I don't think it's that women (or men) in the media are especially "fick" - it's more that the demands of today's media are not exactly intellectually stimulating. If you want to "make it", even if you are bright, you don't have to show it.
I've now idea how dim or otherwise Fearne Cotton is. But how many front-of-house arenas are there in music, entertainment etc., where cerebral activity is a requirement? Generally, the ones having to use their brains are working behind the scenes in programming, scheduling, direction, scripting etc.
You need to be professional and presentable, but there is no requirement to display intelligence. Even quiz shows where the presenter looks intelligent because they have all the answers aren't quite what they seem. Yes, Jeremy Paxman is bright, but we know that from his other work, not necessarily from "University Challenge".
I am met with derision when I describe Kimberley Walsh and Sarah Harding as intelligent. People just assume that, because they're in a girlband, they must be dim bimbos. And yet if you bother to find out the slightest thing about them and actually listen to/ read interviews with them, they are obviously bright women. Kimberley is the band's financial manager. Not may people know that, but not many people can be bothered to find it out. They'd just rather think she is dim because she has a (rather lovely, IMO) Yorkshire accent and looks good in a sparkly frock.
Speaking a foreign language is one thing that I think shows intelligence. How many people knew Ulrika-ka-ka could speak French before the 1998 Eurovision Song Contest?