Women Covering Syria

After reading the Buzzfeed article about women covering the Syria War, I couldn’t help but feel conflicted.

The article did a wonderful job of painting a picture of the sisterhood between female journalists in their quest to (continue to) cover combat, and to cover it well. It shed light on the unbalanced recognition of journalistic work when it comes to male and female reporters. It discussed the conflicting views of what kind of journalism makes the front page. All of this, I could wrap my head around and supported whole-heartedly. But what I could not get on board with was the blame that was put on men and women, and the focus of putting someone at fault.

The article addressed a number of reasons why women are getting shafted when it comes to receiving recognition for their work. One reason being that women don’t nominate themselves for awards or promote their work while men do so on a regular basis. Another reason was that women are quick to put themselves down, and another being that women love the softer stuff and men love the blood and gore. At this point in the reading, I was losing patience.

I believe those were all valid points to make. Yes, women are less likely to promote their work and nominate themselves for awards. I can understand why women put themselves down in this industry. And it’s true, as we know, that if it bleeds it leads. But some of the language in this article, in my opinion, is directly perpetuating the themes that it is working to criticize.

Saying that women have a habit of putting themselves down sounds like an overgeneralization of women’s self-confidence and self-esteem. If it were me, I wouldn’t have included that quote.

Saying that women don’t promote themselves or nominate themselves for awards because they are overshadowed by the overwhelming amount of men who do so is indirectly shaming men for asserting themselves in the industry.

Saying that front line gory coverage takes priority over showing real life amid war is criticizing both men and women for the variety of coverage they do, when the real issue here is about changing society’s perception of what kind of news is important and what needs to be covered.

I won’t neglect to acknowledge the statistics and personal experiences of these men and women that support the claims in the article. They serve as strong evidence that affirms the overall message and tone of the piece. But I have a difficult time getting on board with any kind of argument that is supported by smack-talking others.

If you want to talk about why female journalists aren’t getting noticed for the work they do in reporting on the most dangerous places around the world, I don’t see the necessity in shaming men for the work they do. In some regard, it’s not their fault that a static picture of a solider in the road got the front cover of a magazine when the heart-wrenching photo of a family watching their world crumbling from combat. People want the picture of the solider because confirmation bias had led them to believe that that is what it’s like overseas in the midst of combat.

If there is any blame to place, it’s not just on female journalists, it’s not just on male journalists. It’s the fault of the industry as a whole. As journalists, we create the news, we structure the news, we shape society’s perception on the issues and stories we share. If we stop giving in to what has been popular among the masses and instead start publishing the kind of content that sheds like on the reality of war and combat, I firmly believe we can change the way people consume news and the news they search for. It’s certainly a gamble, but I think it’s worth it for the sake of the future of the industry and those who want to establish a career in it.