{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017371601208459216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.25, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on Evaluations of U.S. Senate Candidates

This study examines the possibility that the news media, by covering male and female candidates differently, may influence the success of female candidates. A content analysis of newspaper coverage of U.S. Senate campaigns shows that male and female Senate candidates are covered differently in the news. An experiment was conducted to explore the consequences of these differences in coverage, as well as the significance of the candidates' gender, for evaluations of Senate candidates. The experimental results suggest that gender differences in coverage tend to advantage male candidates. For instance, candidates who are covered like male candidates in the news are considered more viable than candidates who are covered like female candidates. Sex stereotypes, on the other hand, can advantage female candidates. Female candidates are viewed as more compassionate and more honest than identical male candidates. The findings from this study support the hypothesis that the mass media may influence a woman's chances of success at the polls. Male and female candidates are covered differently in the news and these differences often produce negative assessments of women candidates.