|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 2nd, 2003 05:22 PM | |||
| ziggytrix |
fair enough. 
|
||
| Dec 2nd, 2003 04:44 PM | |||
| Helm | Ziggy, you're right in your last post. Let me instead replace my narrow declaration of an anchorman's physical uselessness with a great amount of generic but fervently impressed hate towards the purpose of the media in the capitalistic environment, as you said. If you can't be right, be angry. | ||
| Dec 2nd, 2003 01:51 AM | |||
| El Blanco |
Who here would hire someone who stutters or has a high-pitched, naisly voice to do a radio broadcast? What? Nobody? I'm shocked. It certainly isn't because these poor people demonstrate an inability to understand the news. No, it is beacuse they are not suitable for the medium you are using. Your audience will hear them and so you want something pleasing to the ears. Television is a visual medium. You need something to please the eyes. I didn't give adamn about the Big 3 news stations until Solidad O'Brien showed up, and it wasn't for her in depth coverage of trade agreements. Does this mean you need a bunch of talking heads and vacuos tramps to sell the news? No. It is entirley possible to be very attractive, very smart, and well spoken. I do it every day. |
||
| Dec 2nd, 2003 01:45 AM | |||
| Anonymous | Although there are plenty of blurred camera shots of her. | ||
| Dec 2nd, 2003 01:42 AM | |||
| Supafly345 | Barbera Walters is photogenic. She isn't attractive. | ||
| Dec 1st, 2003 10:04 AM | |||
| Miss Modular |
Lots of overweight people are photogenic. When I was an overweight kid growing up, I never thought I was pretty by anyone's standards. As I got older, people would compliment me on how photogenic I was. As I said, I never thought I was attractive by anyone's standards, and a compliment like that meant a lot to me. |
||
| Dec 1st, 2003 08:18 AM | |||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
At the same time, they aren't going to give you the news via the sluttiest looking girl they can find either, because it still has to come from a face you feel you can trust. Point is, in visual media, appearance serves a very clear and distinct purpose. |
||
| Dec 1st, 2003 06:26 AM | |||
| Supafly345 | I am young, attractive, and healthey. And it is only because of this reason that I totally agree that old, fat, ugly people shouldn't be seen. Thats what the radio's for. | ||
| Dec 1st, 2003 01:25 AM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
So you want your news anchors aethetically pleasing AND to deliver quality intensive reporting??? Get a grip. Anyways I personally find frosted hair, and capped teeth a little revulting....and I mean that in the same way men in Hooters shorts are revulting. I worked at a small cable network for a short time, and almost broke down in tears the first day when I walked in on some freakish man putting on clown makeup in the mens rooms. Turned out he was our anchor. He liked to do his own makeup. A lot. The guys on the crew liked him because he used to have "tie day". He had a thing that he could only wear a tie on air once, and then it was ruined. So we got his hand me down, once worn silk ties. He's at Fox News now, and he's every bit as vain as any female anchors. So there are some odd standards for on air talent regardless of gender. I think working in journalism, or news reporting of any sort should be about charisma and personality above short skirts and hair parts. Then again, there might be some people on the planet who didn't think Naked News was the most retarded concept ever. |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 11:38 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
"Well, you weren't listening very well then. " Actually, I was. I simply didn't add the rebuttal as it wasn't pertinant. Bill O'Reilly isn't a news anchor, nor is his show a news program. No more than the MacLaughlin Group was a news show. Discussing political and current events is not enough of a qualifier to substantiate a program as 'news,' else the aforementioned John Stewart could be considered a news anchor as well. Really, it is embarassing that I need to correct you on something so obvious. Please don't make me do so again. |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 10:02 PM | |||
| Emu | "Maybe that's just her excuse for being incompetent." --Zap Brannigan, referring to the Single Female Lawyer TV show | ||
| Nov 30th, 2003 04:00 PM | |||
| camacazio | They're only hired if they can look good. Just look at John Stewart. It's all about the executives and what their marketing men say. There's obvious exceptions, but for the most part it holds true. | ||
| Nov 30th, 2003 03:56 PM | |||
| O71394658 |
Quote:
Not all of them are good looking. Hell, look at the lady on the show you watched. She was nearying her 60s. But when normal, middle-aged women are viewed by millions of people everyday, it's no surprise that they try to look their best. |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 02:48 PM | |||
| Anonymous |
Maria Bartiromo has nothing on Mark Haines or Bob Pisani. And Ann Curry next to Al Roker... man.. could she get any uglier? Really - woof woof! What a dog News men are HOT HOT HOT |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 12:10 PM | |||
| AChimp |
Helm, you are just saying that because you are HOT HOT HOT. 
|
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 11:52 AM | |||
| JesusFishSticks | This thread has really made no sense to me, I have no clue why I've stayed in it so long. Its just that were I live, all we have is ass ugly news anchors. This stuff all seems kinda dumb. | ||
| Nov 30th, 2003 09:36 AM | |||
| Helm |
A football player's physique serves a clear and distinct set of purposes (although the purposes of those purposes seem kind of pointless), whereas an anchorwoman's physique does not. A crusty cunt most probably has an equally operational mouth, equally operational memory and equally operational whatever else one needs to talk for an hour or so. The distinction which is of importance between the two sides of the original analogy blot test made is that the reason we put beautiful people in the daily media is aesthetic and not functional. We like to see nice tits and sparkly smiles and that's that. This practise misleads people in numerous ways, the most important of which in that they raise the scale of what the physical norm is supposed to be. If one watches tv for a while, he'd come to believe most people are the beautiful. This is essentially same as with the supermodel-type kind of woman which has recieved oversaturation in the media consistently for the last 40 years or so, it distorts public perception as to what actually exists. Also it manufactures aspirations to reach this higher model in the mass uneducated populance, with various social neuroses as the outcome. The original double standard discussed in this thread, indeed can be taken as some sort of aesthetic racism or whatnot, although I do not care to debate this aspect of a much larger matter to itself at all, because the same quasi-racism is inherently instinctual, and not so much of a social issue. The social issues are the biproducts of this inherent behaviour. But that's a different discussion. |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 02:53 AM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
Well Worthless. . .I'm not entirely sure where you see any pretense in my post, so I can't exactly address your grievances. I rather thought my conclusions were logically grounded (owing my frame of thought to John Finnis {Finnis laboured long on the difference between a “‘Claim’ Right” or “Right in the ‘Strict Sense’” and a “Liberty” or “Liberty Right” in his book "Natural Law and Natural Rights" New York/Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980. Finnis begins his analysis of this difference by calling attention to the discussion of rights provided by W. N. Hohfeld in an early twentieth-century work in jurisprudence [Finnis refers to W.N. Hohfeld’s "Fundamental Legal Conceptions" New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1919]}). The right to work would quite clearly be a claim right, a liberty, as opposed to say the right to life, which is a de facto right, or right stricto sensu. As for the crusty cunt reference, well, that was singular. You could find SOME crusty cunt (not cunts, which would denote plurality), like say Judy Woodruff from CNN for instance. It is possible. I wasn't saying all ugly people were crusty cunts. You are probably just mildly unattractive for instance. I wouldn't make such a broad generalization without justification. It would be rather presumptuous of me. And furthermore, I do think about what it would be like to be other people. The other night I thought I would sick up, so I took myself into the alley (as not to puke in the pub) and after I noticed I had emptied my stomach on a homeless person -and not the bundle of rubbish he appeared to be- I immediately thought about how it must suck to be him for a good couple minutes before going to back to the bar.[/i] |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 02:03 AM | |||
| WorthlessLiar |
re Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 02:00 AM | |||
| JesusFishSticks | crusty cunt makes me think of those sugar coated candy orange slices... | ||
| Nov 30th, 2003 01:41 AM | |||
| george |
i dont know if i should pick on ou or agree, but i think you are just a little too sensitive about this ugly thing. i bet you are a crusty cunt. why the hell should i have to look at ugly anchors when i get to hear the pretend news? you would not want me doing brain surgery on you if there were not enough fat surgeons and they needed a place filler. |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 01:12 AM | |||
| WorthlessLiar |
re Perhaps this is why one should just read the paper instead of watching a channel that has to market its news with hot ancors. Quote:
And that you had to give an explanation for watching it... you're such a pathetic, pretentious ass. |
||
| Nov 30th, 2003 01:06 AM | |||
| george |
i would give my left arm to see you in a hooters outfit young lady. how have you been? |
||
| Nov 29th, 2003 11:11 PM | |||
| JesusFishSticks |
entitlementist 
|
||
| Nov 29th, 2003 11:06 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
Um I don't consider being a newscaster or serving drinks at Hooters a right. If you want the job then you should have the qualifications. And if one of the qualifications is being attractive or having oh say HOOTERS....and you aren't or don't then too f'n bad. Find another place to work. Or have the surgery to fix it. As far as I am concerned you can't be an accountant if you can't do basic math, and if you are going to be a newscaster you should be reasonable attractive. It keep people from changing the chanel. It isn't predjudice, or an "ist" of any kind. It is simple marketing. I hate this whole damn entitlement attitude. |
||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
