I'm so sick of Rosie. I'm pretty liberal so I naturally agree with Rosie politically more than Elisabeth. I also think Elisabeth is reprehensible (cant stand her!) but she should be allowed to have an opposing view. Rosie just dominates the conversation and then is almost annoyed that Elisabeth has the nerve to not agree. I didnt find Elisabeth as shrill as she normally is during that conversation on torture yet again she was chastised by Rosie. I dont know how Elisabeth continues on that show with constantly being talked down to like a child. I would have cussed Rosie out (on air) by now.
Steering a conversation in a different direction, acceptable to the guest, is vastly different from a host not allowing a guest to state their findings and opinions about a documentary that they're on the show to promote, instead arguing an opposing point.
Originally Posted by Veruka;2290202;
As many have pointed out, this is not a news show, this is an entertainment show. When they have guests on they are there to promote the guests and their activities. Elisabeth did absolutely nothing to promote this guest and her documentary and instead tried to hurt the guest's credibility. That's inexcusable in this type of format. Let's not make this another discussion of how poor Elisabeth wasn't allowed to voice her Republican views, because being an opposing political viewpoint really had nothing to do with what was wrong with the situation.
Sarah Ferguson was still able to promote that activity that she was on the show to promote. Rosie's off topic meanderings, while overly chatty and irrelevant, did nothing to harm Sarah nor her credibility. BIG difference.
I just watched the clip. I'm very liberal. My views are vastly different than Elisabeths. Vastly. However, Rosie did talk down to her as if she were a child. If I were Elisabeth, I would have said something. Rosie could have 'steered' it back with a little more respect and tact. Two things she is sorely lacking these days.
Originally Posted by Broadway;2291746;
I disagree. Rory Kennedy was promoting her documentary, and Elisabeth was asking her about the documentary. I don't think she was discrediting her at all. Yes, she was asking tougher questions that "Tell us about this part of the film". But Rory was also answering each of those questions very very well - which added to her credibility as I see it. I do think that Elisabeth was overstepping her bounds in that she was dominating the questions being answered - not allowing any of the other hosts to get a question in. But that's very different from preventing the guest from promoting what she was there to promote.
On the flip side, in the Sarah Ferguson interview, she was there to promote something, and I can't even remember what that was. If she did mention it, it was mentioned so little during the interview that i have no clue what it was -- but I do know that Rosie can't program ring tones in her own phone, and that the parents and sister of her friend sang at his funeral.
Has Barbara Lost Control
I thought this was an interesting watch. For those of you that have missed a lot of episodes of the The View lately, you can catch most of the clips here.
There are some valid points made, but there's a whole lot of spin, too.
That was an interesting piece. I can't really say that I agree with most of the arguments being put forth in it. To me, it was one of many examples that have been happening in recent years of each news network using discussions on their programs in an attempt to discredit their competitors in order to take down their ratings.
Originally Posted by Ace232521;2294565;
I disagree with the primary premise of the piece. I don't think that Barbara Walters has ever been a hard-hitting newswoman kind of journalist. As I see it, Barbara is well-known and respected for two things. First, she was a pioneer as a woman in a man's world of journalism - opening the door for a lot of hard-hitting news women. Second, she has an incredible talent for doing incredible "personality piece" interviews. But I think that over time, many, including this report, have distorted both of those areas of her career.
On the pioneer - I think that people have re-written the method that Barbara used to get where she has in what was the man's world of broadcasting. She most certainly did not use the Gloria Steinem / Hillary Clinton method of demanding respect and equality. Rather, she used patience and humility. She endured the abuse from Harry Reasner as a co-anchor, because she was at least somewhere that women had not been before. She settled for being the fluff reporter at the Today show, because she was at least on the air. There are multiple brands of feminism. I think that the modern interpretation of it is often times hung on Barbara, but it is certainly not the brand that she used.
On her style of journalism - There is a reason why so many of her most memorable interviews are celebrity interviews. Barbara has a great style that puts a subject at ease and relaxed, so that they'll reveal details about themselves they would not otherwise reveal. She's not hard-hitting. She's not confrontational. That is not her style at all. Most all of her interviews are fluffier, profile pieces, which is why it's not a surprise at all that she'd ask Chavez questions about being married, rather than his views on foreign policy issues. Even her interviews with past and present Presidents of this country have been more personality profiles than interviews dealing with the tough issues.
Because that piece has, as I see it, so distorted Barbara's career, they've really missed the mark in claiming she's "fallen". She's doing the same sort of job she's always done, and that should not come as a surprise to anyone. And I think that Scarborough is REALLY off base to make the claim that the last few years of her career is what she'll be remembered for. No no. With an icon like Barbara Walters, you remember her full career - not just the end. Do music fans remember only the fat, jumpsuit music of Elvis? No. They remember the Ed Sullivan Show too. With icons, you appreciate the entire career.
Veruka, you have made excellent and valid points! There is not a lot to add to what you have said. Those men sounded idiotic, to say the least. Barbara is not one of my favorite people, but she is whom she is. :clap :clap
This is not really related to this thread, anymore...but somebody said that Star Jones looked like one of the women that Flava Flav sent home!!! :rofl :rofl
I liked the chocolate brown dress Elisabeth had on today.
Normally I wouldn't wear anything they put her in, but I'd wear that dress and also liked the purple and green sundress she was wearing the other day.
Barbara wouldn't let Elisabeth get a word in edge ways this morning.
I think I'd like for them to proceed with just three co-hosts from now on.
Unless the guest host is a returnee they tend to spend half the first segment of Hot Topics talking about the guest.
Barbara pretty much always ruins Hot Topics for me every time she's on.
I thought Joy was making an interesting point about the way in which she thinks religion should be taught in schools, but it was difficult for both her and Elisabeth to get the chance to speak.
I agree with you about the co-hosts Fluff. In addition to their spending hot topics essentially interviewing the guest host, very few guests hosts end up speaking for the reaminder of the show. So why be there? I can understand them having guest hosts if they're auditioning a permanent host. But when they book someone just for the sake of having the fourth chair filled, I don't think they should bother.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.