Has the BBC started choosing female roles by their looks instead of talent...? In the last few years we have seen the female roles taken by younger, more attractive women, often who are appauling newsreaders. A few examples are Sophie Raworth (always stuttering and mispronouncing) Natasha Kaplinsky (Only in it for the huge paycheck and to find a doorway to fame) and Emily Maitlis (I think she's good, dont get me wrong, just not good enough for the nationals). When was the last time we had UGLY newsreaders? Does anyone agree with me?
Avoiding my usual cliche about Natasha's 'rise' to fame - She has a first from Oxford. Sophie and Emily are equally 'as qualified' - I believe Emily has a degree in Modern Languages from Oxford - but I may be mistaken.
My point is this. Look who sits next to Natasha on the six - it's not all about looks...
My point is this. Look who sits next to Natasha on the six - it's not all about looks...
True, but I still think the BBC should have put someone else on the six, just because Natasha Kaplinsky suddenly had a whole load of men who fancy her and younger people who think she's cool watching giving them good raitings, Sian would have been perfect!
I don't know why so many people have a problem with other people who are good looking. It is possible to be good looking, professional and good at your job.
So Natasha and co take care of their appearances. So what? In fact, good for them!
I must stress that I aint a Natasha fan, but would never hold her looks against her. Some MEN and women are stunning others are not so stunning. Some are stunning and clever others are not - that is life!!!!!
Perhaps we should have the Vicky Pollards, Ugly Bettys and Cilla Battersby Browns read the news and see what the reaction is?
I have many views about NK, but in essence I believe that she does her job well, as does Sophie and Emily.
Alistair Burnet, Reginald Bosanquet and Sandy Gall read the news for years/decades at ITN, and no one ever mentioned their looks once. Why? Because they are male. None of them were oil paintings.
This suggests that when it comes to men, looks are not important. Gravitas and authority are what matters.
I, therefore, fail to understand why women should be treated differently. Meaning, a female anchor should be selected for her journalistic ability and for nothing else!
If, it so happens, that a male or female anchor has the gravitas combined with the beauty, then so what? There are many currently on our screens who fit this category. But, the majority of viewers will automatically think that they have been selected for the latter reason, as opposed to the former. And hence the title of this thread.
It's all wrong guys. All wrong. Looks shouldn't even enter into the debate.
I don't believe this applies only to women. Look at ITV News. Mark Austin, Geraint Vincent, Steve Scott (well, when he first started - age is catching up with him), they were all accomplished journalists but the fact that they were "easy on the eye to the ladies - and to some gents" would have had some impact on the decision to let them anywhere near the studio.
Television news cares desperately about looks. Why do you think the ITV News women presenters all stand with the one foot slightly in front of the other with their bodies turned to a slight angle. For heaven's sake - anyone would think they were shop dummies standing in the window of Selfridges. Which leads me nicely onto Natasha (kicking donkey) Ker-plunk-ski..........
Natasha isn't a nice site to look at, and isn't very good at her job, thats just my opinion of her and Sophie is an excellent presenter, she is very talented at her job, Emily is awful to look at but good at her job.
I think Natasha is just horrid. They only picked her for the 6 after the success of her on Strictly come dancing and thought she would increase viewers. I think Sophie is much better.
This thread is going way off track and is bordering on libelous. So, are all of us forumers God's gift to beauty???? Are we all "supermodel" material? I think not.
BBC World - I think it proves the point to the original question wonderfully. BBC News may be putting more emphasis on beauty instead of brains in recent years - but it's because people DO have feelings about it - hence the posts in this forum.
Remember the debacle that ensued when Fiona Bruce wore glasses for an edition of the 10? It turned out that she had sucumb to a rather nasty eye infection - but people contacted the BBC asking that she never do it again!!! Madness!!!!