Loading...
Title : One week it's Charlie Rose, 2 weeks later it's Matt Lauer. The morning-show man left standing is George Stephanopoulos.
link : One week it's Charlie Rose, 2 weeks later it's Matt Lauer. The morning-show man left standing is George Stephanopoulos.
One week it's Charlie Rose, 2 weeks later it's Matt Lauer. The morning-show man left standing is George Stephanopoulos.
Do these shows need a man? A week ago, NY Magazine ran "How Will CBS Replace Charlie Rose?" which doesn't assume that a man must replace Rose. Perhaps to take that position openly is to embrace sex discrimination. Even if you think it, you shouldn't say it, especially during The Reckoning.And yet these morning shows seem to be so much about emotionally bonding with these hosts. I'm saying that from a distance. I've never watched any of them (except in brief clips that occasionally make the news). Isn't it a question of who the viewers — mostly women? — want to wake up with? I believe that's the way these shows used to be talked about. But now, perhaps, that kind of discussion is politically incorrect.
The NY Magazine article does refer to gender at the very end, but only like this:
Letting O’Donnell and King handle the show themselves would also save money, no small thing in an age of ever-shrinking network bottom lines. Oh, and it would send a perhaps not-subtle message: Two women can do just fine anchoring a morning show themselves.
Loading...
Do these shows need a man? A week ago, NY Magazine ran "How Will CBS Replace Charlie Rose?" which doesn't assume that a man must replace Rose. Perhaps to take that position openly is to embrace sex discrimination. Even if you think it, you shouldn't say it, especially during The Reckoning.
And yet these morning shows seem to be so much about emotionally bonding with these hosts. I'm saying that from a distance. I've never watched any of them (except in brief clips that occasionally make the news). Isn't it a question of who the viewers — mostly women? — want to wake up with? I believe that's the way these shows used to be talked about. But now, perhaps, that kind of discussion is politically incorrect.
The NY Magazine article does refer to gender at the very end, but only like this:
And yet these morning shows seem to be so much about emotionally bonding with these hosts. I'm saying that from a distance. I've never watched any of them (except in brief clips that occasionally make the news). Isn't it a question of who the viewers — mostly women? — want to wake up with? I believe that's the way these shows used to be talked about. But now, perhaps, that kind of discussion is politically incorrect.
The NY Magazine article does refer to gender at the very end, but only like this:
Letting O’Donnell and King handle the show themselves would also save money, no small thing in an age of ever-shrinking network bottom lines. Oh, and it would send a perhaps not-subtle message: Two women can do just fine anchoring a morning show themselves.
Thus articles One week it's Charlie Rose, 2 weeks later it's Matt Lauer. The morning-show man left standing is George Stephanopoulos.
that is all articles One week it's Charlie Rose, 2 weeks later it's Matt Lauer. The morning-show man left standing is George Stephanopoulos. This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article One week it's Charlie Rose, 2 weeks later it's Matt Lauer. The morning-show man left standing is George Stephanopoulos. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2017/11/one-week-its-charlie-rose-2-weeks-later.html
0 Response to "One week it's Charlie Rose, 2 weeks later it's Matt Lauer. The morning-show man left standing is George Stephanopoulos."
Post a Comment