The Washington Post

News coverage of female candidate’s appearance damages her chance of winning

Congressional candidate “Jane Smith dressed in a brown blouse, black skirt and modest pumps with a short heel…”

Even such a neutral description of a female candidate’s appearance can hurt her chances at getting elected, according to a study released today by Name It. Change It., a joint project of The Women’s Media Center and She Should Run.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has faced scrutiny of her hairstyle, makeup and wardrobe. (Cliff Owen/Associated Press) Hillary Rodham Clinton has faced scrutiny for her hairstyle, makeup and wardrobe. (Cliff Owen/Associated Press)

Although it seems obvious that an unflattering portrait painted by reporters would negatively impact a candidate’s image with voters, what’s surprising is that even positive, or neutral, descriptions of a female candidate’s appearance proved detrimental in damaging key attributes and the likelihood that people would vote for her.

News coverage that referred to a female candidate as “fit and attractive and looks even younger than her age,”  even though it sounded complimentary, hurt the voters’ perceptions of the politician for being in touch and being likeable, confident, effective and qualified. Both negative and positive comments caused damage. The voters whose responses were affected the most by coverage of a candidate’s appearance were independents — and their support often determines the outcome of an election.

The nationwide survey of 1,500 voters, along with a sample of 100 young women, age 18 to 35, looked at a hypothetical Congressional race between Jane Smith and Dan Jones. Survey respondents read a profile of each candidate, along with sample news stories covering their positions on an education bill. Nothing was said about Dan Jones’s appearance; the articles about Jane Smith included either a positive, negative, neutral or no description of her appearance.

The negative description drew a most unflattering picture: “Smith unfortunately sported a heavy layer of foundation and powder that had settled into her forehead lines, creating an unflattering look for an otherwise pretty woman, along with her famous fake, tacky nails.”

I shudder to think that any reporter covering a political race these days would write copy like that, but all of the descriptions used in the survey were pulled from media coverage of the 2012 election. It seems like a woman’s appearance is fair game. Just think back to this spring, when The Drudge Report featured a photo of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, after days on the diplomatic trail overseas, sported black-framed glasses and wore no makeup except lipstick. The headline declared “Hillary Au Naturale.”

A second survey examined the impact of sexist language in news coverage of women running for office. Stories that described a female candidate as a “mean girl” or “ice queen” did more damage than a straightforward piece attacking her stand on an issue.

There was some good news with both surveys, however, in how women can fight back. The damage done by the descriptions was mitigated when a female candidate said such coverage “has no place in the media” and proclaimed that we must end this type of coverage of women candidates because “it damages our political debate and democracy.” In fact, voters who hadn’t even been exposed to stories about the female candidate’s appearance or sexist language responded positively to a woman standing up for herself.

Then again, Clinton found the fascination with her appearance had its uses when she was first lady:  “If we ever want to get Bosnia off the front page, all I have to do is change my hair.”

Diana Reese is a freelance journalist in Overland Park, Kan. Follow her on Twitter at @dianareese.

Diana Reese is a journalist in Overland Park, Kan. Follow her on Twitter at @dianareese.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debate Thursday. Get caught up on the race.
The big questions after New Hampshire, from The Post's Dan Balz
Can Bernie Sanders cut into Hillary Clinton's strength in the minority community and turn his challenge into a genuine threat? And can any of the Republicans consolidate anti-Trump sentiment in the party in time to stop the billionaire developer and reality-TV star, whose unorthodox, nationalistic campaign has shaken the foundations of American politics?
Clinton in New Hampshire: 2008 vs. 2015
Hillary Clinton did about as well in N.H. this year as she did in 2008, percentage-wise. In the state's main counties, Clinton performed on average only about two percentage points worse than she did eight years ago (according to vote totals as of Wednesday morning) -- and in five of the 10 counties, she did as well or better.
Upcoming debates
Feb. 11: Democratic debate

on PBS, in Wisconsin

Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.