Look, its pretty obvious that in the world of TV this is generally the case, not just in Sports reporting, this argument has been put up for discussion many times & its pretty hard to argue, yes most females on television are young & attractive, or extremely funny & qyuirky or a well regarded specialist in a field Whereas Men are deemed to be more authorative as they get older & become distiguished & believable Television networks just dont do this willy nilly they take consumer surveys,expert analysis, psychological profiling etc very seriously, they are essentially selling tv shows they need to know how the public percieve certain people of a certain age & gender Its interesting that Ita Buttrose seems to be making a bit of a comeback, maybe grandmotherly figures are in, maybe the public warm to women that are a bit older now The woman that was a part of the Peters situation wasnt really the face of a programe or a bigf draw card, she was just a run of the mill starting out journo, so i can only assume she was qualified & equal amongst her peers
New management wanted to get rid of him way before this...it's only Manly for christ sake, who cares..let them run themselves into the ground.
so basically we spoke for 4 pages and in the end you agree with my first comment. The people who are employing people because they are good looking are upset because someone called them good looking.
well nobody in a network will admit it because they'd be open to all kinds of sexism & Ageism court cases etc I'm not saying its totally 100% like that anyway, but we've all heard women, in every industry, every proffesion talk about the glass ceiling, nobody will say it exists but statistics seem to suggest it does, wether its institutionalised or some kind of subliminal thing i have no idea Still, no matter how good looking some bird is, you just cant ignore her in her profesional capacity & blurt out what Peters said, if you cant see that then i cant help you, i'd worry about how you were brought up or if you are just not very intelligent, it was smug, belittling, & was meant to demean her profesionnally, i'm sure when she went to Uni & did Journalism it wasnt because she looked in the mirror one day & thought "i'm not to bad on the eye i think a career in Journalism beckons"
no it was slightly inappropriate. that is all. not worthy of a sacking, perhaps a "pull your head in"
This is the 5th time i have said this and the last as i am starting to worry about your intelligence I am complaining that the people in the TV industry that employ people on their looks are having a go at Peters because he commented on the looks of these same people. If the girl that peters has said something to was ugly she wouldn't have the job because her employer wouldn't have given her one. these same people then say that Peters should not be treating them this way they should be respected for there education and skills and not on their looks. I know they have to be educated as well not employed just because of there looks but as i said if they were ugly there would be no job. Hopefully your education will allow you to understand what I am saying and not going off on what you think i am saying and insulting me for no reason thankyou
I see good looking girls every day, it doesnt mean its appropriate to walk up to them & say "geez you're a good sort", the said girl may be a ****ing Rhodes scholar, a judge, a mother etc But there you go on about ugly again, what does indeed constitute ugly?? Theres plenty of girls in tv & journalism who may not win miss world, but with a bit of makeup & some decent lighting scrub up ok, i know i'll get shouted down on ESB because everyone is used to knocking around with models We also seem to just be banged over the head by the popular media, i'd suggest you'll see more ordinary girls on networks like the ABC & SBS where substance is a little more important