BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Increased media coverage changes public perceptions towards gender roles and women’s sport.

The male world-view which dominates sports media and conveys to the public that women’s sport are inferior to men’s reinforce traditional gender stereotypes and deter young girls from becoming active in sport. Gender perceptions have obviously come a long way in the last 100 years, but the media classification of women’s sport as inferior to men’s is severely slowing this progress in the field of sport. Humans are social beings with esteem needs, and as social beings we like to be viewed in a positive light by our peers. This is best achieved on a general level by conforming to social expectations and norm. This also applies for societal conceptions of gender. The fact that the media deems women’s sport to be of lesser importance which (as we have seen) conveys to the public this message, reinforces the notion that sport is not a worthwhile activity for women and girls. Instead, it is an activity more appropriate for men and boys. This kind of discourse has the effect of moulding gender identities both in terms of how men perceive women and how women perceive themselves. In this way, the lack of media coverage of women’s sport fuels a self-affirming perception of gender which effectively denies many young girls a realistic choice of becoming engaged in sport as perceptions affect confidence in one’s ability; as a result of this gender bias boys as young as six rate themselves as being much more competent in sports than girls do.[1] By forcing the media to provide equal coverage of both men’s and women’s sport, we take an effective step in breaking these societal discourses and transforming gender perceptions. This is because increased coverage will make sport seem like a worthwhile activity for girls and women. As more women take part in sport, this has a further cyclical effect of re-affirming gender conceptions around sport which, in turn, induces further women to become engaged in sport.  This is a desirable outcome from the government’s perspective because sport has a positive impact on the health of those who are physically active. Those who are physically active are not only less likely to suffer from things like Coronary Heart Disease and cancer, but they have also been shown to lead more psychologically happy lives due to the endorphins released while exercising, and the joy of feeling physically fit. [1] Jacobs, Janis E., and Eccles, Jacquelynne S., ‘The Impact of Mopthers’ Gender-Role Stereotypic Beliefs on Mothers’ and Children’s Ability Perceptions’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 6, 1992, pp.932-944, p.934.
Increased media coverage creates more role models for young girls to engage in sport.

A more obvious problem with the limited coverage of women’s sport is the distinct lack of sports role models available as sources of inspiration for girls. Having sports role models is crucial for children to attain the desire and motivation to partake in sport. Boys often want to be like Lionel Messi in football, or Lebron James in basketball. Boys can access such figureheads because they are world famous. Their sporting achievements and prowess are glorified in all forms of media and people can very easily watch them play their sport live on TV. The same does not exist for girls because female athletes receive nowhere near as much media attention as their male counterparts. Girls often can’t even name any female sports stars so lack role models in sport.[1] Although it is true that children can have role models of either sex, the divide in the sports world between men’s and women’s sports means girls cannot aspire to compete alongside the likes of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps. The successes of British female athletes like Rebecca Adlington, Jessica Ennis and Victoria Pendleton, or the young Katie Ledecky from the USA in the recent Olympics have captured the hearts and imagination of a huge number of young girls across the UK and already, as local sports centres and athletics clubs have seen participation amongst girls soar during and after the London Olympics. This is no coincidence – it is because of the media attention and glorification female athletes receive. The Olympic Games are an example of what equal media coverage of men’s and women’s sport can achieve, The equal coverage of Grand Slam tennis and the subsequent glorification of the likes of Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams is another example. We must take action to provide the same sort of role models across all sporting events. [1] ‘Girls’ attitudes explored… Role models’, Girlguiding UK, 2012, p.14
Increased media coverage will lead to increased funding towards women’s sport

Increased media coverage will lead to more money going into women’s sport. This will happen for several reasons. In the short-term, increased media coverage means more money from advertising and sponsorship, both through the media and directly sponsoring sporting events, clubs and athletes. Increased media involvement also generates revenue for sports in the form of TV and radio licenses (i.e. broadcasting rights). Importantly, as women’s sport increases in popularity, so will the competitiveness to secure sponsorship deals and TV rights in those sports. [2] This will further push up the amount of funding going into women’s sport. The Government invests in social projects it deems to be worthwhile. As we have seen, the media has a huge influence in forming public opinion as to what constitutes a worthwhile activity. Thus, increased media coverage will create more demand for increased government funding in women’s sport. This phenomenon was observed in the Government funding that went towards the British Olympic team. The increased popularity in the Olympics led to huge increases in funding for the Beijing and London Olympics. [1] Increased Government funding is desirable because it leads to better facilities and coaching, increased public awareness, increased participation and, ultimately, in improved results on the sporting field (as was seen in both Beijing and London for team GB). [1] UK Government, London 2012 Funding, accessed 7/9/2012. [2] Cavanaugh, Maureen and Crook, Hank: “Why Women’s Sports Struggle to Gain Popularity”, These Days Archive, KPBS, July 27, 2009.
Men’s sports are more popular than women’s and so should receive more media coverage.

The role of the media is not to be a tool for the implementation of social policy. It is instead to inform the public and provide entertainment. However, it would be naïve and short-sighted to believe that the media should report and cover everything equally so as to perfectly inform the public. The nature of media coverage is such that there is a limited amount each media company can cover. There is a limit on air-time available to radio and TV stations and there is a limit to the number of pages newspapers can print. Media companies thus have to make a choice regarding what to report and to what extent. It makes sense for more coverage to be offered for stories and events that are deemed to be of greater importance by the general public (irrespective of its objective value). For example, news about local flooding in Queensland Australia may be hugely important for Australians, but considerably less so for people in Europe or the Americas. Similarly, a British victory at the World Schools Debating Championships would not be (by and large) seen as important as a British victory in the Football or Rugby World Cup. We would thus expect the media to cover each story according to its popularity. Given the considerably lower public interest in most women’s sport compared to men’s, it thus makes sense for men’s to receive more media coverage. That coverage is based on popularity rather than media bias is shown by more than two thirds of media reports not in any way enhancing stereotypes, the media are therefore not specifically discriminating against women in sport.[1] [1] ‘Sports, Media and Stereotypes Women and Men in Sports and Media’, Centre for Gender Equality, 2006, p.19.
Women’s sports do not provide the same economic incentives for media coverage as men’s.

Media coverage is dependent on one crucial factor: financial incentive. The journalism industry is hugely competitive and media companies constantly have to compete with rivals for viewers and numbers of papers and magazines sold, often just in order to survive. [1] This is important for two reasons. Firstly because more sales obviously means more revenue, and secondly because the volume of sales or viewers attracts more money from advertisers and sponsors who want to maximise the exposure of their adverts to the general public. Therefore, for media companies to prosper, they must cover subjects that are most popular and likely to receive most attention by the public. Given the difference in popularity between women and men’s sport, media companies have to focus on men’s sporting events as that will largely enable them to compete with rivals and secure greater revenue. [1] Creedon, Pamela J.: “Women, Sport, and Media Institutions: Issues in Sports Journalism and Marketing”, taken from Media Sport, Wenner, Lawrence A. (ed), Routledge, 1998.
The international community and political legitimacy

The military-controlled government in Myanmar clearly does not have popular domestic support - otherwise the artificial election process would not have been necessary. Therefore, it derives its strength from the fact that many international players other than the US and the EU have continued to recognise it, while there is historic precedent for concerted international opinion having influenced illegitimate regimes (Haiti and South Africa, for instance). Having a nationalised economy increases the control the military has over trade and investment, while a majority of the country finds itself in poverty. The choice for the international community is between continuing to strengthen the military by engaging with it, or by disengaging (like the EU and the US) until the ruling elite runs out of resources and options. The former option does not give hope to any real democratic reform, while the latter option would take away the legitimacy of the government in the international arena.
Vested international interest are harming Myanmar

Certain members of the international community, especially regional players like China and India, have tended to ignore questions of legitimacy of the regime for economic and political benefits. While this may be beneficial to them in the short term, it is very harmful for Myanmar as a democracy in the future. Politically, a blind eye is being turned to a culture of violating human rights. If and when Myanmar becomes a real democracy, it is unlikely that it will magically transform into a model democratic state, unless enough emphasis is provided to fundamental principles of good governance at the outset. Economically, investment is being provided in a highly monopolistic and imperfect environment, without addressing problems of corruption and inadequacy of legal processes. In the long run, even if a democratic constitutional framework exists, the country is likely to continue to have high economic disparity and corrupt markets due to these reasons (in a manner comparable to how Russian markets have evolved since the 1990s). Reengagement should not be setting the stage for a shift from a military-controlled government to a poor democracy, which would also be harmful for stability in the region as a whole.
Myanmar is no longer a military dictatorship

Despite the change in nominal governmental structure, the real holders of power have remained the same. The president Thein Sein was handpicked by the outgoing military leader Than Shwe. The top posts in government and one-fourth of parliament is reserved was the military. Arbitrary laws prevented leaders of the NLD, including Aung San Suu Kyi, from participating in the elections. Elections do not equal democracy. Other than the sugar-coated words of the new government, there has been no real movement towards democratic reform. The international community has long called for an impartial investigation into the systematic human rights violations to bring its perpetrators to justice. None of this has been promised, or is likely to be achieved under a military-controlled government, the main aim of which is to hoodwink the international community and provide security to the guilty leaders of the military junta.1 1 Ellgee, ‘Myanmar hides behind ‘democracy’’, Aljazeera, 27 January 2011.
Disengagement has done more harm than good in the region

While the policy of disengagement may not have achieved all its goals, it has brought to the forefront a moral standard by which the government can be judged. This has helped frame global opinion and influenced regional players’ attitudes to Myanmar as well to some extent. More harm is done by continuing to engage with Myanmar since that option offers no incentive or pressure for democratic reform. Trading with Myanmar will only add to the economic and political clout of the ruling elite, as the ‘trickle down’ to the population as a whole is minimal. A policy of disengagement, at the very least, prevents the military (which is sensitive to international opinion) from becoming even stronger.
Liberal democracies have a moral obligation to denounce illegitimate regimes

This argument assumes that democracy, and that too a particular kind of democracy, is the only legitimate form of government possible. The kind of democracy that is followed in the West may not be appropriate for Myanmar, in any case not at this stage. There are economic and political inequalities in Myanmar and its democracy is not perfect. However, if everyone was allowed to participate in elections, the country is likely to slip into a situation of civil war, since the elected individuals may not wield real power. Attempts at imposing a particular style of democracy in countries that may not be ready for it can be counter-productive (as in East Timor, for instance). Further, not every country in the world has claimed itself to be a champion of democracy across the world. Such countries have no obligation to denounce a foreign regime, and have a right to decide what their policies should be. An apparently democratic government may not be a good one (for instance, Zimbabwe), and an undemocratic government may not necessarily be a bad one (for instance, China and Venezuela). There is no basis to say that any uniformity has been achieved in accepted international standards for the legitimacy of governments.
Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement

Reengagement will send a message to the Myanmar government that the steps it has taken have not gone unnoticed by the international community, and may lead to more substantive change over time. It will project the US and the EU as constructive actors in the process of reform. Reengagement is a way of gaining political and economic influence in Myanmar and in the region. It may lead to negotiations at some stage, and reengagement now would allow them to have a greater say at that time. By not engaging, the US and the EU are not actually able to increase the influence of the opponents of the current government either.
Myanmar is no longer a military dictatorship

Myanmar has taken significant steps towards democratisation in the last three years. The new constitution and the elections that resulted in the current civilian government being appointed represent a marked shift in its governance structure. Though there may be scope for improvement in its democratic framework, institutions for democratic functioning have been created and this is a huge step forward. Aung San Suu Kyi has also been released from house arrest, and the tone of the statements made by the new government has been a reconciliatory one. A new human rights commission has also been established. While the pace of reform may not match the supposed expectations of the US and the EU, Myanmar’s choice to change gradually and engage with them on its own terms must be respected. The fundamental circumstances under which a policy of limited engagement was adopted with Myanmar have changed, and this calls for reassessment.
Disengagement has done more harm than good in the region

The policy of disengagement has not resulted in any meaningful change in Myanmar, politically or economically. Since Myanmar has not been dependent on the US or the EU, sanctions and arms embargoes have not had any effect on the government. The changes in 2010-2011 have been due to the influence of the NLD, and certain regional players (like Thailand and China) which have sought to directly engage with Myanmar. Further, the sections of the population that are most affected by the sanctions are those not in the top tier of the political and economic class, but smaller manufacturers and the working class. Restrictions on exports and developmental aid from the US and the EU prevent local manufacturers and consumers from having access to them. On the other hand, restrictions on imports from Myanmar weaken the market for its exporters. These factors only further impoverish and alienate the local population, increasing economic disparity, and consequently the power of the ruling elite in the national context as well.
Liberal democracies have a moral obligation to denounce illegitimate regimes

The new civilian government in Myanmar is as illegitimate as the rule of the military junta which led to its creation. The military junta itself was guilty of overruling the democratic verdict in 1990 that gave power to the NLD. Under the new constitution, 25% of all seats in parliament and the most influential governmental posts are reserved for the military, and more than 75% majority is required for amending the constitution. Political prisoners (including Aung San Suu Kyi) were not permitted to participate in the elections. Further, the election process itself has been described as a sham, involving violence and intimidation of democratic activists. The current government is only a tool for the preceding military junta to consolidate its power and provide a safety valve for its leaders through apparently legitimate means. It attempts to use the false democratic process as a veil to resist international criticism. Widespread human rights violations, ethnic violence, and undemocratic curtailment of the freedom of speech have characterised the period of rule of the military junta. By engaging with it at the political or economic level, other countries provide it with a false sense of legitimacy. This is morally at odds with established standards in of human rights and international relations, especially where other illegitimate governments (Syria, Iraq, and North Korea for instance) across the world continually face censure and isolation.
Re-engagement will weaken the reform movement

International and domestic pressure has forced the military junta to set up a nominal civilian government. It is important to make sure that change goes further and becomes meaningful. This will involve bringing into force a fair constitution, curbing human rights violations and bringing its perpetrators to justice, and creating conditions for legitimate democratic elections to take place. By reengaging at this juncture, the signal the ruling elite in Myanmar will get is that this piecemeal, nominal change is sufficient to hold them in good stead in the international political arena for a longer period. It would also be a betrayal of the pro-democracy supporters in Myanmar, who continue to be cast out of the constitutional process and have little actual political influence under the existing system.1 1 Thanegi, Ma, ‘Burma sanctions: The case against’, BBC news, ‘4 March 2002’.
States should not be isolated on political grounds

This argument is not a defence of the government in Myanmar. Making it a question of who is pointing fingers itself politicizes a principled stance against an undoubtedly unjust system. The US and the EU have been consistent in their criticism of the military-controlled government and in their principled support for pro-democracy activists in Myanmar. This is in line with their stated positions on human rights and democracy across the world – with political allies or enemies - and in accordance with international treaties that they are signatories to. They have long voiced concerns over human rights violations in China and India, for instance. Only because their moral position may not have been as influential in relation to certain countries, or that it has been diplomatically unfeasible to take stronger positions in certain circumstances due to global power relations, it does not mean they should not take such a position in the case of Myanmar as well.1 1 Schmahmann, David, The unconstitutionality of state and local enactments in the United States restricting business ties with Burma (Myanmar) Vanderbilt journal of transnational law. March 1997, vol 30, no 2.
There is scope for further diplomatic progress in the region through disengagement

Since the government is still controlled by the military and there is no evidence to that corruption levels will go down in the new regime, engaging in trade with Myanmar will only strengthen the ruling elite. There is little accountability for developmental aid actually reaching its desired goals.1 Trading with Myanmar means trading with organisations controlled by the state/military in a nationalised economy. Common people are exploited and kept in poverty while the profits are reaped by a few. This has been the experience of international trade with Myanmar involving countries other than US and EU, and there is no reason that this will change. Further, there is no necessary link between business activity and development of the rule of law, as the experience of many African countries has shown. Opportunistic business entities are more likely to be involved in rent-seeking monopolistic practices that benefit them, instead of causing social change. 1 BBC News, ‘UN frustrated at Burma response’, 13 May 2008.
Regional factors favour re-engagement

Though countries in South Asia have displayed ambivalence in their attitude towards Myanmar, it is not a reason for the US and the EU to change their stance. Regional players have sometimes tended to support the pro-democracy movement in their rhetoric, but have not adopted policies that are aligned with it. Therefore, they have not been able to cause any real democratic reform. If there is a united international community that does not actively seek to isolate Myanmar, but to the contrary engages with it, the force that can drive such reform will become even weaker. The risk of harm from long-existent differences in attitudes between regional players and those who seek to disengage is very low, and nothing has occurred since 1990 to suggest otherwise.
The international community and political legitimacy

While international support is important to some extent for the government, Myanmar has significant political and economic relations with many countries in the region, including China and North Korea, whose stance is strategically motivated and is not going to be influenced by what the US and the EU do. It is hard to fathom a situation in the foreseeable future where the military and government leadership will be forced to bow down to international pressure, whether or not certain countries choose to engage with it. The only way for the international community to remain relevant to Myanmar would be by engaging with it. The situation is different from that in South Africa and in Haiti because of the existence of strong allies, whose interests are different, if not opposed to in some respects, from those who follow a policy of disengagement with Myanmar.