Difference between revisions of "Romaniuk2015"
ElliottHoey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Tanya Romaniuk; |Title=Talking About Sexism: Meta-Sexist Talk in Presidential Politics |Tag(s)=EMCA; Sexism; Political communication; M...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Tanya Romaniuk; | + | |Author(s)=Tanya Romaniuk; |
| − | |Title=Talking | + | |Title=Talking about sexism: meta-sexist talk in presidential politics |
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Sexism; Political communication; Mass media; Gender; | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Sexism; Political communication; Mass media; Gender; |
|Key=Romaniuk2015 | |Key=Romaniuk2015 | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Journal of Language and Social Psychology | |Journal=Journal of Language and Social Psychology | ||
| − | |URL= | + | |Volume=34 |
| + | |Number=4 | ||
| + | |Pages=446–463 | ||
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261927x15586794 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/0261927X15586794 | |DOI=10.1177/0261927X15586794 | ||
| − | |||
|Abstract=This article investigates “meta-sexist” talk in U.S. media discussions regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed bid for the U.S. Democratic nomination in 2007-2008. More specifically, it describes how specific accusations/claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton were introduced, debated, and ultimately evaluated during significant moments in the course of her campaign. Drawing on a collection of 24 televised interactions in which “sexism” was explicitly topicalized in relation to Clinton’s campaign, the analysis describes how interviewers respond to participants’ claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton within two periods in the nominating process—when Clinton was reported by mainstream media as the undisputed front-runner, and when she was reported as losing. In illustrating the general features of the interviewers’ responsive behavior characteristic of each period, the analysis reveals some of the ways in which the legitimacy of “sexist” claims may be undermined by mainstream media. | |Abstract=This article investigates “meta-sexist” talk in U.S. media discussions regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed bid for the U.S. Democratic nomination in 2007-2008. More specifically, it describes how specific accusations/claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton were introduced, debated, and ultimately evaluated during significant moments in the course of her campaign. Drawing on a collection of 24 televised interactions in which “sexism” was explicitly topicalized in relation to Clinton’s campaign, the analysis describes how interviewers respond to participants’ claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton within two periods in the nominating process—when Clinton was reported by mainstream media as the undisputed front-runner, and when she was reported as losing. In illustrating the general features of the interviewers’ responsive behavior characteristic of each period, the analysis reveals some of the ways in which the legitimacy of “sexist” claims may be undermined by mainstream media. | ||
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:58, 15 December 2019
| Romaniuk2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Romaniuk2015 |
| Author(s) | Tanya Romaniuk |
| Title | Talking about sexism: meta-sexist talk in presidential politics |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Sexism, Political communication, Mass media, Gender |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Language and Social Psychology |
| Volume | 34 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 446–463 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0261927X15586794 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article investigates “meta-sexist” talk in U.S. media discussions regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s failed bid for the U.S. Democratic nomination in 2007-2008. More specifically, it describes how specific accusations/claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton were introduced, debated, and ultimately evaluated during significant moments in the course of her campaign. Drawing on a collection of 24 televised interactions in which “sexism” was explicitly topicalized in relation to Clinton’s campaign, the analysis describes how interviewers respond to participants’ claims of “sexist” treatment of Clinton within two periods in the nominating process—when Clinton was reported by mainstream media as the undisputed front-runner, and when she was reported as losing. In illustrating the general features of the interviewers’ responsive behavior characteristic of each period, the analysis reveals some of the ways in which the legitimacy of “sexist” claims may be undermined by mainstream media.
Notes
