I’ve always had strong opinions on this subject. If you ask news execs why news personalities have to be good-looking, you’ll get lots gobbedygook at first. But after that, they attempt to justify having underwear models read the news by noting — accurately — that people like to look at beautiful people (It’s a fact, look it up. We tend to trust good looking people more than ugly people). They then say that this is ultimately a public good because, at the margins, it attracts more people to the news, which is socially redeeming because we need an informed citizenry. Fine, fine, I say. But if that’s the case, why not have topless anchors? (Just to clarify, I mean anchorettes. Nobody wants to see Dan Rather’s pecs every night). Or, if that’s too much, why not have a naked woman in a little screen in the corner, like they used to have for sign language translators? That would certainly get teenage boys to watch the news more — a demographic we desperately need to educate. The naked women could do jumping jacks.