Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Linfield College
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 1
Table of Contents
Abstract...2
Introduction....3
Literature Review..4
Research
Question.9
Methodology.11
Results...13
Discussion.17
Conclusion21
References.23
Appendices....25
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 2
Abstract
This study sought to ascertain whether media bias based on gender was present in the
2016 election. Forms of address denote respect. A content analysis of 105 transcripts from
morning news shows on CBS, NBC, and ABC, found that Clinton was called by her last or full
name more than she was called Hillary. The same was true for Trump. This study found that
Introduction
From Jeannette Rankin, the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in
1917, to Sandra Day OConnor, the first female U.S. Supreme Court Justice, women have played
a vital role in American politics. Today we are witnesses to history, a milestone for women in
politics and, indeed, U.S. politics as a whole. In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton became the first
woman to formally receive and accept a major political partys nomination for president. Her
opponent is another first; the political arena has never seen a candidate quite like the Republican
nominee, business mogul Donald Trump. The media have substantially contributed, for better or
worse, to this election season as much or, arguably, more so than in the past.
Lippmann (1921) wrote, We shall assume that what each man does is based not on direct
and certain knowledge, but on pictures made by himself or given to himself (p. 25). This is still
enormously relevant today, as print newspapers and televised news shows help us create, and in
large part constitute, these pictures. The way the media discusses Clinton and Trump might affect
the way viewers perceive them and, potentially, the way they vote. Previous research on this
topic suggests that women in politics almost always encounter sexism, both conscious and
unconscious, due to peoples basic assumptions and gender stereotypes. Women come up against
many forms of pervasive sexism when running for political office but especially when running
for president and this gender bias is still problematic today (Smith, Paul & Paul, 2007). This
paper will examine the ways in which gender bias is still present in presidential elections through
the use of first names. We will look at forms of address as well as the some of the language used
to discuss Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in order to analyze the ways in which unconscious
Literature Review
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 4
Though many acknowledge that there is generally some sexism at play when women run
for political office, some have suggested that gender does not have any substantive effect on the
success of female candidates and does not bias the voter. Darcy and Schramm (1977) argued that
the gender of the candidate does not affect the outcome of the election (p. 9). Voter recognition
and the low numbers of women running for office is more directly connected to a female
candidates success or failure than is gender. Darcy and Schramm concentrate on women running
for positions in Congress and argue that because women have been successful in the political
field, gender does not cloud the voting process. It may not be realistic to think that gender
Sanbonmatsu (2002) takes a less extreme position by saying, the success of female
candidates does not preclude an effect for gender stereotypes on voting behavior (p. 20).
Moreover, this underlying predisposition to vote for male or female candidates can be explained
by gender stereotypes about candidate beliefs, issue competency, and traits, and by voter gender
(p. 20). Sanbonmatsu outlines a gender schema theory that includes three parts. First, many
voters do hold a basic preference for one gender over another, and they use gender as an
indicator of the probable political positions of a candidate. Second, the preference can be
explained by unconscious gender stereotypes. Finally, that this does in fact affect voter
preference (p. 22). Sanbonmatsu states that though female candidates may win, bias can be
present. Voting behavior is a complex process to analyze and there are many factors, like voter
background, that may affect voting preferences, but ultimately Sanbonmatsu argues that gender
specifically, there is evidence to suggest that this same gender bias is present and perhaps
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 5
heightened in a presidential race. Smith, Paul, and Paul (2007) agree with Darcy and Schramm
(1977) that bias is less evident in congressional and Senate races but state that there is still a
negative bias against women who run for president. They found no statistical evidence for
gender-bias among evaluations for Senate candidates but this cannot be said of the presidency
(Smith, Paul, & Paul, 2007, p. 230). Because all past U.S. presidents have been men, it is more
than fair to say that gender-bias still exists in favor of male presidential candidates (p. 230). In
their research, they include a gender-neutral candidate in their survey and found that the gender-
neutral candidate is ranked higher than a clearly female candidate and on par with a male
candidate (p. 230). When there are no other distinguishing features, people will often use gender
as the deciding factor, and yet no direct evidence of gender-bias was evident in voter intentions
(p. 30). The frameworks most people build for themselves include an unconscious gender bias.
This is in accordance with Ridgeway (2009), who argues that gender is central to the way
people conceptualize themselves and those around them. She identifies gender as one of the main
ways people structure social relations, and in order to manage social relations in real time, some
of these cultural-category systems must be so simplified that they can be quickly applied as
framing devices to virtually anyone to start the process of defining self and other (emphasis in
original, p. 147). This is what Lippmann (1921) calls stereotypes: culturally constituted,
simplified categories of people and things that help organize the world efficiently. Stereotypes
about gender are a large part of the frameworks we create for ourselves.
Americans harbor stereotypes associated not only with gender but also political parties.
According to Winter (2010), certain gendered traits are attributed to certain parties and these
attributions are the result of both implicit and explicit mental connections between gender
stereotypes and those of political parties. Democrats are thought of as the more feminine party,
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 6
whereas Republicans are considered more masculine. That being said, Winter also notes that
President Barack Obamas more feminine approach to politics did little to tarnish his image
because he projected a moral, disciplined kind of masculinity (p. 610). The 2008 election was
also historic because for the first time, America had an African-American man running against a
female candidate for the Democratic nomination. Many television news stations dealt with this
situation well, fairly covering both candidates, but a study found that racial and ethnic minorities
as well as women are more likely to receive coverage based on their status as marginalized
groups (Eargle, Esmail, & Sullivan, 2008). When talking about African-Americans or women,
the media are more likely to discuss them in a way that weakens their chance of success in
electoral races. The same is also true for candidates who are especially young or old or part of a
religious minority.
Carlin and Winfrey (2009) discuss the role that sexism and stereotypes played in Hillary
Clinton and Sarah Palins 2008 presidential and vice presidential campaigns. Each encountered
sexism in different ways that had a similar effect on their campaign. The sexism Palin
encountered was based on her sex appeal while Clintons was the opposite. She was thought of
as not feminine enough and not stereotypically attractive. Both Clinton and Palin were referred
to using sexist terms, which ultimately hurt their campaigns. These sexist terms can be put into
four stereotypical categories for professional women. They are the seductress or sex object,
mother, pet, and iron maiden (Kanter, 1977). Kanter says that professional women can be put
into each of these categories, but Carlin and Winfrey argue that Palin and Clinton were affected
by each of these stereotypes and played a role in the way people thought of them as a candidate
and the way news outlets reported on them, often in a negative way.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 7
Using stereotypes to talk about women is to take away from their credibility as candidates
and lessen them in comparison to their male counterparts. The findings of Carlin and Winfreys
(2009) analysis show that sexism is so ingrained in culture today that it is not often distinguished
as such when talking about female candidates. Both Clinton and Palin had shortcomings when it
came to their campaigns, but those issues were not directly related to their gender as was most
reported on in the media. Miller and Peake (2013) concluded that there was disproportionate
coverage of Palins qualifications, where there was 40% of coverage on her qualifications and
60% was not. This was based on the negative press she received, showing that most of the press
negatively surrounding her as a candidate did not include her qualifications as a reason to look at
her negatively, but rather personality traits and appearance. This is a common trend for coverage
of women who run for a high-level office. It is important to note these issues with the 2008
campaign in order to understand the sexist terms and stereotypes that are often used when
Prior to Clinton and Palins runs for two of the highest offices in the nation, another
woman, Elizabeth Dole, was the first women to be a real contender to a major party presidential
nomination in 2000. Her run was only seven months long, but the press coverage provided an
insight into how women are reported on when running for such a powerful position that has
historically been only held by men. Heldman, Carroll and Olson (2005) further explore the role
that gender plays when a woman runs for one of the most masculinized positions in politics.
Dole was one of the front-runners for the Republican nomination, behind George W. Bush, but
received less media coverage than other male candidates who were not as favored by the public.
When she was covered by the media, it was in a way that was gendered and hindered her
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 8
campaign. The media coverage of Dole was focused more on her appearance and personality
traits, which is often the main focus of the coverage of other female politicians.
Based on the analysis and Dole dropping out of the race early, there is a possibility that
her shortened campaign was due to the media coverage, or lack thereof, she received. Unlike
Clinton and Palin, Doles problem with media coverage was not as much due to female
stereotypes, but rather an overall lack of press attention. The coverage she received was
gendered, but not to the extent of Clinton and Palin. The lack of news coverage that Dole faced
was not as much of a problem for Clinton in 2008, but the gendered coverage and stereotypes
were still prevalent in the way Clinton was reported upon (Millar & Peake, 2013).
Women getting less news coverage than men has been seen prior to presidential elections.
A study of Senate races between 1982-86 by Kahn and Goldenberg (1991) shows that women
who run for office often do not receive the same amount of coverage as men and the coverage
they do receive is often more about the viability of them in the position rather than the issues
they stand for and what they would like to do in office. By spending time on the viability of a
candidate, there is less of a focus on the issues they are running on and therefore voters do not
While there was negative coverage of some female candidates, there was also a more
positive side. Female journalists reporting on female candidates were more likely to focus on the
female issues that are important to voters and provide coverage about the issues the candidate
is running on rather than more superficial aspects of the candidate. Female reporters can be an
important ally to female politicians running for office due to their ability to see beyond some of
the female stereotypes (Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991). Since these races in the 1980s and early
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 9
2000s, there has been substantial coverage of female candidates running for higher offices,
although the coverage is still gendered and is often affected by the viability of the candidate.
Women continue to make strides in politics and are becoming more respected as political
actors. As women run for the highest offices in the United States, they are still working to
overcome gendered media coverage that can be inhibiting to the successes of their campaigns.
The media are a powerful source from which voters often formulate their political opinions; they
have a powerful role in shaping those opinions based on the information they choose to relay to
media consumers. With women becoming more respected as political leaders, there have been
improvements in the type of information that is reported on. However, as has been the case in
past female-led campaigns, gendered coverage is prevalent and can affect a voter's opinion of a
Research Question
This study searches to determine to what extent was gender bias through morning news anchors
language and title usage present in the medias coverage of the 2016 presidential election.
Research Question 1: Will Hillary Clinton be addressed by her full name, an alternate
title and last name, or solely by her first name more often?
Hypothesis 1: Hillary Clinton will be addressed by her full name or an alternate title and
Research Question 2: Will Donald Trump be addressed by his full name, an alternate
title and last name, or solely by his first name more often?
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 10
Hypothesis 2: Donald Trump will be called Donald more frequently than Clinton will
be called Hillary because he has not held any previous political office and is a
Research Question 3: Will gender play a role in how Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
Hypothesis 3: Gender will not play as large of a role in the way the two candidates are
talked about because Clinton has more qualifications for president than Donald Trump.
Though a similar study done on the 2008 presidential election by Uscinski and Goren
(2011) found that newscasters referred to Clinton more times by her first name than they did
other presidential candidates, we believed that it would be the reverse during the 2016 elections.
We hypothesized that they would call her more frequently by her full name or a title and her last
name during this election because since 2008, she has served as Secretary of State. Because it is
a prestigious position and accords whoever holds the office high honor, it seems to follow that
they should be referred to in more respectful terms. Similarly, someone who has not held
political office before, like Donald Trump, might not hold as much sway with the press and,
therefore, would be less respected than someone who has held multiple. In addition, those with
higher statuses are generally referred to by title and last name, a more formal mode of address,
rather than by first (Slobin, Miller, Porter & McGuire 1968). Naming denotes respect and in a
presidential race with the first female candidate of a major political party, respect is a vital issue
to examine.
Methodology
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 11
per show, each on separate news channels. The shows and networks were: CBS This Morning on
CBS, the TODAY Show on NBC, and Good Morning America on ABC. These are the three most
watched morning shows on the three major television networks. They are a good indication of
what most people in America were viewing for the 2016 presidential election. The main anchors
for Good Morning America are Robin Roberts, George Stephanopoulos, and Lara Spencer. On
CBS This Morning, they are Charlie Rose, Gayle King, and Norah ODonnell. The anchors for
the TODAY show are Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie. The transcripts were taken from the
Lexis Nexus Academic Database. In order to quantify the data, the level of analysis we analyzed
was words. Before beginning to work independently, we both analyzed four of the same
transcripts to ensure intercoder reliability and we counted the same number of mentions, thus we
We narrowed the results by using the search term Clinton and Trump, in order to
guarantee that there would be at least one mention of either candidate in each transcript. Then we
narrowed the results further by show and finally by date. We selected transcripts from April 12,
2015, the date Clinton announced her candidacy, to November 8, 2016, election day. The
decision to begin in April was based on the assumption that coverage of both candidates would
substantially increase when Clinton officially joined the presidential race, after months of
speculation. The sample was created by selecting the first transcript then analyzing every 20th
transcript after that. We took a sample before the primaries and right after, then a second sample
from August up to election day so we were able to contrast the two time periods. This allowed us
to find out if the patterns of address that had been established earlier had changed any as the
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 12
election drew closer. We began the second sample in August because election day was about
three months out and coverage would be more intense and focused on the election.
We counted each time Hillary Clinton was mentioned broken down into 4 categories: by
first name only (Hillary); as former Secretary of State; by last name only (Clinton); by full name
(Hillary Clinton). In the same way, a mention of Donald Trump was broken down by: first name
only (Donald); the title of businessman or the like; last name only (Trump); or full name
(Donald Trump). It was difficult to compare Clinton to Donald Trump because he was not a
politician prior to this election. We found that either businessman or Mr. Trump was the most
comparable to the formal title Secretary Clinton. These are the most common forms of address
for the candidates and we included a notes section for any mentions that did not fit into the
Any mention of Clinton or Trump, by first or last name, title, or nickname, constituted an
observation. We coded for both formality of address as well as whether the appearance of either
candidate was mentioned, a spouse was referenced, or the candidates physical or emotional state
was mentioned (see Appendix A for content analysis sheet). Appearance refers to clothing, style
of dress, and anything pertaining to external appearance. We counted any mention to either Bill
Clinton or Melania Trump in any context as a reference to a spouse. We did this to determine if
Bill Clinton was referred to more often than Melania Trump. The physical or emotional state of a
candidate was defined as anything describing their mood, countenance, personality traits, or
physical health. We chose these things to code for because there seemed to be many references
throughout the campaign to either candidates appearance, Clintons sickness and Trumps
distinctive hair.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 13
On every transcript, there were written descriptions of the graphics shown on the screen
to accompany the broadcast but we did not include those when counting mentions. Similarly, we
did not include direct quotes from either candidate about the other. If Trump mentioned Clintons
name, or vice versa, or if either of them were mentioned by another politician, we did not count
that as a mention. It was only counted if one of the candidates was referenced by a news anchor.
Results
The results among the three networks varied slightly, but were not too different. In our
content analysis, we looked at three different news organizations during two different times,
before the primaries and post-primaries leading up to the election. These two time periods are
different and so have different results in that the race is narrowed down to two candidates in the
later sample. By dividing the results in two, we are able to see the differences in how often the
candidates are referenced and the ways in which they are referenced in comparison to each other
rather than the other candidates that were running during the primaries.
The results of CBS during the race for the Democratic and Republican nominations found
disparities between the two candidates in forms of address. In the sample provided, Hillary
Clinton was mentioned by first name three times in comparison to Donald Trumps one time.
Hillary Clinton was mentioned by the title of secretary one time, whereas Donald Trump was
referenced as mister Trump three times. The sample that was taken showed that Hillary Clinton
was referenced a total of 77 times. She was mentioned by only her last name 33 times and her
full name 40 times. Donald Trump was mentioned a total of 208 times in the sample that was
taken. He was mentioned by last name 115 times and by his full name 93 times (Appendix B).
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 14
Donald Trump was mentioned a total of 131 times more than Hillary Clinton in the 25 sample
In addition to the titles used and the number of time each candidate was mentioned, there
was mention of the candidate's spouse, their appearance and their physical and emotional state.
In the 25 sample newscasts surveyed during this time, Bill Clinton was mentioned twice and
Melania Trump was mentioned zero times. Hillary Clintons appearance was explicitly
mentioned two times within the sample and Donald Trumps was mentioned one time. Hillary
Clintons mental or physical state was mentioned one time. This was in regards to her physical
well being, which was criticized by Donald Trump and then was discussed by the news anchors.
Donald Trumps appearance was mentioned three times, mostly in regards to his hair. Most of the
mentions beyond these points had to do with each candidate's standing in each state or against
their opponents.
The 10 samples taken in the lead up to the election yielded similar results as during the
primaries. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump were mentioned by first name or by a more
formal title, such as secretary or mister, during this time period. Hillary Clinton was mentioned
by last name a total of 15 times and by her full name 25 times. Donald Trump was mentioned by
last name a total of 37 times and by his full name 45 times. Each candidates physical or
emotional state was mentioned one time in this sample. Most of the discussion surrounding the
candidates had to do with their standing in each state and the possible paths for each candidate to
win. Overall, Hillary Clinton was mentioned a total of 117 times over the two time periods on
CBS This Morning. Donald Trump was mentioned a total of 294 times. Donald Trump was
mentioned 177 more times than Hillary Clinton in the 35 sample transcripts that were analyzed
(Appendix F).
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 15
The results of NBC are somewhat different than those from CBS. Hillary Clinton was not
mentioned by first name during the primaries. Donald Trump was only mentioned one time by
his first name. Hillary Clinton was mentioned by the formal title of secretary 13 times. Donald
Trump was mentioned in a more formal way as mister or business mogul a total of 11 times
during the primary time period. Hillary Clinton was mentioned by her last name a total of 64
times and by her full name 55 times. Donald Trump was mentioned by his last name 104 times
and his full name 77 times. Hillary Clinton was mentioned a total of 132 times and Donald
Trump was mentioned 193 times (Appendix C). Donald Trump was mentioned 61 more times
During the primary time period, Bill Clinton was mentioned five times. Melania Trump
was mentioned two times. Hillary Clintons physical or emotional state was mentioned seven
times and Donald Trumps was mentioned nine times. This indicates that there was more talk
During the run up to Nov. 8, there were slightly different results. Hillary Clinton was
mentioned by first name five times and Donald Trump was not mentioned by first name at all.
Hillary Clinton was mentioned with the formal title of secretary three times and Donald Trump
was referred to more formally three times as well. Hillary Clinton was mentioned by last name
31 times and by her first name 20 times. Donald Trump was mentioned by his last name 44 times
and by his full name 38 times. Hillary Clinton was mentioned a total of 59 times and Donald
Trump was mentioned a total of 85 times. Donald Trump was mentioned 26 times more than
Hillary Clinton (Appendix G). Bill Clinton was mentioned two times in the samples collected
from this time period and Melania Trump was not mentioned. Donald Trumps emotional or
The results for ABC echoed those of CBS. During the primary time, Clinton was called
by her first name six times in comparison to Trumps two times. She was not called Secretary
Clinton at all in the sample from ABC and Trump was not called Mr. or business man at all
during the primary season. Clinton was called by her last name a total of 11 times and by her full
name 48 times. While Trump was called by his last name 42 times and his full name 74 times
during the primaries (Appendix D). Bill Clinton was mentioned nine times and her physical or
emotional state, three times. Melania Trump was mentioned four times and Trumps physical or
emotional state was mentioned nine times. In total, Clinton was mentioned 66 times to Trumps
117 during the primary season. He was mentioned 51 more times than Clinton in total and was
In the samples taken from ABC in the final months of the election, Clinton was not
mentioned by first name at all while Trump was called Donald twice. Hillary Clinton was
called by her last name 22 times, double the amount of times she was called Clinton in the
primary sample. Trump was mentioned by his last name 52 times, 10 more than during the
primary season. Clinton was called by her full name 22 times in the months immediately before
the election. During this time, she was mentioned by her last name only 50% of the time and by
her full name the other 50%. On the other hand, Trumps full name was used only 17 times
during the final months of the election, 24% of the time. He was called by his last name 75% of
the time. Bill Clinton was mentioned only twice and Melania Trump once during his time period.
Hillary Clintons physical or emotional state was mentioned once and Trumps was mentioned
three times. In total, Clinton was mentioned 44 times and Trump 69 times in the three months
Discussion
This election was unlike anything we have seen before. The prior study done by Uscinski
and Goren (2011) came up with different results likely because the 2008 and 2016 elections were
so different. Studying the 2008 election, Uscinski and Goren found that Hillary Clinton was
called by her first name more often than her male counterpart. However, in this study, we found
that she was overwhelmingly called by her full name or last name more than by her first. The
first hypothesis was supported. In total, she was called Hillary only 14 times throughout all of
our data, a mere 3% of the time. ABC called her Hillary during the primary season the most
often (six times) and CBS called her by her first name the fewest total number of times (three).
In this respect, we were correct in our assumption, but she was not called Secretary Clinton as
many times as we thought. She was only called by that title 4% of the time, a total of 17
mentions. She was called Secretary Clinton the most by NBC news anchors. This was
surprising to us but it is consistent with previous research done on female politicians. Falk (2008)
found that, historically, female presidential candidates have been referred to in more casual terms
than male candidates. Donald Trump was called by his first name only six times, a paltry 0.8% of
the time. In this way, media bias can still be seen in forms of address as Hillary Clinton was
referred to in more casual terms, by first name, more frequently than her male counterpart.
Though it was an unusual election, in this respect, it did follow a well-established political
pattern.
Our second hypothesis was not supported because although Trump has not held previous
office, he was called by his last or full name many more times than by first name. He was called
by his first name six times across all three shows. All three networks talked about him more
frequently during the primary stage of the election than during the final months. This can be
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 18
largely attributed to the small sample size we analyzed during the final months of the election, 10
for each show. The data from the three months before the election is not generalizable because of
the limited number of samples, which is a flaw in our design. If we had analyzed an equal
number, it would have been easier to compare results. Overall, Trump was called by his last or
full name 93% of the time while Clinton was called by her last or full name a close 92% of the
time.
While there are differences between how many times Hillary Clinton is referred to by her
first name than Donald Trump or how often formal titles are used for each of the candidates, a
different, arguably more intriguing trend appeared in our data. Donald Trump is referred to far
more often than Hillary Clinton by each news organization. Trump was mentioned a total of 797
times across networks and Clinton was mentioned 419 times (see Appendix E). Although we did
not track the times that the candidates talk about each other in in this content analysis, we found
that a good portion of the time that Hillary Clinton is talked about, it is in reference to something
Donald Trump said or a direct quote from him. There are also more interviews between Donald
Trump and the news anchors, particularly on NBC, than there are with Hillary Clinton. In fact, in
the samples that we drew from, there is not a single interview between Clinton and the anchors.
The differences between the two candidates television coverage across the three networks is
significant. Even though the reports may not have always been the best about Trump, in our data,
his name is mentioned, in some form or another, 378 more times than Clinton. As the saying
goes, any publicity is good publicity and this seems to ring true for Donald Trump. The
amount of coverage he received placed his name in the minds of people throughout the country.
Based on the evidence we found, his victory could partially be attributed to the amount of media
coverage he received.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 19
Because this election was different from any before, the way the candidates were covered
was a little different than previous elections. This year, it was less about the policies each
candidate espoused, and more of a reality show style competition. The outlandish remarks Trump
would make created more of a buzz about him and provided him with more air time. He was able
to overshadow Clinton because of this. In total, Trump was mentioned 378 more times than
Clinton. The study by Heldman, Carroll and Olson (2005) showed that Elizabeth Dole received
less media coverage than her counterparts and that she wasnt taken as seriously as a candidate.
However, we found that while Clinton received less coverage than Trump, it was likely not
because the newscasters viewed her as a less serious candidate. It was because she could not
compete with the constant developments Trump was providing to the media. He was so different
from any other political, especially presidential, candidate that the media would naturally take an
interest in him. Media coverage of Trump began with the primaries. This is likely due to the fact
that the fight for the Republican nomination was far more interesting at the time than the
Democratic nomination because there was an unusually high number of people running. Donald
Trump pushed his way to the top of the pack and maintained the spotlight throughout that time
period. Therefore, he initially had more coverage than Clinton and this remained true throughout
the campaign.
This study also examined how often appearance was mentioned in relation to the
candidates as well as references to their physical or emotional states. There are very few
mentions of Clintons physical appearance, only two mild ones from CBS, which means that
overtly sexist comments concerning outward appearance were kept to a minimum this election
cycle, a difference from 2008. The two from CBS concerned her illness and were not
inappropriate, as her pneumonia and health troubles did become a campaign issue. One NBC
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 20
anchor said, Clintons raspy voice underscoring her nonstop schedule, a comment on her
physical health but not uncalled for. Donald Trumps one mention of his appearance is in
reference to his hair. A CBS newscaster joked, Trumps hair may be his most famous feature.
Another NBC anchor called Clinton an incredibly disciplined and incredibly tranquil and a
were generally mild and complementary in nature. Many of the references to Trumps emotional
state were negative, one anchor from NBC calling him combative. This result came as a
surprise because we thought there would be more overtly sexist and gendered language used, as
Conclusion
The purpose of this content analysis was to look at sexism in the media through the way
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were addressed by anchors during morning news broadcasts.
In addition to this, we looked at how often their spouses, appearance, and emotional or physical
state were mentioned. These were studied because they are inherently gendered. Through our
data collection, we found that there was not a dramatic difference between the way Trump and
Clinton were addressed or the ways they were talked about, yet Clinton was still referred to by
first name comparatively more times than Trump was called by his first name. Neither candidate
conformed to the typical gender stereotypes as Clinton has historically been thought to display
more masculine qualities and Trumps appearance, particularly his hair, were often talked about,
which is generally a form of criticism reserved for females. While Clinton was referenced by her
first name more than Trump, it was not by a significant amount. This may be an indication that
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 21
Clinton was taken more seriously as a female candidate running for office than previous female
The big difference between the two candidates was the amount of times each candidate
was mentioned on air. Trump was mentioned far more times than Clinton by ABC, CBS, and
NBC. This aligns with the research done by Heldman, Carroll and Olson (2005) in that female
candidates are not mentioned as often as male candidates, but the nature of this election points
more toward Trump making unusual comments than Clinton not being taken seriously as a
candidate. Although the findings did not point toward a strong gendered bias in the media, it did
show that Donald Trump received more coverage than Hillary Clinton, which may have
Future research on this would be interesting to see if this trend continues across nightly
news broadcasts or different networks. Research could look at how often Donald Trump is
mentioned on a more conservative channel versus a more liberal channel and if each candidate is
talked about positively or negatively. By looking at these results, we would better be able to
understand the role the media played in the election of Donald Trump. We would be able to
compare the more conservative sources with the liberal ones to see if the coverage is different.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 22
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 23
References
Carlin, D., & Winfrey, K. (2009). Have you come a long way, baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah
Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies, 60(4), 326-343.
Darcy, R., & Schramm, S. S. (1977). When women run against men. Public Opinion
Eargle, L., Esmail, A., & Sullivan, J. (2008). Voting the issues or voting the
Falk, E. (2008). Women for president: Media bias in eight campaigns. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Heldman, C., Carroll, S., & Olson, S. (2005). She brought only a skirt: print media coverage of
Kahn, K., & Goldenberg, E. (1991). Women candidates in the news: an examination of gender
180-199.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, Inc
Miller, M., & Peake, J. (2013). Press effects, public opinion and gender: coverage of Sarah
18(4), 482-507.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 24
Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations.
Slobin, D., Miller, S., Porter, L., & McGuire, W. (1968). Forms of address and social
pp. 289-293.
Smith, J. L., Paul, D., & Paul, R. (2007). No place for a woman: Evidence for gender bias
in evaluations of presidential candidates. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 29(3), pp.
225-233.
Americans explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior, 32(4),
pp. 587-618.
Uscinski, J.E. & Goren, L.J. (2011). Whats in a name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton
during the 2008 Democratic primary. Political Research Quarterly, 64(4), 884-896.
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 25
Appendix A
Name of coder:
Name of morning show:
Broadcast date:
Network:
As Hillary Clinton
By full name
Appearance is mentioned in
reference to candidate
A spouse is referenced
Notes:
Appendix B
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 26
Appendix C
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 27
Appendix D
Appendix E
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 28
Appendix F
Appendix G
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION MEDIA COVERAGE 29
Appendix H