Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Emily Matilis is the prime example of a woman newscaster wanting to be a celebrity. She outdoes Katie Derham in her desire to be simultaneously cerebral and pap-worthy.

Kate Silverton looks like Pauline Pens.

Kerplunk is a little Liza Minelli in her innocence - a true innocence that still comes across as phoney. Shame.

Fiona is the best of the lot.

Indeed.


I might even say that the photos were unkind. Or that sniggering at attractive women and implying that they're transvestites is unkind. After all, how many of the men posting are perfect specimens who've never had an off day or been photographed at an unflattering angle?


I might even get started on the fact that female newsreaders are all expected to be young and gorgeous and get replaced whent they're not, but male newsreaders are not.


But I'm sure I'd only be called humourless, or something similar, so I'll leave you to it.

annaj Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed.

>

> I might even say that the photos were unkind. Or

> that sniggering at attractive women and implying

> that they're transvestites is unkind. After all,

> how many of the men posting are perfect specimens

> who've never had an off day or been photographed

> at an unflattering angle?

>

> I might even get started on the fact that female

> newsreaders are all expected to be young and

> gorgeous and get replaced whent they're not, but

> male newsreaders are not.

>

> But I'm sure I'd only be called humourless, or

> something similar, so I'll leave you to it.


See that lad's, another prime example of annaj striding into the boys toilets, and hitting us all round the head with the ruler.


Sorry Miss.

In the greater feminist perspective your arguments are quite sound annaj. Newsreaders should not necessarily be employed because they're young hotties (although that does kind of beg the question what a newsreader is: if you're in the entertainment business you need to be easy on the eye).


However if you do choose to elevate yourself professionally as celebrity totty (with the colour supplements that entails) then you're somewhat hoist by your own petard if people publish unflattering photos alongside.


In much the same way, criticising me for being crap at the javelin is valid if I claimed to be an international javelin impressario.


Your argument smacks of the dirty no good hypocrisy toiled out by celebrities who court press attention when it suits them, and then cry foul when they don't like the coverage given to their self-indulgent divorces.


If female journalists want to be famous for their intellect and insight, I suggest they do a Pilger and naff off to somewhere grimy and do some reportage.


For the record, I am no oil painting, but neither do I try and make money out of being one.

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BBW, you blow hot and cold all the time . Not so

> long ago you started a thread titled why is annaj

> so awesome! Are you of sane mind ?


Now daizie, you know Women do not like "bland".


Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen, eh Wolfster?B)

Emily, I haven't read any of the above posts. I've shied away in case anyone got personal about your legs.

See what I did there Emily? Like most men, I'm in love with you.

And just so you know, it's not just the legs. No. That nose of yours. Talk about a news distracter. Don't go changing.

It's thoughts of yourelf that get me from Forest Hill back to East Dulwich on those ocassions when I venture out.

On the 185. Or when misfortunate the 176.


Oh yes, where was I?


Emily! WILL YOU MARRY ME?


I can offer you nothing but my my soul. If indeed the soul exists.


Straight away we're on to what might be a philosophical discussion, and you're apparently the sort of bint what goes for that sort of old toffee. If toffee is the word I'm groping for.


And by the way, great legs.

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good ole thinking mans crumpet.

> The top one, rosie someone or other? Awwwwwww

> she's just wuvverwy.



some forumites might be offended by such a comment...


normally I wouldn't mind, as I am sure you are only "having a bit of fun". However, bearing in mind your, relatively strong, objections to some of the postings on the "sex therapist thread", I find your post rather galling...a case of double standards here me thinks

If female journalists want to be famous for their intellect and insight, I suggest they do a Pilger and naff off to somewhere grimy and do some reportage.


Which stands up fine until you notice that male newsreaders are often an obvious 10-20 years older than their female counterparts, and often not exactly Pitt-a-likes: The latest scandal over Strictly judges on the BBC highlights to a certain extent that while women are free to hold any post that a man is, if it's in the public eye they'll get replaced on the grounds of their eye-easiness (and age as a factor by association) long before the fellas will...

Well yes and no BN5, you're calling into question the entire nature of appraised sexuality.


All the usual cliches about men looking for women who are young, healthy and child bearing, whereas women look for men that are established, wealthy and respected in their authority.


Pretty young men in their twenties don't have a chance of reading the news. That's discrimination too I guess.


The evidence suggests that most women don't want Pitt-a-likes anywhere but in sexual fantasies.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...