Why news media needs more female voices

Steven Bartlett’s AI panel had a major problem, and I’m fed up of pretending this is just an “oversight.” → Fed up of hearing, “We couldn’t find any women.” → Fed up of watching conversations about the future shaped exclusively by men. → Fed up of seeing the same voices, the same perspectives, and the same tired excuses. There wasn’t a single woman in sight. Women aren’t a niche. They’re not a “nice to have.” They’re half the population. A panel on the future… discussing AI, technology, and the impact on our lives, yet it was a room full of men. But this isn’t just about AI. It’s about a much bigger problem. 🚫 Tech events. 🚫 Business panels. 🚫 “Future of work” discussions. Over and over, we see the same story: a lineup of men, shaping decisions that will impact us all. They even talked about the fact that 80% of women are likely to be impacted by AI Agents! This is a choice. A lazy, blinkered, and outdated choice. If you have one of the most influential platforms in the world, like Steven Bartlett does, and you still can’t make space for women, that’s not an accident. That’s a problem. It's a problem that most media - traditional media and films and social media are dominated by men. Even podcasts. 80% of the top podcasts (one of the most influential media now) are hosted or produced by men. Where are the women's voices, opinions, ideas? Yet audiences are 50/50? If we only platform men - how do we ever change the perceptions of women in tech? Women in business? Women shaping the future? Investment in women (which is at a ridiculous 2% of VC money) And don’t get me started on the way we talk about AI itself. Fear-mongering. Clickbait. “AI will take all the jobs.” “Falling birth rates.” “No more work.” When the real conversation should be about responsibility, ethics, and opportunity. Leaning into the ideas and solutions that will help everyone benefit from AI. But without women at the table? We get the same recycled narratives. Women are leading in AI. They’re pioneering ethical tech. They’re building businesses and driving change across industries. But you’d never know it from panels like this. We need to change that. 👇 Who are the women in AI, tech, and leadership that everyone should know about? Drop their names below. Let’s make them visible. And, if you’re going to have a conversation about the future, make sure it actually includes all of us. Not just because it’s the right thing to do. But because it’s the smart thing to do.

📣 Old Sci Comm News – with Brand New Results 📣 If you follow the Danish media, you might get the impression that a scientist today is… an old white male. Among the 50 most cited experts in Danish media in 2023, only 5 were women, according to a report by Akademikerbladet. Unfortunately, this reflects the same low representation as in the past four years. 120 years after Marie Curie became the first woman to receive a Nobel Prize, the media still paints a skewed picture of who the “smart” people are in society. Clearly, this is a significant problem. Danish universities are teeming with women, young individuals, and people from around the world (also at professor level), and this diversity should be better reflected in the media’s choice of sources. But wait, there’s more. An often-heard explanation for the gender imbalance is that women are less inclined to engage with the media. However, recent data and experiments with source quotas reveal a different story: 📌 A large-scale study from autumn 2023 indicates that more female researchers than male counterparts believe it’s essential to communicate their knowledge to the wider world (F: 75%; M: 66%). 📌 In 2021, a survey conducted by Deadline, a news magazine on DR, found that female sources were just as willing as their male counterparts to participate in interviews. 📌Akademikerbladet conducted an experiment in March 2023, where they exclusively used female sources. This “disruption” had a ripple effect, leading to a higher proportion of female sources in the following months. So... female researchers are (off course) eager to share their insights, and with conscious effort, the media can alter the representation among sources.   Before we grab our pitchforks and storm the editorial offices, let me add some nuance with fresh data from the autumn 2023 study: 📌Fewer women than men have been interviewed on TV/radio (F: 20%; M: 26%) and for written media (F: 36%; M: 41%). However, the proportion of those contributing in other ways to media content (e.g., background information) is precisely equal for both women and men (43%). 📌More women than men find it challenging to communicate with the broader public (F: 38%; M: 30%), and more women feel unequipped to do so (F: 46%, M: 26%). Perhaps female researchers, more than their male counterparts, don’t feel entirely comfortable with the premises under which fast news media operate? The numerous quotes that propel men to the top of the expert list often stem from rapid news sources, which then get copied or cited in other media—rather than from the more “slow-paced” outlets like Deadline. However, this doesn’t change the fact that media outlets can and should alter their practices. Training and courses can empower researchers to feel more at ease when interacting with news journalists. But it’s the media’s responsibility to create a more equitable representation in the image they paint of researchers.  

I remember sitting in a meeting, being talked over repeatedly, and when I finally asserted myself, I was told I was being 'too aggressive.' I was left wondering: Would a man in my position have heard the same words? The amount of times we're told to 'shrug it off' or 'let it go' when we know something isn't right is staggering. Yet, we're expected to keep smiling and keep working, as if nothing happened. I think the most frustrating part of being a woman in any field where you're a minority isn't just the challenges of the job itself—it's the gaslighting that comes with it. There was a time when I raised a concern about a policy that was blatantly unfair, only to be told I was 'overreacting' and that 'it wasn't a big deal.' Meanwhile, my male colleagues were praised for their 'insights' when they voiced much less critical opinions. Or the countless times I've been in conversations where my ideas were ignored until they were repeated by a man—suddenly, those same ideas were brilliant. The double standards are exhausting, but what's worse is the expectation that we should just accept it and move on. It's time we stop normalizing this and start speaking up. Because our voices matter, and our experiences are valid. It's also time people started looking at things with a female gaze, understanding and incorporating a woman's perspective into policies. Enough of the all-male boards deciding what women want—it's time for real change, with women at the table and their voices shaping the decisions that impact us all. And let me be clear: when I say 'female,' I include all human beings who identify as female. This isn't just a problem of two genders— or a rant against one -- this is about ensuring that everyone has representation and psychological safety at work.  

What happens in a room when a powerful man tries to diminish a female journalist? 🎤 "Piggy," Donald Trump called out. Right there in the room. Last night, at a Women In Journalism fireside chat with Rachel Corp (CEO of ITN) and Katharine Viner (Editor-in-Chief of The Guardian), that moment came under the microscope. And it revealed something unsettling. We're not just watching journalism under pressure. 📰 We're watching who gets to speak being decided in real time. Here's what stayed with me. 👇 Whose voices disappear matters more than we admit. When Katharine Viner described how The Guardian's early Epstein coverage was initially dismissed because it came from a woman journalist, I felt that familiar knot in my stomach. How many critical stories never gain traction because the messenger doesn't fit the expected profile? Deepfakes aren't just a technological problem. 🤖 They're becoming a new weapon used to discredit women before they even speak. Women are disproportionately targeted. It's not random harassment. It's strategic erosion of credibility. Platform choices reveal values under pressure. ⚖️ The Guardian left Elon Musk's 'X' platform. ITN stayed. Both organisations defended their decision as the best way to serve their audiences. But when platforms become battlegrounds, every decision about where you show up becomes a statement about what you're willing to tolerate. The leadership pipeline isn't just about numbers. 📊 Rachel Corp spoke about the need for more women rising to editorial leadership. That point resonates far beyond journalism. In any industry where high-stakes communication shapes outcomes, who gets heard shapes everything that follows. Watching this online, I kept thinking about my own moments facing dismissive authority. The times I've watched brilliant women second-guess their expertise. The conversations that never happen because the "wrong" person tries to start them. Voice isn't just about having something to say. It's about claiming the right to be heard when it matters most. 🎯 When someone tries to diminish your authority in the moment - do you adjust your approach, or double down on your message⁉️ Follow Arti Halai for more on confident communication when it really counts. 😊 International Women's Forum UK The Women of the Year Awards The Novi Awards Ladiesfirst Professional Development BAWE - British Association of Women Entrepreneurs The Guardian ITN

A different kind of bias in RW which is concerning: Where are all the ‘godmothers’ of AI? Women’s voices are not being heard - Amid the coverage of Sam Altman returning to the helm of OpenAI, women are being written out of the future of AI ‘We are heading toward the best world ever,” said Sam Altman in an interview earlier this month, just before the saga of his firing and rehiring as OpenAI’s chief executive. As an expert on gender equity in news, this statement made me wonder: whose world was heading towards being the best ever? As it turns out, the one the Altman team is crafting is largely devoid of women. My analysis amid the furore around his dismissal revealed fascinating insights: for example, of the 702 (out of 750) employees who signed the letter demanding Altman’s reinstatement more than 75% were men, a gender imbalance that matches that identified in AI teams in McKinsey’s The State of AI in 2022 report. After Altman’s return, OpenAI’s newly established board of directors is now made up exclusively of white men, a situation compounded by male dominance among executives. Where are the voices of female AI leaders and experts in coverage of this most dramatic of Silicon Valley stories? Given women’s peripheral presence in the AI industry, their concerns are unlikely to be captured, let alone addressed Women’s role in crafting our AI-infused future and shaping the news around generative AI has concerned me for some time. From analysing data and conversations with experts, I realise that, whether as developers, news editors or AI experts, women are largely absent from the AI world. https://lnkd.in/eEsJr7m7

Every MAN on here needs to read Felice Ayling' post. Especially men who want to grow their businesses and make money. "When platforms allow misogyny to run rampant - through poor moderation, biased algorithms, or both - they’re not just making women “uncomfortable.” They’re blocking economic growth. Women posting less Women selling less Women earning less Women hiring less Women investing less Leads to economies growing slower. This is a supply chain issue. A productivity issue. A GDP issue. Not a “poor women” issue. Treating women’s voices like a diversity footnote is costing the entire business ecosystem. ... The economic reality: silencing women slows everyone down. When women’s voices are sidelined, there are ripple effects: ⭕ Slower innovation Because homogeneous voices create homogeneous ideas. ⭕ Poorer decision-making Research from multiple business schools shows mixed-gender teams make significantly better decisions. ⭕ Lost market insight Women control 80% of consumer purchasing power. Silencing them is like running a business blindfolded. ⭕ Worsening founder pipelines If being visible online is unsafe, fewer women step into thought leadership, senior roles, or founder paths. ⭕ Weaker economies The World Bank estimates economies could grow by trillions if women participated at equal levels. Women’s voices aren’t a feel-good initiative. They’re a profit centre." https://lnkd.in/eAGVSJ9m

It’s not the message that’s the problem. It’s who’s saying it. The words women aren’t allowed to say. Women in healthcare, leadership, and innovation are being systematically silenced online. Posts about workplace inequity see reach drop 60–80%. Health content written by women gets flagged when identical information from men doesn’t. The evidence is overwhelming. Researchers have documented the pattern across thousands of accounts. When I switched terminology in my own writing, same concept, different words, my reach quadrupled overnight. The information didn’t change. Only the language I was forced to use. That’s why I created Say What You Mean, Still Get Seen, an evolving language experiment. And why EmpowHER must exist: a space where women can say what they mean without algorithmic punishment. Where health innovations, leadership insights, and lived expertise don’t get buried for being “too sensitive.” We want to hear your experience. Has your reach collapsed after discussing health topics or leadership challenges? Has your life-saving innovation been flagged because of the words you used to describe it? This week at EmpowHER: CensorHERship: How women’s voices get erased (and why we’re reclaiming them) The patterns. The research. Why it matters. And what we’re doing about it. Drop your experience in the comments. We’re building and creating the evidence together. Because when women’s voices get erased, critical health information doesn’t travel. Innovations don’t get funded. Warnings don’t get heard. We’re done being silenced. This is a read you don’t want to miss, a conversation that affects everyone in existence. Visibility shapes credibility. Women’s insights that don’t reach audiences don’t get tested, adopted, or funded. Women’s warnings that don’t circulate don’t prevent harm. Women’s innovations that can’t be found can’t disrupt markets. Rachael Lemon Editor-in-Chief, EmpowHER 🍋✍️

In a previous post, I shared my “New York Bitch” moment, which inspired an energizing conversation about how gender biases influence the language we use with women in the workplace. This time I’m digging into how the media describe women leaders. In a landscape where clickable headlines dominate the news, women are often characterized based on personal or superficial characteristics. Case in point, a recent Financial Times headline: ”‘Attractive women 16% more likely to secure start-up funding’ — study” (Really, FT? Link in comments) The data show that, unfortunately, this isn’t a one-off obnoxious headline: ➡️Women make up just 24% of news subjects and sources, according to WACC Global .  ➡️Even when they are featured, headlines about women tend to be more sensationalized and use biased language. (Check out the visualization from The Pudding linked in the comments) ➡️The disparity is even worse for people of color, who are not only less likely to be represented, but also more likely to be represented negatively. ➡️An analysis of media coverage by Cision found that male leaders are most often described as “strong” or “innovative” while women leaders are often described as “young” or “mother.” (Links to sources in the comments) As communicators, we know how big of a role the media plays in shaping perception. These disparities can reinforce long-standing biases and stereotypes. So what can be done about it? I aim to 1) talk more openly about these disparities and 2) use Mission North 's platform to spotlight women leaders, disrupters, and visionaries. Keep an eye out for our upcoming Dispatch Q&A series. We may not be able to solve these problems overnight, but we can start by writing our own headlines— and trust me, the words “young” or “mother” won’t appear in any of them. I’d love to hear from other comms leaders and those in the media: is this problem getting better? How have trends like this shaped your work? #media #womenleaders #communications

The Global Media Monitoring Project 2025 report, supported by UN Women and the UN Correspondents Association, released earlier this month contained some surprising results. Apparently, the status quo of gross underrepresentation and misrepresentation of women in media content has persisted since the report first came out in 1995. The report monitors gender equality in news media across 160 countries, and is released every five years. After a slow and steady rise in women’s share of visibility and voice in news, progress began flatlining in 2010 and has remained so until today, with little change. In 1995, women were seen, heard or spoken about in 17 percent of the total content in print and broadcast; in 2025, the figure is only 26 percent, a nine-point change in 30 years, with a two-point increase from 2020 to 2025. However, women are marginally more likely to be featured in stories published online on websites dedicated to news. The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception, often perpetuating gender stereotypes and biases that hinder women’s progress. With women being barely seen or heard in the news, it gives the impression that women are unavailable, unqualified, or unimportant to be covered. The GMMP 2025 report shows that media’s recognition of women’s expertise is still lacking after three decades at less than 25 percent despite the strides women have made in the various professions and as leaders. Meanwhile, women journalists in traditional media have risen from 28 percent in 1995 to 41 percent in 2025 and in online news from 25 percent in 2015 to 43 percent in 2025. However, men continue to dominate newsroom reporting. The Reuters Institute analyzes annually the gender breakdown of top editors in a sample of 240 major online and offline news outlets in 12 different markets across five continents. In 2025, it found that only 27 percent of the 171 top editors across the 240 brands covered are women, even though, on average, 40 percent of journalists in the 12 markets are women. In Saudi Arabia, there has been considerable progress for women in leadership positions in the media, including as CEO and top editors, directors, and producers, as well as more journalists. With Vision 2030, more women are now featured in leadership and positive roles reflecting the progress they achieved in various sectors, although some stereotyping and biased reporting persists. In 2015, I participated in the launch of the GMMP 2015 report at the UN headquarters in Geneva as director of communications at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Following that, I pushed for adopting a resolution on empowering women in and through the media at the OIC Information Ministers’ Conference in Jeddah in 2016 under the chairmanship of Saudi Arabia. The media content reflects society. If women’s empowerment and gender justice is to be achieved, it should be seen and heard. More in my article in Arab News https://lnkd.in/dUQCX5uz

My MPhil thesis on the "Critical Discourse Analysis of Pakistani Media Representation of Women's Health Issues During the 2022 Floods" came to a stark conclusion: while women were disproportionately impacted by the catastrophe, their representation in the media was virtually non-existent. This invisibility is a crisis. The reality on the ground, as highlighted in the recent Stimson Environmental Security article, shows the devastating gender divides at play: - Health & Dignity: Women in relief camps faced dire conditions, including a critical lack of sanitation and menstrual supplies, leading to serious health issues like UTIs—a clear case of period poverty compounded by disaster. - Vulnerability: Pre-existing socio-economic inequities meant women and girls were at a higher risk of malnutrition, hunger, and displacement, with the added threat of increased child marriages in flood-affected areas. The lack of media visibility on women’s specific needs, from maternal health to hygiene, contributes directly to a lack of gender-sensitive disaster policy. When the media fails to report on a crisis, policymakers and aid organizations struggle to address it. We cannot achieve true climate resilience in Pakistan without prioritizing the voices, health, and security of women and girls. We need a fundamental shift in both media coverage and disaster response planning. #PakistanFloods #ClimateJustice #GenderEquality #MediaRepresentation #DisasterResponse #WomensHealth