Occupational Hazards

CHRISTINE CRAFT WAS a popular news anchor in 1981, for Kansas City television station KMBC-TV. In eight months, Craft had helped propel KMBC's news ratings from second to first in the nation's 27th largest market. There was a problem: the station did not think she was pretty nor deferential enough to men. Craft found herself out of a job, and Metromedia, Inc., which then owned KMBC, later found itself in court.

Last month Craft won her case against the network and many commentators rushed to cheer the fact that finally stations could not hire and fire on the basis of looks. But this is not why she won the case, and that should not be its legacy, Craft won because the station asked her to do things that went beyond her job. It should not be interpreted as restricting a station's ability to make personal decisions based on appearance.

Television stations are private businesses concerned almost entirely with getting good ratings easily, and consequently advertising dollars.

News shows are not exempt from these financial exigencies and are in fact a large source of revenue for local stations. Each station obviously wants to have the most people watching its show, and develops different lures including informative reporting, exciting film segments, and yes, attractive hosts. Attractive does not necessarily mean good looks, but also warmth, believability and delivery. None of these criteria are inherently offensive since a television news broadcaster's job is in large part visibility. Even the beauty standard is not at all repugnant. If a newscaster's appearance makes viewers uncomfortable enough to turn the channel, that really is not very good business for the station. But the station should care only if the public is turning the channel. That's where Craft's case is different.

In only a couple of months after Kraft hooked on with KMBC the station secured the market's largest share. There is almost no question that Craft had something to do with the ascension. Whatever she looked like. Craft was successful for KMBC. In that case, station manager R. Kent Repologle could have had no reasonable right to demote her to a reporter. If KMBC had been languishing in its old position. Repologle could have asked Craft to follow a certain fashion he thought would make her more appealing and therefore boost ratings. No one raised any uproar when CBS told Dan Rather to don a casual sweater for the same purpose.

Repologle, however, continued to try to remake Craft even as she was so obviously a hit. He did it for no business reason, it seems, but only because she was a woman. Repologle even hired a media consulting firm which asked viewers in taped interviews, "Let's spend 30 second destroying Christine Craft. Is she a mutt?" Worse than that was Repologle's charge that Craft wasn't deferential enough to men as a reason why she was being demoted to reporter. Deference to men has nothing to do with the job of broadcasting, but it again shows that Repologle's actions against Craft were not salient to her work as a news anchor.

If, however, a station manager is looking to improve rating, there should be no reason why suggestions can't be made about appearance. If scientifically done polls indicate that someone's appearance or age is turning off sets, why shouldn't a private company be able to fire that person? Men should not be exempt from this standard and in fact are really not. Roger Mudd, some observers say, lost his NBC anchor job to Tom Brokaw because of age and local sports commentator Don Gillis, who is in his 50s, lost his job to a younger person for no other apparent reason.

Television is a business and like any other management has to do what is in the interests of its profit margin. In many cases, that means hiring and firing because of looks in search of good ratings. What makes Christine Craft different is that she had those good ratings, but still had to endure sex discrimination. Her case makes clear that actions based on appearance must be strictly limited to business. It, however, should not be interpreted to limit television stations from having the same ability to hire and fire as any other business.