Cheap Shot?: Update…
TVNewser has a “CNN Insider” commenting on the Huff piece…
“This is what they’ve said about Katie Couric for years,” a CNN insider says. “Why are we talking about what she’s wearing anyway. She’s a great anchor and reporter. That’s what matters.”
I don’t usually talk about this aspect of cable news because there are other sites out there better suited for that sort of discussion but I’ll tell you why people are talking about it. Because CNN cameras are pointed in certain ways that’s why. If CNN doesn’t want people talking about legs and skirts and instead talking only about the talent’s abilities, don’t be doing wide shots away from the desk because you’re just inviting that sort of commentary when you do that. CNN is aware of this. It has to be. And yes, there’s a double standard between male anchors and female anchors on this score when ideally there shouldn’t be. Unfortunately that’s not the reality of the situation.
That said, in CNN’s defense I don’t see anything glaringly different between what CNN is doing with the cameras with Chetry and what it did when the O’Briens were on American Morning. So I don’t see why Huff is drawing a distinction here.
I wonder if after this Huff piece we’ll notice any difference in either camera angles or Chetry’s attire any time soon.
Comment by myview — April 27, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
I don’t see any difference in the angles with Soledad and Kiran. With that said, obviously Kiran’s skirts are shorter and legs are far superior. Personally, I’d prefer the women to dress in a respectable manner. However, womens attire doesn’t make them have less credibility in my book. Besides, they read off the same teleprompter as everyone else. The new orgs spew propaganda and ignore stories all the time. So, they have no real credibility in my book anyway. The best way to try and figure out the real story is to compare multiple sources from all sides involved.
Comment by Terance — April 27, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
These media gals are pretty entertaining, and hypocritical. Kiran wants to do real news, according to Jon Klein. So, what does she do to contribute to her credibility? She sits on the set, wearing some tacky looking short skirt while some clueless camera operator tries to get the best shot of those legs. CNN-they’re all about news, yeah right! Sex sells, and if someone can make a buck on it, they’ll use it. Every station does it, but it makes me laugh how CNN tries to pass themselves off as some holier than thou news operation that wouldn’t dream of putting appearance over journalism. Hogwash.
Comment by california dreamin — April 27, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
If CNN doesn’t want people talking about legs and skirts and instead talking only about the talent’s abilities, don’t be doing wide shots away from the desk because you’re just inviting that sort of commentary when you do that.
I’m never up early enough to see AM, but CNN has always used wide sweeping shots for some cut-aways. Shots of anchors walking from stand-up to desk are also common. I always thought these ‘motion’ shots were intended to show off the size and breadth of the studio, and of course, when the anchor is a man, there is no question of ’showing off legs’. Do you contend, Spud, that the sweeping shots on Kiran are different from the ones on Roberts? And if they’re the same, is not the complaint rather sexist? Or are men allowed to stand on the set but women should be suitably seated and only visible from midriff up? Maybe standing female anchors should be required to wear pants?
My point is, I think someone is inventing a story where none exists.
Comment by Arthur — April 27, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
I agree. Of course there’s a double standard going. But my point was that CNN, in my opinion, can’t complain about it when they set themselves up for it. If they really wanted to ensure that that sort of talk didn’t happen, lose the wide shots. Yes, it’s not right or fair but that’s the only way to stop that sort of talk from happening. And CNN, at some level, certainly is cognizant of this fact. So any complaints coming from them are to some degree disengenuous. Nobody in broadcast journalism wants to be known for what they wear or how they look but it’s a visual medium and talent know this. And so do their network bosses. It’s the dirty little secret everyone knows but nobody wants to cop to because it takes the focus away from the journalism.
Comment by Spud — April 27, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
Well, Spud, I don’t see why they should do anything differently. Because whatever they do, their detractors are going to find something to bitch about. So why give other people power over them?
Comment by Arthur — April 27, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
I think it’s obvious that CNN is taking advantage of Chetry’s “assets”, albeit in a bit less of the blatant way when she was part of “Fox and Friends First.” I suppose the “infotainment” industry just can’t help but pander in this way to an extent.
I must say, however, that when I would see her on “Fox and Friends First” I would chalk her presence up as “eye candy.” But seeing her on “American Morning” a few times I can see the validity in CNN’s assertion that, in the end, she is a talented anchor and, to me, it’s clear that her talents were being held back by being regulated to the 6-7am editions of F&F and the weekend shows. I’m not saying that CNN pulled off a major cout, but she is clearly being better utilized for her talents.
At the least, it goes to show that a nice pair of legs isn’t enough - case in point, the disaster that Courtney Friel was in her brief time on F&F.
Comment by FishOil — April 28, 2007 @ 12:56 am
How many ugly people do you see on TV news? Of COURSE they play up their looks, both females and males. It’s a visual medium agter all. But Fox has got to be the worst offender in the exploiting their talent’s looks department. Those girls must go through a vat of lip gloss a day and if their hemlines got any higher, the world would be their gynecologist.
Comment by Alison — April 28, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Case in Pt’s. Snake oil, Oops meant fish (how appropriate) oil:
1. Ms Friel was hired for FoxNews.com as an entertainment reporter, The FF gig was a fill in as an introduction.
2.Ms. Chetry is “Candy” on FF. and “talented anchor” on cnn ? ….. “to me, it’s clear that” that you have an agenda.
3. The fact of the matter is that Ms. Chetry’s mini-mini skirts are cheap looking. She looks like a two bit –IMUS comment deleted. You don’t think the title of the article was an accident do you?
4. If you want to talk heat and how to use it, Ms Friel is a prime example of clean is more better than dirty any day.
Comment by hmmm — April 28, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
#9 - I have no “agenda” other than being a viewer of cable news and expressing my opinion. But you are entitled to be as paranoid as you wish.
For the sake of accuracy, Ms. Friel was given a tryout on F&F - it wasn’t a temporary job where they were going to replace her no matter what. The bottom line is that she looked good on camera but basically bombed as a co-host. I saw a few of her stints and she never had much to add to the conversations. Want proof? Check out the blog on her website….and I quote - “My first assignment at Fox News Channel….hosting “Fox & Friends Weekends” with Greg Kelly and Kelly Wright. They are awesome…and the perfect NYC breakfast- my “Kelly” sandwich!”
You can spin it that her appearances were “an introduction” to the fox viewers all you want. It’s simply not true. They gave her a try-out and she wasn’t suited for the job. End of story.
Comment by FishOil — April 28, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
Are we going to see “bulge” shots next?
Comment by Mary Snow — April 28, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
This doesn’t need to be worried over much. Fox and Friends did it for years and still does it and it’s number one. Enough said. Kiran not sitting out would alienate her fans from Fox and Friends. It may not make a difference to you, but my perspective is that She is doing a good job interviewing people. Being behind a desk is dull and boring for three hours every single day. And yeah I see nothing wrong with it. If it changed, then I would quit watching or I would not be as interested. Tired of three hours of bored news. If I wanted that I would tune into a shorter show or not watch as longer. This sitting out keeps me watching the whole show. I get to since work strange hours.
Comment by CrashCrew666 — April 29, 2007 @ 1:50 am
Is FishOil saying Courtney doesn’t host Fox and Friends for several weeks because she stunk? So Fox and Friends is supposed to serious all of the sudden? Is that why Gretchen is still around? Humm…explains a few things that bothered me. One was where is Courtney, I don’t see her much. Another is why is Gretchen still on. YOu would be saying by those comments that Courtney was put on as eye candy like Kiran had been. That Courtney was an airhead and that she is no longer on Fox and Friends weekend due to Fox News realizing she sucks. Thus proving Fox and friends wants to be more serious. I had been expecting Friel would still be on some weekends. Thus if there on that serious kick they keep Gretchen on because she is far from good looking, in my mind, and she is just different than the E.D. Hill’s and Page Hopkins of the world. Yeah, I know she won Miss America. But she just isn’t that Hot looking to me and alot of others. Plus, she has irked people. But if the logic is to keep her on to distance themselves from the notion they only hire good looking people that makes sense.
Makes sense they are doing this.
Comment by CrashCrew666 — April 29, 2007 @ 2:03 am
#13 - Yes, I’m saying that Friel was taken off of F&F and is now in her current position because she didn’t work out on F&F. However, that has nothing to do with the show trying to be serious all of a sudden. If you saw any of her appearances, you’d know that there were many awkward moments where her two co-hosts would carry the conversation and she didn’t have much to contribute. Now I’ve never met the woman so I can’t say she’s an “airhead” as you say…I don’t know why she didn’t have more to contribute (nerves?). I’ll give you another example - Friel was on “Red Eye” one night and, like on F&F, didn’t have very much to contribute other than being very easy on the eyes. Compare her appearance on “Red Eye” with Janice Dean’s. I think the distinction is obvious.
As for Kiran Chetry - I thought it was obvious that the was eye candy on F&F with the mini-skirts and how her laptop never obscured the view of her legs. But what I didn’t realize until I saw her on CNN was that she is a very capable “tv journalist” (or whatever we shall call them) and her talents weren’t being used to their full potential on Fox & Friends.
As for F&F, I’m neither saying they are trying to “get serious,” nor do I think they should. Look at the ratings - they have a formula that brings in the most viewers in their timeslot week after week. If CNN wants to fill the “serious news only” niche, that’s their perogative. I don’t think they will ever beat F&F with what they do because I don’t think people sit down for serious news in the morning as they do in the evening. I think the morning is better catered to lighter fare. Just my opinion.
Comment by FishOil — April 29, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
# 10 AKA, Viewer of cable news,
You sound more like a carnival barker than a fish oil salesman. You might want to consider peddling your wares elsewhere, ie: “expressing my opinion….” laced w/… “for the sake of accuracy.” Since when is your opinion accurate? You have no idea what you are talking about. The second floor at fnc makes decisions based on seeing more than “few stints” of their prospects and in fact did not hire her specifically for the ff position, but you say that as a “viewer” you know what happened. The people in charge do not work that way, preferring to season their young talent in house before giving them a “slot”. You are speculating and yes it is time for you to end your story and run along, this is about Mr Klein feeling good about his sloppy seconds.
Comment by hmmm — April 29, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
#16 - I don’t intend on engaging in a back and forth of personal attacks, so I’m content with agreeing to disagree. Thanks for the advice on leaving, but I won’t. So sorry.
I will say this - your argument is completely illogical. What you are essentially saying is that Fox wanted to see where Courtney Friel fit best by giving her a major gig on Fox and Friends. This is the same thing as saying - The Air Force wanted to see where the new recruit fit best, so they started her out as a pilot. That makes no sense whatsoever.
All I am saying is that they gave her a shot on F&F and she didn’t cut it - if you can’t accept that, then that’s your problem. I saw some of her stints on the show and she bombed. But it appears that they thought she was useful so she is not the “entertainment correspondent.” If you don’t see that as a lesser role on Fox News than co-hosting their morning show then I don’t know what to tell you. Do you think Miles O’Brien was given a “promotion” to NASA correspondent? Get real.
Comment by FishOil — April 29, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
Is this surprising considering that Klein’s chief praise of Chetry was her looks and not her talents? I don’t remember the quote exactly, but it was something along the lines of “take one look at her and you can see she’ll do well.” And seeing as Klein like to use terms like “kick ass” to describe his talent, my only surprise was that he didn’t refer to her as “hot” or “sexy” (a la Paula Zahn).
Comment by Caufield — April 30, 2007 @ 9:20 am
” (a la Paula Zahn)”
Actually in Ms. Zahn’s case Klein preferred to roll her out with the sound of a zipper on a pair of Levi’s being unzipped in a mens room.
Cheap trick? Cheap shot? or Cheap suit?
Comment by hmmm — April 30, 2007 @ 10:55 am
That zipper escapade happened long before Jon Klein was at CNN.
Comment by myview — April 30, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Oops your right, my bad. Guess it’s just part of their culture.
Comment by hmmm — April 30, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
I watched the first F&F weekend show after Kiran’s big fall out with Fox when she moved to CNN.
The other Kellys said that they just flew Courtney in from the west coast to do the show. Through out the program The two kellys kept remarking about how great looking Courtney was. It was as if they were saying to the viewers you can forget Kiran, take a look at who we have on F&F now.
What they were doing was so cheap, stupid and obvious that I e-mailed them to let them know it.
Comment by John B. — May 19, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Klien’s comment about Kiran had nothing to do with her look’s. He said “just take one look at her, she lights up the screen”. He was refering to her charm, wit, intelligence and charisma when he said she lights up the screen, not her look’s or legs. Kiran makes any show she is on more fun to watch.
Comment by MikeG — May 19, 2007 @ 10:10 pm
Klein’s comment about Kiran had nothing to do with her looks. He said ” Just take one look at her, she lights up the screen”. What he meant was she lights up the screen with her wit, charm and charisma not her personal appearance. Kiran makes any show she’s on more fun to watch.
Comment by John B. — May 20, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Sorry Mike.
I didn’t mean to send your post back to you I only wanted to agree with it and post it in another Kiran web site.
Comment by John B. — May 21, 2007 @ 12:43 pm