We went to see a movie on New Year's Day. We decided to go see ‘Bombshell,’ the story about the demise of Roger Ailes of Fox News. You might recall that Roger was essentially the founder of the cable news network owned by Rupert Murdoch and his sons. The network became the most successful cable network in history. He, along with Bill O'Reilly, were taken down by allegations of sexual harassment.

Fox News became a place where many women were given an opportunity that other networks were not giving them. The movie focuses on Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly and their time with Roger. The movie suggests that Roger was something of a tyrant who maintained tight control over the operation but was also very benevolent and a mentor to many of the personalities with whom we have become familiar. The characters in the movie credit Roger with giving them their opportunity and always being available to discuss their concerns and ideas, often giving them the power to do what they wanted.

Yet there was a dark side to Roger Ailes, centered around his belief that female anchors should be sexy. Of course, Roger’s character is much more direct and vulgar about how women should be appealing to male viewers, but the idea is that they should always wear short skirts, show a lot of leg, and should always be perfectly coifed. The story suggested that when Roger was assessing female talent, he would ask them to do a little spin so he could get a look at their body and especially wanted to see their legs. From some of the evidence presented in real life those stories appear to have some validity. Whether or not sexual favors were demanded or received is still an issue of contention today. It should also be pointed out that in the majority of cases on the male side of the equation, Roger demanded that the majority of on air personalities be appealing sexually to women as well. That's something the movie did not address.

But it brings up one of those questions that society probably doesn't really want to ask much less discuss and answer. Is it acceptable to require on air personalities be appealing visually or physically to the target audience? The goal in that business particularly is to get as many viewers tuned in for as long as you can keep them so that you can increase ad revenue. In a utopian world the consumer of television news programs would make that decision based solely upon the content of those programs. The decision would be made upon the accuracy and trustworthiness of the information relayed rather than the attractiveness of the person relaying the information.

In the real world however, accuracy is a secondary factor in attracting viewership. There are several studies that have proven we make decisions about likability and trustworthiness based in large part on whether or not we find that person attractive. People of my generation will remember the historic television debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. It is widely believed that Nixon lost the election because he refused to wear makeup and began sweating heavily looking very uncomfortable, while Kennedy came across as much more comfortable and attractive, largely in part since he chose to wear makeup and understood how to ‘work’ the cameras.

If your job is to make money don't you have to consider likability and trustworthiness based upon not only their ability to accurately research and relate facts of a story but also how the audience will perceive that person? To some extent all those factors going into that decision must be considered, shouldn’t they? Roger clearly went too far as did Bill O'Reilly and other high-profile anchors and personalities from other news networks. It’s an interesting question and dilemma. I’d love to hear your thoughts…