When women join the “fair and balanced” network, they get “Foxified” (1 Viewer)

[Jack Hays]

`
When she wins some journalistic or academic awards other than have the best bod and hottest legs, then you have a point.
She Reports, We Decided She's Hot -award

So . . . You're saying that only journalists who win awards are good journalists? You realize that leaves out most of those currently in the field?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Women age. Fox didn't fire Greta for not being a young, super hot babe. She's one of the key players there.

But I suppose if you gotta hate on Fox, you can hate 'em for all the women looking better than you do as much as you can hate them for anything else and I don't expect a little example of how you're wrong to interfere with that.

It's always about "You're just jelly," isn't it? Why do conservatives always assume all women have their integrity pinned to whether or not some buffoon finds them ****able? Shutting the mouth of such troglodyles before they've even spoken is a fine female art, and one I've gotten very good at over the years. I couldn't care less.

You found one! Out of, what, more than a couple dozen pictured of virtually identical women, versus the diversity on virtually every other network? And even she had to be white and blonde! It appears Fox allows one exception to each of the three rules at any one point in time, but never all three simultaneously: white, blonde, and displaying the youthful goods.

 

[Paxaeon]

I will assume that naking Time magazine's 100 most influential people list counts for something.<snip>

Onswipe - link doesn't work

Megyn Kelly by Brit Hume: TIME 100 - TIME - A personal opinion article written by people with personal opinions, in this case, faux's Brit Hume

Megyn Kelly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Everyone has a Wiki article...BFD.

Let's compare that to Christiane Amanpour:

1992: Livingston Award for Young Journalists
1993: George Polk Award for Television Reporting
1993: George Foster Peabody awards[31]
1994: Woman of the Year, New York Chapter of "Women in Cable"
1994: Courage in Journalism Award, International Women's Media Foundation[32]
1996: George Polk Award for Television Reporting
1997: Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree, Emory University
1997: Nymphe d’Honneur at the Monte Carlo Television Festival
1998: George Foster Peabody awards[33]
2002: Edward R. Murrow Award for Distinguished Achievement in Broadcast Journalism
2002: Goldsmith Career Award for Excellence in Journalism, at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government[34]
2005: International Emmy, International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences
2006: Honorary citizen, city of Sarajevo
2006: Honorary doctorate degree from the University of Michigan for her contributions to journalism
20007: Paul White Award, Radio Television Digital News Association[35]
2007: CBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours[36]
2007: Persian Woman of the Year
2008 The Fourth Estate Award (National Press Club)
2010 Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences[37]
2010: Honorary doctorate of humane letters degree, Northwestern University
2010: Honorary doctorate from Georgia State University for her contributions to journalism
2010: Honorary member of the graduating class of 2010 of Harvard College
2011: Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism from Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication
2012: Honorary doctorate of humane letters, Amherst College
2012: Honorary doctorate of humane letters, University of Southern California
Director on the board of the Committee to Protect Journalists
Fellow, Society of Professional Journalists
Nine Emmy news/documentary awards
Major role in two DuPont awards given to CNN
Major role in a Golden CableACE award given to CNN
Honorary Board Member of the Daniel Pearl Foundation
Sigma Delta Chi Award (SDX) for her reports from Goma, Zaire
Forbes named her one of "The World's 100 Most Powerful Women"
WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival Gold Award
POP Award, by "Cable Positive"

`

 

[Papa bull]

It's always about "You're just jelly," isn't it? Why do conservatives always assume all women have their integrity pinned to whether or not some buffoon finds them ****able? Shutting the mouth of such troglodyles before they've even spoken is a fine female art, and one I've gotten very good at over the years. I couldn't care less.

You found one! Out of, what, more than a couple dozen pictured of virtually identical women, versus the diversity on virtually every other network? And even she had to be white and blonde! It appears Fox allows one exception to each of the three rules at any one point in time, but never all three simultaneously: white, blonde, and displaying the youthful goods.

Why do "conservatives" assume that when women like you bitch about how all the women on Fox are attractive and fit that it's because you're jealous? Because we're not stupid. That's why.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Why do "conservatives" assume that when women like you bitch about how all the women on Fox are attractive and fit that it's because you're jealous? Because we're not stupid. That's why.

Yup, you got me, I care SO MUCH about what some stranger who has no argument thinks of how I look. :roll:

It's more the observation that Fox not only excludes sub-9 women, but also women with any diversity of look at all -- there's barely even a brunette to be seen. And for some reason they all have to be in mini skirts and plunging tops, whereas woman reporters everywhere else wear things we associate with, ya know, reporters.

It is strikingly odd the way Fox seems to have a "mill" from which it produces an endless series of nearly identical women, and it belies a larger ethos about women that Fox at large seems to hold, where the majority are always supporting virtually every anti-woman stance that makes its way to the American main stage -- which, since Fox's rise, has been a lot.

Now, if you're going to continue going on about your assumption that I must be a fat ugly jealous hag, then have at it all you like. I suppose that's the last foxhole of the intellectually dishonest.

 

[Thom Paine]

`
`
Emergency flip-flops w/ excuses. Fine my me. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Knowing the OP has received notification of my repeated reasonable question and response has not been given, what should I assume ? There is no truly reasonable answer?

jus' wonderin'

Thom Paine

 

[Papa bull]

Yup, you got me, I care SO MUCH about what some stranger who has no argument thinks of how I look. :roll:

It's more the observation that Fox not only excludes sub-9 women, but also women with any diversity of look at all -- there's barely even a brunette to be seen. And for some reason they all have to be in mini skirts and plunging tops, whereas woman reporters everywhere else wear things we associate with, ya know, reporters.

It is strikingly odd the way Fox seems to have a "mill" from which it produces an endless series of nearly identical women, and it belies a larger ethos about women that Fox at large seems to hold, where the majority are always supporting virtually every anti-woman stance that makes its way to the American main stage -- which, since Fox's rise, has been a lot.

Now, if you're going to continue going on about your assumption that I must be a fat ugly jealous hag, then have at it all you like. I suppose that's the last foxhole of the intellectually dishonest.

Guess you don't watch Fox News much.

Blonde bimbo with plunging top? Seriously? You are wearing your jealousy on your sleeve like a big, ugly, lime green stain.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Guess you don't watch Fox News much.

Blonde bimbo with plunging top? Seriously? You are wearing your jealousy on your sleeve like a big, ugly, lime green stain.

Dude, there are dozens of them. On the OP alone. Never mind all the others posted throughout.

Uh-huh. "Well, you must be an ugly poopy head! Ugly poopy head! Ugly poopy head!"

Tell me when your tantrum is over. :coffeepap

 

[eohrnberger]

What's all this wild association outrage? The point still remains that just because something is popular or widely believed, it doesn't necessarily mean it is good or should be trusted.

Many of the religious believe their own god is the true god, the real one.

Many people of various political associations believe their ideology is the right one.

Many of the people of Germany trusted the Nazi regime.

Many believed slavery was good and righteous in the south.

Many in North Korea believe their leader is something of a god.

Is this not the truth? I'm using these examples because they are egregious and obvious. I think Fox news is absolutely ridiculous and not to be trusted at all. Their motto is "fair and balanced". They're conspicuously attempting to promote the rationale their views are normal and centrist though they are so blatantly not. Sounds like brainwashing to me... isn't all media these days?

Odd way of gettinng around to the point I guess. But oh well.

Given your own example and measure, then, just because the main stream media news sources are popular doesn't mean that they are good or should be trusted, nor that they aren't engaging in brainwashing and / or propaganda.

 

[Papa bull]

Dude, there are dozens of them. On the OP alone. Never mind all the others posted throughout.

Uh-huh. "Well, you must be an ugly poopy head! Ugly poopy head! Ugly poopy head!"

Tell me when your tantrum is over. :coffeepap

Boo-hoo-hoo. Fox doesn't hire ugly women and some of them look really, really good. Cry me a river already. Now go wipe the tear stains off your cheeks and move on like a big girl.

 

[Lutherf]

`
`
You don't read too well, which is understandable. The topic is NOT about the educational level of the faux fembots, but at the style they dress, which is sexist and sexually objectifies woman. Try to keep on top topic; if possible
`

Dressing in an attractive, feminine style objectifies women?

Wow! I'm not even sure how to address that.

They aren't dressing like streetwalkers or go-go dancers. Yeah, there's a lot of leg showing but no more than one would be likely to see anywhere else.

Are you pissed off that there are no heavy set women on the air? That wouldn't be something limited to FOX.

 

[leoborn]

Odd way of gettinng around to the point I guess. But oh well.

Given your own example and measure, then, just because the main stream media news sources are popular doesn't mean that they are good or should be trusted, nor that they aren't engaging in brainwashing and / or propaganda.

If I have to listen to bad news, it's easier to take if a pretty woman is telling me. Just saying...

 

[eohrnberger]

`
Kelly makes a good appearance on a TV screen and has a following of males to attest to that. That has nothing to do with journalism and much more to do with her continued involvement on the foxification culture.
`

I think that's selling Megan Kelly way short. Have you actually seen one of her interviews?

Seems to me that she's asking pointy salient and relevant questions, and not letting 1/2 answers go unchallenged. Kinda what I'd be expecting of a news reporter. In contrast I'd recall Kroft's 'love in' interview with Obama and Hllary, which was little more than propaganda.

 

[Paxaeon]

Guess you don't watch Fox News much.

Blonde bimbo with plunging top? Seriously? You are wearing your jealousy on your sleeve like a big, ugly, lime green stain.

`
I don't watch Fox news at all. There are always exceptions to the rule. ALWAYS. I never said or implied otherwise. You're getting more desperate.....besides being off-topic AGAIN.

 

[eohrnberger]

`
`
I stopped watching Fox soon after it started and stopped watch all TV news (except for local news weather and sports) soon after 9-11.
`

And this uniquely puts you in a knowledgeable position to sit in judgement of the subject matter exactly how?

You've just admitted that you don't watch TV news, and yet are asserting that one TV news broadcaster is superior to another. How's that exactly possible?

 

[Papa bull]

`
I don't watch Fox news at all. There are always exceptions to the rule. ALWAYS. I never said or implied otherwise. You're getting more desperate.....besides being off-topic AGAIN.

I was just sorting out the nonsense from one of your Fox-Hating libbie sisters. You might note that it wasn't you I was quoting in this particular slap-down of feigned feminist outrage over Fox not hiring enough ugly women.

 

[Paxaeon]

I think that's selling Megan Kelly way short. Have you actually seen one of her interviews?

Seems to me that she's asking pointy salient and relevant questions, and not letting 1/2 answers go unchallenged. Kinda what I'd be expecting of a news reporter. In contrast I'd recall Kroft's 'love in' interview with Obama and Hllary, which was little more than propaganda.

`
`

 

[Paxaeon]

And this uniquely puts you in a knowledgeable position to sit in judgement of the subject matter exactly how?

You've just admitted that you don't watch TV news, and yet are asserting that one TV news broadcaster is superior to another. How's that exactly possible?

`
`
Have you ever watched "youtube?" That may be way before your time. I've seen bits a prices of the trash faux sells and it's nonsense.

 

[eohrnberger]

`
`

So then the answer is no, you are not. And that you are just going off on the basis of a single article by an equally disturbed and equally envious author.

Fine by me. Have fun.

 

[eohrnberger]

`
`
Have you ever watched "youtube?" That may be way before your time. I've seen bits a prices of the trash faux sells and it's nonsense.

All posted, no doubt, for the same single minded purpose of trashing Fox.

No one here is saying they are perfect, just as no one is saying all the other news broadcasters are perfect. I'd be inclined to believe that there are just as many on air faux pas equally distributed among the news broadcasters. After all, it's the same line of business doing the same thing with the essentially the same source material.

 

[Jack Hays]

Based on a review of this discussion, it's now beyond dispute that this is a jealousy-driven OP.eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

The simplex male mindset of attacking the messenger instead of the message betrays and inability to see the larger picture.

What it looks like from my perspective, it it is you that feels the need to attack people. What have they ever done to you? Why does it matter? Does it make you feel superior to find fault in others? This is a common tactic of bullies, and I never understood it. Maybe you can explain your motives. I really would like to understand.

 

[US Conservative]

`

`
`
I’ll give the devil his due. News reporting on TV used to be a rather somber if not dull affair. It was done as a public service and was never meant to be a revenue center. That was until the corporations and Rupert Murdoch came around.

Murdoch took is knowledge in the supermarket tabloid business; the lowest common denominator that sex sells, and constructed the #1 TV news organization around it. The male demographics that normally would not watch news, now flock to faux everyday. They may not be more informed but they do get their daily dose of titillation.

Faux has found no shortage of women will to prostitute themselves for what appears to be a hefty pay check. Professional female journalists like Christiane Amanpour, Elenor Cliff, Nancy Dickerson, Katie Couric, Candy Crowley, Connie Chung, Sawyer, Diane, Lesley Stahl, Jessica Savitch, et al: eat your hearts out, the faux femmbots are here.
`
`

​

`
`

​

`
`

​

`

So you want us to judge these women based on how they appear? Thats kinda sexist and demeaning of you, dont you think? Plenty of brunettes work there too, odd you left them out when making your case.
Also, murdock is a democrat and supports hillary clinton, as well as Obama. What now?

 

[Lutherf]

`
`
Not surprising, the poster here isn't too quick on the uptake, if lacking that ability altogether. First, he again avoids the topic, instead addressing an "opinion" of mine. As he cannot refute the blatant sexism that fox news lives by, which is the topic, he hopes to mislead people by asking a red herring question.

The simplex male mindset of attacking the messenger instead of the message betrays and inability to see the larger picture.

Just recently, faux news launched another overtly sexist program called; "Outnumbered" which has been described like this;
`
`

"Even before its debut, it was evident that Roger Ailes' brainchild would be incredibly sexist. The name Outnumbered alone announces that the show operates from the perspective of its sole male guest, who must inevitably feel outnumbered in the presence of four female hosts (never mind the fact that many of Fox's current programs, like Fox & Friends or The Five, feature more male hosts than female yet carry no such designation).

Outnumbered likewise doesn't depart from Ailes' trademark exploitation of Fox women -- immediately evident in the no-pants dress code thus far for female anchors, whose legs are on prominent display and nearly always crossed toward the male guest du jour, known to the Twittersphere as #OneLuckyGuy."​

`

You will note the topic of this groups discussion: "New Briefs Designed To Protect Men From Electromagnetic Rays"​

`
`
Rather than having the women discussing hard hitting news and social events, faux once again shows it's disdain for women.
`

I'd like to point out that rather than legs "nearly always crossed toward the male guest du jour" it could just be that the are crossed away from the camera so that they aren't providing any special viewing to the TV audience when they change position.

As far as the rest of this garbage.....we're not talking about a new concept here. Outnumbered is soft opinion like what you'd see on The View or something. It's supposed to be entertaining first and informative second.

 

[Lutherf]

It's always about "You're just jelly," isn't it? Why do conservatives always assume all women have their integrity pinned to whether or not some buffoon finds them ****able? Shutting the mouth of such troglodyles before they've even spoken is a fine female art, and one I've gotten very good at over the years. I couldn't care less.

You found one! Out of, what, more than a couple dozen pictured of virtually identical women, versus the diversity on virtually every other network? And even she had to be white and blonde! It appears Fox allows one exception to each of the three rules at any one point in time, but never all three simultaneously: white, blonde, and displaying the youthful goods.

You're going to use the term "virtually identical women" while considering only hairstyle, body type and style of dress? And we're the ones being sexist?