There’s something strange occurring in newsrooms all around the country and it’s especially noticeable in television. While drama shows like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “Law and Order” portray women as high-powered surgeons and cops or lawyers, down on the newsroom floor, where television is truly real, it’s depressingly revisionist.
And, for the sake of this blog, let’s put aside the fact that the upper echelons of newsroom management have been barely visited, let alone conquered, by women in any medium.
What’s more disturbing in television is the changing criteria for hiring women reporters and presenters – and what that means for you and I, the viewer.
Over at the State Broadcaster, the little-head-making-decisions-for-the-big-head rules ok with, on “Breakfast”, a string of women who look better than their stories (which are execrable).
The one exception here is Charlotte Bellis from Christchurch who seems to have got off her chuff and stopped the tits-and-teeth smirking and got out there and told me something I hadn’t heard before. After all, it is called news.
The rest belong to that inglorious group, the Pick Me Tribe. These are the prancers who endlessly pick up stories from the front page of that day’s Herald and simperingly regurgitate it on camera. What did they learn at ‘varsity or tech? There’s no doubt they’ve learnt to “walk and talk at the same time”. It just seems that any talking will do as long as it’s All About You.
Across the road at TV3 it’s not much better. Earlier this year it was suggested to senior current affairs journalist, Mel Reid from 60 Minutes, that maybe she was a little ‘old’ to be on camera and maybe she should consider an off-camera role.
Fortunately, the bearer of that news, so-called hatchet man Ian Audsley was himself axed and she continues to report stories.
The fact that Reid and Amanda Millar are still on camera says something about 3News.
But why is that age group only represented in 60 Minutes? Where are the senior women in news, not to mention “Nightline”?
If it’s good enough to have 3News reporter Bob McNeill on the payroll for the past 20 years, then why not a Roberta McNeill?
It’s even worse on “Nightline”. The 20th anniversary show highlighted a trail of bland female presenters, (oh, and one uptight Old Trout – me) who looked fabulous but whose journalism for the most part (notable exception, the present incumbent Rachel Smalley) was entirely forgettable.
That’s what happens when news bosses call female reporters “eye candy”.
Eye Candy; attracting an audience but not necessarily a story
This treatment of women on our screens, both in fictional and real form, has caught the eye of one Susan J. Douglas.
Her recently published book “Enlightened Sexism” describes TV as a powerful medium that shapes people’s views and creates “embedded feminism” – a false impression that equality has been won.
Which creates another paradox; while telly’s fictional characters are powerful and in control, the non-fictional ones (for instance, those washed up on the shores of reality TV) are “shallow, materialistic, obsessed with guys they barely knew, involved in cat fights.”
And that’s the point when it comes to some female reporters. They’re not there because they can do the job better than anyone else; sniff a story out at ten paces or craft a yarn that makes us think. They’re there because they simply LOOK good. Try contrasting that with female reporters in the American networks who aren’t considered up-to-speed journalistically til they’re approaching middle-age.
And that’s the point. Good newsrooms reflect the communities they serve. And when they don’t, viewers simply go elsewhere.
And, sadly, they are.
Yes indeed! Those in charge of NZ tele networks seem to spend too much time at spqr and i think their brains are a little addled. How is much of what is on TV truly representative of the viewers? And when criticised of this they bleat on about ratings. I’m so sick and tired of this youth and sex obsessed culture, I even heard an ad on radio extolling the virtues of a new accounting package as being “sexy”… good lord
ok, curmudgeonliness over. In my mind it all does relate to the lack of good quality woman reporters, it really does.
you won me over with this analogy “craft a yarn”
Janet this is an important subject. However, in my experience those people who simply are not interested in watching TV news are unlikely to do so because the female presenter is hot – there lots of other things on TV that serve as “eye candy”.
Personally, I have difficulty watching Wendy Petrie, in my perception she does not project authority, for that matter nor does Hilary Barry, but I do find her delivery credible.
Previously, Judy Bailey (the mother of the nation) also gave me the shudders and was relieved with arrival of TV3. In support of your subject matter I see glimmers of hope in Samantha Hayes, she is certainly a great reporter. Who knows maybe she will be the “Mother of the Nation” in years to come.
Harvindar Singh
Auckland
The concern I have with blogs like this, is that it makes it sound like good looks and good reporting are mutually exclusive. I disagree wholeheartedly. As a viewer, I think there are many pretty men and women on both channels who craft a great yarn, and – to be honest – Bob McNeil might be a nice guy, but for the most part, if I hear “Bob McNeil reports” I switch over. While older can certainly mean more mature and more experienced, it doesn’t always mean better watching/listening.
And I’m guessing here – but probably the older people go to current affairs because the pay is better!!
I don’t mind if the networks want to pepper their programs with attractive women as eye candy as long as the content and delivery is smart and thought provoking (I’d settle for smart) I agree, Sam Hayes is a great combo of beauty & brains and fortunately she appears to have more control over what she says and how to deliver it. You can certainly tell the difference if you “close your eyes” That said, most of us listen with our eyes and I am sure the network bosses will be listening to their ratings-whisperers and what you “see” is what you get.
This blog, while it contains some valid observations and criticisms, is filled with rampant generalisations.
For example, has the author ever considered that the reason there are no “Roberta McNeils” is not due to their lack of visual appeal, but simply because they choose to leave the profession before reaching that age? Perhaps they wanted a job more amenable to a stable family life, or simply grew tired of it.
Secondly (and obviously, as it appears to me), to say that female journalists are only there because they look good is an attention-grabbing, provocative statement and I hope that readers of this blog are more astute and observant than to take this at face value.
@margot; you’re missing the point. They are not mutually exclusive at all. I pointed out the reporters, pretty or otherwise, who manage to do both.
@anon; sorry you’re the one making the generalisations. I’m pointing out a seachange in news management that sees some female hacks hired because of how they look not how they write. I agree that female journalists leave for all sorts of reasons; the long hours, the lack of advancement through the ranks over their male colleagues – in short sexism.
Hard to take issue with what’s expressed by the author. I think, it’s a sign of where we are and what our tastes are. NZ television is following right in the slipstream of America and Australia, when it comes to trends; where all the TV presenters are very young and attractive. But, to be fair, they do give the appearance of having the “smarts”.
Look at the programmes that are shown on TV — Desperate Housewives, Cold Case, CSI Miami etc — all the leading female leads are strong on the glamour quotient, proving that the market goes for visual style over acting substance. As the adage goes: Sex sells.
No more Columbo, Murder She Wrote, Fantasy Island, Dallas, etc — shows, where the lead characters were well past 40. Now it’s Lost, Survivor, Big Brother, and all the other vapid dreck.
TV One’s field reporters all look like school-leavers. Hell, Jack Tane wouldn’t look out of place in a Grammar school uniform. But that’s not to say he’s not improving and gaining credibility. Because he is. He just seems so damn young to be imparting news to the more-wizened — of us — viewers.
I can see, that television presenters have gone the way of Singapore Airlines’ cabin staff recruitment policy: come mid-30s, your career, as far as flying is concerned, is over.
Get used to seeing the Young ‘uns, fronting the news and weather, because they are here to stay.
[...] theory I’ve held for a long time about why radio news is usually better than TV news: because the people are chosen for different qualities. To an extent the “beauty bias” is present in every field, and of course, even in news [...]
Well said Janet, although I believe the standard of reporting and editorial decision making in New Zealand generally, is weak and the face presenting it is the least of our problems.
I appreciate an attractive woman reading the news, however, if the story has a poor slant, or an important issue is presented in a once over lightly way, no amount of “hotness” can save the poor editorial decision making behind it.
One of my favourites at the moment is Patrick Gower on 3 News. He’s no oil painting but delivers a good story, even if sometimes is in the beat up style of Duncan Garner. His strength is in delivering options for thought to the viewer on the story. I’d like to see more of that style across the board.
No wonder the networks are considering a 30 minute bulletin…it seems they can’t tell a story well in the hour they’ve got. For example, oil still spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, but people are worried about what Andy Haden said on a little watched pay per view sports show. Who dragged that out for us all to see and more importantly, why?
Are there a constant stream of vapid beauties on TV because that’s what sells the advertising slots? Doesn’t that squarely put the ball, if any, squarely back in the court of the viewer?
Don’t forget, when it comes to Television, we’re not the consumers, we’re the product.
What will sell is what will extract from us the maximum amount of milk with the minimum of moo – and if we are en masse more happy watching shiny pretties on screen than learning something new, then that’s unlikely to change in the near future.
Rob
Girl, that “sexist” thing, was just a joke. A joke! I never thought, you’d take it down. I feel awful.
Please, don’t tell me you’re PC-afflicted.
@Jason; sorry love. Sometimes irony doesn’t translate on the blog….please keep reading though. I’m learning how to do this stuff too….
I enjoyed this! My own opinion of the news presenters and young reporters on TV1 has been that someone obviously keeps an eye out for clones!
I completely agree with you on this Janet. And Kathy, they do look like clones.
A few years ago I went to a JTO-run seminar day on interviewing (I’m a print journalist) and there were journos there from all fields – print, radio and tv. My lasting memory of the day was the four tvnz journos that sat a few rows in front on me. All were blond, all were young,they all wore similar outfits and all possessed the traits favoured by the superficial male.
They looked like the stepford wives.
It’s also about money too as the public like to look at pretty young things I believe, plus experienced reporters cost more to hire whereas they can hire graduates cheaply.
Hey, your blog was mentioned on ZB News, this morning. As far as the “Eye candy” brigade are concerned, they’ll either be feeling a bit resentful, or more ‘proudful’. Pretty-young-things will always trump Age, Experience and Gravitas. The new cachet that comes with being a TV reporter, is: You can only be good, hun, if youse young.
Let’s face it, there a creeping malaise that’s driving down us oldies’ self-esteem and sense of worth. It’s assuming the proportions of being advised of having a terminal illness. You know — bewilderment, denial, resentment and anger; to, finally, resigned acceptance.
Your girlie friend, over at the Herald, seems to have jump-started, herself, going by her latest offering. She’s — barely — in her 30s and running scared, already.
If this mindset takes hold: brace yourself, for pre-pubescent TV reporters, come a few years from now.
agree with the most part but Pippa Wetzell is a yummy mummy….she can say anything in my opinion:)
Umm didn’t your hubby continue that exact practice whilst in charge of the newsroom at tvnz?
You are absolutely right. (From a person who has barely watched more than ten minutes in total of nauseating TVNZ or TV3 news this past twelve months.) So how would I know? Well the truth is I don’t really. However I’m soooo glad you have reinforced my prejudice.
Now talking about old boilers, there’s none better that that snaggle toothed lady on Fox News, what’s her name again? Greta Van Susteren. By hell, she does a good interview.
The news is inherently pretty goddamn ugly, so I guess they gotsta pretty it up somehow.
Well as far as I’m concerned, every second showing a reporter’s face on the screen is another second that television journalism could have been showing me something not available in other mediums, or at least communicating the news.
It does feel as if it’s becoming a much more frequent thing in recent times to cut back to reporters’ faces (especially during interviews) to show their reactions and emotions, perhaps to make sure they have as much on-screen time as might be stipulated in their employment contracts, or whatever else. I don’t watch anywhere near as much television news as I once did, though.
I’m interested in Harvindar and MB’s comments on Samantha Hayes being a “great reporter”.
Samantha Hayes is definitely good looking. Great eye candy. And she has stepped back from presenting in order to supposedly spend more time being a “reporter”. But I say “reporter” in quotes because the only stories she ever does are puff pieces on the environment, or conservation, or climate change, or other subjects which she personally feels strongly about.
I’ve yet to see Samantha Hayes break a tough story, ask penetrating questions, or do the hard news stuff that Janet is talking about here. And I suspect she’s under little pressure to do so – and is encouraged to stick with her puff pieces – because TV3 recognise her value to them as eye candy.
Very pretty presenter, but a reporter she isn’t.
@joe; I’m sorry but you’re wrong. There’s lots to criticise young Billy Ralston about but in fact there were more women in the newsroom during his time than there is now – and will be in the future as even more experienced female journos get retrenched out of the Deathstar in this round of cut backs
After 2000 approx, the news biz simply became a “recycler” of a very limited amount of international news. Local stations (eg. NZTV and 3) simply moved to galamourising and sensationalisuing local “emotive” news stories in an attempt to keep ratings. Thats why we now have what I call “quiver-lip” broadcasters (which oddly seem to be mainly female; not that oddly, they are after all the target market) and the lead stories everynight are almost always local “emotionally” heavy stories. (Child run over, child abused, family home burns, old person attacked, female asaulted) Nothing balanced, nothing newsey, just “big, bold and beautiful” Yo Yo’s reading an autocue, badly! Six munse ago, ah kudnt even spell jurnalis, an now ah iz one, computer says so! (NZTV news boss says so) Why on Earth can’t this world understand that everything has now changed, forever. We are now simply being fed Corporate BS and kept very firmly in the dark (just look at our present problems and the total lack of open discussion on TV). As for female broadcasters, I see them as little more than K Rd Streetwalkers. I give them one look as I pass on my way home, where I head for my computer, because at least on the web there is a small chance I might read some truth. WHY WON’T WE WAKE UP! Its got me.
Sadly, nail on the head Janet.
And Joe, the answer to your question is no. Big headed it might be but I know that because I was hired by Bill. Then I was fired by TVNZ a month or so after he jumped before he was pushed from his job heading news and current affairs in one of their restructures.
I suspect he had three boxes he ticked before hiring a reporter.
1) Had they actually broken a story and could they continue to break stories instead of just turning up to work and suggesting their story for the day would be a different angle on a story they liked in that morning’s newspaper?
2) Did they understand the main reason reporters consistently break stories is because they develop reliable sources and always protect those sources when asked to do so?
3) Could they survive a long lunch and turn up to work with a cracking yarn the next day?
No good asking Bill for an straight answer nowadays though. He struggles with a long lunch and works in PR.
@ Paul: “As for female broadcasters, I see them as little more than K Rd Streetwalkers.”
Dispense with the cheap ad hominen attacks, dude. You’re becoming quite nasty.
@JanetWilson – here’s lots to criticise young Billy Ralston about.
Nuh-uh. I’ve been a fanboi since the Metro days. If he suddenly turned into an eyeball eating alien who sucked blood through a straw, I’d be inclined to put it down to hijinx.
Eye Candy or the Back End of an Elephant; I really don’t care what they look like as long as they can produce a story that is informative, has depth and makes me think about it.
It seems to me that in the old days, when we depended on the print media for our news, and before the sole practical use for a newspaper was to wrap the fish and chips, cub reporters learned their craft at the feet of knowledgeable reporters, hard-nosed sub-editors and editors. They learned it the hard way and themselves became craftsmen and women in the journalism profession. Today, they are the products of academic teaching and go into the work force with little to commend them except a diploma and an inordinate belied in their own ability to do the job of Journalist.
And, on the subject of ‘eye candy’ what other excuse can there be for having Tamati Coffee flitting all over the planet just to read the weather?
Is he just there to be the pretty boy to balance the pretty women?
Totally agree with you sentiments Janet. It is happening everywhere. The BBC is in the news continually for the ageist
policies regarding women on TV. I have had enough of our shoddy news items no matter who is fronting. Content and good reporting has vanished. We have become a Tabloid page 3 society.
I agree with your comments, but the problems don’t stop at poor quality reporting. What about the cheesy, tedious, formulaic way stories are presented?
Worse still, spare a thought for the poor, long-suffering English language that takes a beating in virtually every sentence uttered. Solecisms abound, and include rampant mispronunciation, appalling syntax, using words and expressions out of context… Need I go on? These people – I refer to the presenters as much as the reporters – are supposed to be professionals, and the English language is the primary tool of their trade, but they haven’t a clue how to use it. If I’d produced such drivel at school I’d have been given detention and a few hundred lines, but that’s too good for the current crop of television news presenters: most of them deserve to be sacked.
Agree with your post Janet. Reminds me of this clip on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI
Brilliant, Mike – precisely what I meant by “cheesy, tedious, formulaic.”
As a young, female, newspaper reporter I couldn’t agree with this more.
Everyone in the industry knows real reporters don’t go to TV anyway, because all TV does these days is pick up the morning’s newspaper stories and add in a bit of fluff.
You can’t blame the reporters though – only the idiots hiring them and the management for not pushing them to do some real journalism.
Hopefully the audience will vote with their remote controls – or better yet, with their wallets and a newspaper subscription
@ Richard: If our under-siege presenters and reporters, come down with a bad case of the yips – stuttering, facial twitching and are dewy-eyed – we know who to blame.
But, you’re right: often, their spoken-English is nothing to shout about, from the rooftops.
you are so right. serious female journalsists like Melanie Reid are great. She has done such gritty work over the years – I remember when she infiltrated the Cust community and also her work re the Cohen drug case. I am sorry but Samantha Hayes and another simpering blonde on TV 3 who’s name I cannot remember either bore me senseless ( oh dear what about the weather chick – Toni??) or annoy me so much I have to change the channel. But it is not just the women now actually – what about the twittering weather fellow and Alistair someone on the news, with the most bizarre intonation. We laugh hysterically at what fools they are.
Good call Louise.
But its actually not all bad out there. If you know anything about the journalism industry and like to flick between the channels at night to check on who has got what angle, you’ll see the likes of Fran Mold, Juanita Copeland, Vicki Wilkinson-Baker, Corrine Ambler. All hard news journos, breaking stories, analysing and and telling us the actual news, without the fluff.
Of course no-one should rely on the 1 min 30 second of telly news for their main news source! Long live the newspaper!
I see your bimbos and raise you a himbo – Jack Tame. A pretty boy who appears to think he is far more interesting than what he is ‘reporting’ on. That Andy Haden story he did earlier this week was excruciating. I was aghast. Viva the news on Radio NZ National!
The best reporter TVNZ had for a while was Charlotte Glennie. Her reporting — day after day, week after week — of the aftermath of the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 was a feat of reporting and professionalism and courage.
What a pity TVNZ was unable to keep her.
PS: someone mentioned young Jack Tame (not Tane). I remember baby Jack when he lived next door in Christchurch.
How long ago was it that baby Jack lived next door Paul? Circa 1995?
I agree with what a lot of people are saying here – I studied journalism myself and those in the class that were regarded as best went into radio. The ones that went into television were better looking and, often, attention seeking rather than news seeking. These types are lapped up by the likes of Breakfast and then get promoted to 6pm.Watching the journalists they have around the country on Breakfast really makes me feel uncomfortable. Matty McLean and Alison Pugh aren’t journalists, they are kids who let Paul Henry bully them into doing stupid things. How are they then expected to communicate ‘rool newz’ at 6pm?
It’s a real shame because meanwhile there are some fantastic graduate journalists in radio. I also think it’s a shame that people study journalism straight out of school – they have no life experience and some can lack the basic research skills that university students get taught.
The most frustrating thing is it’s not the journalists fault. It’s the networks’.
@Emma: “That Andy Haden story he did earlier this week was excruciating. I was aghast. Viva the news on Radio NZ National!”
Really? I thought, it was that reporting, where boy became man. Do you see the size of the clock on his desk? Mightily impressive.
Hey all don’t hate me –
Just raising a point here to janet about the higher echelons reached by female Journalists – there were two very capable operators in place not naming names before Bill Ralston came to power at tvnz and then two were pushed when he arrived hmmmm….
On a side note there are some amazingly talented female journos out there who deserve to be recognised for their reportage and journalistic endeavours and not for their bra size or hair colour but sadly that’s lacking from both tv news rooms in nz right now.
I don’t even care what they are talking about,it doesn’t matter as long as they look good, eat your heart out Janet.Green with envy I would suggest, and go the weather chicks.
@Merv
Yes, I did note his enormous clock. Women usually do
) But what really got to me in that sequence was that tv news has reached the point where the ‘reporter’ making phone calls is now considered worthy of air time. What next? The nation watches agog as Jack ‘Baby Face’ Tame eats his Weetbix while pondering his next story?
@Chronos. I am not making a “cheap” hominum? attack.(What does that mean) Methinks you have listened to your perfect NZ feminist Mummy too much. There are actually TWO sexes in this world Chronos and the reality in a business that primarily broadcasts “images”, is that “sexual” images sell program and advertising time. By sexual images I don’t necessarily mean hard porn Chronos. A plunging neckline is an obvious attempt to sell “more” than news, or am I wrong?. Or do you think that physically beautifull lithe young women are not “sexy”. Would Paul Henry, Duncan Garner or moustache man with their shirts off work ratings wise. DOH. “I don’t think so”. In hard financial times what do you expect a business that broadcasts “images” to do. IT WILL START TO NONE SO SUBTLY package its programs and ads around sexy images. Once more Chronos, how well would you with your shirt off rate. Sorry mate, I wouldnt watch it. Hey sex sells Chronos, or havn’t you noticed. And business’s don’t follow moral guidelines, they follow a “profit” at all costs line. TV can very easily become a “streetwalker” business touting for business using every once of sex it can muster. Every seen an “ugly” female presenter on a “commercial” TV station? I havn’t.
This is exactly what my flat was saying the other day when watching breakfast. With the exception of Charlotte Bellis, they are just blonde Auckland clones who have no experience beyond their PC city life. It makes really boring television. Very noticeable when Paul was on his summer break and we turned it off until he came back. Pippa’s comments about the places Tamati has been visiting have been so ignorant. Great blog Janet, please put some real people on TV.
I have to add. SEX SELLS in the Banking, Magazine, Auto, Computer, Fashion, Advertising, Drug, Medical….and on and on, industries. When you have a human market place, then SEX WILL ALWAYS GRAB YOUR CUSTOMERS ATTENTION so when you look at this whole area objectively, why on Earth are commercial TV stations any different to the Bank or Auto dealership down the road.(Thats why I called it streetwalking above Chronos)
“eye candy”?
Really?? Why is this an issue all of a sudden?
Wimmen are always out there with the long hair, the make up, the lipstick, the high heels, the voices, the complete focus on looking “sexy”. Look at the photograph of the blog host on her home page. What’s that if it isn’t about eye candy?
Actually, I agree that we don’t need it in our news. But hell, is it rational to say this amount of eye candy is OK but this much is not?
Get women out of TV journalism altogether. How can we get objective news and insightful reporting from a gender group whose primary objective is always going to be to look attractive to men?
You see male reporters using all of those devices? Dyed hair? Lipstick.? Make up? High heels? Tight dresses? No way. How does all that add value to reporting? With males, the focus is on the job and nothing else.
Get wimmen out of TV and home having babies. That way we’ll help ameliorate the low birth rate problem and get more focused news.
“You see male reporters using all of those devices? Dyed hair? Lipstick.? Make up? High heels? Tight dresses? No way.”
Actually, I’ve just been emailed with advice to the contrary. Evidently TV One has some male journalists who go for all of that, they just don’t do it on camera.
[...] have landed up on this blog looking for Janet Wilson’sblog Adjust Your Set and her post Eye Candy which was the subject of a story in yesterday’s NZ [...]