of groups within society has a direct impact on their ability to engage and contribute to the world of politics as active participants and not merely as vulnerable passive observers. This study shows that women were often framed as casual participants, regularly consulted for an account of their experience often having to justify their political legitimacy. As such conventional “norms” and “ideals” are projected onto women in media, which cause women to be framed to mostly discuss a limited set of “soft” topics such as health, education and unemployment. Only in examining how political media in Ireland frame and represent women in times such as after a general election or during the formation of a new government can we become aware of and attempt to address issues of stereotyping and silencing women.

Marginalisation and tokenism

There was significant underrepresentation of female participants and programmes. tokenism present across all three programmes. Regularly a large proportion of the female participants present on PT were included as members of the public contributing vox-pops or short clips, appearing most starkly in episode 2 of PT. The discrepancy between the number of female participants and their relative portion of airtime is a direct consequence of the tokenistic vox-pops of women in the pre-recorded segments. This can be recognised as a form of strategic tokenism used to manipulate gender representation quotas and placate complaints relating to gender balance. By visually presenting female participants viewers may not notice the stark gender imbalance of participation and contribution on first viewing. It is only upon in-depth examination of the episodes that this becomes apparent. This same manipulation occurred in PT episode 3 and 6 and TTS episode 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 15. This serves to appease network gender quotas minimally but does not give women an opportunity to contribute to political discussion in a substantial and meaningful way. Of all eight of the pre-recorded segments on PT only one had a female lead reporter, episode 7. This segment lasted the full length of the episode (approx. 36 minutes) compared to the usual 15–20 minute pre-recorded segments. At the beginning of every pre-recorded report segment the reporter was named except for the sole report led by a female reporter. Her name appeared within the closing credits only as if crediting the female reporter was an afterthought of the programme’s editing.

Another example of tokenism is seen in episode 8 of PT, which consisted of 11 male participants and only 1 female participant—one of the presenters. Yet the lowest number of male participants in any episode of PT was 7 and the lowest number of men in any episode across all three programmes was 4. The symbol of the singular female presenter suggests to the viewer that women’s voices are being represented and heard. However, the female presenter only spoke for 2 minutes and 11 seconds in total compared to the male host who spoke for 2 minutes and 51 seconds. Of the 5 minutes and 3 seconds of total airtime given to presenters in episode 8 the female presenters voice accounted for 43% compared to 57% allotted to the male presenter. This tokenism creates a false pretence of gender representation in Irish political programming further perpetuating that disparity. The decision to air a 36 minute PT episode without consulting 1 female participant except the host solidifies the marginalisation of women and tokenism present within Irish political media and how normal an occurrence that is. The token female presenter was mirrored in TTS, throughout every episode except episode 5 and 15 wherein a female newsreader presented a short news section in the beginning of each episode. This segment usually lasted 60–80 seconds. By visually presenting female presenters, the programme provides the illusion of gender parity however this does not address the imbalance of representation or the division of airtime and as such does not afford women the opportunity to actively participate in political discussion in a substantial and impactful way.It is widely documented that helicopter placing of isolated minorities in positions of power does not necessarily promote diversity and inclusion (Derks et al. 2011). These tokenistic tendencies are also mirrored in TWIP . The presence of the female presenter masks the disparity of female representation on screen while the numbers of female participants remain substantially lower than male participants. Without the female presenter the percentage of female participants drops significantly, and the airtime afforded to women is impacted immensely, including the female host the total airtime occupied by women was 77 m 29s however if the portion of airtime occupied by the host is excluded women’s voices are only heard for 36 m 35s in contrast to male voices that were heard for 93 m 4s. The employment of the female presenter, albeit a positive progression towards improving equal representation, cannot solely address the imbalance of participation and representation.

Time

The claims made by previous research that female participants receive less coverage than male counterparts holds true in the case of Irish political programming (Dhoest, Panis, & Paulussen 2020; Caroline, Carroll, and Olson 2005; Norris 1997; Ross and Carter 2011). Across all three of the programmes examined women occupy disproportionately less airtime than men. A large number of contributions from women were short vox-pop inputs which clarifies the fact that although women constituted 32% of the participants on TTS, they only spoke for 25% of the shows airtime. The episode of TTS with the most unequal division of time recorded occurred in episode 1, female participants were heard for 5 minutes and 35 seconds (12%) whereas men’s voices were heard for 41 minutes and 42 seconds (88%). This was not a once off occurrence, similar discrepancies were repeated in episodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 of TTS. The disproportionate levels of airtime also proved consistent in PT, male participants spoke significantly more than female participants in episode 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8. The episode with the most extreme disparity of airtime occurred in PT’s episode 8, where women received 2 minutes and 11 seconds (9%) while men secured 22 minutes and 35 seconds (91%). Thus perpetuating the idea that men’s voices and views are more important than women’s. While on PT women constituted 34%, female participants occupied 30% of airtime. TWIP differs slightly as the sole presenter is female and as such impacts the division of airtime, with women gaining 45% of the airtime. However, even with the presenter being female and accounting for a large portion of airtime, women still receive less airtime than male participants 55%.

The findings also observed gender variation in terms of how women were interrupted. Female participants were drastically more likely to be interrupted then male participants. The highest number of interruptions occurred in TTS women were interrupted 59 times (77%) during the study period compared to men being interrupted only 17 times (23%). As a direct result of the constant interruption and being spoken over some female participants resorted to having to claim their time as seen in the three quotes below where male participants interrupted female participants resulting in women having to claim their time and assert themselves:

“Excuse me, excuse me” - Rose Conway-Walsh

The Tonight Show, Episode 5.

“If you’ll just let me answer your question”- Louise O’Reilly

The Tonight Show, Episode 12.

“Sorry if you’ll just let me finish” - Louise O’Reilly

The Tonight Show, Episode 12.

If it is common place to see women being interrupted on political programming then it further perpetuates the belief that women’s voices and issues are significantly less important irrespective of the gender doing the interrupting. This results in women having to justify and fight for their voices to be heard

Women were however far less likely than men to interrupt other participants, male or female, which is evidenced in the episodes that women’s voices were heard more and there were fewer interruptions. Additionally, there were less interruptions in the publicly funded programmes PT and TWIP, both of which have a female presenter or co-presenter steering the segment. This can be drawn to the fact that guest participants are less comfortable interrupting the host of a programme on home turf and as participants are more likely to interrupt women, less interruptions occur when there is a female presenter.

Gendered framing

Across all three programmes men were more likely to be framed as expert sources. In TTS women were only framed as expert sources three times (15%) compared to men’s 17 times (85%). In PT, women were framed as expert sources five times (23%) as opposed to men 17 times (77%). However, out of the three experts that appeared on TWIP 100% of them were male. Moreover, female participants are framed in connection to domestic or “soft” issues (Caroline, Carroll, and Olson 2005; North 2016). Throughout all three programmes women appeared more on episodes that discussed “soft” topics.

In the single pre-recorded segment on PT that was presented by a female reporter, the topic examined fell within the confines of a “soft” political topic. The report investigated the impacts of COVID-19 on people in Irish nursing homes and their families, mostly consulting women for accounts of their experience. Episode 7 of PT was the only episode across all three programmes where women participated and were numerically represented more than men. As women were less likely to be framed as experts, they were also less likely to be framed in connection with “hard” topics. Although this episode had one female expert present there was twice that of male experts. A significant portion of the report involved women giving personal accounts and opinions on the crisis. This proved to further frame women as caring by sharing their devastation but not necessarily consulting women on policy to amend or rectify the issues posed. The absence of women being presented in connection with “hard” topics suggests that women are somehow unaffected by the outcomes of “hard” topics. Equally the lack of men presented discussing “soft” topics implies these issues are of lesser importance and will have little societal impact.

Only three episodes of TTS had male experts present, however 12 of the 15 episodes presented no female experts. As this study was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic many experts specialised in medicine, science or economics. As the pandemic was such unchartered territory experts repeatedly appeared on all three programmes. There was not an issue of a lack of relevant female experts to invite on the programmes, because multiple male experts were recycled and reappeared on multiple episodes of the same programme. Professor Kingston Mills of Trinity College Dublin was presented as an expert on episode 3 and 12 of TTS, Dr. Thomas Ryan of Trinity College Dublin was an expert on episode 4 and 11 of TTS, and Professor Anthony Staines of Dublin City University appeared as an expert participant on episode 6 and 13 of TTS. However the three female expert participants present in episode 10, 14, and 15 did not participate more than once. If there was a lack of female experts to choose from they could have recycled the female experts as was done with the male experts. The sheer discrepancy of female experts and participants across all three programmes shows that male views are considered more important and legitimate than that of women (Kim and Weaver 2003).

One particular incident in episode 4 of TTS exemplified the entrenched framing of female participants, presenter Ivan Yates was interviewing the newly appointed Fine Gael Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Hildegarde Naughton, about the new cabinet appointees, the easing of COVID-19 restrictions and foreign travel. As the episode drew to a close Yates made a point of asking Naughton an anecdotal question about her personal life.

“On a lighter note, which I didn’t know, that you were an award winning classically trained singer in the Patricion Musical Society. Could I put it to you that with all your roles that’s its less My Fair Lady and more Calamity Jane for the start of this government” – Yates.

Episode 4.

This comment solicited a chuckle from both Yates and the other male guest present, independent T.D. Michael Fitzmaurice. The comment caused Naughton to defensively attempt to justify herself and her hobby, as if it could somehow question her relevance and ability to successfully carry out her job.

“That’s my hobby on the side, that’s my golf”- Hildegarde Naughton.

The Tonight Show, Episode 4.

Throughout all 27 episodes investigated in this case study not a single male participant was questioned about hobbies. This undermining of female sources proves to further enforce the framing of the male participant as more legitimate and justifiable as an appropriate candidate. If the majority of what we read, see and hear are men’s voices, men’s news and the male perspective (Ross and Carter 2011) then we are caught off guard by the introduction of women and consequently feel the need to legitimise or justify women’s voices, women’s news and the female perspective.

Although the results show that the balance of gender representation is numerically worse in the private sector it is only marginally better in the public sector, proving there is still a long way to go before we reach equality of representation and gender balance within Irish political programming. This study echoes previous research that has shown female politicians receive less coverage than male counterparts (Kim Fridkin Kahn 1994) and that women in general are significantly underrepresented across all media platforms (O’Brien 2014; Norris 1997; Ross and Carter 2011; Tuchman, Kaplan Daniels, and Benét 1978).

Conclusion

This research has found that the intersection and mediated space where women, politics and political issues meet is not neutral but is in fact highly gendered in both obvious and subtle ways. It is crucial if we wish to achieve gender equality in political media and the political world that society become aware of the ways in which gendered framing affects how we produce and consume political media. There are a number of patterns in which women’s relationship and engagement with politics is gendered. Firstly, women were significantly numerically underrepresented across all three programmes. Secondly women’s voices secure significantly less airtime than men even in relation to their numerical underrepresentation. In presenting mens voices more than womens it suggests that men’s views, voices and lives are regarded as more important and legitimate to women’s which serves to questions women’s relevance and active participation in politics.

The women present on the programmes were framed in a highly gendered manner, female sources were considerably less likely to be presented as expert sources (13% on average across all three programmes). Female participants were more often asked to discuss their personal opinion or experience. Additionally, female sources were framed in connection to “domestic” or “soft” topics, while men were more often presented as expert sources and discussed “hard” topics such as the economy.

This study has shown that women are significantly more likely to be interrupted than men, as seen in TTS where out of all interruptions that occurred women received 78%. The consequences that these patterns have on women and political issues is that women’s political lives, values, views and participation are devalued and portrayed as less important than men’s contribution to the world of politics and power. The representation of women’s political participation as inactive observers serves to perpetuate the systemic exclusion of women from an institution that is from the outset numerically unfavourable and critical to their presence. As a result of the highly gendered political mediated space, a male monopoly is being fortified in the world of politics, where the presumption is that politics is primarily for men. This study investigated both public and commercially funded broadcasting platforms and as a result shows how they both fare regarding the representation of women’s interaction with politics and political programming, demonstrating publicly funded broadcasting achieved more equal representation albeit only marginally more.

There is a clear need to monitor the quality and quantity of women’s representation and participation on Irish political programming. There is a responsibility on the media to seek out, empower, educate, and support women in participating in current affairs programmes. The development of a publicly accessible database of female experts is needed to move away from the repeated overuse of “stale, pale and male” experts. This could also possibly answer the issue of the framing of women on “soft” topics, opening them up to discussing more varied topics and thus evolving the societal image of the female “norm.” This may go towards addressing the lack of equality in regard to the division of airtime, if women were discussing more important and critical “hard” topics they may receive more airtime as these topics carry more weight.

The plain and simple answer is that the quantitative and qualitative aspects of women’s representation on Irish political programming need to improve drastically. If women continue to be systematically excluded from the conversation of politics on Irish political programming, then this will result in the further expulsion and possible eradication of women not only from media coverage but also as active participants in the world of politics and power. Understanding that if all we see, hear, and read in political media are the voices of men and male perspectives then the marginalisation of women will continue framing women as passive spectators as opposed to active participants, thus women’s ability to actively contribute as participants is compromised by gendered media framing.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aoife Quinn Hegarty

Aoife Quinn Hegarty is a PhD candidate in gender and media studies and a Scholarly Communications Librarian at University College Dublin, Ireland. Her ongoing research investigates the modalities of representation of Irish feminist movements in Irish media 1960 – 2019: media activism, production cultures and feminist organising.

Appendix

Table A1. Programme information.

Programme Breakdown	The Tonight Show	The Week in Politics	Prime Time
Presenter(s)	Ivan Yates Matt Cooper	Áine Lawlor	Miriam O’Callaghan David McCullagh
Broadcast Provider	Virgin Media—Commercial broadcaster	RTÉ – Public service broadcaster	RTÉ – Public service broadcaster
No. episodes	15	4	8
Minutes per episode (approx.)	48	50	36
Total female participants	45 (32%)	24 (35%)	45 (34%)
Total male participants	95 (68%)	45 (65%)	89 (66%)
Total female speaking time	170 m 55s (25%)	77 m 29s (45%)	72 m 13s (30%)
Total male speaking time	514 m 57s (75%)	93 m 4s (55%)	167 m 57s (70%)
No. female experts	3 (15%)	0 (0%)	5 (23%)
No. male experts	17 (85%)	3 (100%)	17 (77%)
No. female non-experts	42 (35%)	24 (36%)	40 (36%)
No. male non-experts	78 (65%)	42 (64%)	72 (64%)
No. interruptions to women	59 (78%)	1 (50%)	0 (0%)
No. interruptions to men	18 (22%)	1 (50%)	0 (0%)