The Global Media Monitoring Project
media monitoring organization
The Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP) is the largest international study of gender in the news media and falls under the World Association for Christian Communication (WACC). It is also an advocacy organization that aims to change the representation of women in the news media. Every five years since 1995, the GMMP collects data on indicators of gender in the news, such as the presence of women, gender bias, and stereotyping. The most recent study, conducted in 2015, encompassed 114 countries.
History
The idea for a media monitoring project was created at the Women Empowering Communication international conference in Bangkok in 1994. The WACC, along with MediaWatch (Canada), took up the project. They had several key goals:
To map the representation and portrayal of women in the world’s mainstream news media
To develop a grassroots research instrument
To build solidarity among gender and communication groups worldwide
To create media awareness
To develop media monitoring skills on an international level
Coverage
The 1995 Report covered 71 countries and was conducted by volunteers over the span of one day. Consequent studies took place in 2000, covering 70 countries; in 2005, covering 76 countries; in 2010, in 108 countries; and in 2015, in 114 countries. All of the monitoring and compiling of reports is carried out by volunteers. GMMP reports have been presented at the Women’s NGO Forum in Beijing (1995), the UN Beijing + 5 (2000), a parallel session at the Commission on the Status of Women 2010 session, and in the 100 Women BBC series 2015 "Is News Failing Women?".
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “The Global Media Monitoring Project” as media monitoring organization. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as media monitoring organization. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q17013525. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1995, 2015, 1994 and 2000.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “The Global Media Monitoring Project”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow The Global Media Monitoring Project primary sources, The Global Media Monitoring Project archive and Global research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “The Global Media Monitoring Project”?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “The Global Media Monitoring Project” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.