I reacted much as BYH did initially, which is a kinda, sorta admission of saying the quiet part out loud in a different sense.
I do think, at its most baseline definition, it's a vapid job. Me personally? I rarely get anything out of it. I also think, at its core, that the job is a lot more about attractiveness (for both sexes) than it is about journalistic integrity. Not that journalism isn't important. It probably depends on the outlet. More on that momentarily.
All of that said? The key words above are "at its most baseline definition". That doesn't mean someone with the right approach can't take it well above that anymore than anyone else with talent can rise above the textbook definition of any job.
Many of the examples of those who took the job above its vapid roots have been named: Andrea Kremer, Lisa Salters, Pam Oliver are just a few. Allie LaForce is good on NBA TV broadcasts and she works hard in the trenches with everyone else postgame. I know, I've seen it. One from the past who was a pioneer was Lesley Visser. She enhanced the broadcast with her journalistic excellence. There are quite a few local sideline folks who are good, male and female, especially in baseball, because they basically embed with the teams they cover in the dugout. The good ones use that to great advantage to add to the broadcast.
Unfortunately, there are also many sideline reporters who never get beyond the vapid part. (And without opening up another can of worms, some who don't live up to the off-field standards of the job either.) If you're a knowledgeable sports fan, you can see right through them. If you're a questioning journalist, you can see right through the sensibility that got them hired in the first place. Who cares what they say as long as the viewers like what they see? That goes for both genders, by the way.
