Comments on: Sexism in TV News…

by: california dreamin

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:02:27 +0100

Fox didn’t lose a thing when Kiran left. Look at the crappy ratings Chet is getting for AM. If her ratings had been any good at FOX, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have kept her. Ms. Camerota is doing great for Fox and Friends First now that Kiran is no longer on, and Page is doing great on the weekends. So, if anything, the FOX ratings have improved since Chet left, and AM’s have only gotten worse! FOX knew what they were doing. She’s a lib, no wonder she couldn’t wait to join Clinton News Network.

by: John B.

Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:54:46 +0100

When Jon Klein said take one look at her she lites up the screen he wasn’t refering to her look’s he was talking about her wit, charm and charisma. Kiran is personality plus. She makes any program that she is on more fun to watch.
Fox made one of their biggest blunders ever when they let CNN steal her away from them.

by: Ira

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:11:57 +0100

Cella: Last night I wrote a post complimenting you for correctly interpreting Bauder’s column. Despite his mention of many other female anchors, the column was still another tired excuse for Katie Couric’s failure on CBS.

For whatever reason, Spud deleted the post.

by: Roger C.

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:20:50 +0100

All the “News Babes”, no matter what channel, all go to work singing the popular little ditty from a current Rap hit….. “This is why I’m HOTT, this is why I’m HOTT, this is why, this is why, this is why I’m HOTT. Check it out.” Now that’s journalism.

by: Caufield

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:53:16 +0100

Chetry never was that great (except in her own mind), which is why FNC decided not to renew her contract when she demanded more money.

by: M Mathis

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:36:35 +0100

I have always liked Chetry for her skill and there is no doubt she is attractive. She brings an energy to CNN that has made me leave FOX & Friends and watch CNN. Frankly, FOX and Friends has become so silly with the Doocy & Kilmead junior high school antics, along with the never ending celebrity gossip and trash.

by: Cale

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:13:05 +0100

I love fox news but they’ve been going over board with the new ladies they have added. suzanne sena, ainsley earhardt and Courtney Friel. They get rid of the older women like donna fiducia, and carol iovanna. Both of whom were solid reporters, especially iovanna. Its just tacky.

by: Arthur

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 23:20:35 +0100

12 comments on this and only 1 comment on the next topic Terrorism. Should be the other way around, I would think.

Oh, god - comment police. JUST what this blog needed.

by: strider

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:22:46 +0100

Absolutely amazing. Sexism and TV News. What a boring and shallow topic. 12 comments on this and only 1 comment on the next topic Terrorism. Should be the other way around, I would think.

by: california dreamin

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 22:03:44 +0100

malone, I know all about the blue card stuff, but isn’t it the anchor’s job to make sure that the info on the card is correct before they go on air with it? And if the guest is spinning the facts, then it’s also the anchors job to not let them get away with it. At fox Chetry wasn’t held to any standard and pretty much got on the air and said whatever, but I get the feeling that Cnn is going to require her to do her homework and to spend a bunch more time researching her subject matter. She is at a hard news network now, and the Candy Crowleys and John Roberts aren’t going to be too fond of anything less than 110%. If she would spend more time researching and less time shuffling her papers and clutching her hands she would be so much more effective.

by: malone

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:43:39 +0100

#8, I haven’t noticed Kiran having wrong information but IF that is the case then either the producer put bad info on her blue card, or the person is trying to spin the information so it is favorable to them.

by: Noelle

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:22:53 +0100

california dreamin, I think she is stressed out. She has always been skinny but she does look skinnier if that is even possible. But in my opinion, she has always been fidgety.

by: california dreamin

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:38:57 +0100

What’s up with Chet lately? Every time she does an interview, the person she is questioning has to correct her on her information. I’ve seen it countless times in the last few weeks. It’s almost as if she’s distracted by something or stressed out. She’s awfully fidgety and looks like she’s lost some weight. What gives?

by: Arthur

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:10:19 +0100

Paula Zahn will be the next one to go because her numbers suck. I love your little ‘Jon Klein as emperor stocking his harum’ scenario, Mary, but ratings rule.

by: malone

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:54:28 +0100

No arguement that Kiran Chetry is a very attractive woman, but I have found her to be intelligent and a very good anchor. She is able to discuss the news in an intelligent manner and bring relevant information to the table that has been missed my others.
She does very good interviews, getting to the heart of the topic and asking tough questions while not interjecting her personal agenda or bias.
All of that and she is personable, up beat and has a quick wit. Kiran is an exceptional anchor, her being very telegenic is just another plus.

by: Mary Snow

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:05:00 +0100

To be completely fair Amanpour and Crowley have been around longer than Klein has….but just wait until their contracts are up….then we’ll see how much longer they’ll be around under Klein’s dictatorship.

Chestry is only the flavor this month because Klein thinks she’s a big “get” from Fox but her skills certainly don’t match up to the hype….much like another much toted CNN face.

Side note: Klein also sexually harassed Katie Couric last fall when he made disgusting comments about her shoulders and legs. He’s a pig.

Let’s see next to go is Paula Zahn when her contract is up in December, so 50 year old women only appeal to Klein if they are on another channel.

by: Cella

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:54:57 +0100

The thrust of this article seems a little convoluted, IMO.
People don’t watch Katie Couric because she is not good at her job. This hiring was a misfire! Her looks are unrelated to her failure as a news anchor.
I don’t watch Amanpour because of her obvious left wingnut reporting. I feel no need to justify that.
I admit I don’t watch Candy Crowley because I find her unappealing. Sue me!
It is lucky for viewers that there is room for all of us.
The good, the bad, and the ugly.

by: Chris

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:47:20 +0100

FishOil, I would agree with you that it will probably only effect the women and not so much the men, I mean, look at the slough we have to pick from, such as Colmes, O’Reilly, Gibson, Hume, Dobbs, Wolf, and many others. They all look aged, but that is how society expects man to look in many respects, but women are often shunned for looking shabby with gray hair or wrinkles galore.

Still, Crowley is always kind of surprising to see on CNN, she hits me as one of those who would be sitting behind the scenes working while some pretty mouthpiece would be given a script from her to read for the network’s programs.

by: FishOil

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:41:18 +0100

Chris - from what I’ve seen, Courtney doesn’t have much. I’ve never met her and I haven’t seen her prior work, but she would fit the Saturday Night Live motto of “not ready for prime time player.” She needs to hone her skills in the “minors” for a while longer. I bet there are a slew of seasoned, talented reporters that see her on the biggest cable news network and are driven crazy when she shows up looking good and having next to nothing to contribute.

What’s interesting about this story is that it seems that both Fox and MSNBC have a pre-requisite that at least their female anchors/correspondents be physically attractive….and I guess CNN will have to move in that direction. Not that they haven’t done so to a degree (see Kiran Chetry, Lara Logan, Kyra Phillips and Anderson Cooper), but I admit that every time I see Candy Crowley my first thought is - “Huh, I wonder why they keep her around.” And that pertains to her physical appearance. But if you’ve ever seen her do analysis on election night, you know why she is where she is (i.e. substance).

In the end I think this will be more of a phenomenon for the females than the males, which is a shame. I can see the logic in wanting someone who is appealing to the eyes, but I don’t want the networks to push this to where they start to only hire former beauty pageant winners.

by: Chris

Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:20:39 +0100

Look at Courtney Friel for example, what else does she really have than looks at this point?