Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judy Woodruff, Bobbie Batista, and Rachel Maddow come to mind. And Greta Van Susteren before Fox got hold of her and gave her a makeover, which didn't help much. And Ashleigh Banfield, who did such a great job on 9/11. Gwen Ifill and Margaret Warner. Margaret Carlson.
The female news presenters I've seen on European channels run the gamut from attractive to plain. Judging from Fox News and CNN, in the U.S. attractiveness seems to have gotten a lot of emphasis in the selection process, and a few of these presenters actually seem to be airheads.
Most women on the news are nothing more than granny gossips who are paid to roll their eyes and a sigh loudly when reporting a story. They excel at reporting the background of a crime or crime scene describing in detail such things as the brand shoes a murderer was wearing or how poorly Tiger was dressed when he crashed his car. I especially love the weather gals who stand out in the weather when reporting and I would like to see them extend that practice to tornados.
The truth of the matter is the fact that men don't listen to women. Men hear a few words and then the male thought process takes over and thinking about mowing the lawn or how good that first beer is going to taste overshadows the clucking of gossip.
BTW, did you see what Katie Curic was wearing the other day?
Unfortunately, "smarts" isn't relevant to either male or female newscasters. The days of people like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow are long gone!
I couldn't care less what my News presenters look like. I am a woman and I really don't need a chap to look like George Clooney to read the news. All I want from a news presenter is someone who is well spoken ( ie articulates properly and is grammatically aware) , intelligent, and educated. Someone who can report news and transmit that information in a precise, clear and concise fashion.
What they wear or whether they have warts really is neither here or there. If anything I find some of the news Bimbos ( and weather people) really off putting. In fact I would like to see more "normal" people, people who are plain, people with disabilities etc... Is there any reason on this planet why a disabled person cannot present the News ? Over here in the UK we have a children's presenter who is missing one arm. She is extremely good at her job ( and very pretty if that matters to some people) and has a great rapport with the kids. Nine moronic parents complained to the BBC that she was scaring the children. If kids are scared by real people then their lives is going to be one atrocious long ride...
I find it patronising and demeaning as the audience that I am considered so stupid and shallow as to give a monkey's nuts about it. News are serious items. Eloquence and a modicum of intelligence rank a lot higher than physique.
I also find it utterly disenchanting that the most able and most intelligent people will probably never get a chance to shine in a job they would do so well because we are fobbed off with "eye candy". It really makes me angry to think of all the wasted potential and unrecognised talent out there.
If I want to watch some bimbo I can always watch a soap. I want real news , investigative journalism and a return to real stories , about real issues. Substance over style. Depth over vapidity.
Our society's obsession with looks is turning us into cretins with the IQ of comatose earth-worms and the emotional intelligence of mouldy cheese. We live in a society where being pretty is considered more important than being talented, intelligent, useful or good and all this reinforced by the idea that only pretty people should be seen in public.
We are taking vapid and vaccuous to the extreme when even news reports and current affairs programmes have to be fronted by perfectly coiffured, fluorescent smiled bimbos.
Reading the News should be about the World and what is going on in it. About informing the public not looking beautiful for the camera. If the best candidate also happens to be the most beautiful then fine, otherwise give us people with a modicum of brains.
News presenters are selected and made to look attractive for the same reasons that the news set and the logos are made to look attractive and the presenters dress neatly and at least good taste, if not stylishly. Do you want your news presenter to be wearing a Tshirt without sleeves, a baseball cap on backwards, and a three-day growth of whiskers, sitting in a kitchen chair behind a stack of crates for a desk with an auto salvage yard in the background?
The picture that the networks put on the air is one that is composed to be artistic and stylish and, yes, attractive. Reading the news on TV is a pretty easy job (even I have done it), and from the pool of people who can do it competently, it makes sense to selectively glamorize the presentation.
Id say neither is more important but they need both. One hand side of the coin no one wants to see Brun Hilda talking about news. On ther other hand no one wants to watch a Paris Hilton type announcing news either.
Do you really think the news anchors know anything about the news, or anything else?
I swear this is true. I once worked in a TV newsroom, and the World Series was taking place---they played day games in those days. The News Anchor comes in and sees us all huddled around a TV set and he says "What's this "Earth Series" you guys are so interested in?"
It was then that we decided he could be replaced by a bimbo, whom we could huddle around and ogle when the Earth Series was over.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
