An interesting view of our illustrious hobby from the mainstream media and academia:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26869953/

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6879237.ece

http://moreintelligentlife.com/node/964

Couldn't help but notice that CNBC special.  Myself, along with a few other notable ladies, websites and ads were cameod.  Other than the quick features, I wasn't at all entertained...tehehe.

dependent on one's viewpoint.

Maybe if the writers of these articles were curing cancer, but there was nothing I read that hasn’t been said by every Tom, Dick and Harry a million times over. One could take any of those articles, change the writer’s name and post it a year later and no one would know the difference, except for the original writer.

Spitzer is a putz, enough said.

I remember Morgan’s picture featured on TV, so I guess she should take it as a compliment.

About the only good think I took from reading each article is it would be a cure for insomnia.

I'll definitely be giving this a watch and try to do better than skim the articles

I missed the full link to the video. Did you watch the whole thing?

I wasn't aware of the heavy rotation from only seeing it once and hope it hasn't damaged your privacy. Did you watch it out of curiousity and saw your picture in shock or know it would be displayed ahead of time?

I am no lawyer, but I wonder if there is some kind of infringement policy to display your picture without your consent?

For example, since a lot of girls post pictures not of themselves, but of models, actresses, pornstars, etc., could a model sue CNBC?

-- Modified on 4/4/2011 2:26:23 PM