As usual with the "pay gap" propaganda pieces the most important information is missing. How does the pay gap look when accounting for relative viewership (i.e. how much ad revenue each personality brings to the company), years on the job, qualifications, experience, working hours, etc. 

When those factors are accounted for fully I would wager - as is *always* the case - that the pay gap is reduced to zero. Judge Judy is the highest paid person in all of television, anywhere in the world. Why? She brings in the most money. I don't see Judge Joe Brown complaining; his show has fewer viewers. 

Or is the argument that all men and women should make the same amount, regardless of talent, qualification, working hours, experience, viewership etc., 'because feminism'? Is that the argument? Equal pay for *equal* work is feminism. If personalities produce equal revenue for a company and possess equal qualities, the pay should be equal. And the free market ALREADY DOES THAT.