I worked in the parliament for a year - as a public servant - around twenty years ago as part of the editorial staff of the parliamentary debates office (I sat an entrance exam, and - nation wide - fewer than ten of us obtained places).
Part of my task, apart from editing the texts of the parliamentary debates - was also to log what was taking place in some of the parliamentary committees.
Now, one day, one afternoon, I was present when sports editors from the various newsmedia were called in (by the relevant parliamentary committee) to explain why their coverage of women in sport was so dismal and disgraceful.
The parliamentarians - some of whom had played various sports, some to a fairly high level, at school, or later - had done their homework.
At that time, around 3% (and they had prepared stats examining coverage over the course of a year, i.e. annual coverage) of the coverage on the sports pages - over an entire year - (which means, that it included Wimbledon, for example, was devoted to coverage of female sports, and, of that already disgracefully microscopic percentage, only a few sports were served (tennis was one).
Moreover, - and, to their credit, the parliamentarians were (rightly) furious (and, again, had their homework and preparation and research done, with stats to hand) with the fact of of this exceedingly limited coverage, an astonishing amount was about emphasising the physical appearance (or attractiveness) of the individuals competing, rather than their athletic prowess, or sporting skills and ability.
They asked how such coverage could be expected to persuade girls that sports were healthy, good fun, and a worthwhile and enjoyable activity, - one that you could aspire to a part of - asking how could one argue (to daughters, for example) that such coverage was healthy in any way?
The media representatives - who were a sorry and underwhelming lot - were reduced to muttering about "lack of demand" (from the public) for any such material, the need to answer editorial demands (from male editors) plus demands from advertisers.
Part of my task, apart from editing the texts of the parliamentary debates - was also to log what was taking place in some of the parliamentary committees.
Now, one day, one afternoon, I was present when sports editors from the various newsmedia were called in (by the relevant parliamentary committee) to explain why their coverage of women in sport was so dismal and disgraceful.
The parliamentarians - some of whom had played various sports, some to a fairly high level, at school, or later - had done their homework.
At that time, around 3% (and they had prepared stats examining coverage over the course of a year, i.e. annual coverage) of the coverage on the sports pages - over an entire year - (which means, that it included Wimbledon, for example, was devoted to coverage of female sports, and, of that already disgracefully microscopic percentage, only a few sports were served (tennis was one).
Moreover, - and, to their credit, the parliamentarians were (rightly) furious (and, again, had their homework and preparation and research done, with stats to hand) with the fact of of this exceedingly limited coverage, an astonishing amount was about emphasising the physical appearance (or attractiveness) of the individuals competing, rather than their athletic prowess, or sporting skills and ability.
They asked how such coverage could be expected to persuade girls that sports were healthy, good fun, and a worthwhile and enjoyable activity, - one that you could aspire to a part of - asking how could one argue (to daughters, for example) that such coverage was healthy in any way?
The media representatives - who were a sorry and underwhelming lot - were reduced to muttering about "lack of demand" (from the public) for any such material, the need to answer editorial demands (from male editors) plus demands from advertisers.
