This site is filthy!

[Fading Fast]

I think it is wrong - absolutely wrong / 100% wrong - to make a job qualification based on looks. But there are exceptions - actors' looks matter, of course. So here is a question - if it can be demonstrated (I'm not saying it is or has been, but I have heard it argued by those in the industry that it is) that more attractive (by "societal" standards) news anchors / reporters get better ratings on TV news shows - is it right for looks to be a qualification for men and / or women?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I don't believe that news should be subject to ratings. Broadcasters should be required to provide it as a public service as a condition of licensure. Ideally, it shouldn't even be open for commercial sponsorship, as was usually the case with the network news roundups during the radio era. The networks subsidized their news operations as a matter of prestige out of their entertainment profits. The exceptions were commentators like Walter Winchell or Lowell Thomas, who were understood to be either entertainers or specific mouthpieces for their sponsor's point of view, and were not directly employed by or produced by the networks.

 

[tonyb]

I think it is wrong - absolutely wrong / 100% wrong - to make a job qualification based on looks. But there are exceptions - actors' looks matter, of course. So here is a question - if it can be demonstrated (I'm not saying it is or has been, but I have heard it argued by those in the industry that it is) that more attractive (by "societal" standards) news anchors / reporters get better ratings on TV news shows - is it right for looks to be a qualification for men and / or women?

The line between journalism and show business (if there ever was one) gets harder to detect with each passing moment. Stating that looks matter on TV isn't endorsing the practice of putting nothing but pretty faces on the tube. But it is acknowledging the plain reality of the medium.

Me, I accept that that's just how people are. Again, to acknowledge it isn't to endorse it. But it does make a person more mindful of what he or she is being fed.

And besides, there's much to be said for "pretty." One's ideas are better received when they are better presented. People like pretty. They like pretty cars and pretty houses and pretty faces and pretty prose. Prettiness doesn't bestow anything but itself, so it's best for the stylist to have more than just that. But journalists in all media have always had to sell the product. They have always had an audience to capture and hold.

 

[2jakes]

 

[GHT]

I've never objected to body hair on women. And if I had, I would hope that it would have made not a nickel's worth of difference to any happily hirsute woman.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.car...r-body_hair-waxes-bikini_line-wda1420_low.jpg

 

[JimWagner]

Most fashion, male or female, just confuses me. Take this thing where men and women are removing all body hair. Is this some weird attempt to remain prepubescent, refusing to grow up? For men, hairless bodies and stubble? Really? I guess "That'll put hair on your chest" just doesn't carry the meaning it used to.

 

[GHT]

You are not wrong there, Jim. I remember the furore in the British press, mainly by the female journalists, when Dr. No was released. Hard to imagine Sean Connery stripped of his chest hair.

 

[2jakes]

The line between journalism and show business (if there ever was one) gets harder to detect with each passing moment. Stating that looks matter on TV isn't endorsing the practice of putting nothing but pretty faces on the tube. But it is acknowledging the plain reality of the medium.

Me, I accept that that's just how people are. Again, to acknowledge it isn't to endorse it. But it does make a person more mindful of what he or she is being fed.

And besides, there's much to be said for "pretty." One's ideas are better received when they are better presented. People like pretty. They like pretty cars and pretty houses and pretty faces and pretty prose. Prettiness doesn't bestow anything but itself, so it's best for the stylist to have more than just that. But journalists in all media have always had to sell the product. They have always had an audience to capture and hold.

I have worked in television for many years & have known “pretty” up close.
And no matter if she is rated a “10” on looks, the moment she acts conceited, or
insensitive to other people...
she is a zero as far as I’m concerned.