Have you ever turned on the TV to ESPN, FOX News, CNN, The Weather Channel, or even something like the Sprout channel for kids? Despite the vast differences in these channels, you’ll find that they all have one thing in common – their dress code. If you have been living under a rock since the dawn of the dress code, I’ll break it down for you: women wear extremely tight clothing that shows half of their butt and more cleavage than anyone wants to see, and men wear uncomfortable suits and ties. But… why?

Round-table discussion shows are set up in a uniform way. There is typically a half-dressed woman at one end, and there is a nice-looking man at the other end. The others who are less-exposed (or less attractive by the current society standards) are typically hidden behind the table. The pretty ones get the limelight. While I am not doubting these people’s intelligence, I am doubting the producers' main concern – sexualizing everything.

Why does a male sideline reporter at a football game need to be in a suit and tie? What about the women who are forced to tug at their dress during every commercial break? Wouldn’t a simple ESPN (or other media organization) tee-shirt, jeans, and Nikes be okay? Let’s be real – sporting events are uncomfortable. It’s either hot and sweaty or cold and full of frostbite. These guys and gals that are on the field deserve to be as comfortable as possible.

I’ll take it a step further. Why does a female reporter that is interviewing a witness of a crime need to show cleavage? Isn’t that disrespectful to the witness, the family, and even the viewers? Why do people report the weather in uncomfortable attire? Why do people reporting in war-zones make sure their tie is perfectly knotted under their bullet-proof vest?

What makes this even more of an unexplainable phenomenon is that most TV hosts don’t pick their own outfits. They come to work looking like the rest of us – tired and in sweatpants. The magic green room crews spend hours working on hair, makeup, and their costume for the day. So, saying this is a personal preference is out the window.

I think you get the gist of it, so I’ll try my best to throw out some theories.

The first claim is that this dress code was instituted for viewer retention. If you can keep them around for the good-looking hosts, they’ll get interested in the message again in a second. However, this proves to be untrue in these days. If someone wants to see eye-candy, Google is a few clicks away. So, this seems to be an outdated.

The second claim is that an attractive speaker makes viewers trust them more. That is bogus. I do not trust the guy wearing a suit or the girl struggling to make her outfit cover everything that is necessary more than the guy or girl wearing rags just because of their attire. I have enough common-sense to see past an appearance and actually decipher the message that is being given to make an appropriate decision on whether to trust it or not.

The third claim and the most agreeable one is that this dress-code was inspired to create a clear distinction between male and female, black and white, and gay and straight, intelligent and dumb, and so forth. If a woman wears a short dress and crosses her legs, she looks and feels more submissive. Therefore, she will be more “soft-spoken”, orderly, and less opinionated. Meanwhile, men wear suits and ties to appear to be in control. They look like they have power, therefore they do. They control the conversations on these shows and show their dominance over the submissive women who are struggling to keep their underwear covered.

Breaking this precise distinction matters. What happens if a black reporter breaks this unspoken code? They’ll wear Jordan’s instead of loafers or dark jeans instead of slacks. There are two theories surrounding this. The first is that black men are encouraged to dress less-nicely to show the white man’s dominance over them (by dressing nicer, the white man is more serious and more trustworthy). The second theory is that the black man will dress more comfortably because he refuses to abide by these silly, outdated rules (a mini-Civil Rights movement). What happens when a gay/lesbian doesn’t follow this silly code? They’ll dress in a way that is not “of code” for their gender, and viewers will quickly realize that they are not “of the norm” and discredit them, waiting for those that are abiding by the code to take over, because they are so much more logical and trustworthy.

If main-stream media wants to create havoc (because, havoc = news), they’ll pump their viewers full of subliminal messages that make them think in whatever way they want them to think. What is funny about this is that the majority of people do not question the attire of the people that watch so closely. This code is an accepted part of our world now, and it shouldn’t be that way. Stop allowing society to demean everyone. Can we stop following these crazy rules that no one really understands? In reality, no one watches the news, the sports channels, or the weather channels to see outfits. We watch those things to learn, wind-down, or stay vigilant. So, main-stream media, you can stop your subliminal messaging to the masses. We real people would rather see these reporters show up in whatever is comfortable for them, because we really could care less about the dress.