They even have a site called FoxNewsGirls.com. This is journalism? NOT!
-- Modified on 5/9/2011 6:55:29 PM
Honestly, does the news coverage really improve if it is read to us by an old fat white guy?
None of these "news readers" does any actual reporting, why not hire ladies that are easy on the eyes?
The networks need viewers to make money. And the viewers they need are the upper-middle class white males who make and spend the money.
Now, who do these upper-class white males want to look at? Martha McCallum, Julie Banderas, etc., or Bob Schieffer??? LOL!
the funny thing is the libs think they get "smart news" from looking at mindless ugly chicks
banderas!!! aye carumba!
Well, have you seen CNN's Candy Crowley? A really good journalist, very "fair and balanced," and she looks like Miss Piggy. Still, I'd rather get my news from her than from some bimbo. It just seems more meaningful when you can imagine she knows what she's talking about.
and it's besides the point anyhow, these are "news readers" we are talking about, not reporters.
Why does a "news reader" even need to understand what they are reading, I would propose that a stupid person who has no understanding of what he/she was reading would be MORE likely to be impartial and unbiased by the simple fact that they would have no opinion of their own. lol
It does kind of sound like you are biased "against" good looking people, you wouldn't happen to look like a hobbit yourself, would you? lol
I just checked my feet and, nope, there's no hair on them. It's all on my back! Anyway, call me old fashioned but I like to labor under the illusion that the person giving me my news has a clue about what she's reading. If I want to see a hottie on TV I'll watch porn.
-- Modified on 5/9/2011 6:28:21 PM
I very disappointed in her. She's a lot smarter then she acts and dumbing herself down so she isn't talking over the intelligence level of the average Fox news viewer is so very sad.
someone who actually understands what she's reading and is not simply there because she's got blonde hair and perky tits. I like a hot newscaster as much as the next guy, but I'd like her to also be a decent journalist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
blonde hair I can take or leave. lol
I don't really want to be "educated" by a reporter, I just want the facts, I can do my own analysis thank you very much.
The last thing I want is the reporters own biases entering into the story he/she is reporting on, of course that ship sailed decades ago. All journalism is biased, might as well have a pretty face to look at.
i disagree, for "reading the news" i rather just have a cute face and nice tits. I dont want editorializing. there's really too much of that goin around these days.
for that matter, tits and good looks work for journalists too.
and upskirt shots on the weather girls!
Personally I prefer Erin Burnett, but that's just me. And if these news readers don't do any real reporting then explain why Greta Van Susteren has a job, lol. You know who actually does real reporting? Rachel Maddow. No, you're not going to be staring at her tits, but you won't be dumber by the time you turn off the TV.
monotone fashion reads from a script that someone -- maybe her -- has written. And, while doing so, the small number of television viewers that actually tune in have fallen asleep.
She is a very poor Olbermann wanna-be. And face it, anyone who wants to be like Olbermann has a very serious problem.
She is a true non-factor.
I used to watch her and got tired of her, but apparantly somebody's watching!
Ask the common man or woman on the street if they know Rachel Maddow is. Most will have no clue. And, after they see her, they will understand why they had no clue.
The same goes for just about everyone at CNN, MSNBC and even cable news ratings leader Fox News. People may know the names O'Reilly and Hannity but the majority of people on the street would know nothing more than their names.
The only reason I know Maddow is from clips that have been posted on this board and a few others by her fans. I watched a few clips to see what the big deal was. I'm still trying to figure that one out. She drones on and on and says the same thing over and over again. Kinda like a liberal Hannity or O'Reilly but with absolutely zero personality and flair.
She and her program are non-factors. They will have no bearing whatsoever on the upcoming election. She preaches to the choir.
-- Modified on 5/10/2011 8:00:18 AM
...in thinking Maddow is an important journalist.
you found a couple of other people at a party, among well over a dozen who were asked -- who just happen to work for her company -- who mentioned her name.
Wow, that was really convincing.
Thanks for making my argument look so strong . . .
I think you're right that Rachel preaches to the choir, but so do Hannity and O'Reilly. Although Bill-O is nowhere near the idiot Sean is. As for ratings, your point was she's a non-factor. If that's the case, why are her ratings up? If you don't like her, fine. I'm not wild about her either. I just don't think she's so easily dismissed. I find Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz much worse.
Personlly, I'd like to see all of them (Schultz, O'Donnell, Hannity, O'Reilly and Maddow) locked up in a room together. I'll bet you Rachel's the only one able to walk out. A man after my own heart.
-- Modified on 5/10/2011 6:33:07 PM
None of the aformentioned commentators -- Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity, Schultz, O'Donnell, hell even Limbaugh -- are influential journalists. They are all just entertainers, trying to get the ratings and make a buck or two for themselves and their networks.
They all preach to their own choirs. Very few new voters are gained and, in fact, some may be lost because people tire of politics when they hear these talkers go on and on and on and on . . . . .
and think you're correct that they change very few minds. Maddow, Schultz and O'Donnell appeal to the 40% who'd never vote Republican and Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh appeal to the 40% who'd never vote Democrat. It's the 20% in the middle who decide elections and I doubt they listen to any of these people. I wonder who they do listen to?
listen to the candidate that fits their needs and desires the best at THAT time. In 2008, they were ready for something different and Obama was the bright new star. In 2004, they didn't trust Kerry with handling the military at a time of war. In 2000, it was the Republicans' turn after eight years of Clinton.
So, those 20 percent don't listen to many others. They look at their own needs.
And, with that said, I think the power of the incumbency will override any other negatives that President Obama has and will deliver a second term for him. Unless gas hits $6 or $7 bucks a gallon. Then all bets are off!!!! LOL!
The Univision/Mexican weather girls, I don't have to understand what they are talking about, I can guess, while I oogle their tits.
and they look nice too.
http://becomemagazine.blogspot.com/2010/02/25-sexiest-weather-girls.html
http://photos.lucywho.com/maria-quiban-photos-t21615.html
unbelieveable she didnt make the list
...a word they said after their report is over because you've been drooling over them. That's the problem I had a few years ago with Norah O'Donnell.
Of course, that's probably what Fox is counting on.
...just one of many hot weather chicks in L.A.
Then how do you explain Fox News' Greta Van Sustern? She looks like she tried to French kiss a Mack Truck.
...Charley 445 would say: "There is no xenu."
If I don't remember the forecast, no big deal.
I just kept looking up her skirt while Matthews talked over everyone. It made it relatively painless. 
Some are not air heads.
Megyn Kelly practiced law for 10 years, was a litigator and holds her own quite well, not to mention a real fox. I love it when she give O'Reilly crap.
Gretchen Carlson is a cum laude graduate of Stanford.
Lis Wiehl is another hot lawyer who can dish it out.
Hilarious! But seriously, Gretchen Carlson may be a Stanford graduate but, wow, what a dummy. Every time she opens her mouth some new inanity emerges. OTOH, her male bookends on Fox and Friends are even dumber.