4.4 Article

Weight Stigma in Online News Images: A Visual Content Analysis of Stigma Communication in the Depictions of Individuals with Obesity in US and UK News

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2023.2286512

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted a content analysis of images accompanying obesity-related news articles from the U.S. and U.K. It found that weight stigma is prevalent in news media, with persons of higher weight being portrayed in a stigmatizing manner. The study also highlighted the differences in stigmatizing images between the U.S. and U.K. news.
Weight stigma is a pervasive form of discrimination worldwide. News media, and news images in particular, can reinforce weight stigma by portraying persons with obesity in a negative, stereotypical manner. Informed by the model of stigma communication, this study conducted a content analysis of images accompanying obesity-related news articles from the U.S. and U.K. to determine and compare the prevalence of stigmatizing images. Images (N = 445) in obesity-focused news articles obtained from the top four most viewed online news in the U.S. (n = 244) and U.K. (n = 201) during August 2018-August 2019 were systematically coded. These 445 images featured 228 individuals. Of these 228 individuals, 35% were identified as higher weight and 44% as lower weight. Overall, 70% of persons of higher weight in these news images were depicted in a stigmatizing manner. Further, 46% of individuals with higher weight were depicted with their head partially or fully removed from the image, compared to 25% of individuals with lower weight. Additionally, U.K. news were 2.5 times more likely to contain stigmatizing images than U.S. news. These findings highlight the prevalence of weight stigma in news images and suggest that broader systemic efforts are needed by the news media industry to eliminate the use of negative imagery that marginalizes persons of higher weight.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据