LMAO! This girl can't get a break. She's had a busy 2016.
Which came first? If the above, then it's clearly an in-joke, a running gag. Local TV companies can be quite self-referential.
It's all light hearted. You can bet that EVERY broadcast gets these complaints from nutters, but it served the joke to read them out this time. It's all publicity for the station.
...how come the major networks always happen to cover the same five or so stories and at the same time in their newscast? What are the chances of all those news stations seemingly coordinated for decades and decades even though they are ostensibly competing for viewers?
Also, why are there only five or so stories covered at once, for roughly the same time, and for roughly the same length of time as all news stories seem to peter out simultaneously.
Plus, why do so few "big" news events--I know there are exceptions--happen on Monday-Friday but weekends are usually quiet?
They constantly watch what their competition is covering. Their a bunch of ditto heads. They don't want to be caught dropping the ball on a possibly big news story. And of course they all want to claim they were the first in reporting a story. Like who cares unless it's Armageddon?
Ever channel surf news channels during a big event like a hurricane or mass shooting? Try switching to another news channel when one goes to commercial, you will find the other goes on a commercial break too!
LMAO! This girl can't get a break. She's had a busy 2016.
Which came first? If the above, then it's clearly an in-joke, a running gag. Local TV companies can be quite self-referential.
It's all light hearted. You can bet that EVERY broadcast gets these complaints from nutters, but it served the joke to read them out this time. It's all publicity for the station.
I dunno. Her on air reaction in the first clip seemed very genuine. Their horrible actors that we know.
Let's say it's not self publicity and it's real: everybody is so quick to blame some prude and make dumbass comparrisons to radical 17th century backwards Islamic nutjobs overseas, but how about we just take a step backwards to some common decency?
Does everything including the weather report, have to be sexualized to some degree? She looks like she's ready to go out to a bar after the report ends in hopes of getting a drink from some dude.
Does anybody care about professionalism? Their image? You go search youtube for weather reports from local stations or just watch news bloopers, there's no shortage or both men and women wearing suits.
If I want half-clothed or even less-covered woman to give me the news, I can watch that Russian woman who does the news naked.
Let's say it's not self publicity and it's real: everybody is so quick to blame some prude and make dumbass comparrisons to radical 17th century backwards Islamic nutjobs overseas, but how about we just take a step backwards to some common decency?
Does everything including the weather report, have to be sexualized to some degree? She looks like she's ready to go out to a bar after the report ends in hopes of getting a drink from some dude.
Does anybody care about professionalism? Their image? You go search youtube for weather reports from local stations or just watch news bloopers, there's no shortage or both men and women wearing suits.
If I want half-clothed or even less-covered woman to give me the news, I can watch that Russian woman who does the news naked.
Because ppl in suits and ties aren't dicks in the workplace? Clothing socially speaking is a form of repression. Lets grow up and get over our naked bodies. I say clothing optional world. If you don't like it don't look.
Regardless of whether what she was wearing was sufficiently professional, this was a horrible way to do it. No one in the studio saw what she was wearing before she was on air? He attire was so horrible offensive that they had to interrupt her on-air instead of waiting three minutes and talking to her about the dress code? Poorly handled.
She's a woman in a dress. Any sexualization would be because of the person objectifying her, not her.
I think the whole complaint is dumb, but even if we WERE to police what people wear based on societal norms, that's just a normal dress. Societally it would have been appropriate out for dinner at a nicer place (not just "a bar").
Does anybody care about professionalism? Their image? You go search youtube for weather reports from local stations or just watch news bloopers, there's no shortage or both men and women wearing suits.
That's really just being conformist. Take a look at this little event that hit the headlines in the UK last week, where a woman was sent home for not wearing high heels:
Now, you may say that high heels are somehow 'smart' but in fact they're anatomically absurd, they wreck posture, they prevent full range of movement, and can even be dangerous. They have their origins in fairly oppressive garments worn in the 18th Century and in China. The woman's rear quarters are pushed upwards and her feet transformed into what are effectively pig's trotters. Not for any other reason than to enhance height and because corporate people nowadays have been born into an environment where it was just always there.
If good form and fully biologically and ethically integrated considerations were taken into account fully, then these things would be on the other side of the fence, i.e. NOT 'smart'.
