The Case For Magnification

Making the case for Magnification

The separation of men and women’s roles in media is not a bad thing in itself. It is true; that men are different than women and it is important to recognize and embrace the difference in the way news is written. This problem is generated and fueled by an American culture that believes that the two genders should be one in the same. If an article said, “A rollover accident was reported Tuesday where Mr. Glen Swanson had grabbed his wife who was not buckled in at the time. Mrs. Swanson had been helping her kids learn to read and wasn’t focused on the moving car. At the scene of the wreckage Mrs. Swanson had calmed the kids down and Mr. Swanson had built a fire out of a burning car seat to keep everyone warm. Everyone was saved.” It seems odd to note all of these details, but it points out how men and women would have acted differently to help in the accident. A writer would feel bad putting such an article in, because the reader would feel awkward.


The truth is that Mrs. Swanson should be recognized for her help in aid after the accident, just as much as Mr. Swanson should. Men and women have different roles, though neither is more important than one another. This awkwardness stems from the reading population believing that the only way to portray two genders as equals is to leave out important things that men and women do that are stereotypical. News stories are magnifying deconstruction that already existed. This separation is also portrayed in the news when men and women go against their stereotype. This shift is interesting to readers, as shown by the Karla Homolka story this year. (Alward 1) The story would have been less interesting and publicized had a female been the murderer. The stereotype was already present, and the choice of coverage only magnified the common view of women. This deliberate emphasis has made it into election coverage too. America’s government doesn’t find women to be the normal representative and they are covered differently, sometimes even getting less attention. (Fridkin and Goldenburg 181) Because women are less common in running for office, they get more coverage and therefore advertizing. The vote could be swayed by this difference in knowledge. ( Kahn and Gutenburg 184). Again, the view was created by the American public, but fostered and blown up by the news media.
Karla Homolka's tale is an excellent example of how the news media reacts to a violent women. Or Read a Popular Article about Carla Homolka.

News is part of all of our lives, and it is affected by gender. Genders are both constructed and deconstructed through the struggle to make stories interesting to viewers, and in this struggle, facts are misinterpreted. It is important to know about these struggles and stereotypes in order to sort through news and through the truth of gender attributes. Be wary, citizens of a media driven America, and the truth will become apparent to you.

Works Cited

Alward, Mary. "Karla Homolka: Murderess." Essortment Articles: Free Online Articles on Health, Science, Education & More.. Web. 07 Nov. 2010. <>.

Kahn, Kim Fridkin and Edie N. Goldenburg. "WOMEN CANDIDATES IN THE NEWS: AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN U.S. SENATE CAMPAIGN COVERAGE — Public Opin Q." Oxford Journals | Social Sciences | Public Opinion Quarterly. Web. 25 Oct. 2010. P. 180-199 <>.

Macnair, Adrian. "» The Pardon Of Karla Homolka Would Be Despicable Unambiguously Ambidextrous." Unambiguously Ambidextrous. 19 Apr. 2010. Web. 02 Dec. 2010. <>.