Broadcast journalism is incredibly competitive and holds journalists to impossibly high standards–especially where women and appearances are concerned.
In theory, the goal of a news organization is to inform consumers completely and accurately. However, in broadcast, the term consumer is treated a little differently; or rather, the news organization doesn’t just produce news, they try to market a product. The product is entertainment, and the vehicle of providing entertainment is the newscasters.
Broadcast journalists are constantly pressured for perfection–and of course, they constantly fall short. There are endless videos of news “fails” online–from the brad-new intern anchor swearing his first time on air, to that weather woman inadvertently drawing a vaguely phallic shape as she explains the course of a storm, these videos garner hundreds of thousands of views. People love to laugh at others’ mistakes. These mistakes are caught on camera, and will follow the journalists for the rest of their lives–punishing them long after they’ve been dismissed from the newsroom where the folly occurred.
Sometimes it’s not even a journalist’s mistake that gets them in trouble, it’s their face. Or their voice, or their outfit, or their body type. For the most part, women have the most focus placed on their appearance. One heavy-set local anchor was harassed via email for being a “bad role model” and not being “a suitable example for… young people”–as though it is her job to be a shining example of perfection for an entire community. [source] Let’s ignore the fact that the angry viewer has no right to judge anyone’s health by merely looking at them, and turn to the more relevant point: where is the equitable email for any of her male colleagues at her local station? Where is the equitable situation for any male journalist in the country, in the history of television?
Women journalists are under constant scrutiny–viewers love pregnant newscasters, but they better lose the baby weight fast. Producers love the young vibrant energy female anchors give off, but at the first sign of a wrinkle, you’ll be replaced. The broadcast world is long overdue for an aesthetic overhaul. Viewers want a good role model? Let’s give them realistic ones, who don’t have plastic Barbie faces with a grandmother’s voice (cough cough–The View). Or, we can start pushing male journalists out when they get crows’ feet, too.
Podcasts seem almost too simple to be considered a modern marvel–but the technology of the future relies on simplicity to thrive.
While shiny chrome futures with cars whizzing through the air and robots that do all of the housework and pocket knives that are can-openers but also personal assistants are fun to imagine, the fact is we are already living in the future–and it’s much simpler to comprehend than The Jetsons lets on. Aesthetically, however, the Jetsons had a lot right: the cartoon was heavily influenced by the ’60s modernistic style, with clean lines and minimalistic shapes, to better showcase the wondrous accomplishments of their gadgets. We see the same aesthetic in modern devices like the iPhone: a single button to turn the device on/off, two more for volume control, and only one for navigating the software. This is the culmination of years of decadence and excess being thrown out the window. Our modern cellphones are throwbacks to previous decades.
Podcasts, too, harken back to the before-times, specifically radio. Podcasts can be accompanied by video (a video podcast, obviously enough) or be audio-only–why is this old-school form of communication so popular? Perhaps because of its simplicity: A podcast knows what it wants to do, and it only has to make its viewers listen. This is far more appealing than turning on the television and being assaulted by advertisements for entertainment, for news, for products, not to mention finally finding whatever you wanted to watch in the first place–generally, television is inconvenient because it spends so much time interrupting itself. Podcasts are there whenever someone bothers to look for them. This is why consumers of all kinds of media turn to the internet.
This gives the podcast an advantage over traditional radio as well–it is more convenient. AM/FM radio accounted for 85% of total radio reaching consumers in 2012, whereas online streams only reached 15% [source]–but podcasts and streams are still growing. In 2006 only 22% of the American population reported knowing of podcasts, with only 11% tuning in; by 2012 45% of Americans knew what a podcast is and 29% were listening [source]. Currently 45% of Americans (ages 12+) have ever listened to a podcast. What’s more is that 67% of podcast listeners don’t mind advertisements in their content, compared to a paltry 6% who tolerate television and radio consumers combined. [source] Podcasts are going to be a great opportunity for advertisers in the future. Radio shows are already releasing podcast versions of their segments for downloads–the media is being a little slow on the uptake, but it would be extremely advantageous for news organizations to hop on this boat too.
There’s no stopping podcasts from being the next big source of entertainment, news, and socialization.
I wrote previously on the changing of our society to one of Paper Plate Culture. This doesn’t nearly encompass all of the changes we’re going through. To tackle another one: swearing.
Swearing is one of the final taboos in most countries, and it’s on the way out. It’s been on the way out for a long time, really. The infamous “Seven Dirty Words” have been comedy routine inspiration since the 60s; in the early 2000s Dane Cook alone probably broke the swearing record on a daily basis. And let’s not forget the Matrix Reloaded, which brought to viewers’ attention the wonders of French swearing (essentially, say anything profane, connect it to another profane word or phrase with an appropriate article in between, and repeat until you’ve exhausted your repertoire). I do not have a single friend who doesn’t swear occasionally (in fact, most swear profusely and proudly). And you know what they say, if you don’t know who “that friend” is… it’s you.
(Yes, I’m the friend who doesn’t swear, at all, ever. But that’s a post for another day.)
Joining me, on the side of not swearing, is the media. Journalists have historically avoided obscenity—and it makes sense, given that obscenity is one of very few criteria that give reason for prior restraint (that’s censorship or restricted publishing, to any non-journalists). Perhaps in coming years the media will feel less restricted as swearing permeates all of our society, and swearing becomes colloquial and acceptable—even a way to relate better to viewers. I’ll be watching anxiously for the first unscripted, uncensored swear in the news.