`
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
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.
I will assume that naking Time magazine's 100 most influential people list counts for something.<snip>
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.
`
`
Emergency flip-flops w/ excuses. Fine my me. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
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.
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?
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
`
`
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
`
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.
`
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.
`
`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 stopped watching Fox soon after it started and stopped watch all TV news (except for local news weather and sports) soon after 9-11.
`
`
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 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.
`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.
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.The simplex male mindset of attacking the messenger instead of the message betrays and inability to see the larger picture.
`
`
`
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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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.
`
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?