Fucking Women Doing News!

[amicus]

This is a porn site, right, so I can say, ‘fucking’ without excoriation?

I was forty years in the News Business. The five W’s, Who, What, When, Where and Why; that was what we did; report the ‘news’.

While I, and my colleagues, reported the news objectively, with a neutral tone of voice, (if we were professionals), the standards seemed to have changed drastically and I really hate it.

I know, those of you who have grown up in this generation, must accept what is…as what has always been, it ain’t so.

Who the fuck cares about the wives, children and social imperatives of an event, any event, anywhere?

I don’t.

Worse than that, the whining voices, the raised eyebrows, the sad demeanor over tragic events; pure stagecraft, not news.

I know, you don’t have a fucking clue what I am ranting about, not a clue.

But what you will do, and I know it, is look at the presentation of news events more objectively because of this post.

Women don’t fucking belong doing ‘news’. They are not objective, they are emotional; by their facial expressions and body posture, they take sides, they ‘bias’ the news, according to their beliefs or those they are hired to present.

The really troublesome aspect is that the ‘men’, doing news, in attempting to become more, ‘politically correct’, and sensitive, are doing the same goddamned thing!

What a fucking mess you Hippies have created.


Amicus….


(Yeah, I know…but you will think on it…like it or not…I have changed forever your perceptions by this single post}

 

[starrkers]

Seeing as this is a porn site I can say this with impunity:

Fuck Off Ami.

I too worked in the news for many years and decry the sad BS that passes for news now. Objective impartial reporting of events has died. And the first pulling this stunt were men.

So take your sexist bullshit attitude and shove it.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Women don’t fucking belong doing ‘news’. They are not objective, they are emotional; by their facial expressions and body posture, they take sides, they ‘bias’ the news, according to their beliefs or those they are hired to present.

The really troublesome aspect is that the ‘men’, doing news, in attempting to become more, ‘politically correct’, and sensitive, are doing the same goddamned thing!

What a fucking mess you Hippies have created.


Amicus….


(Yeah, I know…but you will think on it…like it or not…I have changed forever your perceptions by this single post}

Ami usually I dont bite but sometimes even you manage to rile the beast. From a past impartial and very objective journalist piss off! Do you know why they do shit like that? Because they are told too...the first person who told me I had to be more caring show emotion was the boss...a male boss I might add. Said the readers and the watchers wanted nothing less. So dont always assume its because the 'fucking women' brought it to the table. We just pull off what we are told to do better to keep our fucking jobs.

If you want to have a go at someone over how the news is done take the bullshit and dump it in the laps of the ones at the top. They're the ones that keep causing the problems.

*gets off soapbox, dusts herself off and walks out of the thread*

 

[Vermilion]

This is a porn site, right, so I can say, ‘fucking’ without excoriation?

I was forty years in the News Business. The five W’s, Who, What, When, Where and Why; that was what we did; report the ‘news’.

While I, and my colleagues, reported the news objectively, with a neutral tone of voice, (if we were professionals), the standards seemed to have changed drastically and I really hate it.

I know, those of you who have grown up in this generation, must accept what is…as what has always been, it ain’t so.

Who the fuck cares about the wives, children and social imperatives of an event, any event, anywhere?

I don’t.

Worse than that, the whining voices, the raised eyebrows, the sad demeanor over tragic events; pure stagecraft, not news.

I know, you don’t have a fucking clue what I am ranting about, not a clue.

But what you will do, and I know it, is look at the presentation of news events more objectively because of this post.

Women don’t fucking belong doing ‘news’. They are not objective, they are emotional; by their facial expressions and body posture, they take sides, they ‘bias’ the news, according to their beliefs or those they are hired to present.

The really troublesome aspect is that the ‘men’, doing news, in attempting to become more, ‘politically correct’, and sensitive, are doing the same goddamned thing!

What a fucking mess you Hippies have created.


Amicus….


(Yeah, I know…but you will think on it…like it or not…I have changed forever your perceptions by this single post}

Watch news casts from the UK. Natasha Kaplinsky, Moira Stewart, Angela Rippon, Sophie Rayworth - some of the best news reporters and presenters on television. I think what you have noticed is an American news phenomenon. It's not to do with gender, it's to do with sentimental, Schmaltzy claptrap which has, unfortunately, infiltrated more strongly into American culture than Uk culture so far.

You actually have a good point Amicus, I have also noticed similar rubbish on the American broadcasts that have been shown over here, unfortunately you have negated your good point by wrapping it up in unfounded sexist nonsense. Always, always you shoot yourself in the foot when you actually have a good point to make.
x
V

 

[amicus]

Chuckles and smiles...Chantilly and Starrkers...oh, my, blame the men....hmmm...maybe...

Y'know, as I recall, and my memory could be in error, that the first women even adjacent to the news were sexy little blonde 'weather girls', who were accepted as such. Not meteorologists, but daintily presenting the local forecast.

But it is much more than that. Women, at least in the US, didn't go to college in large numbers in the twenties and thirties and certainly not in the war years of the forties.

So, to begin, they, for the most part, were not literate enough to even consider broadcasting.

I am not challenging history, nor the evolution of women's emancipation and emergence into the modern world, I just want to understand it.

And I full well understand why the 'bosses', men, might have wanted to include women and a new 'awareness', into the world of news and broadcasting in general.

Besides that, accommodating women in the marketplace probably got the men, 'laid' more often, since this is a porn site.

I don't really blame women, or men, or for that matter for what has transpired; it seems to just be what evolved in the 'way of things'.

That does not mean I have to like it.

I try to speak my mind...what I think, what I feel, what I have learned...when I post...and I usually do so in a 'take it or leave it' mode.

I don't give a fuck what you think or how you respond.

Although I do appreciate, as in this case, when you offer a different view. I don't hate you because of it and I will not place you on 'ignore', because I had a hissy fit.

But, seriously, just for a moment; I am not convinced that when announcing a tragedy, be what it may, that a woman, before a camera, can be objective. Not many men can, perhaps it is a standard to high to be realized?

Amicus...

 

[lushlucid]

This is not a porn site and you have not changed how i will view news, i can form my own rational opinions without your rant.

 

[amicus]

This is not a porn site and you have not changed how i will view news, i can form my own rational opinions without your rant.

~~~

Nice ass...downunder...


Ami

 

[scheherazade_79]

While I, and my colleagues, reported the news objectively, with a neutral tone of voice, (if we were professionals), the standards seemed to have changed drastically and I really hate it.

......


Women don’t fucking belong doing ‘news’. They are not objective, they are emotional; by their facial expressions and body posture, they take sides, they ‘bias’ the news, according to their beliefs or those they are hired to present.

Ami, do you honestly believe that there's such a thing as bias-free news??? Come on! There never has been and never will be, regardless of what tone of voice it's read in.

The flat monotone of male newsreaders of bygone years was a smokescreen to the fact that what they were telling you was complete and utter propaganda. Propaganda to make you think along the lines your government wants you to think, and propaganda for the sake of entertainment and competitiveness.

No news report can ever be bias-free. Opinion can be conveyed by a range of things, from the words used and their connotations, to the individual positioning of words in sentences, to the music and sounds that accompany certain footage, to the commercials that are shown between stories.

It's like supermarkets, where every effort has been made to influence and control your thoughts and actions - like the appetising smell of freshly baked bread that wafts around store entrances.

Just because someone has a penis, wears a grey suit and speaks in a monotone, it doesn't mean that they're telling you the gospel, unbiased truth.

I think you just have a thing about women's voices and infections...

 

[Lisa Denton]

(Yeah, I know…but you will think on it…like it or not…I have changed forever your perceptions by this single post}

I assume from your loudly voiced opinions concerning women that you are a gay man, while I have heard of militant homophobics, you are the first militant woman hating gay man I have ever heard of.

Your views about women "kill em all, let god sort em out" will never be shared by the majority of others.

You do have a way with words Ami, sometimes your ideas just flow from your mouth like projectile diarrhea.

 

[lushlucid]

~~~

Nice ass...downunder...


Ami

you're a silly piggy

 

[cahab]

amicus is plainly just a troll. why are we still feeding him?

 

[scheherazade_79]

amicus is plainly just a troll. why are we still feeding him?

He's not a troll. He just has different views from a lot of people, which he's entitled to. There's nothing wrong with that. There's no law saying you have to go with any of it.

 

[Sapphire_O]

You seem confused. Rupert Murdoch is a man, not a woman. Perhaps this movie will help clear up the issue for you:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418038/

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=scheherazade_79]Ami, do you honestly believe that there's such a thing as bias-free news??? Come on! There never has been and never will be, regardless of what tone of voice it's read in.

The flat monotone of male newsreaders of bygone years was a smokescreen to the fact that what they were telling you was complete and utter propaganda. Propaganda to make you think along the lines your government wants you to think, and propaganda for the sake of entertainment and competitiveness.

No news report can ever be bias-free. Opinion can be conveyed by a range of things, from the words used and their connotations, to the individual positioning of words in sentences, to the music and sounds that accompany certain footage, to the commercials that are shown between stories.

It's like supermarkets, where every effort has been made to influence and control your thoughts and actions - like the appetising smell of freshly baked bread that wafts around store entrances.

Just because someone has a penis, wears a grey suit and speaks in a monotone, it doesn't mean that they're telling you the gospel, unbiased truth.

I think you just have a thing about women's voices and infections...[/QUOTE]



~~~

I spent not a small amount of time crafting a response to your post, then my damned little girl sized laptop keyboard allowed my big clumsy fingers to delete it all with no recovery...sighs...

I hate laptops.

And no...it won't accept a regular sized keyboard...I tried..

You make some very good points, and the 'penis, grey suit, monotone', was well said.

In a society where there is a free press, and freedom of speech, and competition on every street corner, diverse opinions confront each other.

In a controlled, command society, there is no free press, no freedom of speech, you read and hear what 'they' want you to.

I managed a radio station, didn't own it, but managed it, and pretty much ran it the way I wanted to. You can do the same, as have many others here in the United States.

I have no understanding of how it must be in other places in the world.

The changes in my profession are not to my liking and if I were younger and had the energy, I would attempt to make an impact.

I think so many here, on this forum, do not understand the nature of a free society, where everything is confrontation and competition. The theory behind it all is, that the best will eventually win out.

I offer you, free of charge, and totally unbiased, pristine view that you may not have seen or heard before.

Sue me.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Watch news casts from the UK. Natasha Kaplinsky, Moira Stewart, Angela Rippon, Sophie Rayworth - some of the best news reporters and presenters on television. I think what you have noticed is an American news phenomenon. It's not to do with gender, it's to do with sentimental, Schmaltzy claptrap which has, unfortunately, infiltrated more strongly into American culture than Uk culture so far.

You actually have a good point Amicus, I have also noticed similar rubbish on the American broadcasts that have been shown over here, unfortunately you have negated your good point by wrapping it up in unfounded sexist nonsense. Always, always you shoot yourself in the foot when you actually have a good point to make.
x
V

~~~
[I]
"..., unfortunately you have negated your good point by wrapping it up in unfounded sexist nonsense. Always, always you shoot yourself in the foot when you actually have a good point to make.[/I
x
V[/QUOTE][/I]

***

Perhaps I am, as you say, a 'sexist', red shoes, then again, perhaps not, as that is your opinion.

I see male and female as different genders, not just because of their genitalia, but their entire make-up, you do not...you see equality...I think it blinds you to the marvelous world of differences.

There are things, by nature, that men do better than women, and, conversely, things that women do better than men.

I consider that a fact of nature, you appear to see it as a social condition.

So be it.

Amicus...

 

[Vermilion]

~~~
[I]
"..., unfortunately you have negated your good point by wrapping it up in unfounded sexist nonsense. Always, always you shoot yourself in the foot when you actually have a good point to make.[/I
x
V[/I]

***

Perhaps I am, as you say, a 'sexist', red shoes, then again, perhaps not, as that is your opinion.

I see male and female as different genders, not just because of their genitalia, but their entire make-up, you do not...you see equality...I think it blinds you to the marvelous world of differences.

There are things, by nature, that men do better than women, and, conversely, things that women do better than men.

I consider that a fact of nature, you appear to see it as a social condition.

So be it.

Amicus...

No. You assume I see things that way. I fully appreciate that men and women are different and generally have different strengths, but difference doesn;t necessarily mean inequality. Just because I am more empathetic and better at multi-tasking and you, perhaps are more single minded and have greater physical strength doesn;t mean one of us would be worth any less or more than the other. So yes. I see equality.

I also think that some men have more 'feminine' qualities - for instance they are good at multi-tasking and some women have more 'masculine' qualities - remaining emotionally distant from difficult situations... I think you'd agree that both the above-mentioned qualities would be useful in a news presenter, so perhaps men and women who have the ideal combination of skills and qualities from each gender make better newspeople. Noone should be discriminated against because of their gender - only their capabilities.

Don't assume what I must think, or try to tell me what I think Amicus. For one thing I don't do it to you and for a second - you haven't been right yet...

x
V

 

[christabelll]

So far all I hear is the women have ruined your world Amicus...
uneducated illiterate women at that...

I agree that the news is a dancing dog show these days
I agree that most of the information is fed to us to sway us one way or the other for the political machine corp.

But I resent you saying implying and stipulating that its WOMEN who are to blame for this.

Sorry Chum - its men and has been men for MANY centuries... not just decades that have fucked this world of ours over again and again...

I dislike having news fed to me in the most inflammatory way possible... so I don't read or watch any of it from the big five...

I go elsewhere for the truth.

You in your posts in this thread prove that you are a mysogonystic (sp?) bastard who blames women for the fact you can't get off unless you are reviling them.

 

[galaxygoddess]

Ok, this amuses me.

Why?

Because, I just lost a lot of respect for the guy on the radio today.

Everyday on the way to and from work, I listen to talk radio. I listen to them give their opinions and report on the news and a few other things. I usually like the morning show guy, up until today.

They were talking about a trial for a "suspected enemy combatant" and it was a female reporter who had been sitting in the trial, and the male talk radio host.

The female reporter was answering all of his questions with precise info, every time he asked her for an opinion, she said "I cannot do that, I'm an impartial viewer." Well, he's act really annoyed with her and press her for more information about the trial.

The guy kept asking what the prosecution was doing, she said that the prosecution had played a tape of Osama Bin Laden even though there was no proof these two guys had ever spoken with Bin Laden, and she said they showed 9-11 footage even though it could be proven that these guys had nothing to do with it. She said they were essentially forcing the jury to associate these guys with 9-11 even though it wasn't related to what they were there for.

The guy then turns it around on her and says "well when they talked with Bin Laden..." and she corrected him and said "no, that was a prosecution trick, these guys actually had no proof these two guys had ever talked to Bin Laden." The talk show guy got mad again.

Again the FEMALE reporter says "don't you want to know what the defense was saying?" and he brushed her off. Finally, near the end of the interview he asked her "Do you agree with the verdict?" and she said "I can't answer that, I'm an impartial viewer." He got made at her and said "You have to have an opinion on this." She calmly replied "I am a reporter; I'm not supposed to give my opinion. It's not my job, I'm just giving you the facts of the case." and he said "Oh come on, that's just stupid." And then he hung up on her.




So you say it's the women putting their feelings ahead of the actual story?



Cute.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

I think so many here, on this forum, do not understand the nature of a free society, where everything is confrontation and competition. The theory behind it all is, that the best will eventually win out.
Amicus...

Yes we do, why do you think we answer you back And since its a free society we are allowed to tell you what we think of it as well you cute cuddly little teddy bear you

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Almost tempted to start a new thread, "So, does the news suck?" minus the sexist baggage, but there have been some good posts engaging the issue so I'll put it here.

I can't state broadcast news of any sort. The arched-tone delivery is like fingernails to me, and everything else is just as bad - the stagecraft, the superficiality, the manner in which the medium really is the message. I have had jobs where I had to interact with this entity, and it always made me feel dirty because I fell right into it's game, staging my own delivery of information to conform to it's form.

Zade's point was absolutely correct - there never was and never will be such a thing as "objective" news. There are such things as journalistic standards, however, and editorial judgement in distilling what is news. Although valuable that last is completely subjective, however. What drives "conservatives" wild about the mainstream media is that what "liberals" think is news includes many items that the first group doesn't, and excludes many that it does. I won't even go into the manner in which language shapes/reveals perception - "abortion rights" vs. "favors legal abortion" is so revealing of viewpoints on many levels. BTW, the most apt description I've heard is that there's not "liberal bias" so much as "establishment bias," and the establishment tends to be "liberal" and statist. (Those of a leftist cast will counter that it is also protective of the present social and economic order and thus "conservative," which is true enough.)

Finally, given all the above I am thrilled by the "democratization" of news that has/is occurring thanks to the Internet. I think the hubbub about loss of journalistic standards is overblown. Credibility is a precious commodity; some providers will work hard to build and preserve it, others won't give a rip. The public easily sorts all that out, and individuals can choose.

 

[cloudy]

The fact that its a woman reading the news has fuck all to do with anything.

Perfect demonstration of the difference between US news, and British news: linkage

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The fact that its a woman reading the news has fuck all to do with anything.

Perfect demonstration of the difference between US news, and British news: linkage

Funny piece. The notable thing for me was that her imitation of "boring english news" being announced, "Property owners in Kent are being forced to sell their land against their will," conveyed that same arched tone delivery that makes me gag here. It's so damned artificial, it's become a caricature of itself.

You know what I mean and can all do it yourself - deliver this line in newscaster-ese: "Park employees cutting grass in Johnson Park missed a spot today, leaving an unsightly patch with grass as tall as nine as nine inches. City officials are investigating, and say they will issue a report before the end of the year."

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Funny piece. The notable thing for me was that her imitation of "boring english news" being announced, "Property owners in Kent are being forced to sell their land against their will," conveyed that same arched tone delivery that makes me gag here. It's so damned artificial, it's become a caricature of itself.

You know what I mean and can all do it yourself - deliver this line in newscaster-ese: "Park employees cutting grass in Johnson Park missed a spot today, leaving an unsightly patch with grass as tall as nine as nine inches. City officials are investigating, and say they will issue a report before the end of the year."

<off topic>
Ok I couldnt help myself I did it and I'm telling you i couldnt stop laughing. I seriously dont know how with some of the things they read that they can keep a straight face </off topic>

 

[Vermilion]

The fact that its a woman reading the news has fuck all to do with anything.

Perfect demonstration of the difference between US news, and British news: linkage

y'know, in that context, I *like* boring.

besides, as my mother always says - only boring people get bored
x
V

 

[gauchecritic]

Mika Brzezinski seems to be a woman and a journo with a smattering of credibility.

I think so many here, on this forum, do not understand the nature of a free society, where everything is confrontation and competition. The theory behind it all is, that the best will eventually win out.

We perhaps don't understand because it's not actually true. Netscape, Betamax, Linux, Apple, etcetera, etcetera.

Good enough or most popular or best marketed, these win and they are rarely 'the best'.