Sorry to break it to you newsreaders and weather persons, but you aren't much more than a pretty face.
A storm of controversy has engulfed The Weather Channel, after a 40-something former anchor accused network brass of washing her out of a high-ranking job to make way for a hot front of sexy young weatherwomen.Marny Stanier Midkiff, 42, this week filed a lawsuit claiming she was booted in the fall of 2003 as part of a reputed "reorganization" of the storm channel, which she believes was really an excuse to get more young female weathercasters on the air.
Gosh, do you think so?
Midkiff says that, in the months before she was let go, her boss allegedly spoke of female staffers as "matronly," "dowdy" and "nun-like" and asked that female on-air talent turn up the temperature on their look with more revealing "V-neck" shirts.Midkiff and her attorney claim The Weather Channel also began hiring new young weathercasters starting in 2003 as part of this effort, and the then-41-year-old, who spent 16 years reporting on sun and rain for the network, was left out in the cold.
"She got tossed aside because The Weather Channel wanted a younger look," said Midkiff's attorney, Daniel Klein. "She was one of the top [meteorologists]. She was one of the best they had, but she didn't fit the image they had in mind."
It's television, an industry that's built entirely on image. Everyone knows this. You don't see strippers or models sue over lost jobs when they get old, do you? No, because that's how life works. If you make a living off your looks, then some day you're going to have to find a new job. Similarly, if you base your self worth on your looks, some day you're going to become very depressed.
Looks are looks, people. Yes, looking good is nice, but it should be seen as a bonus to everything else. I try to look good, and I like being around people who look good, but it's far from the most important consideration. Unfortunately for beautiful people, they tend to get used to getting by on their looks alone (because it's easy, at first), and when their looks disappear they don't have the social or mental skills to keep up with the crowd. (That goes even for beautiful people who aren't in 100% image-dominated industries like television.)
Good looks are a double-edged sword, not only because other people can view you as nothing more than a pretty face, but because eventually you may begin to see yourself that way, too.
Maybe she decided not to have any more kids. TWC is famous in our house for being the pregnant weatherwoman channel, so maybe they decided to fire her in favor of someone who was more likely to fit their profile, so to speak.
When I was growing up, a great many broadcasters, maybe even the majority, were pretty plain-looking. Yes, the industry is now largely based on looks, but I think that is due to the increasingly shallow nature of society in general.
The conceit of television news has long been that the people reading the news played some role in actually reporting it. That idea has worn quite thin. TV newsreaders today are simply actors, and there's no reason to be shocked that the public would prefer attractive actors over unattractive ones.
I did not have cable TV back in 2003. I can not comment on Ms. Midkiff's reporting; look or style. I did see her on ABC's Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer. From what I saw she was intelligent, articulate and very attractive. It is actions such as these that have me decide to throw my hat into the ring for U.S. Senator from the Great State of Texas. I am pro business but not at the expense of the worker. My estimation is that Ms. Midkiff, had a career not just a job. I think she had been there 16 years. I am not a fan of any network who fires and hires based on age or looks. I am not a fan of any company who rips off the comsumer by applying standards based on a consumer credit report. Those by the way are over 75% erroneous. I dispise insurance companies who use credit bureaus to further rip off consumers. Insurance may have it's place like spiders and snakes, I have yet to see where they truly fit into the scheme of economics. I think that if a person/consumer is harmed. They should be able to recover damages. Get the government out of our pockets and off our backs! God bless you, I need your vote I need your support. M. Smith