Indeed, celebrifying our anchors suggests (and, perhaps, proves the fact) that all anchors have to sell are their images—in the broader sense of their reputations, to be sure, but also in the more immediate sense of their appearance. Because, if anything, anchors are figureheads for news. (That’s nothing new, of course; so, in many ways, was Murrow; so, in many ways, was Cronkite.) Sure, that’s unfortunate, particularly so nowadays, when survival for news organizations often demands demonstrating why they are relevant in the new media era. And there are ways to improve, as it were, “the way it is.”

But, for now, as long as image is the defining aspect of TV news, we can’t really be surprised when other media platforms focus on, you know, the image aspect of TV news. Just as we can’t really be surprised when a hairstyle becomes A Thing. Image-based branding, for better or for worse, is part of the game we all play when we passively consume TV news—and when we treat “entertaining us” as a viable expectation for serious news coverage. It’s what we can expect, in short, when we don’t expect better.

• 1
• 2