News Q1 practice question.

Q1. Analyse the different representations of gender, social class and / or ethnicity in Sources A and B. Apply one appropriate theory of representation in your answer. [10 marks]
In terms of representation of gender for this front cover of The Sun, we can apply:

•  Van Zoonen's feminist theory.
• Being very sexualised; chest area exposed, wearing red; connotes seductiveness & promiscuity, her face is airbrushed, which means stereotypically, she is supposed to look perfect because she is a woman, and society believes women are supposed to be beautiful and desirable, hence why Van Zoonen says women are treated as sexual objects in the media.
• Gillroy's "otherness" theory; in this cover, she is connoted as a white person rather than a mixed person; this could signify that since the Sun is right wing, they're not as for mixed people, as they are for white people. 

In terms of representation for this cover, we can apply: 

• Disprove Van Zoonen's feminist theory (in contrast to source A..) unlike Source A, this cover rejects Van Zoonen's feminist theory; two women are seen as respectable and they're being represented in a positive light. 

In the two sources, both newspapers cover the same story, which is about Meghan Markle and her marriage to Harr, however in some aspects, there are elements that are quite different. For example, in source A, we could apply Van Zoonen's feminist theory as in the front cover, Meghan is painted as a sexual object, and we can tell this by the way she looks; she's wearing a red, exposing dress, which could connote seductiveness, power/strength and desire. She is also being represented here as though she is promiscuous. Moreover, we can also see that her face is airbrushed, which could support Butler's feminist theory as well; gender is not natural, it is culturally determined and constructive, and in this case, this is true, because women are stereotypically, supposed to be perfect and be beautiful, they should be desirable and aim to please men. So therefore, Meghan seems to be conforming to this stereotype; Butler would also agree with Van Zoonen, that women are indeed represented as sexual objects. In further use of Van Zoonen's feminist theory, the text "Don't fall for my little sis, Harry, she'd be the next Princess Pushy" which again, puts Meghan in a negative light, she's being connoted as pushy, forceful and selfish. This is an understandable point of view, as The Sun newspaper, is right-wing/conservative, so perhaps they'd want someone as a citizen of Britain to be in the royal family, and not someone who used to be an American actress. Van Zoonen's theory here is definitely painting a negative light towards Meghan Markle, she indeed is being sexualised and signified as an object. 

In contrast to source A, source B is centre-right, so it has a different worldwide view of the royal family, or in this case, Meghan Markle and her mother. In the cover, they're being represented as a respectable and royal family, which would reject Van Zoonen's feminist theory of women being signified as sexual objects. Here, the two women are dressed appropriately and are covered up, without any skin being on show, whereas in source A, Markle is seen as promiscuous and seductive with her skin out on show. The headline "Welcome to the family" also portrays them in a significant and positive light, it's welcoming them to the Royal family. "Kindness to mother leaves Meghan touched" could also support the connotation of a positive light being shone on them.  Whereas in source A, the text "Exclusive: Meghan 'shallow'" in all capitals and red font, completely reject the positive light and instead, shine negative light onto Meghan.

In conclusion, both sources can be easily applied to Van Zoonen's feminist theory; in source A, the woman is being very sexualised and undermined as a woman, whereas in source B, it completely rejects Van Zoonen's theory, and instead, portrays two respectable women.