A. If you were running a sports network, would you employ sideline reporters? Why or why not?Notice how her metric is considerably different than any of the others, including the other woman. The value of sideline reporting is solely determined by the opportunity it provides women, particularly a woman "whose dream is to be a respected voice of the NFL".
Danielle: Absolutely. Although I don't expect much from sideline reporters, during the Seahawks-Niners game on Sept. 15, [NBC's] Michelle Tafoya showed the value of having a skilled reporter provide context for the game, in addition to injury and general broadcast updates. I'd probably also look to have sideline reporters handle more of the pre-recorded interviews currently conducted by guys like Bob Costas.
Hubbard: Absolutely! As a woman whose dream is to be a respected voice of the NFL, I've always viewed sideline reporting as one of the introductory platforms to have a voice in sports broadcasting. Taking that away would take away one less opportunity for women, even in a small role. Another thing I believe that keeps sideline reporting relevant is fantasy football. Folks want to know the skinny on their starting players and sideline reporting gives folks the updates they are looking for. Fantasy football is way too popular to be ignored.
Koblin: Yes, but only when absolutely necessary, i.e. the exact opposite of how Fox used Erin Andrews two weeks ago where we got report after report about absolutely nothing. In fact, I'd just hire an insanely good reporter. The less telegenic the better! I'd hire someone who's tenaciously good at getting scoops. If there's a player coming off the field all woozy, I'd want a sideline reporter in everyone's face asking questions. If there's a Super Bowl blackout, I want that reporter chasing down every suit in the stadium to find out what's happening.
Lepore: Yeah. They wouldn't be required to appear every week or do the awkward "I spoke to coach a few minutes ago" hit, but the Super Bowl blackout showed us that you need somebody working down there who can relay special information to the viewers.
Littal: I think they are useless. It isn't anything personal against them, but at this point sideline reporters are more for comic relief than getting anything useful. It is more about how uncomfortable their interviews are than actual relevant information.
This, of course, is why she never will be a respected voice of the NFL, because she has no particular interest in the NFL or in football, her primary interest is herself and she views everything through a lens of whether it is to her benefit or not.
Female solipsism an important behavioral attribute for men and women alike to be aware of and recognize. It is important for women because it must be controlled if they are to be taken seriously; who could take Ms Hubbard's opinion on sideline reporters or anything related to the NFL seriously after hearing her declare their value is dependent upon being an introductory platform for female careers.
And it is important for men because otherwise they will continue to view women as men with different exteriors, which has misled many a man into erroneous decisions.
14 comments:
Hubbard: Absolutely! As a woman whose dream is to be a respected voice of the NFL.."
I read this as "As a woman who's dream is to be railed by large black men"
I've watched a couple games this season, after pretty much ignoring the NFL since KC hired Herm Edwards (the Barack Obama of the NFL) a decade or so ago. I was shocked by how little had changed. The same idiot ex-players stumbling through their lines in the studio, the same women babbling at players and coaches about nothing on the sidelines, the same fascination with made-up-on-the-spot statistics like "first team to win after being up 12 and down 16" or whatever, the same insulting commercials filled with stupid boys and smart, sassy women. The only thing new was that apparently they're celebrating the Hispanic contribution to football this month, to which my main reaction was, "All month?"
Yes, #2's response boils down to, "Hire me!"
I like the third one (a guy), who seems to view the teams as the enemy, and wants to go all investigative journalist on them about their injuries and stuff. Is he aware that this is entertainment, not politics, and they're all -- teams and media -- really on the same team?
I would like to believe that the networks are pushing women commentators on us to get more female viewers, therefore (supposedly) more total viewers and more ad revenue. It irks me, but at least under this explanation they would have a business reason for it.
However, I suspect that's not really it at all. I suspect they've fallen for the "everything must be evaluated on how well it promotes women's interests" mentality.
i'd tend to believe sideline reporters in general are there because they know their viewers attention span is measured in nanoseconds. If they are away from the action too long they risk the viewer flipping to another game on another network. As for the women, well that's what they call the Old Honeypot
This, of course, is why she never will be a respected voice of the NFL, because she has no particular interest in the NFL or in football, her primary interest is herself and she views everything through a lens of whether it is to her benefit or not.
Female solipsism an important behavioral attribute for men and women alike to be aware of and recognize. It is important for women because it must be controlled if they are to be taken seriously; who could take Ms Hubbard's opinion on sideline reporters or anything related to the NFL seriously after hearing her declare their value is dependent upon being an introductory platform for female careers.
There is a corollary to this, and something which will always remain an Achilles heel of feminism. The "Take me seriously!" emotional impulse is in itself something which prevents men from taking the woman overcome by this emotion seriously. Feminism has institutionalized the "take me seriously!" tantrum, thus ensuring that men will never take feminists seriously. Your example last week regarding the Linux kernel mailing list was another demonstration of this.
Re: Dalrock's comment that since feminism has institutionalized the "take me seriously" tantrum, men will never take feminists seriously.
If a man were to say to other men, "you don't take me seriously," he'd be insulting himself. He's placed himself in a subservient position, and the other men are happy to confirm him there.
If a woman were to say to other women, "you don't take me seriously," that would be an insult to the other women because they have failed to recognize and affirm her feelings.
Currently reading a discussion about how Orthodox bishops (and laity) should treat female Anglican/Episcopalian 'priests' or 'bishops.' A lot of talk about being civil, etc. in the name of charity and ecumenism. Vox, what do you think the proper response should be, for a believing Christian who acknowledges patriarchy? I am tempted to add to the discussion that I've never heard of a feminist who fully converted to a patriarchy-supporter because a man was "civil" or "nice" to her.
how Orthodox bishops (and laity) should treat female Anglican/Episcopalian 'priests' or 'bishops.'
Let her be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Female sideline reporters are now there strictly o appeal to female viewers. That's clear by the change in attractiveness that's happened over the last few years. Used to be any on-camera female reporter was relatively hot, but current sideline reporters are generally moderately attractive at best.
Possibly this is to reduce the chace a player in the heat of the moment will rape one on camera, but more likely it's to be as non-threatening a self-affirming to female viewers as possible. "I look pretty good compared to her, and she's on TV...."
Personally I find injury updates marginally usefull, but the rest is noise. Then again, I usually watch condensed versions anyway that cuts out all the blather.
"how Orthodox bishops (and laity) should treat female Anglican/Episcopalian 'priests' or 'bishops.'" Treat them as heretics and hypocrites. That's what they are. They are not priests or bishops and they are pretending they are.
As for the Suzy Kolbers (sp?) of the world, they are there to show the feminists that the networks aren't afraid to antagonize male viewers with a foolish, prattling woman. Next will be Roseanne.
Currently reading a discussion about how Orthodox bishops (and laity) should treat female Anglican/Episcopalian 'priests' or 'bishops.'
I'm guessing the core issue is what title to use. I would suggest priestess for the former, and high priestess for the latter. Since no such things exist in Christianity, they should be treated with the same protocols and courtesy as a priestess or high priestess would from any other (non Christian) faith.
The NFL and most sports should be left for and by the men. Recent cable sports tv has too many female reporters reporting about things they appear to be out of place about. Let the male commentators discuss the sports be it in locker rooms or on fields, let the women be distracted someplace else.
I don't care for all these chick reporters in sports; most of them don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, so they add nothing. The only exception was Wendy Venturini, who used to be a roving reporter on the old Speed Channel Race Day show. Since she came from a racing family (her dad raced in ARCA for many years, and her brother Billy is racing now); since she'd been at the track literally since she was in diapers; she was knew her stuff, so even with her shrill voice, she was tolerable. The rest suck.
Even so, all chick reporters (Wendy Venturini included) could and do ask asanine questions. They'll ask questions about a competitor's personal life, stuff that has NO BEARING on the event in question. At least with guy reporters, they'll ask questions that pertain to the game, race, etc.; they'll also get straight to the point.
If you think I'm hard on chick reporters in sports, you should have heard my late mother-oh boy! She'd rip 'em all, saying that their voices were annoying, that their questions sucked, etc. When she'd watch college football or races with me, she always, without exception, liked the men reporters better. She thought (and I concur) that they know more about the game, since many of them played it; that they had more interest in it; and that they asked RELEVANT QUESTIONS, questions that pertained to the game.
For example, chick reporters will ask a football coach about his strategy against the other team (you know just before the game or as they're leaving the field for halftime), and my mom would call her an ass; does she REALLY expect the coach to tell her that?! I always got a kick out of that too. But yeah, my late mother RIPPED EVERY CHICK REPORTER in sports! She did so more viciously that most guys in the Manosphere do. If my late mother were anything to go by, the gambit by networks to grow female viewership of sports isn't working...
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.