Fox Achieves A Previously Unseen Level Of Meta. Anchorwoman, Ho!

Fox has developed a solid way to capitalize on the unparalleled journalistic respect it has earned: debuting a reality program about the hiring of a completely unqualified former WWE Diva and "Price is Right" model to anchor a news program in rural Texas.

Let me repeat that. Fox has extended the realm of reality programming -- that conceit that anything can be done by anyone and is worth televising -- to the world of journalism itself.

Of course, no one will be surprised to learn that those superbly coiffed local newspersons are occasionally selected with looks as the first criterion. But to trumpet such a choice? Gutsy.

There is no shortage of self-reflection on Fox's decision by the existing staff at Channel 19. The displaced (and not unattractive) previous anchor indicates clearly that her frustration is, "a credibility thing." Mention is made of Ed Murrow "spinning in his grave". When the news director indicates a desire to emerge with his "credibility intact", a co-worker responds quickly: "Good luck on that." (This exchange follows the news director's asking Anchorwoman to go home and change out of her stilettos and miniskirt. When he asks what anchors she has seen dressed in that manner, she does not mention Katie Couric.) Truly, the staff, even at a small station in East Texas, understands the mandate that news production implies.

Not so, Anchorwoman.

She asks to do fewer stories. She is surprised that she is supposed to pay attention during the morning meeting. She dances in the background of a live shot. She indicates that cannoli are a Jewish delicacy. WWE Diva behavior, all, and that's fine.

What's not fine is when she states, within the first three minutes of the show, an enthusiasm for anchoring so she can "express her opinion". Or when she asks an interviewee to repeat a particular phrase she has used. The staff's concerns are valid and, frankly, obvious. Anchorwoman has no training in journalism, nor, importantly, in journalistic standards and expectations. She compares her first broadcast to her first time entering the ring, because, to her, it is. It's repeating lines on a teleprompter, and adding her own je ne sais quoi when desired.

That Fox would gleefully promote this program is bizarre to the point of suspicion. Is this, after all, a middle finger to journalists? Is this Fox taking years of critique and saying, in essence, you ain't seen nothing yet? Could something so obviously lacking in ethics have been done deliberately? That's question one.

Question two: if, as indicated at the end of the second half hour in a glimmer of hope, Anchorwoman can be a success at her job, does this speak more to her abilities or to the complete degradation of quality expected from American journalists? Is there any difference in journalistic readiness or any difference in expectation level between Anchorwoman and the channel's other cute prop, Stormy, the weather dog?

The best way to find out the answers to these questions: watch your local news. Literally. As promo'd during the show, your Fox affiliate has a segment profiling Anchorwoman during its 11 o'clock broadcast.

Comments

[sinnerjizm]

when she states, within the first three minutes of the show, an enthusiasm for anchoring so she can "express her opinion".


Thats the key right there. "express her opinion" is exactly the image of Journalists that Fox has been crafting for years.

[3fingerbrown]

Seismic activity was detected near Ed Murrow's grave long before Fox News came along. In fact, Murrow was dismayed by the degradation of TV's journalistic standards in his own lifetime, and spoke out about it frequently. Mr. Bump might be the last person in America to use the words "journalism" and "TV" in the same sentence without irony. Does it really matter if the beautiful blonde reading news written, vetted, and edited by others was a communications major or a pro wrassler?

[allamericanboy]

Well, one note. I read in a newspaper article on the show that the actual station in Tyler, TX, who hired the bimbo is a CBS station. I assume that to be correct.

[drblack]

Anyone with brains knows that if it is on Fox it can never be news. Besides the show was a flop....no one wanted to see Fox make even more of a joke out of journalism than they already have.
She certainly has more integrity then Hume or O'Reilly.

[larry278]

When Faux News started broadcasting Edward R Murrow started spinning 1000 rpm faster in his grave. This show will add another 1000 rpm to Ed's speed.

[peterg76]

Wait, you're saying Fox *didn't* already think that journalism was idle rantings by self-absorbed amateurs?

[ZanIts1984]

You know, that show sucks, she sucks as a so-called "news journalist", and even the staff thinks her behavior sucks.

I am GLAD it sucks. America is getting exactly what they have asked for and have been getting on other news programs for years. This is just the EXTREME version without all the serious cover of faking a real news journalist.

It is a reflection of what society now considers news. Pretty people who don't do any REAL news but just commentate their opinion or whatever is printed for them on the prompter.

Maybe just maybe this will bring attention to what is wrong in the News Media today. BUT..I am not holding my breath.

[lepton]

Whoa, this is TV people. This show is a clearly scripted, unfunny comedy first, and journalism a far, distant, barely visible second. It's merely a gimmick in hopes of more ratings. They're not trying to make any point about journalism.

[BadChristian]

Obviously, The Daily Show is funny, but it is scripted and it is a middle finger to the cable news industry, which made "Crossfire."

There have been people who thought that the "Bubble-headed bleach blonde" was superior to the "Efete, elite" college boys since televised news began, and I think they're loving this idea.

[BadChristian]

Gordon Liddy probably thinks it's the best thing since bullets.

[vc776]

"That Fox would gleefully promote this program is bizarre to the point of suspicion. Is this, after all, a middle finger to journalists? Is this Fox taking years of critique and saying, in essence, you ain't seen nothing yet? Could something so obviously lacking in ethics have been done deliberately? That's question one."

This is in fact, a middle finger to legitimate journalism. Fox is all about denigrating legitimate jouralism, to blur the lines between the legitimate and Fox News' product. If journalism does not eduacte; if journalism does not inform, if our expectation of journalistic standards are dimisnished; if it's all propaganda of one type of another, then peolple will merely choose the type and style of propaganda that appeals to their own biases. And if the propaganda is dressed up and delivered with "good" visuals ( i.e., flashing lights and graphics, dramatic music, newsreaders with big hair and big boobs..all staples of FNC),, well, so much the better. Disinformation and distraction are the name of the game.

[JScott]

I watched about 30 seconds of this show-BORING!

What's her next gig-working at Fox News Channel I'll bet.

[gerrylong]

There is always someone in the competetive world of journalism who cannot resist the temptation to "go the competition one better", and reach a bit deeper into the intellectual, moral, and ethical fecis.

Murdoch is the worst of the lot. Everything he touches becomes eventually a cheap tabloid. What is Bill O'Neill but a cheap tabloid compared to an Eric Severeid, or a Walter Cronkite. Sean Hannity is a serial liar, and there is not one person on the entire network who is respected as a journalist.

I give Obama a great deal of credit for his decision to turn his back on Fox.

[NYDamien]

In the end, we all know who to blame. I've never met anyone who doesn't proclaim, "TV programs STINK!" Yet the producers aren't stupid. Immoral maybe, but not stupid. Rupert Murdoch is a billionaire "giving'em what they want." Again and again, it comes down to our schools. We produce idiots, they give us idiot programs.

[BadChristian]

Juat a thought... How many hours a year does Ruppert get the kids, and how many do the teachers?

From what I have seen, the polls of how much tv kids watch a day are about as accurate as how many people admit to smoking dope. It's high enough to believe, but way below the honest truth. Especially if you're asking parents... Might as well ask them if their kid is "above average."
Parents need to, at least, help teachers raise their kids.

[BadChristian]

Is this, after all, a middle finger to journalists?
-----

It is.

Remember when journalism in America was almost admired? Man... The NeoCons fixed that. Came in talking shit about newspapers and liberal bias, and by the time they're gone, "journalists" will need to suck off a rich old man for a job on his street corner...

News is whatever the loudest voice is screaming at the moment, and it sounds like we should apply something directly to our forehead.

[ltfcrazy]

If all she has to do is read lines and act appropriate to the story, how bad can she be? Ted Knight bad? Ron Burgundy bad? Given the proper training and the fact that she's performed before, I think she may just be OK. Besides, if it's on Fox who cares. She just has to be hot and say what she's told.

[Indiana]

And I guess if all she has to cover is mainly Paris, Lindsey, and Britney, her lack of real qualifications won't matter....