|
 he
Paula Zahn incident, in which the news fox was characterized in
a CNN promotion as being sexy, has ruffled the plumage in that branch
of the information industry. Imagine: Television news admitting
that looks matter. It is as if the alcohol industry had let out
the fact that its products can get you drunk. Natural response:
"You don't say!"
The industry
is blushing, however, which is why enlightened consumers should
take this time to thank the networks for putting babes on the air.
Otherwise, be guaranteed that we wouldn't watch nearly as much news
as we now do.
Perhaps that's
the point of staffing the news desks with chicks. One would hope
so. Serving a market is what capitalism is all about. You had better
aim to please and if you're lucky you will. From there flows the
manna. Beauty is better than the alternative; the more of it the
better.
Nonetheless,
the railing has been quite loud. A pretty face hasn't unleashed
so much concern since the recent controversy over the televised
presentation of the Victoria's Secret catalogue.
The ad in question,
we have learned, was supposedly produced by a low-ranking flack
and aired without permission or approval from supreme command. That
raises some interesting issues, to be sure, such as who is in charge
at CNN. Perhaps Reaganite notions of decentralized decision-making
have taken a foothold in the mainstream media.
Whatever the
reason, the effect of the promo (quickly pulled from the air) was
that CNN told us what we already knew. Yet the obvious disturbed
industry insiders, including Ms. Zahn.
One hates to
pile on, so suffice it to say that great is the burden of beauty,
and one must sympathize with her at that level. However, were she
candid she would readily admit that the cut of her bodice has a
great deal to do with her success. Indeed, a pretty face is much
more of a hiring credential than a graduate degree from Columbia
Journalism School.
Such is reality.
Those of us who are Zahn fans do commend our girl for not immediately
filing a lawsuit. After all, the ad in question included the sound
of an apparent zipper being operated as her attributes were highlighted.
Perhaps the soundtrack was meant, among other things, as a signal
to adolescent male viewers, who have reportedly replaced magazines
with news-babe viewing as an inducement to solitary romance. In
our era, of course, kids can get high-school credit for watching
the news, thus killing two birds with one stone.
That is only
conjecture. More to the legal point, making a wisecrack about a
woman's sexual nature at the water cooler can return a staggering
jury award. By extension, singling out a professional woman as a
tart in front of millions, if handled by talented counsel, might
result in Ms. Zahn being awarded the entire network as compensation.
Her resilience
in the face of such a possibility is a sign of her maturity and
good nature. Indeed, perhaps she should consider this possibility
at more length. Principles are fine, but billions are even better.
Meantime, adults
should be willing to admit that looks do matter, and there are worse
things than being called sexy — among them, being called ugly
(children already know this). Sex appeal has a great deal to do
with hiring, and those who believe otherwise must also believe that
the large number of beautiful women on the news, and especially
cable news, is somehow a coincidence.
Space will
not allow the full roster. From my perspective, Paula's charms are
immense. So are Daryn Kagan's (personal favorite), Laurie Dhue's,
and a huge host of others'. Ashleigh Banfield would be a contender
were it not for those hideous glasses, which brings up a paradox.
Beautiful women will be taken more seriously as newsreaders than
ugly ones, while pretty boys are not as effective as rumpled ones.
The same is true in espionage. Beauty is a highly effective lubricant
for both extracting and transmitting information.
And so there
is nothing wrong with putting beautiful women on the air, and a
great deal to say for it. This is especially true for cable news,
which repeats stories with brain-numbing frequency. Because beauty
is ever fresh, it keeps some of us from turning the channel when
we otherwise would. The same consideration clearly dictates the
choice of guests. There are many plain but highly intelligent woman
wonks — they are no doubt in the majority. Yet they are all
but invisible to television programmers. There are exceptions, to
be sure, but one suspects they get airtime only because the knockouts
are booked at the tanning salon.
The news isn't
all bad for those of us who never got a second look. There is plenty
of room for plain Janes and Joes in journalism, especially in the
print media. And as my wife has pointed out, after a six-pack or
two, even we start to look pretty good.
|
