#MeToo media coverage portrays accusers as sympathetic: Study

Agencies
September 8, 2019

Washington D.C., Sept 8: The #MeToo movement that gained momentum last year, encouraging women to speak out their stories of sexual harassment, is believed to portray the accusers as sympathetic and paint men more powerful, finds a study.

The study conducted at the Carnegie Mellon University shows analysis of #MeToo media coverage, which presents accusers as sympathetic, but with less power and agency than their alleged perpetrators.

The paper was presented by graduate student Anjalie Field in Florence, Italy, last month at the Association of Computational Linguistics conference.

Yulia Tsvetkov, assistant professor in the School of Computer Science's Language Technologies Institute, said: "The goal of the movement is to empower women but according to our computational analysis that's not what's happening in news stories."

Tsvetkov's research team used natural language processing (NLP) techniques to analyse online media coverage of #MeToo narratives that included 27,602 articles in 1,576 outlets. They also looked at how different media outlets portrayed perpetrators and considered the role of third-party actors in news stories.

"Bias can be unconscious, veiled and hidden in a seemingly positive narrative," said Tsvetkov. "Such subtle forms of biased language can be much harder to detect and to date, we have no systematic way of identifying them automatically. The goal of our research was to provide tools to analyse such biased framing."

Their work draws insights from social psychology research and looks at the dynamics of power, agency, and sentiment, which is a measurement of sympathy.
"We were inspired by previous work that looked at the meaning of verbs in individual sentences," Tsvetkov said, adding that "our analysis incorporates context." This method allowed her team to consider much longer chunks of text, and to analyse narrative.

The research team developed ways to generate scores for words in context and mapped out the power, sentiment, and agency of each actor within a news story.

Their results show that the media consistently presents men as powerful, even after sexual harassment allegations.

Tsvetkov said this threatens to undermine the goals of the #MeToo movement, which is often characterised as "empowerment through empathy."

The team's analysis also showed that the people portrayed with the most positive sentiment in #MeToo stories were those not directly involved with allegations, like activists, journalists, or celebrities commenting on the movement, such as Oprah Winfrey.

This study proposes different methods for measuring power, agency and sentiment, and analyses the portrayals of characters in movie plots, as well as prominent members of society in general newspaper articles.

One of the consistent trends detected is that women are portrayed as less powerful than men. This was evident in an analysis of the 2016 Forbes list of most powerful people. In news stories from myriad outlets about women and men who ranked similarly, men were consistently described as being more powerful.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 14,2020

New Delhi, Mar 14: Excise duty on petrol and diesel was on Saturday hiked by ₹3 per litre as the government looked to mop up gains arising from fall in international oil prices.

Special excise duty on petrol was hiked by ₹2 to ₹8 per litre incase of petrol and to Rs 4 incase of diesel, an official notification said.

Additionally, road cess on petrol was raised by ₹1 per litre each on petrol and diesel to ₹10.

The increase in excise duty would in normal course result in a hike in petrol and diesel prices but most of it would be adjusted against the fall in rates that would have necessitated because of slump in international oil prices.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 19,2020

New Delhi, Jul 19: Three of the 10 most valued companies added a total of Rs 98,622.89 crore to their market valuation last week, led by stellar gains in IT major Infosys.

Seven companies from the coveted list witnessed a decline in their market valuation last week, but their cumulative loss of Rs 37,701.1 crore was less than the total gain made by three firms -- Reliance Industries Limited, Hindustan Unilever Limited and Infosys.

The market capitalisation of Infosys zoomed Rs 52,046.87 crore to Rs 3,85,027.58 crore. Shares of Infosys had rallied over 9 per cent on Thursday after the company posted a stronger-than-expected 12.4 per cent rise in the first quarter consolidated net profit.

Hindustan Unilever Limited added Rs 25,751.07 crore in its market valuation which stood at Rs 5,48,232.26 crore at close on Friday. Reliance Industries' m-cap jumped Rs 20,824.95 crore to Rs 12,11,682.08 crore.

In contrast, HDFC's valuation plunged Rs 13,920.21 crore to Rs 3,13,269.70 crore and that of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) declined Rs 7,617.34 crore to Rs 8,26,031.21 crore.

The valuation of ICICI Bank tumbled Rs 4,205.71 crore to Rs 2,29,156.24 crore and that of Kotak Mahindra Bank by Rs 4,175.28 crore to Rs 2,62,864.37 crore.

Bharti Airtel's m-cap dipped Rs 4,009.83 crore to Rs 3,09,521.05 crore and HDFC Bank's by Rs 3,403.97 crore to Rs 6,03,463.97 crore.

The valuation of ITC declined by Rs 368.76 crore to Rs 2,38,469.29 crore.

In the ranking of top-10 firms, RIL was at the number one rank followed by TCS, HDFC Bank, HUL, Infosys, HDFC, Bharti Airtel, Kotak Mahindra Bank, ITC and ICICI Bank.

During the last week, the 30-share BSE index advanced 425.81 points or 1.16 per cent.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.