Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 145,633
- 32,677
- 2,180
Do you consider CNN, NBC, or MSNBC to be 'real' news? That would fit in with typical lefty hypocrisy.
Dumb Women on Fox News
- Thread starter Cassandro
- Start date
Do you consider CNN, NBC, or MSNBC to be 'real' news? That would fit in with typical lefty hypocrisy.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
As far as I know, Fox is a 24-hour station. They have a variety of news and entertainment shows, but yes they do have news too. Why you would say they don't do news, I don't know. Do you really think they just make up their own news? Or do you think they get most of their news from the AP like all the other stations?
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Pogo dear, are you insinuating that these women are unintelligent? Is it because they are beautiful women (or at least made up to look so on television)? I'm sure it takes plenty of drive and motivation to become a member of any major news network. I'm quite sure they don't just give jobs to any bimbo with blonde hair and giant breasts. I know I watched Fox and Friends several times, and the women do not seem to be "stupid" in any sense of the word.
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
Stupid is Fredricka Whitfield and dumb as a box of rocks Soledad O'Brien.
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Stupid is Fredricka Whitfield and dumb as a box of rocks Soledad O'Brien.
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
I don't think any women who are in such positions are "stupid."
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
Liberals define intelligence with full agreement with them. No amount of education or degrees can overcome your hate filled stupidity for disagreeing.
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
You must not listen to those two much.Stupid is Fredricka Whitfield and dumb as a box of rocks Soledad O'Brien.
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
I don't think any women who are in such positions are "stupid."
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
Go ahead and show us all where I said or implied that.
The idea that said women are "dumb" is the OP's strawman. He set it up so he could knock it down, link-free I might add. It's entirely a self-indulgent point.
What I just did was point out that, even given all that, he doesn't even have a logical bridge to reach his conclusion. First he says, "are these women 'dumb'?" Then he says "no because they've been to college". That's like saying "is it going to rain today? Yes, because I saw a cloud". Doesn't follow. So my point has nothing to do with the women in question, half of which I've never even heard of. It has entirely to do with the failure of the OP's logic.
That's pretty much all I do around here is point out the logical train wrecks. It's a full-time job by itself.
ChrisL
Diamond Member
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
Go ahead and show us all where I said or implied that.
The idea that said women are "dumb" is the OP's strawman. He set it up so he could knock it down, link-free I might add. It's entirely a self-indulgent point. What I just did was point out that, even given all that, he doesn't even have a logical bridge to reach his conclusion. First he says, "are these women 'dumb'?" Then he says "no because they've been to college". That's like saying "is it going to rain today? Yes, because I saw a cloud". Doesn't follow.
That's pretty much all I do around here is point out the logical train wrecks. It's a full-time job by itself.
No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.
And that error is committed constantly on these pages. Broadcasters, and journalists long before there was broadcasting, learned eons ago that "approval" is not what wins viewers, listeners or readers. Salacious emotional stink bombs are what does that. That's exactly why fake wrestling, and gossip shows, and "reality" TV where people stranded on an island naked are forced to eat bugs, and wankers on stage bringing philandering fathers out to face paternity tests, all $ell. Facts are boring; emotion $ells. It's why any "news" broadcast or "news"paper more interested in its profit margin than its integrity leads off with the most dramatic, heart-rending psychological emotion-hooks it can find, embodied in the old adage, "if it bleeds it leads". Because that's what $ells, and when you're a huckster posing as news, your objective is not informing, but $elling.
The name "Fox News" does play loosely with the term "news", as traditionally "______ News" has meant an entity that reports the news. FNC does do a bit of that, specifically in the dayparts that are the relative wasteland of TV ratings (because people are at work). But its bread and butter (ratings) are in prime time where reporting is put to bed and it presents people talking about the news. In this it becomes less a "news" channel and more a gossip channel, essentially an Entertainment Tonight, where the players are politicians rather than celebrities. Here lives the slant and the angry guys pounding on tables and the insinuations of drama llamas, none of which is a part of Journalism. Because when you center on politicians rather than policy, (i.e. people rather than abstract ideas), you get to inject ulterior motives and conspiracies and above all, Fear and Loathing. And that is what draws ratings, and that's what $ells.
Nobody knows this better than Rupert Murdoch, who before FNC existed, built his fortune on gossipy tabloid rags. It's exactly the same pattern, the only new ingredient being politics. And just to connect with the OP's topic here, the "Page 3 girl" is one of those Murdoch selling tools. To suggest Rupert Murdoch doesn't see the profit value in that ingredient is to vastly underestimate his business acumen -- which again has nothing to do with Journalism.
So "Fox News" is an accurate name only insofar as it draws from the News to derive its ratings. But those don't come from reporting what's going on. They come from inciting emotions about what's going on. The Page Three Girls certainly play a vital role in that -- as do the garish studio colors, as do the suggestive questioning chyrons constantly running along the bottom, as does the editors' choice of what stories are prioritized. Every bit of it is consciously and conspicuously designed to mine the emotions, just as that screaming-headline tabloid by the supermarket cashier is. They derive from the same mentality: emotional manipulation for the objective of profit.
That doesn't mean the Page Three Girls are "dumb". But it does mean a female is not going to get a job hosting at FNC if she doesn't look like a Page Three Girl. Because that would not advance the mission.
Last edited:
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
Go ahead and show us all where I said or implied that.
The idea that said women are "dumb" is the OP's strawman. He set it up so he could knock it down, link-free I might add. It's entirely a self-indulgent point. What I just did was point out that, even given all that, he doesn't even have a logical bridge to reach his conclusion. First he says, "are these women 'dumb'?" Then he says "no because they've been to college". That's like saying "is it going to rain today? Yes, because I saw a cloud". Doesn't follow.
That's pretty much all I do around here is point out the logical train wrecks. It's a full-time job by itself.
No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.
Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".
Last edited:
ChrisL
Diamond Member
I wouldn't know -- I've never met them and if there's one thing in the world I don't trust, it's TV images.
No dear, I'm insinuating that I'm reading an OP that tries to make the case that a list of people are not "dumb" --- on the basis that they've "been to college".
Absolutely not! It's quite obvious what you're doing here on this thread, and it's quite rotten. Apparently it's okay for you to insinuate that these women are stupid because you don't like Fox News!
Go ahead and show us all where I said or implied that.
The idea that said women are "dumb" is the OP's strawman. He set it up so he could knock it down, link-free I might add. It's entirely a self-indulgent point. What I just did was point out that, even given all that, he doesn't even have a logical bridge to reach his conclusion. First he says, "are these women 'dumb'?" Then he says "no because they've been to college". That's like saying "is it going to rain today? Yes, because I saw a cloud". Doesn't follow.
That's pretty much all I do around here is point out the logical train wrecks. It's a full-time job by itself.
No, some of their accomplishments are included in the OP as well. It seems as if you have a problem with the fact that a lot of the women on Fox News are not only beautiful, but very intelligent women as well.
Doesn't matter -- it's still the OP's strawman. He set it up, I didn't. Whether they're "beautiful" or not, besides being a totally subjective assessment, is entirely irrelevant to what they allegedly do. There is no standard of Journalism whatsoever that involves "what the reporter looks like".
I disagree. Appearances are important on television. That's just a fact that it is more pleasant to look at someone who is good-looking and listen to them speak than someone who is hideous.
Are they? Why? If that's true, are we not valuing superficialities over substance?
How does a "good looking" face make a story any more valid? Is it about the content, or about the face presenting it? Aye, there's the rub.
Thanks Pogo. I've used that phrase ... sparingly for 40years but this is the first time I "wrote it down" or saw it written. Sure enough I made an incorrect assumption wrt. it's spelling. Make ends meet, makes more sense as well. So, thanks.
Unless it's a guy. For some reason hideous guys make for good-listening.
One is reminded of this story--
>> An interesting little cultural experiment in audience awareness was revealed earlier this month in Australia when the co-host of a TV program said he'd worn the same suit on the air-- for a whole year. No one even noticed. Karl Stefanovic said he wanted to prove that women on television, including his co-host, are held to a different standard than men. They're judged on how they look instead of how well they do their job.
Fellow Aussie Tracey Spicer has known that for some time, but only recently became fed up. The broadcaster, host and writer realized that after 30 years in the business she had become "a painted doll" and decided to ditch the hair, makeup and other beauty routines that cost her $200 a week.<< (from here)
If I'm being told something important, I like the image on the right doing the telling. Why? Because I know she's being straight with me rather than bullshitting. Now, if we're going out on a date that might change, but reporting the news is not going out on a date.
>> An interesting little cultural experiment in audience awareness was revealed earlier this month in Australia when the co-host of a TV program said he'd worn the same suit on the air-- for a whole year. No one even noticed. Karl Stefanovic said he wanted to prove that women on television, including his co-host, are held to a different standard than men. They're judged on how they look instead of how well they do their job.
Fellow Aussie Tracey Spicer has known that for some time, but only recently became fed up. The broadcaster, host and writer realized that after 30 years in the business she had become "a painted doll" and decided to ditch the hair, makeup and other beauty routines that cost her $200 a week.<< (from here)
If I'm being told something important, I like the image on the right doing the telling. Why? Because I know she's being straight with me rather than bullshitting. Now, if we're going out on a date that might change, but reporting the news is not going out on a date.
Iceweasel
Diamond Member
They have a bias but so do all the other news outlets. The problem is that leftists think their opinions are the center of the political universe. Anything other than the liberal slant is right wing. Conservatives are extreme right wing.
Reporting has long ago fallen into the category of journalism. Reporters don't want to just report the news, they want to make the news and change what's wrong, in their eyes. So they focus on some issues and ignore others.
FOX does it too but it's fake news because they play tunes out of sync with the progressive left. The difference is that at least they air opinions from both sides and have op-ed shows. If you can't tell when the journalism shows are on it isn't their fault.
Look into Susan Atkinson formally from CBS, don't take my word for the bias she dealt with on a daily basis.
Much as I'm a stickler about spelling I can't fault a guy for sounding it out phonetically, which has its own logic, hence the humor. I've certainly done it myself. Until Paul McCartney wrote "Lady Madonna" I didn't know the phase was "heaven sent" rather than the advertising slogan "heaven scent".
ChrisL
Diamond Member
Duh, that's what television is all about, superficiality. The content is pretty much the same, regardless of who is presenting it, considering all of the major news organizations get their info from the same source more often than not, the Associated Press.
Funny thing is most republican women are hot like the ladies on fox. My wife makes those women look average. It's the people watching the shows and assuming those women were picked because they are hot that are mistaken. All conservative women are hot. I think it's what's inside that make them hot. This as opposed to the evil shit that makes democrats look ugly.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
BREAKING: Protesters in Cuba attack Communist Party office in rare riot over blackouts
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 0
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Global warming alert: historic heat wave coming to the South West
- Latest: MostBoringManInTheWorld
-
