# Fox News Ainsley Earhardt



## MrDad0330

I dont know about you all, but I look forward to when Ainsley Earhardt guests hosts on some weekends and holidays. She was on this morning and besides being beautiful she is as genuinely sweet as any women can be. I guess its her southern upbringing. She also does spot reporting for Shawn Hannity. In my opinion she is the best morning host on TV and is such a positive and caring person.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

What does this have to do with DirecTV?


----------



## MrDad0330

I was trying to start a new thread for general discussion, thats all. It is my first time doing this so if I posted improperly, I apologize


----------



## tonyd79

"MrDad0330" said:


> I was trying to start a new thread for general discussion, thats all. It is my first time doing this so if I posted improperly, I apologize


Belongs in the tv talk section, actually.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook

tonyd79 said:


> Belongs in the tv talk section, actually.


Moved.


----------



## MrDad0330

Thanks guys


----------



## fireponcoal

"MrDad0330" said:


> I dont know about you all, but I look forward to when Ainsley Earhardt guests hosts on some weekends and holidays. She was on this morning and besides being beautiful she is as genuinely sweet as any women can be. I guess its her southern upbringing. She also does spot reporting for Shawn Hannity. In my opinion she is the best morning host on TV and is such a positive and caring person.


This sounds like the start of and unhealthy obsession.. She's a blonde haired, blue eyed, aryan princess. Perhaps she'll get the gold mothers cross someday.


----------



## sigma1914

fireponcoal said:


> This sounds like the start of and unhealthy obsession.. She's a blonde haired, blue eyed, aryan princess. Perhaps she'll get the gold mothers cross someday.


!rolling


----------



## SayWhat?

I only watch real news, not Faux news.



> she is as genuinely sweet as any women can be.
> 
> and is such a positive and caring person.


Then why is she working for Murdoch?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Please, let's try to keep this thread on topic for Ms. Earhardt, not about Fox News or the implicit claims made when one uses the term "faux."


----------



## Cholly

Stuart Sweet said:


> Please, let's try to keep this thread on topic for Ms. Earhardt, not about Fox News or the implicit claims made when one uses the term "faux."


Oops!


----------



## gomezma1

She use to be the morning and noon anchor here before getting the FOX News position.


----------



## fireponcoal

"sigma1914" said:


> !rolling


 Smooches, to Ainsley Earhardt.


----------



## phrelin

So I had to look her up as I don't even allow the news channels on my personalized channel selections and came to this from 2009:


> Ainsley Earhardt talks way too loud and is slightly dumber than a cocker spaniel, but she's got blonde hair and large breasts and she's on television, so there's all that.
> 
> She's even marginally tolerable when she kicks the "Farrah Hair."


----------



## Athlon646464

I may have to make it favorite.......


----------



## sigma1914

Oh, she's definitely "genuinely sweet as any women can be" just because she talks on camera like an adult. I'm sure she's "such a positive and caring person" as are all other anchors.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

I think she may have some "faux" parts


----------



## n3ntj

Athlon646464 said:


> I may have to make it favorite.......


She's a beauty.


----------



## James Long

Personally I watch news for news, not for pin up girls. I'm more interested in if she can elicit answers and information other reporters cannot get and the depth of her stories than the depth of her cleavage or height of her skirt.

News ladies who dress like that seem to be saying "look at me, I'm pretty" to cover up for their lack of reporting skills - regardless of the network who hired the pin up girl that looks good on camera but couldn't give the basic facts on any issue of importance without a teleprompter feeding her what to say. It is the NEWS, not Miss America.

(And yes, there are guys that need teleprompters too ... but a lot less guys are hired because they could make the cover of GQ than women who could make Playboy.)


----------



## bluemoon737

James Long said:


> Personally I watch news for news, not for pin up girls. I'm more interested in if she can elicit answers and information other reporters cannot get and the depth of her stories than the depth of her cleavage or height of her skirt.
> 
> News ladies who dress like that seem to be saying "look at me, I'm pretty" to cover up for their lack of reporting skills - regardless of the network who hired the pin up girl that looks good on camera but couldn't give the basic facts on any issue of importance without a teleprompter feeding her what to say. It is the NEWS, not Miss America.
> 
> (And yes, there are guys that need teleprompters too ... but a lot less guys are hired because they could make the cover of GQ than women who could make Playboy.)


Or in the words of Don Henley:

"We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde who comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry"


----------



## SayWhat?

Sorry, but she's got nothing on Susan Hendricks or Christy Paul.


----------



## Maruuk

She looks pretty much like any hooker in a bar in Branson, MO. I mean that in only the most positive possible way.


----------



## SayWhat?

:: gets in car ::

:: heads for Branson ::


----------



## MikeW

It's always interesting when most news people are forced to talk live about the news. Very few can carry on seeming knowledgeable when it comes to "live" reporting.


----------



## James Long

MikeW said:


> It's always interesting when most news people are forced to talk live about the news. Very few can carry on seeming knowledgeable when it comes to "live" reporting.


It shows preparation when they can pull off "knowledgeable" reporting.

A long time ago in media classes I was taught to write out everything I wanted to say before going in front of an audience (either behind a podium, a microphone or a camera). At minimum one should have a good idea of what one wants to say. Scripted live news shows are reasonably smooth IF the script is good and is followed. But get off script and you're on YouTube or The Daily Show.

You can't script every hour that you're on the air ... but you can plan - more than just laying out the order the stories will be discussed and who will discuss them and how to keep the flow going and avoid bad transitions between stories that should never be discussed back to back. Most live news isn't created the moment the reporter goes to air ... it is written an hour or two in advance and the delivery is performed live.

Live breaking news requires the most skill. Channels should rely on their experts who live and breathe the topic of the breaking story and train the anchors that don't know the topic well to SHUT UP and hand over the story to more qualified people. Some of the most famous flubs in the media come from people exceeding their knowledge.

One of the biggest flaws I see on the competitive news shows (multi-anchor) is the anchor attitude of "if I talk they will turn my camera on and I will get more air time". So they talk when they have nothing useful to say. A good reporter doesn't care if the camera is on them or not ... they care about the story and whether or not the facts are being delivered to the audience.

The best coverage I've seen is when someone is well within their knowledge base and approaches the situation (even an unexpected live breaking story) knowing everything they need to know and want to share.

And then there are the shows that want to be buddy-buddy funny shows. Which is fine for Comedy Central, but if you do that on other networks you'll end up on Comedy Central (as the subject of ridicule). Perhaps if all you seek is attention that is good. But if your goal is to tell a story it is bad. Occasionally the anchor will try a joke (note: not your job) or the crew will play a prank (note: not junior high). I suppose they have to do something to fill all the broadcast minutes.

It is hard to get it right. The best advice I can give is don't get it wrong.


----------



## SayWhat?

There's a big difference between today's bubblehead newsreaders and the likes of Cronkite, Reasoner, Smith and so many others who actually knew the story and could speak about it intelligently without a teleprompter.


----------



## Kapeman

SayWhat? said:


> There's a big difference between today's bubblehead newsreaders and the likes of Cronkite, Reasoner, Smith and so many others who actually knew the story and could speak about it intelligently without a teleprompter.


I was going to say something along those same lines, reporter vs. newsreader.

And oddly enough we can partially blame 60 Minutes for showing that news can make money.

Now that the news division is a profit center, well, you see what passes for news today...


----------



## Athlon646464

I've never seen her speak extemporaneously, however I'm not so quick to say she's a 'bubble head' just because of her looks. I'd like to judge that for myself after watching. Diane Sawyer was pretty hot at that age, and I don't consider her a 'bubble head'.

Also - to compare some of these 'anchors' to the likes of Cronkite, Reasoner etc. is a little unfair. Cronkite also 'read' the news. And he had to fill only 22 minutes (all scripted) when his broadcast went to 30 minutes from 15 minutes a day.

When he would anchor a live event, like a moonshot or assassination, he made a few mistakes while ad libbing too. Don't forget, these 'anchors' that host a three or four hour news show every day on one of the 24 hour news channels now are live and ad libbing for many hours per week. It's easy to find them making a gaff because the opportunities are much greater to do so.

Am I saying she is on a level with one of those giants of journalism? Of course not, but very few are. Her job is also a very different one, IMHO.


----------



## Nick

Athlon646464 said:


> I've never seen her speak extraneously...


Don't you mean 'extemporaneously'?


----------



## Athlon646464

Nick said:


> Don't you mean 'extemporaneously'?


Uh, yes - that too......

:hurah:


----------



## phrelin

Athlon646464 said:


> ...Don't forget, these 'anchors' that host a three or four hour news show every day on one of the 24 hour news channels now are live and ad libbing for many hours per week. It's easy to find them making a gaff because the opportunities are much greater to do so.
> 
> Am I saying she is on a level with one of those giants of journalism? Of course not, but very few are. Her job is also a very different one, IMHO.


I agree which is why I don't have any 24/7 news channel in my favorites guide. At Dictionary.com, a definition of "ad libbing" is "to act, speak, etc., without preparation."

When I say one definition of "ad libbing" is "to act, speak, etc., without preparation" I am referring to two types of preparation.

Preparation can be specific, like gathering extensive background information on a story before covering it so that your ad libbing is specifically informed.
Preparation can be general, like having experienced something beyond shopping in a mall and partying in a bar, experience that forces you to understand that the shared experiences and opinions of 4.5% of the world's population (Americans) aren't shared by the remaining 95.5%; at least your ad libbing without having gathered specific background information isn't without broad experiential context.

Speaking of broad experiential preparation, Cronkite, for instance, at age 20 began broadcasting in 1936 and was employed by the United Press in 1937. From Wikipedia:


> He became one of the top American reporters in World War II, covering battles in North Africa and Europe.[10] He was one of eight journalists selected by the United States Army Air Forces to fly bombing raids over Germany in a B-17 Flying Fortress part of group called the Writing 69th. He also landed in a glider with the 101st Airborne in Operation Market-Garden and covered the Battle of the Bulge. After the war, he covered the Nuremberg trials and served as the United Press main reporter in Moscow for two years.
> 
> In 1950, Cronkite [now age 34] joined CBS News in its young and growing television division, recruited by Edward R. Murrow, who had previously tried to hire Cronkite from UP during the war. Cronkite began working at WTOP-TV, the CBS affiliate in Washington, D.C.. He originally served as anchor of the network's 15-minute late-Sunday-evening newscast _Up To the Minute_, which followed What's My Line? at 11:00pm ET from 1951 through 1962.
> 
> ...From 1953 to 1957, Cronkite hosted the CBS program _You Are There_, which reenacted historical events, using the format of a news report. His famous last line for these programs was: "What sort of day was it? A day like all days, filled with those events that alter and illuminate our times ... and you were there."
> 
> On April 16, 1962, [at the age of 45] Cronkite succeeded Douglas Edwards as anchorman of the _CBS Evening News_....


Earhardt will soon be age 34, the same age Cronkite was when Murrow finally got him to come to CBS. There is no way to compare their experience prior to being in front of a camera on a national network. Of course, they were never contemporaries confronted with many of the changes in TV. So let's quickly look at someone is somewhat of a contemporary to Ainsley Earhardt.

Katie Couric's first job was at the ABC News bureau in Washington, D.C., as a desk assistant where she worked for anchorman Sam Donaldson, among others.

Shortly thereafter, she began working at the Washington bureau of the fledgling Cable News Network (CNN). For the next seven years, Couric worked at CNN bureaus around the country as a producer and, when she could, as an on-air reporter. Between 1984 and 1986, she worked as a general-assignment reporter for WTVJ in Miami, Florida. In 1987, at age 30, she returned to Washington and took a job as a reporter at an NBC affiliate station WRC-TV, work which earned her an Associated Press award and an Emmy.

In 1988, Couric was hired as the number-two reporter at the Pentagon for the Washington bureau of NBC News. Over the next three years, she covered the U.S. invasion of Panama and the Persian Gulf War in her Pentagon position as well as reporting for NBC's morning newsmagazine, _Today_. In April 1991 at age 34 NBC executives hired Couric as a _Today_ co-anchor with Bryant Gumbel and where she too could leave news reporting to be an ad libber on national TV, though on a broadcast network. By that time, like Cronkite, she had at least seen war up front and dirty.

When I say one definition of "ad libbing" is "to act, speak, etc., without preparation" I think of a talking head like Ainsley Earhardt who has never seen a war up close and dirty, who hasn't covered as a reporter anything approaching the Nuremberg trials as Cronkite did nor won a local Emmy Award and an Associated Press Award for her local reporting like Couric.

In the OP we have Earhardt described as "a positive and caring person." In fact, "bubblehead" is slang for "overly happy/friendly person." She is blonde.


----------



## richall01

SayWhat? said:


> Sorry, but she's got nothing on Susan Hendricks or Christy Paul.


Do not leave out Robin Meade!! I LOVE wakeing-up to her, and she does a lot for our Troops.


----------



## Athlon646464

*phrelin*

Okay - you 'got me' on the exact definitions. By ad libbing I meant speaking without a script. No need to read more than that into what I said, no pun intended.

My point was that there is no comparison between her job and Walter's. The new guy at CBS has a great background. That is why he is now the face of CBS News. The subject of this post neither has that job or will likely ever be offered that job. What she does is very different. That was what I was trying to say.

If someone had Cronkite's background today, they would headline somewhere.

All of that does not mean she is necessarily unqualified for the job she has. That was my point.


----------



## SayWhat?

I cannot stand Meade at all. Wonderful to look at, but one of the very worst as far as being a self-centered, attention seeking publicity hound. Her parachute stunt with Bush was the last straw for me. No self-respecting journalist would do something so stupid.



> The subject of this post neither has that job or will likely ever be offered that job. What she does is very different.


Nope, she'll have a better chance of being the face of Revlon or Max Factor.


----------



## Maruuk

Let's face it, Fox proved that sex sells "news" same as any other commodity. I'd rather watch E.D. Hill than Candy Crowley. Although you can't really hear what's going on on networks anymore.


----------



## phrelin

Athlon646464 said:


> All of that does not mean she is necessarily unqualified for the job she has. That was my point.


I don't mean to pick on you or her.

I have a very strong opinion about journalism. To me it is wrong to conflate the term "news" which in the broadest sense means "a report of a recent event" with "journalism."

So let me assure you that the following rant isn't directed at you.

:rant:
I've just never accepted the concept that because "journalism" doesn't make money on TV, media owners and network executives could redefine entertaining chatter about "news" as "journalism" within American culture.

Don't get me wrong. Unlike many, I don't blame News Corp. for having changed something by creating Fox News. As one can learn from Wikipedia:


> *Today* (also referred to as *The Today Show*) is an American morning news and talk show airing every morning on NBC. Debuting on January 14, 1952, it was the first of its genre on American television.


It is a combination of a series of intermittent brief new updates and short weather pieces, in between celebrity interviews and light entertainment, all offered along with some inane chatter and cooking pieces.

It's not journalism as I understand it. To me "journalism" is the practice of investigation in the field followed by the reporting of events and trends to a broad audience. No one can do this job without their personal history coloring how information is interpreted. But journalism isn't chit-chatting with some other folks, or ad libbing, about what you think of news events and trends someone else investigated and reported on. That's a viewer's job, to discuss the news and trends with friends.

It's popular to blame 24/7 news channels for dumbing down America. But those channels are a result of, not a cause of, a general desire to focus on the "overly happy/friendly" in life that makes us a nation of bubbleheads. Because in the end, it is not "friendly" to say seriously to Americans as Pogo did: "We have met the enemy and he is us." We seem to prefer to blame "the others" for all that is bad in life, whether a news event or a trend and that bad habit is exacerbated by the 24/7 news channels.
:rant:


----------



## Maruuk

Yeah, actually expecting to hear the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on any giant corporate-run network news show is absurd. From the moment they all moved their news divisions into their entertainment depts. the jig was up. 

Thank god for online news. If you're smart, you can get the facts. It's up to you, not some superhooker with a short skirt and giant bazongas.


----------



## shy007

Ainsley used to do the local news here in Columbia, SC. She went to school at the University of South Carolina. Nothing finer than a Carolina girl.


----------



## sigma1914

shy007 said:


> Ainsley used to do the local news here in Columbia, SC. She went to school at the University of South Carolina. Nothing finer than a Carolina girl.


Easy there on the South Carolina pride.  Remember this? :lol:


----------



## The Merg

"sigma1914" said:


> Easy there on the South Carolina pride.  Remember this? :lol:
> 
> YouTube Link


Wow! Just wow!

- Merg

Sent from my iPod touch using DBSTalk


----------



## MrDad0330

Well, its not that she is blonde, blue eyed or whatever.. I dont watch Fox in the morning, esp on weekends for cold as ice girls like Katie Curik (sp) I do not enjoy a bimbo on screen and I dont mind watching any young woman on a TV newsy type show IF and only if she has a brain. I have watched Ainsley on interviews of a wide variety of people and she is a very down to earth person. She doesnt come acorss as "look at me, look at me" at all. 
I was suspicious of ESPN when they started using young, attractive girls to do sports. But...that being said, if they really knew passionately what they were talking about and held their own in discussions with male reporters, I gained their respect. In my local hardware store, i get a kick out of a girl if i ask her for a 1/2" locknut and she knows exactly what im talking about. 
I will defend Ainsley as a young woman that isnt a bimbo. There are plenty of actually dumb blondes, or brunettes or red heads on TV that dont have a clue. Ainsley is a positive person that doesnt deserve some of the comments made here, esp on dbs. Her role isnt to do hard news, she is to make you feel comfy like a good next door neighbor instead of a cold as ice girl like we see on many networks.


----------

