Opinion piece on “news babes” branded as sexist
A Fairfax opinion piece on "news babes" more focussed on appearance than reportage, has triggered a hostile reaction.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
“I have a problem with commercial TV news. I don’t want it delivered to me via crimson lips and fancy coiffures,” so wrote retired journalist Geoffrey Barker in a volatile Fairfax opinion piece today on female news reporters.
He continued:
“I don’t like the way the TV babes compress sometimes urgent and ongoing matters into a few barely coherent sentences that simply fail to reflect events with any semblance of their true complexity. They are about as credible as the ads for the exercise machines with which they share the airways. They have neither the time nor the talent to offer trustworthy accounts of the matters on which they claim knowledge. They diminish the idea of journalism.
“So why should we take any notice of these young women (and many of the men) who know little about the world and who have little apparent competence in collecting, assembling, and interpreting information? And why do these walking, talking cliches seem to be increasingly dominating commercial TV news?”
Barker went on to generalise and deride an army of young female journalists only defending more experienced women such as Marian Wilkinson, Sally Sara, Heather Ewart, Emma Alberici, Geraldine Doogue, Karen Middleton and radio journalists Michelle Grattan, Laura Tingle and Fran Kelly.
If the purpose of publishing the article was to trigger a reaction, it sure has. Barker is trending on Twitter with a slew of angry responses.
Some journalists have written more considered responses, including:
Tracy Spicer:
It appears to be impossible for an attractive female journalism graduate to perform her duties as a television reporter.
Interestingly, Professor Barker finds no such correlation with blond, bleached-teethed, pert-peced male journalists. Next year, he hopes to complete his PhD in why men are smarter than women, based on the size of their brains.
Jacqueline Maley:
If one is being charitable, one imagines Barker was trying to make the point that some television news is sensationalised and superficial. This may well be true, and maybe there is an argument there, but it is utterly drowned in the sexist sea of Barker’s babes-versus-boilers language, in which he equates attractiveness with stupidity and a lack of intellectual seriousness. Which makes him sound more like a Talibani than a former Fairfax journalist who, one presumes, occasionally had to work with women.
Jamila Rizvi:
I am not going to deny that the majority of female television news presenters are attractive. Television is a visual medium and ours is a society that places a (unnecessarily) high premium on women’s appearance, particularly when compared with men.
But if Barker were actually concerned that intelligent, talented women reporters were being overlooked because they didn’t fit commercial television’s particular aesthetic mold – then why didn’t he write an article about THAT?
An article that criticised the double standard applied to men and women on our television screens; most particularly as they age. An article that sought to promote women who have struggled to make it in their chosen profession because of a consideration that in no way impacts their ability to do their job.
Why not write THAT article, rather than seeking to tear down the smart and sassy – and yes, attractive – young women who are currently employed in these roles?
20 Responses
Barker is so right. It is lazy and cliched to dismiss his article as ‘sexist’. But let’s be honest, any criticism of any woman/women anywhere is likely to be dismissed a ‘sexist’ by those who have no valid counter argument. Commercial TV so-called ‘news’ lacks integrity and is an insult to the intelligence, but people still watch it. So what does that tell you about the audience?
Sexist but accurate. Enough airheads at work as it is don’t need any more cluttering TV
Barker is so right it isn’t funny. Why? Because look at the pile of discarded female talent who happen to grow old. Not going to name names – you know who they are. Suddenly demoted or disappeared. The yanks for years had people like Andrea Mitchell, Barbara Walters etc and celebrated their experience. Westacott spelt it out clearly as pointed out by others. They are all bad, Nine is the worst. Would be quite happy for nobody under 50 to read me my news – I respect their experience. Life should not be like “Logans Run”. If anything this is ageism.
GMPetrie, I thought Jamila Rizvi’s piece at MamaMia was rubbish! Another person who wants to debate how Braker’s article was written rather than the issue at hand. In the process, this so-called feminist seems to defend the sexist hiring practices of commercial networks, rather then denounce them. Rizvi’s piece – like Barker’s – doesn’t name any of these “babes,” but it’s peppered with pictures of these reporters complete with on-air name supers. Some of these women might be offended by *her* article instead. Then she ends it all with very personal attacks directed towards Barker & gross generalisations on men of his generation.
Here it is: mamamia.com.au/news/geoffrey-barker-tv-babes/
Again, as I said before, I’m surprised women of Australia don’t unite behind Barker instead of attacking him (personally in some cases).
The issue is not the look or type of newsreader or reporter. It is the quality of news coverage on commercial channels. Years ago I used to watch Anna Ford read the 10 o’clock news on ITV. Not only was the news coverage informative and engaging but Anna was worth watching as well. (the population of Perth watched Alica Gorey for much the same reason more recently.) Now we have a succession of pretty girls giving us 10 second reports on rubbish. There is whole world out there with interesting and challenging events to know about, but the commercial channels seem only interested in a local car crash or the latest supermarket promo. Tell real news first and people will watch it.
(Sadly, I also accept the ratings for commercial news suggest people want the current rubbish so perhaps that is news in itself!)
Alicia Gorey has been Alicia Loxley in Melbourne for some time now. But I concur the issue is wider than gender.
I so like Jamila’s piece!
As long as I have a pretty face to look at, they could be reading the phone book for all I care.
you only have to look at why channel 7 replaced a “real” weatherman with a woman with no experience to get your answer.
I have no real issue with Barker’s comments. One simply needs to watch any news program or ‘current affairs’ program objectively to notice that Barker is pretty close to the mark.
Nine News Now tackeled this on the ‘Chat Room’:
youtube.com/watch?v=cSZq2qe2BSs
Barker is absolutely right.
Am so sick and tired of these overly done up and polished things being paraded all over television as “journalists”.
Them, and the producers behind them, are more interested in how they look and what they’re wearing, than what they have to offer.
Would much rather have some women (attractive or not) who have some educated or interesting points of view. Or atleast some talent to offer. They do exist out there, but they’re very few and very very far between!
I think the picture you chose is interesting. I’m pretty sure it’s Erin Molan, and coming from a rugby league tragic I have to say that girl knows her stuff. As good as any male doing a similar job on other networks, if not better. Sports seems to be the more obvious one to pick that they have chosen an attractive women only for her looks, most of the time you can tell they know and care little about whatever sport they are reporting on.
David Knox, yes all of that is true. But his point still stands because when it comes to commercial TV (even radio now) news, it’s a problem that chiefly concerns females. Young attractive men also get jobs in news, but not anywhere near to the degree young women do.
For example, when Nine & Seven News go poaching talent from other networks (public broadcasters & regional networks), *all* the women are young & attractive, while the small group of men they might take vary in ages & experience.
Maybe his article could’ve been better written, but everything he wrote still stands because it’s true. He wrote about sexism in TV because he’s a former journo…
Why is Geoffrey Barker’s piece even being debated? I would’ve thought the facts addressed in it were so obvious that The Age wouldn’t have bothered running it. Okay, maybe instead of painting a broad (pun not intended) brush, he could have said ‘most’ & not inferred all. If Barker might come off as sexist, it’s because a lot of the industry is.
I glance at Nine & Seven News sometimes & they are drowning in a sea of young, attractive women, who seem to sit along side much older men who have been working there for decades. It’s disgusting! When required to do live interaction with others, a lot of them stumble & fumble over their words while asking really basic questions.
Let’s not forget former head of Nine News, John Westacott, telling reporter, Christine Spiteri, when he was ‘boning’ her that, “to make it in this game, women have to be f***able.” They also have racist policies. Remember, “with a surname like Spiteri you should try SBS.”
I’m surprised at Tracy Spicer’s comments as I thought she’d know what’s it’s like. What is so controversial about Barker’s comments?
Because if he is talking about appearances over content it is not confined to News nor females. The article lost balance.
Nine has the best girls.
maybe he has a fair point
should the eye candy, less professional ‘reporters’ who struggle to comprehend and compile a well constructed report present it topless (applies to men/women equally)
…and the real reporters who know what they are on about remain fully clothed
He seemed to have a point to make, focused on the wrong thing entirely, something that doesn’t really support that point, and in doing so has exposed his outdated and unpleasant views.
Foolish man.
girls worry so much about makeup. I hate the way when a male goes against them and they call it sexist and misogynist, its called having an opinion.