The scarcity of women on screen who are less than exceptionally good looking fails to fulfil television's obligation to reflect the diversity of the world in which its audiences live
It's been a big two days for TV news. Happy domestic events that pull in a fifth of the available audience, as the main channels' baby coverage did, are rare indeed. These mass viewing events matter. They shape the way we see the world we live in. We turn on the TV looking for a better kind of reality. We want the people who read the news to sound intelligent and authoritative, and the ones who do interviews to be knowledgeable, sharp and persistent.
In particular we expect the BBC to represent some kind of cultural norm. But because there is still a relatively narrow range of broadcasters, there is a remarkably homogenous view of what is acceptable and what isn't. Whatever the channel, at least in news, sport and current affairs we hope to see a recognisable world without the rough bits: among other things, that is, a world free of racism, sexism or ageism. And when we do come across them, it feels as if the discrimination of day-to-day living has in some way been legitimised.
In an interview in the Radio Times this week, Gaby Logan, the sports presenter who starred in the BBC's Olympics coverage and is going from strength to strength, revealed that as a young reporter she was sent out on to the pitch to interview footballers wearing what she normally wore, a short skirt. She went on to suggest that her employer at the time, Sky, didn't take women seriously. Women, she said, wore leotards while the men were in suits. This is an extreme example of what remains commonplace: although there are men too who are victims of lookism (as some good male correspondents who find themselves largely on the radio would confirm), there are also plenty who have survived it. Meanwhile the number of women on screen who are less than exceptionally good looking could be counted on one hand. Women are still expected to represent something more, a version of femininity familiar from fashion magazines that is mostly defined by men.
The conundrum faced by women like Ms Logan, and Mishal Husain, the newsreader off to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, is that by being good-looking they are somehow assumed to be less authoritative in their jobs. (Husain was once asked by her future colleague John Humphrys if she got her job because of her looks.) In one fine example Ms Logan remembers being warned by a BBC executive that the heels she had been wearing – for a radio programme – were inappropriate. Dress, she was memorably instructed, as you would to do the dishes.
Television has a particular obligation to reflect the diversity of the world in which its audiences live, and it is a world that is made up of a lot more than the standardised issue of mainly white, almost exclusively good-looking presenters we see on most days. Reported by guardian.co.uk 3 hours ago.
It's been a big two days for TV news. Happy domestic events that pull in a fifth of the available audience, as the main channels' baby coverage did, are rare indeed. These mass viewing events matter. They shape the way we see the world we live in. We turn on the TV looking for a better kind of reality. We want the people who read the news to sound intelligent and authoritative, and the ones who do interviews to be knowledgeable, sharp and persistent.
In particular we expect the BBC to represent some kind of cultural norm. But because there is still a relatively narrow range of broadcasters, there is a remarkably homogenous view of what is acceptable and what isn't. Whatever the channel, at least in news, sport and current affairs we hope to see a recognisable world without the rough bits: among other things, that is, a world free of racism, sexism or ageism. And when we do come across them, it feels as if the discrimination of day-to-day living has in some way been legitimised.
In an interview in the Radio Times this week, Gaby Logan, the sports presenter who starred in the BBC's Olympics coverage and is going from strength to strength, revealed that as a young reporter she was sent out on to the pitch to interview footballers wearing what she normally wore, a short skirt. She went on to suggest that her employer at the time, Sky, didn't take women seriously. Women, she said, wore leotards while the men were in suits. This is an extreme example of what remains commonplace: although there are men too who are victims of lookism (as some good male correspondents who find themselves largely on the radio would confirm), there are also plenty who have survived it. Meanwhile the number of women on screen who are less than exceptionally good looking could be counted on one hand. Women are still expected to represent something more, a version of femininity familiar from fashion magazines that is mostly defined by men.
The conundrum faced by women like Ms Logan, and Mishal Husain, the newsreader off to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, is that by being good-looking they are somehow assumed to be less authoritative in their jobs. (Husain was once asked by her future colleague John Humphrys if she got her job because of her looks.) In one fine example Ms Logan remembers being warned by a BBC executive that the heels she had been wearing – for a radio programme – were inappropriate. Dress, she was memorably instructed, as you would to do the dishes.
Television has a particular obligation to reflect the diversity of the world in which its audiences live, and it is a world that is made up of a lot more than the standardised issue of mainly white, almost exclusively good-looking presenters we see on most days. Reported by guardian.co.uk 3 hours ago.