Alix Kendall, a fascinating case study

How long have we known you, Alix Kendall?

Here’s what I remember about Alix, accurate or not: She started on the new Fox9 morning news/chatfest when it launched more than a decade ago. Eventually she added the couch chat hour to her morning news recaps. She started on a show called “Good Day (Good Grief) Minnesota,” a show that simply came to be known as the Fox9 Morning Disaster, or something like that. She once accidentally referred to the show, during its initial incarnation, as Good Morning America, and then gasped as she realized her gaffe. (Did I imagine this?)

At one point she got married, had a child and got divorced.

I remember her fiancée being trotted out onto the set prior to her marriage. I think the dude picked her up during this awkward moment in local broadcasting.

Her daughter made an on-screen cameo at last once. I remember she was sitting on the couch next to Jason Matheson, and she seemed annoyed to be there.

You learn a few things about local “celebrities” if they hang around long enough.

Among the nuggets: Alix lives somewhere in Minneapolis, I’m certain, based on anecdotes about her life. Perhaps she said so in so many words.

She’s over 50 years old. She doesn’t trumpet her age, but she doesn’t hide it. I think I gleaned this nugget via Facebook. I’m not connected to Alix, but she didn’t hide her age.

All it takes is a little online searching of her name and you’ll learn a few other nuggets about her. The most bizarre, bar none, is that there is/was a blog named after her. It’s a blog dedicated to news anchors and reporters wearing boots. The curator of these screen shots/pics of broadcast news professionals is amusing, and creepy.

Alix is not her real name. (I’m shocked!)

She is suing government agencies for more than $75,000.

She’s a local gal, I think.

So what does all this mean?

Alix does a good job doing what she does and avoids being a nauseating “celebrity.”

I don’t hold anchors in high regard. It’s a talent to anchor a broadcast, no doubt, and you have to be able to think on your feet. You can’t be an uninformed idiot, either, but anchors have it cushy in comparison to reporters. Anchors are typically compensated to be the face of a newscast or station, and therefore you rarely see them doing any of the legwork. That’s not to say they don’t, but you don’t see it. Typically anchors cut their teeth as reporters, but the anchor's chair is an overrated gig, and a good gig, if you can get it.

Alix isn’t flawless as an anchor, nobody will mistake her for Today Show talent, but she has been a solid presence for more than a decade.

Years ago the local affiliate added couch chat to its morning news, an hour dedicated to opinions and commentary by the on-air staff, because we all really want to know what Alix and the gang think about the news of the day and other water cooler topics. I have no idea if Alix volunteered for the gig or was told it was part of her job. It’s harmless, but the idea that our local talking heads from all the local affiliates are so precious and special that we should care what they think about the hot topics of the day is a bit nauseating. Unfortunately it’s the world we live in.

I may not care to know what Alix thinks about the news of the weird, but once again she handles the job without being annoying or pompous. God bless her for that.

I don’t envy women in broadcasting, now more than ever. There are enough weirdos out there that you can’t assume you’re safe from all of them when you anchor a morning newscast. You know that’s part of the deal when you choose the career path, and it has been for decades. Nowadays, however, you’re not only subject to scrutiny from anonymous blogs like this one, you’ll inevitably end up being critiqued like a piece of meat from the anonymous depths of the Internet. While it might be flattering to be heralded as an attractive woman when you wear knee-high boots during a morning newscast, it can’t be pleasant to know perverts are salivating over you, even in an industry where image is highly important, especially for women.

I think the thing that rubs me the wrong way regarding Alix is that she’s suing government agencies for a nice payday. I’m not saying she shouldn’t be compensated, but Alix and others in the media are ready to pocket cash for violations of their privacy by government officials with access to driver’s license data. I’m not convinced they deserve a fat settlement.

I won’t break down the current data privacy issue being debated here in Minnesota, but here’s what I can say in brief: Public officials shouldn’t be using the driver’s license registry to look up personal information about public figures. Compensating victims of that privacy violation shouldn’t be automatic, especially for those who choose careers in broadcasting. It’s creepy, sure, but being a public figure who trades on his/her public image shouldn’t be surprised when they become the subject of public fascination.

That doesn’t make it right for public officials to look up an anchor or reporter’s home address, but is it that traumatizing? Perhaps so if your data has been accessed for years, hundreds of times. But isn’t it  as traumatizing to know that somebody is fixating on you as an anchor when you wear boots to work? I can’t say which is more traumatizing, but I have a definite opinion.

So a boots blog isn’t an invasion of privacy. Fine. What does suing government agencies accomplish. I think it has been made clear through scrutiny of the practice, and settlements paid for such invasions, that driver’s license data is not a de facto Facebook for cops and other public officials. Is Alix’s lawsuit for $75,000+ (according to the Pioneer Press) aimed at punishing those who abused their access to driver’s license data? Or is it punishing the taxpayers that support those agencies?

How does $75,000+ alleviate the trauma caused by the privacy violations? How is it that $5,000 isn’t enough? The settlement isn’t about alleviating Alix’s trauma, it’s about punishing agencies responsible for the violations, punishing them to the point it hurts. I get that.

But I can’t get past the fact that there seems to be a bit of a cash grab at play. I understand the temptation. I could rationalize doing the same thing if I were in that situation.

It’s hard to make a judgment about Alix’s motivations without knowing the salient details. Perhaps cops were routinely driving by her home for years, hoping to get a glimpse of her washing her car in a bikini. But what if she had no idea she has been “checked out” repeatedly by public officials. Why does finding out you’ve been checked out 30 or 3,000 times suddenly freak you out when you didn’t know it was happening. It’s gross, for sure. Is it so traumatic that it takes $75,000 or more to alleviate the trauma?

I don’t mean to pick on Alix. She’s not the only news anchorette looking to cash in on this government windfall. But her case is recent, and prominent. It gives me reason to think twice about who these people are, why we hold them in such high esteem and what they give up in order to do their jobs.

Thanks Alix, you’ve remained true to the Minnesota roots I want to believe you have.