This research compares media coverage of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 and Kamala Harris’s 2024 U.S. presidential campaigns, focusing on how gender and racial stereotypes shape public perceptions of female political leaders. Analyzing articles from The New York Times, NPR, Fox News, Breitbart, and the Associated Press during the month before each election, the study uses a Media Monitoring Tool to identify bias in representation. Findings reveal persistent gender-based stereotypes dominating coverage in both campaigns, with emphasis on personal traits, appearance, and health over political competence or policy positions. While explicit racial bias toward Harris was limited compared to expectations, both candidates were portrayed as less fit for leadership primarily because they were women, highlighting the enduring impact of gendered mediation in political reporting. Right-leaning outlets, particularly Breitbart and Fox News, produced the most biased coverage, and provocative, emotionally charged language was often used to delegitimize the candidates.
The project situates these findings within media theory on gendered mediation, intersectionality, and political marketing, noting that biased portrayals hinder women’s political participation and reinforce societal norms that link leadership with masculinity. It calls for future journalists and communication students to adopt equitable reporting practices—avoiding gendered language, focusing on qualifications rather than identity-based traits, and ensuring diverse voices and perspectives in political coverage. While the data show no significant improvement in the portrayal of women candidates between 2016 and 2024, the absence of overtly racist narratives in Harris’s case is a minor positive shift. The research concludes with practical recommendations for fostering inclusive journalism and democratic engagement, alongside an interactive Kahoot activity designed to train audiences in detecting and challenging media bias.
