Beauty, Brains or Both? Wednesday 21 July 2010

More than just a pretty face?

As the experts are telling us, newsrooms are getting younger. For many, it’s cause for concern. TV reviewers lament that the quality of news reporting is under threat, because of the sheer inexperience of the fresh-faced, wide-eyed reporters who’re delivering it. It’s an interesting debate; a debate which recently hit a new low when long-time television journalist Janet Wilson claimed that today’s youngest female TV reporters are hired “because they simply look good”. Another former broadcaster, Brian Edwards, weighed in. “How you look has become more important than how much credibility you bring,” he says. The argument is that celebrity-addled news bosses are hiring beauties, rather than beasts. And we all know that good journalists need to be beasts, right?

Good journalists are defined by the depth of their stories and the thickness of their contact books. But TV is a visual medium. It’s unrealistic to demand that all reporters are hired solely on the basis of their credentials, with no regard for how they look or sound on camera. Wilson is being overly cynical when she claims that female reporters are solely hired because they’re attractive. She’s implying that there are other strong, intelligent young female journos out there, who would do well in TV, but aren’t given the chance, because they aren’t hot enough. But where are these talented, would-be TV reporters? Do they exist? Have they resorted to working in the seemingly un-sexy world of print media, because the image-obsessed TV networks won’t hire them? Or do they simply not want to parade themselves in front of half a million people every night?

Having worked in both television and print, I’m not very convinced that these intelligent-but-not-quite-attractive-enough-to-be-on-TV journalists actually exist. And even if they do exist, they’re not desperate to work in telly. Young reporters in other parts of the media are no more or less intelligent than those on TV. They will do well in any medium if they are given good opportunities to develop their skills. But in any case, TV bosses don’t have a lot of choice when hiring young reporters. Many have a broadcasting qualification, and many have another degree. But apart from a few star contenders, it’s a pretty level playing field, and the candidates’ journalistic credentials are homogeneous. So it’s only natural that those who come across best on camera will be hired. Some excel; others fail to live up to the standard expected by those who hold the remotes.

Wilson and Edwards may argue that the solution is to stop hiring fresh, young reporters. Instead, maybe news organisations should invest in senior reporters with strong track records. But as Wilson and Edwards know, many newsrooms are now operating on the smell of an oily rag. Why employ one senior journalist when you can hire two hungry graduate journalists for the same price? It’s this commercial reality which is causing newsrooms to become younger. It’s unfair and sexist for Wilson to lump the blame on young female reporters; reporters who, in many cases, have been thrown in at the deep end and are doing their very best to do the job well, and to meet the expectations of their producers. And why doesn’t Wilson doesn’t mention male reporters? Are they all serious news hounds who’re hired solely on the basis of their credentials? I think not.