Beauties or Bimbos?

[Pogo]

Been out of the workforce a long time?

Been online a short time? That post is a year old. Not sure Amy even exists any more.
Why are we dredging up this thread? What's the point?

Lol...

I don't know I saw a conversation and joined. Good thing we've got you to keep things in line

Yeah, that's more a question for Mal and his enviable ability to read time stamps.

 

[whitehall]

You have to watch the video at this link:

Look what?s happened to women of Fox News

Indeed, the ladies are a pleasure to look at, but I’ve heard a few of them say some pretty stupid things. In truth, they remind me of an old joke.

A sinner asked God why he made women so beautiful?

God replied: So men would love them.

The sinner then asked God why he made women so dumb?

God answered: So they could love men.

More evidence of the left's war on pretty successful women.

 

[hunarcy]

That's true, you have your choice of white, white, white, and any color hair you want, as long as it's bleach blonde

It's clear fox just hires a bunch of teleprompter reading morons.

Loren Greene Black

Julie Banderas Hispanic

Michelle Malkin Philippine

Uma Pemmaraju Indian

Shall I go on, coward?

Please do ! Michelle Malkin is a a Fox News Channel contributor and I have never seen her promoted as Fox News babe. I have never seen those other women on Fox "News".

Can't stand to give up your racist diatribe, huh? The fact is that, except for Greta, they're all "babes" on Fox. Greta is awesome as well, but in a different way.

 

[Esmeralda]

You have to watch the video at this link:

Look what?s happened to women of Fox News

Indeed, the ladies are a pleasure to look at, but I’ve heard a few of them say some pretty stupid things. In truth, they remind me of an old joke.

A sinner asked God why he made women so beautiful?

God replied: So men would love them.

The sinner then asked God why he made women so dumb?

God answered: So they could love men.

More evidence of the left's war on pretty successful women.

The problem isn't that they are pretty, successful women. The problem is that they successful because they are pretty.

In other words, what is obvious is that they are chosen for those positions because of their looks, their sex appeal, etc., not because they are knowledgeable, seasoned journalists. Capisce?

 

[BobPlumb]

Good looks-issm ( yes I just made that up) is much more common than racism nowadays. This is probably more true for woman than men. With everything else being equal, a pretty woman has much more opportunity than an ugly woman.

I do remember that studies have been conducted with good looking people and not so good looking people going to job interviews with equal resumes. The good looking applicants were viewed much more favorably than the not so good looking people.

 

[skye]

You have to watch the video at this link:



Indeed, the ladies are a pleasure to look at, but I’ve heard a few of them say some pretty stupid things. In truth, they remind me of an old joke.

A sinner asked God why he made women so beautiful?

God replied: So men would love them.

The sinner then asked God why he made women so dumb?

God answered: So they could love men.

More evidence of the left's war on pretty successful women.

The problem isn't that they are pretty, successful women. The problem is that they successful because they are pretty.

In other words, what is obvious is that they are chosen for those positions because of their looks, their sex appeal, etc., not because they are knowledgeable, seasoned journalists. Capisce?

Can they not be chosen for both, looks and brains? Like Megyn Kelly for example?

 

[Pogo]

More evidence of the left's war on pretty successful women.

The problem isn't that they are pretty, successful women. The problem is that they successful because they are pretty.

In other words, what is obvious is that they are chosen for those positions because of their looks, their sex appeal, etc., not because they are knowledgeable, seasoned journalists. Capisce?

Can they not be chosen for both, looks and brains? Like Megyn Kelly for example?

Here's the issue: If that ^^ is supposed to be a newscaster, that's a WAY mixed message.

Fox Noise hires these 'babes' for the same reason Murdoch's tabloid rags carry salacious shit: because sex sells. Sex and emotion based on LCD appeal is what Fox is in the business of selling. Those who think it's selling ideology, or some silly "fair and balanced" concept, are deluding themselves.

 

[skye]

The problem isn't that they are pretty, successful women. The problem is that they successful because they are pretty.

In other words, what is obvious is that they are chosen for those positions because of their looks, their sex appeal, etc., not because they are knowledgeable, seasoned journalists. Capisce?

Can they not be chosen for both, looks and brains? Like Megyn Kelly for example?

Here's the issue: If that ^^ is supposed to be a newscaster, that's a WAY mixed message.

Fox Noise hires these 'babes' for the same reason Murdoch's tabloid rags carry salacious shit: because sex sells. Sex and emotion based on LCD appeal is what Fox is in the business of selling. Those who think it's selling ideology, or some silly "fair and balanced" concept, are deluding themselves.

Ohh stop it !! of course she is not going to read the news like that... ^^^

This is how she appears on camera!






You want her to wear a burka? so that her beauty doesn't disturb you??well it ain't gonna happen.

 

[BobPlumb]

I like bimbos........I mean beauties!

 

[Connery]

More evidence of the left's war on pretty successful women.

The problem isn't that they are pretty, successful women. The problem is that they successful because they are pretty.

In other words, what is obvious is that they are chosen for those positions because of their looks, their sex appeal, etc., not because they are knowledgeable, seasoned journalists. Capisce?

Can they not be chosen for both, looks and brains? Like Megyn Kelly for example?

Fox News is owned of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. The news is presented is such a fashion that is will catch the interest of the viewer which means that higher ratings will be rewarded with more money in advertisement revenue. The media is part of a the glamor industry which attracts beauty. There are requirements and training involved but beauty is certainly a factor. So I agree with skye in this regard.

 

[Pogo]

Can they not be chosen for both, looks and brains? Like Megyn Kelly for example?

Here's the issue: If that ^^ is supposed to be a newscaster, that's a WAY mixed message.

Fox Noise hires these 'babes' for the same reason Murdoch's tabloid rags carry salacious shit: because sex sells. Sex and emotion based on LCD appeal is what Fox is in the business of selling. Those who think it's selling ideology, or some silly "fair and balanced" concept, are deluding themselves.

Ohh stop it !! of course she is not going to read the news like that... ^^^

This is how she appears on camera!






You want her to wear a burka? so that her beauty doesn't disturb you??well it ain't gonna happen.

Umm... what she's wearing wasn't really the point. But what the point is, you pretty much just confirmed it.

And no, her beauty doesn't "disturb" me, but it does let me know she's not there for political acumen. Especially taken in the context of all the other short-skirted bimbos, the garish set colors, the suggestive chyrons, the relentless gossip churning, etc etc etc. Fox Noise is selling emotion, because news doesn't sell, and emotion does.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You have to watch the video at this link:



Indeed, the ladies are a pleasure to look at, but I’ve heard a few of them say some pretty stupid things. In truth, they remind me of an old joke.

A sinner asked God why he made women so beautiful?

God replied: So men would love them.

The sinner then asked God why he made women so dumb?

God answered: So they could love men.

More evidence of the left's war on pretty successful women.

The problem isn't that they are pretty, successful women. The problem is that they successful because they are pretty.

In other words, what is obvious is that they are chosen for those positions because of their looks, their sex appeal, etc., not because they are knowledgeable, seasoned journalists. Capisce?

You know most of those so called "bimbo's" are attorneys or highly educated right?

You can start your research here...http://www.foxnewsgirls.com/

 

[WelfareQueen]

Here's the issue: If that ^^ is supposed to be a newscaster, that's a WAY mixed message.

Fox Noise hires these 'babes' for the same reason Murdoch's tabloid rags carry salacious shit: because sex sells. Sex and emotion based on LCD appeal is what Fox is in the business of selling. Those who think it's selling ideology, or some silly "fair and balanced" concept, are deluding themselves.

Ohh stop it !! of course she is not going to read the news like that... ^^^

This is how she appears on camera!






You want her to wear a burka? so that her beauty doesn't disturb you??well it ain't gonna happen.

Umm... what she's wearing wasn't really the point. But what the point is, you pretty much just confirmed it.

And no, her beauty doesn't "disturb" me, but it does let me know she's not there for political acumen. Especially taken in the context of all the other short-skirted bimbos, the garish set colors, the suggestive chyrons, the relentless gossip churning, etc etc etc. Fox Noise is selling emotion, because news doesn't sell, and emotion does.

So I guess you're saying beautiful women cannot have political acumen? Isn't that sexist? Can't a woman be beautiful and smart?

Also, the data shows both men and women like to look at attractive people. If Fox speaks to that....why is that inherently wrong?

 

[Pogo]

Ohh stop it !! of course she is not going to read the news like that... ^^^

This is how she appears on camera!






You want her to wear a burka? so that her beauty doesn't disturb you??well it ain't gonna happen.

Umm... what she's wearing wasn't really the point. But what the point is, you pretty much just confirmed it.

And no, her beauty doesn't "disturb" me, but it does let me know she's not there for political acumen. Especially taken in the context of all the other short-skirted bimbos, the garish set colors, the suggestive chyrons, the relentless gossip churning, etc etc etc. Fox Noise is selling emotion, because news doesn't sell, and emotion does.

So I guess you're saying beautiful women cannot have political acumen? Isn't that sexist? Can't a woman be beautiful and smart?

::sigh::
No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm actually not referring to the woman at all. Nice try but I'll write my own posts, I don't need a revisionist, K?

Also, the data shows both men and women like to look at attractive people. If Fox speaks to that....why is that inherently wrong?

If Fox's objective is to present "attractive people" -- then it isn't. In fact, if Fox's raison d'être is to present emotional candy through short skirted bimbos and graphics that go whoooosh and suggestive scandal-ridden chyrons and conflict via angry old men pounding on the table, it's doing a helluva job, Brownie. And the ratings confirm that, because all of those are ingredients that build ratings.

OTOH if its purpose is to present news, well... not so much. News contains no emotion, and Fox Noise money dayparts are built entirely on emotion. News doesn't pull ratings. Sex and scandal and gossip do. Fox Noise is basically the TV version of Murdoch's tabloids, only instead of gossip about celebrities it uses gossip about politicians. Because, again, talking about policy doesn't sell soap. Talking about people does.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Umm... what she's wearing wasn't really the point. But what the point is, you pretty much just confirmed it.

And no, her beauty doesn't "disturb" me, but it does let me know she's not there for political acumen. Especially taken in the context of all the other short-skirted bimbos, the garish set colors, the suggestive chyrons, the relentless gossip churning, etc etc etc. Fox Noise is selling emotion, because news doesn't sell, and emotion does.

So I guess you're saying beautiful women cannot have political acumen? Isn't that sexist? Can't a woman be beautiful and smart?

::sigh::
No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm actually not referring to the woman at all. Nice try but I'll write my own posts, I don't need a revisionist, K?

Also, the data shows both men and women like to look at attractive people. If Fox speaks to that....why is that inherently wrong?

If Fox's objective is to present "attractive people" -- then it isn't. In fact, if Fox's raison d'être is to present emotional candy through short skirted bimbos and graphics that go whoooosh and suggestive scandal-ridden chyrons and conflict via angry old men pounding on the table, it's doing a helluva job, Brownie. And the ratings confirm that, because all of those are ingredients that build ratings.

OTOH if its purpose is to present news, well... not so much. News contains no emotion, and Fox Noise money dayparts are built entirely on emotion. News doesn't pull ratings. Sex and scandal and gossip do. Fox Noise is basically the TV version of Murdoch's tabloids, only instead of gossip about celebrities it uses gossip about politicians. Because, again, talking about policy doesn't sell soap. Talking about people does.

You were exactly referring to women when you made your sexist statement. Does the pronoun her refer to a dude?

Second, news is not emotional? According to who? Watching 911 unfold was pretty damn emotional to me. Stop being a condescending ass. Your subjective opinions are not fact. Fox is very successful...you hate them....I get it. It does not mean your hatred is based on rationality or fact. It is just your bullshit opinion...nothing more.

 

[Pogo]

So I guess you're saying beautiful women cannot have political acumen? Isn't that sexist? Can't a woman be beautiful and smart?

::sigh::
No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm actually not referring to the woman at all. Nice try but I'll write my own posts, I don't need a revisionist, K?

Also, the data shows both men and women like to look at attractive people. If Fox speaks to that....why is that inherently wrong?

If Fox's objective is to present "attractive people" -- then it isn't. In fact, if Fox's raison d'être is to present emotional candy through short skirted bimbos and graphics that go whoooosh and suggestive scandal-ridden chyrons and conflict via angry old men pounding on the table, it's doing a helluva job, Brownie. And the ratings confirm that, because all of those are ingredients that build ratings.

OTOH if its purpose is to present news, well... not so much. News contains no emotion, and Fox Noise money dayparts are built entirely on emotion. News doesn't pull ratings. Sex and scandal and gossip do. Fox Noise is basically the TV version of Murdoch's tabloids, only instead of gossip about celebrities it uses gossip about politicians. Because, again, talking about policy doesn't sell soap. Talking about people does.

You were exactly referring to women when you made your sexist statement. Does the pronoun her refer to a dude?

No, I was responding to Skye, who brought her up. Read much? Maybe not.

Second, news is not emotional? According to who? Watching 911 unfold was pretty damn emotional to me. Stop being a condescending ass. Your subjective opinions are not fact. Fox is very successful...you hate them....I get it. It does not mean your hatred is based on rationality or fact. It is just your bullshit opinion...nothing more.

Notice that all the emotion is in your own post right there. I posted nothing about "hate", or any other emotional judgement.

News is not emotional, no. How you react to it may be, but the news itself is information, and information is dry, disinterested, clinical and straightforward. By definition it has no emotional content. Present the news with emotion, and you have just left the base of objectivity and wandered out to opinion.

There's no way to make money presenting straight news. Murdoch knows that, and that's why all the emotion is in there. News is expensive. And all those alphabet newscasts we grew up with, the David Brinkleys and Walter Cronkites... they were subsidized by the Addams Family and the Beverly Hillbillies. What Fox does is news-as-drama-entertainment. Because, again, that's what $ells. That's the entire reason the "human interest story" exists. It's also the reason your local Fraction News team ignores what your city council did in favor of a fire or a sex scandal or a missing white girl -- because emotion sells, and news doesn't. That's the whole reasoning behind "if it bleeds it leads". Cheap newspapers figured this out long ago, and television is certainly incapable of effectively presenting anything else.

Don't think so? Read your own post. You have an emotional relationship with a "news" channel. That should tell you all you need to know. If what you're after is news, it shouldn't matter who presents it, yet there you are crying the blues because somebody calls out Fox for what it is.

That's what I call an emotional relationship.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I get my news from real clear politics.com because they present stories from every type of news source from very liberal to conservative.

But I will admit, the left's apoplexy over Fox News makes me laugh. It is so overblown and histrionic. All news organizations have some type of bias by definition because they are run by human beings. If you don't like Fox News turn the channel. No need to get your panties in a twist.

 

[Pogo]

I get my news from real clear politics.com because they present stories from every type of news source from very liberal to conservative.

But I will admit, the left's apoplexy over Fox News makes me laugh. It is so overblown and histrionic. All news organizations have some type of bias by definition because they are run by human beings. If you don't like Fox News turn the channel. No need to get your panties in a twist.

Yeah um... you're the one who melted down, Goober. When you have an emotional relationship with a "news" channel, you're not a news watcher -- you're a fan. And you can't be a fan if what you're watching is really news.

Does everything run by humans have bias by definition?
I don't think so. Journalistic ethics may be more obscure due to the dumb-down factor (read: ratings chasing) but they don't cease to exist just because Fox Noise makes a profit and the CNNs and MSNBCs follow them down the drain.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I get my news from real clear politics.com because they present stories from every type of news source from very liberal to conservative.

But I will admit, the left's apoplexy over Fox News makes me laugh. It is so overblown and histrionic. All news organizations have some type of bias by definition because they are run by human beings. If you don't like Fox News turn the channel. No need to get your panties in a twist.

Yeah um... you're the one who melted down, Goober. When you have an emotional relationship with a "news" channel, you're not a news watcher -- you're a fan. And you can't be a fan if what you're watching is really news.

Does everything run by humans have bias by definition?
I don't think so. Journalistic ethics may be more obscure due to the dumb-down factor (read: ratings chasing) but they don't cease to exist just because Fox Noise makes a profit and the CNNs and MSNBCs follow them down the drain.

More bullshit assumptions, goober. Your irrational and childish tantrum regarding Fox News is just that...childish. Try facts instead of bullshit and you might have some credibility.

 

[Pogo]

I get my news from real clear politics.com because they present stories from every type of news source from very liberal to conservative.

But I will admit, the left's apoplexy over Fox News makes me laugh. It is so overblown and histrionic. All news organizations have some type of bias by definition because they are run by human beings. If you don't like Fox News turn the channel. No need to get your panties in a twist.

Yeah um... you're the one who melted down, Goober. When you have an emotional relationship with a "news" channel, you're not a news watcher -- you're a fan. And you can't be a fan if what you're watching is really news.

Does everything run by humans have bias by definition?
I don't think so. Journalistic ethics may be more obscure due to the dumb-down factor (read: ratings chasing) but they don't cease to exist just because Fox Noise makes a profit and the CNNs and MSNBCs follow them down the drain.

More bullshit assumptions, goober. Your irrational and childish tantrum regarding Fox News is just that...childish. Try facts instead of bullshit and you might have some credibility.

Ah, a meltdown on top of meltdown. Kind of a sandwich. I already ate, thanks.