Our TV News station is looking to hire a new anchor. We have two choices, an attractive woman straight out of college or a veteran woman journalist who has great credibility but would generally be considered physically unattractive. Which way should we go for the success of the division? Pick a side and argue your point.
REPLY TO THIS POST so others can see your comments in this same space. Please do not create your own separate post.
If our station is a meritocracy, we would likely hire the veteran anchor despite the fact that this person may be physically unattractive. But the world isn’t always fair. So, the news station will hire whoever it believes can bring in the highest ratings. That means there is a chance that the new employee will be an attractive young anchor or a veteran anchor. Either way, the decision to hire will be based on what segment of society the news station wants to capture with its programming. This also means that ultimately society, and not the news station, makes this decision. So, if society picks, what does their selection say about the values of society?
I agree that it is society that is choosing and driving shows, but also content of shows directs society in many ways. HOWEVER, in the case of anchors, whoever can keep and grow the audience will be the right choice. So much is left out of the description of the two possibilities that I found it hard to choose. But would likely go with the veteran anchor despite the “visual challenges”.
The content is utmost interesting! I have completely enjoyed reading your points and have come to the conclusion that you are right about many of them. You are great
I want to say that it would be better for the news station to hire the veteran journalist because I think she would do the best at the job and really commit herself but I think the news stations would have greater success with the younger women that are straight out of college. If we look at the history of media and what is more popular it is the people who are attractive and have a lot of money. I think that hiring the younger women would get the views of younger people as well as older people because they watch the news simply to be informed so the person being attractive or not would not factor into them watching the news or not. I also think it is good that she is fresh out of college because she is probably very informed also very moldable into the news station she would go into. College teaches you the base information on anything but every company does things different so her coming in without any of her “own†ways would be best for the company.
Because of today’s culture, I think the news station would have more views if they hired an attractive woman right out of college. But I also think the veteran would do a much better job but with the way news stations are today, the attractive hosts seem to get more views. I wish it wasn’t this way but it is and we have to deal with it.
However, the veteran would probably last longer in terms of credibility. I would trust the judgment of a veteran more so than that of a college student. Both people would be successful but to honor the news station’s credibility, I will go with the veteran. She would probably have more people believe her and keep the credibility of the station.
If our news station is looking to hold on to credibility then we need to hire the veteran anchor. Sadly, that’s now how our world works anymore, and almost everything is based on how attractive you are. If the news station is trying to bring in a fresh look to the show then of course they would hire the newer anchor. So, this really just depends on what the station is trying to achieve here. Maintain credibility or bring in a new audience?
Side note: I think everyone should go watch The Morning Show its on Apple TV+. This prompt just reminded me of it!
For some reason my reply was put under your name when I was responding to Zach Rover, I’m sorry!
On another note! I will definitely go watch that. I also agree that our world is going towards only caring about attractiveness and the rather unimportant things. This reminds me of how popular online dating is. Just like tinder, you swipe left or right just off of how you feel about their appearance, I think it is a step backwards for society. People today have made less and less actual connections with people because it is not a necessity, versus back in the day, our connections and relationships with people were how people survived. Naturally, people need people! Thank you for speaking on that topic because it brought so many thoughts into my head!
I did not think about the question in that way, that society picks but it is so true! That is also with many things like music, TV shows and movies producers produce what people want to see. I do think that the values of today’s society show through these decisions.
This question made me laugh….at the assumption that a woman straight out of college is automatically short on credibility and that the “unattractive” veteran could not be encouraged with the aid of typical TV anchor perks such as clothing/beauty stipends to “put the best face on it”. That said….why not co-anchor the show and let each of them bring their own unique talent and strength?
OK, so if that is not an option at all, I’ll go with the credible veteran. Without question, appearances matter and more on television than the “real world”. But appearance alone will not keep viewers coming back. So if we are to assume that the college graduate (degree in communications? analysis?) is a bit of a ditz and will be a flop at anchoring, give it a miss.
I think we have all seen that there are actors and actresses of all sizes, shapes, and types/levels of “attractiveness”. Our credible veteran should have no trouble being a success.
I agree with some of my classmates above in saying that this question made me laugh… It is so strange that we would live in a society where this would even be a question. Thinking that appearance would trump brains is utterly disappointing. I would be in complete support of hiring the veteran journalist who has great credibility in order to maintain and grow the success of the TV News station. I think that hiring the woman straight out of college with no credibility purely for her looks is probably the worst decision the company could do. Placing her in an internship position so that she is able to gain experience and credibility would be the most sensible solution.
I just heard a podcast on NPR that ties in with this topic. It is by Lee Thomas, a newscaster with vitiligo. As a black man, this skin condition gives him the appearance of “turning white”. He talks about a teenaged boy who also has vitiligo asking him to appear on T.V. without makeup. Something that incidentally his boss had been asking him to do for a couple of years and he had been politely putting her off. (Remember it’s T.V. so everyone is wearing makeup.) But this boy shares that Lee has the opportunity to impact how he is treated every day – and what’s more, the 8 year old in his neighborhood that is teased mercilessly about it might not be if people knew more. Lee Thomas speaks thoughtfully about the role of appearance in visual entertainment.
I agree! Attractive faces and bodies don’t get you into the Olympics, It’s the hard work you put in to get yourself there. It is so sad that our culture values attractive women (or what they deem attractive) more so than women with actual talent and experience.
I think we need more information to pick a side on this one. We can’t assume that the attractive, straight out of college woman is not qualified for the job. She may have tons of internship experience and have graduated top of her class. On the other hand, I’m not convinced someone needs to be attractive in order to be a news anchor. Sure, people are drawn to bright and shiny things, but there are plenty of viewers who prefer to see people who are more relatable on screen. If this news anchor has been around long enough to be considered a “veteran†then she is clearly doing something right. Viewers are creatures of habit, they seem to build relationships with the news anchors they watch, so they may want someone that feels comfortable to them. According to Pew Research Center (2018), the age group that makes up the largest group of viewers who get their news from television, is age 65 and above. The younger generations seem to get their news from online sources, so we should cater to our largest viewership. I believe the older generation will find a veteran journalist more trustworthy and relatable, no matter her physical appearance.
Matsa, K. E. (2018, January 5). Fewer Americans rely on TV news; what type they watch varies by who they are. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/05/fewer-americans-rely-on-tv-news-what-type-they-watch-varies-by-who-they-are/
I personally have never watched the news because the anchor was an attractive person. If that was why I turned on the news then I believe some soul searching would be required. Physical appearance for a performance based job should play no role. I realize that ratings are what keep new stations in business but hiring someone purely on the fact that they are physically attractive rather than the merit of their work is borderline criminal. I am sure some folks would disagree, but we have to move our society forward and playing into the hand of shallow physical perceptions is no way to achieve that.
I want to say to hire the veteran for their experience. However, I realize that the Television business is run by unfairness and sexism. The veteran would have the expertise to know how to find newsworthy stories and how to comport themselves during a crisis. Whereas a person who has no experience would not know this, and it would affect their performance on the job. Yet it is interesting that if there is an anchor that has been with a network for years, they are viewed as an asset because of the loyal following that they have gathered over the years.
Another point to make on this topic is that women are viewed with harsher conditions than men are. However, all television personalities must face critics when they are viewed by the public. this makes it harder because the companies see them more as a commodity than as people.
It is obvious that an accredited news station would select the veteran woman journalist because their viewers would be more interested in quality over content than a smaller portion of viewers who look for an attractive reporter. Those who avidly watch the news look for quality content and swiftness of information presented. It would be silly for viewers to stop watching a news channel based off of an anchor’s appearance because they would get tired of the information being poorly presented and not in a professional manner. Sure, maybe a news station could lose some viewers who are sexist and have poor standards, but overall, they should not jeopardize losing the majority of their consumers who want quality content over the anchor’s looks.
But, I wouldn’t be surprised if smaller, less professional news channels chose the more attractive woman for their anchor position.
I’m not so sure that there is enough information here to make a solid decision. A few questions that I am left with is: Are they personable? Are they good at being on air? Can they handle blunders on air? Can they connect with the audience?
Basing the hiring off of one being attractive and the other ugly, and one being a veteran and one being fresh out of college, is not a wise move. The woman straight out of college may be more attractive, but what if we were to choose her and she is a robot on air? Or what if we pick the unattractive veteran and she can’t connect with the audience either? What if the woman straight out of college is fantastic on air, but we chose the veteran thinking the veteran would do better? What if we chose the attractive woman thinking the audience wants to look at attractive people, but the attractive woman turns audiences away with not being knowledgeable and stiff?
Being given this scenario, my answer would be off of achievement and merit alone. There are plenty of ugly men on air and in TV/radio broadcasting, therefore, we should not be focused on the appearance of women. Since I don’t know the two candidates merits and achievements, I will have to assume that the veteran IS more qualified since she has made it a while in the industry. So, my answer is the veteran.
If I was running the network, I would hire them both. We need someone with experience in the industry, but we also need someone with long term potential. The veteran anchor brings a lot of experience and knowledge to the position, but not a lot of flair. The college grad would be a fresh new face in the newsroom, and could bring a spark that would attract new viewers. Also, since she is fresh out of college, we wouldn’t have to pay her a huge salary. If she proved popular and good at the job, we could always increase it. Under the mentor ship of the veteran journalist, she could become the next “big personality” in news. If not, then there are always more college grads to hire.
The unfortunate fact about television is that appearances matter much more than in everyday life. We are so used to seeing attractive people on TV, that it just seems normal. When an average person is on air, they stick out.
But if there is only one position available.. what then? They can’t both cover the one on air position, nor would a station want to pay two people for one job.
If our TV news station is looking to hire a new anchor, I would say to interview both individuals. How do we know that the women straight out of college is qualified for the job? And I am not convinced that you need to be attractive to have a job, let alone to be a news anchor. I feel that whoever gives the best interview should be the one who gets the job as a news anchor for the TV news station. However, if I needed to choose a-side, I would choose the veteran woman journalist who has great credibility. I would choose her because we know she has great credibility, unlike the woman straight out of college which we are unsure of. I personally have never watched a news station because someone was attractive. I watch the news for informational purposes only and I feel like that is also why other people watch the news.
Well since the technology is out there to find out how the ratings faster than previous centuries. Beauty is more than a young pretty face anyways. I would give them both air time and let the audience choose which one has it their attention more. I would only think it fair and it also lets the audience feel more connected with our business. Both individuals sounds equally promising yet the only real deciding factor would be what they brought to the table on the air. Their uniqueness will need to shine.
The success of the company has more behind it than the relative attractiveness of its news anchor. For example, which one of the candidates is most comfortable on camera, is one harder to understand than the other, is either prone to unprofessional behavior, etc. etc.? A news anchor is a very public job as such good presentation is a must; one’s professional presentation or demeanor is often independent of physical looks or creditability. Said plainly, people should not be hired based on Marxist Identity Politics but rather how well you believe they will perform/fit the job.
Exactly! Success is not superficial, success is deep and requires more than skin deep decisions.
This question is a bit tough for me because I feel like I want more information. How did the college woman interview? Did she seem competent and aware? Did she present herself in a manner of being a developed anchorwoman? The question is so vague. If the interview went well and a trial run went well, I wouldn’t have a problem hiring the new college graduate. Everyone needs a start. I know many people that just needed a chance to prove themselves. This has nothing to do with looks for me. It would simply be how either of the women interviewed and how a trial run at reporting went. I would say, I would probably be more inclined to hire the veteran reporter just because they should be more experienced and know what they are doing and how to do it, but if you never give the new workforce a chance, how will they become experienced and a veteran themselves?
Personally, I don’t think our station should base who we hire on looks alone, that would be an atrocious practice. We should hire based on credibility, and our own financial constraints. A veteran journalist will need to be compensated higher, and rightfully so. This is a something we highly need to consider. If we can’t afford a veteran journalist, then we should look at hiring someone out of college that is excited to get out in the work force and show the world what they can do. In my opinion though, I believe our station should pursue the veteran journalist. A person with experience and great credibility seems to make the most logical sense. Think to yourself, if my car breaks down, do I want someone to fix it that just finished their training, or a person that has been working on cars for years and is recommended by others? There’s a reason sports teams go after veteran players, and not young inexperienced players, and its simply because the veteran has more to offer. These reasons are why I believe that we should pursue the veteran journalist, and not the recent college graduate.
I like that you thought about the fact that the veteran would need higher pay, and analyzed if it was something that could be afforded.
While I do believe that the woman who would be more ready and qualified for the job but lack in the physical appearance category would prove to do a better job for the quality of reports being done by the news station, I think it does come down to what kind of people or society the news station is trying to attract. While it may not be fair, the better look woman may draw a better viewership while on air. While the news station may not really have much of a say in which would be hired, based on what society would be wanting, it is sad that this could be the factor in someone getting a job or not, regardless of how good they may be at it. I would rather listen or watch a news channel that is releasing quality news rather than someone that would be unbearable to watch, but that is just my opinion.
As much as I would like to say the veteran newscaster would be the better option, our society is hung up on appearances and as such our viewers will more likely prefer the younger woman fresh out of college. Both women are qualified, and although the veteran newscaster has more experience, every job has a learning curve and both would have to adapt to the new position. Either one would end up being able to do the job well.
I believe that our TV News station should hire the veteran woman journalist. Not only is she credible, but also has the experience that we need in an anchor that makes her the best contender. Because she is a veteran she most likely has the personality traits that will allow her to thrive. She probably has excellent communication, leadership, and investigative skills, and has the ability to handle pressure well. I think that in order for our division to be a success, we need someone that has the experience to connect with our audience and the capability to tell the stories of people in our community in a professional demeanor. I don’t think the fact that she might not be considered physically unattractive to some would necessarily be a disadvantage as everyone has different taste and these days thanks to stylists, hair, and makeup artists, anyone can look eye-catching.
There is a lot of valuable information left out of this choice. We don’t know anything about the people except experience and aesthetics. What people consider to be attractive is subjective so we can’t assume that everyone would find the veteran anchor unappealing. We also can’t assume the younger girl could not do the job. She may be very talented and have experience from her classes and internships.
Without knowing anything more than the information we were provided, I would hire the veteran anchor simply due to the fact that she can probably do a better job reading the news. I have honestly turned the channel when there is a newsperson stumbling over his/her words (this happens all the time on our local channels). It gives me anxiety watching them stutter and stammer. So to be on the safe side I would say the veteran would probably be the best bet for keeping viewers and even adding viewers.
Unfortunately this is a real part of our society and culture. There is so much emphasis placed on outer beauty, and looking young. There are so many products devoted to “anti-aging†on the market. This needs to change, we need to value the older people in our society and everyone needs to stop talking about looking younger. If you are 50 it is okay to look 50. I can’t imagine what it must feel like to be a 50 year old (especially a woman) in our society. It must be so hard to constantly feel inadequate and to try to fight against nature everyday so that society will still think you are pretty and therefore you will still be important. One way to change this culture is to hire the veteran anchor (because we value her experience) instead of the young attractive graduate because (we don’t value appearance).
Nobody is watching the news because they want to see someone attractive transition them to the weather. I think going for a veteran news anchor, someone who has years of experience and a proven track record of excellence should be the clear choice. I think for that position the looks shouldn’t matter and it should be based on experience.
I think it really depends on what the network is looking for in a news anchor. I could be wrong about this, but I believe they read off of teleprompters.. so if that is the case, the credibility of the anchor is less important than the credibility of the news station to begin with. With that said, I would hire the college student. Everyone has to start somewhere. She could be just as qualified, just has less experience because she’s obviously at the beginning of her career. To me, it is less about the appearance of the two anchors. I guess I agree with what some people have brought up in the above discussions.. if she interviewed badly and does not portray the message the network is going for, I would go with the veteran journalist; however, if she is just as qualified I would go with the young, attractive anchor.
My view on this question is that the ‘woman straight out of college’ most likely does not have the experience that would make her the better, more well-rounded candidate, even if she is the more attractive one. Having a more attractive news anchor is not going to make more people watch the news, maybe right after they were hired, but not long term. People watch the news because of the content, not the anchor. For example, if we look back to the 1960s at the Nixon-Kennedy debates, Kennedy’s assassination and funeral and Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon people were interested in what was going on, not the attractiveness of the anchor (pg.188). This still applies today. When serious problems around the world are happening, such as the coronavirus, people would probably want someone who has the experience, and in this case, a veteran journalist (maybe who has done overseas reporting?) would be the best option. I’m sure some ignorant people would make fun of her while sitting on their couch from home, but they would still be watching the news and there are a lot of people who would not care what she looked like and would respect her achievements and credibility. So my answer to this question is…. pick the more qualified candidate, and if the ratings go down because of that decision, then fall to society’s petty preferences.
I think it depends on the rookie journalist’s credentials (recommendations and examples of reports should be provided for the position). If they are both willing, I might suggest they each get an assignment to report on.
If those things weren’t provided or able to be accomplished, I would go with the veteran journalist to protect the integrity of the station and credibility of our reporting. I think that the most accurate, unbiased reporting we can do will lead to viewership and sustainability. A lot of people now tend to pick news stations to watch based on their views and the views of the station (for example, CNN v Fox). I think keeping integrity and truthfulness in reporting as well as remaining moderate and covering a wide variety of stories would be beneficial in the long term.
I would go with the veteran woman journalist who is considered physically unattractive, instead of the physically attractive woman straight out of college. This is because there is too little information on the women straight out of college. We do not know this student’s degree, how well she did in school or her resume, but at least with the veteran women we know she has experience. I do think beauty is a factor, but I only think it matters if the people are at least somewhat equal in experience. So in my eyes the options are a college student with some degree related to journalism or a veteran journalist and I choose the veteran journalist.
I think that the station should hire the veteran journalist because she is more qualified and will be able to succeed at the job. The last thing a station wants is an inexperienced anchor making incredible mistakes, and I am sure the station would not want to face the disgust of the public if they found out that an inexperienced woman was hired over an experienced one because she was more attractive. People should be rewarded on their skills and hard work, and not by irrelevant factors. If people are not judged on their skills and experience, then what is the point in trying to further yourself in your career.
We have the same view on this discuss for multiple parts. For someone to be awarded a job solely on their looks is horrible. Further more, most veterans have more training than anyone outside of the military. Therefore the station would be better half having someone who could handle multiple situations.
The station should hire the veteran journalist for the position. The station needs someone who is qualified and reliable, both are qualities that this veteran has based on her qualifications. If the station was to hire the other woman based on her looks not only would they leave them selves open for a law suit. They would also be setting their company up for failure by not providing their team with someone capable of handling the the job position.
For the success of the division you should go with the veteran woman journalist. She outranks the college student with her credibility and hours put into the field. If the TV news station is not looking for someone they have to train, and someone who knows what they are doing, the veteran is the way to go. As for her physical body, it has nothing to do with the job description and basing her hiring process off of that would be unethical. We are hiring a news anchor someone who needs to be able to relay information appropriately not a supermodel.
Unfortunately from observation, the attractive woman straight out of college would be the one to most likely get hired. This is because the audience tends to want to watch someone attractive than someone who would generally be considered physically unattractive. But because we have a veteran woman journalist who has great credibility I would pick her. Serious cases were her journalism would be great for her. If I had my own news source I would want to be fair and not judge others by their physical appearance. If the audience does not like that and our views and revenue were low we could compensate and have the journalist write a script and we can have someone deliver the news. Regardless I would want to be a reliable source for TV news.
Contrary to popular belief, the most physically attractive candidate for a news anchor job is not always the best one. According to Business Insider, the most trusted female news anchor is Robin Roberts, a 59 year old woman (Clark, 2018). While an audience may say they prefer to look at a younger, more attractive woman versus an older woman, trustworthy news comes from experience. It is hard to argue experience for a woman that is straight out of college.
It feels inherently sexist to argue a point such as this, and I would like to make a point that any woman should get hired solely on credentials and experience and not physical attractiveness. If I were in the shoes of hiring a news anchor, I would look at how they would benefit my station rather than how I think an audience would view them. It is hard to find a news station that is not bias. Liberals like to watch Anderson Cooper while conservatives prefer Tucker Carlson. No matter the audience, they are more likely to side with their news station simply because of the political leanings they have and agree with. Therefor, I would less concerned with how my audience would view her and more concerned with how she can spin the bias of my station.
References
Clark, T. (2018, November 13). The most and least trusted news anchors in the US, including a close race between Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/most-and-least-trusted-news-anchors-in-us-lester-holt-sean-hannity-2018-11
As in any industry, the target audience must be taken into account. I would prefer to say that credibility and experience would win without a second thought, but if the station is attempting to cater to an audience that is watching a news broadcast based on sex appeal, attractiveness could go a long way. That said if a news station’s selling point is sex appeal the credibility of their coverage is in question in my mind. For consistent quality, I would choose the experienced candidate, and trust that her reputation and ability will be beneficial.
In reading the question of who should be hired and why based on the information provided I do not think I could make a decision solely off the fact that one female is attractive and right out of college and the other has credentials, but is not considered attractive. I do however think, as much as we don’t want to admit that looks have the ability to get individuals further in certain industries. I think now, more so than ever you have to be both intelligent and have the right look to land a job where you are in a public light. It was probably in the 80’s where females started taking the spotlight in the media/journalism industry because it was thought they brought in higher ratings and more viewers. I think today, social media has blown that thought process up. You can even log in to Facebook or Instagram without seeing photos or videos of overly perfect females. It is almost an expectation now if you are going to put yourself in the public eye. Now going back to the news anchor question, I think if the younger more attractive one was qualified she would probably land the job over the more credible unattractive female, just based on what society’s expectations are.
Like!! Great article post.Really thank you! Really Cool.
I really like and appreciate your blog post.
I learn something new and challenging on blogs I stumbleupon everyday.
Thanks for fantastic info I was looking for this info for my mission.
In my opinion, I think that the veteran journalist should get the position. Generally more experience predicts better job performance, however, that’s not to say that the journalist just out of college won’t do a good job. Although, it is fairly easy to assume that the veteran journalist will produce better quality work. Unfortunately, the bottom line is whether or not the anchor is going to bring in good ratings, and if the case is that the more attractive anchor is going to bring in significantly higher ratings simply due to that fact, then perhaps that is the direction to go. I think the veteran anchor is more deserving of the position due to her experience, but from a business perspective, the employee that ultimately produces the best results should be hired. If the audience of this program is more interested in how attractive the anchor is, then perhaps we should hire the newly graduated anchor. On the other hand, if the audience cares more about the content of the new rather than the anchors physical attractiveness, then perhaps the best route would be to hire the veteran journalist.
The content is utmost interesting! I have completely enjoyed reading your points and have come to the conclusion that you are right about many of them. You are great