The astounding hypocrisy of Kirsty Young

[jrussel]

  Quote

Kirsty Young has slammed the "ridiculous" dearth of older women on screen.

The former news anchor, 41, said it was "interesting" that veteran Channel 4 newsreader Jon Snow was always paired up with a younger female.

The presenter of BBC's Crimewatch told Easy Living magazine: "People who run TV will say there isn't ageism, but there are hardly any older women on screen. Who is there?"

She went on: "There's Anne Robinson and that's it. And then you look to America, where you have Barbara Walters, who's in her seventies and still on primetime television: they have a much healthier outlook.

"We need to sort that out. I think it's ridiculous. Hopefully things will change and I'll still be doing the job when I'm 55, but right now it certainly seems that there is a significant imbalance."

Kirsty, who was dubbed the "younger woman" when she replaced Fiona Bruce on Crimewatch, criticised the way women on TV are subject to the type of scrutiny that is not applied to men.

She said: "It is horrendous. But if you're in television, you either get out if it bothers you so much, or you try to find a way of participating in the game that is acceptable to you."

Kirsty said she had her hair done and spent more money on clothes than she would if she wasn't working in TV, but added: "I've chosen an area of the media where, I hope, how I look is secondary to how well I do my job."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jFlb6CRLoZ6TB9L6C43vq76110zw

You have probably already seen the above story, rehashed in one or other of the mainstream newspapers.

What I find baffling is that no-one seems prepared, publicly, to take up the issue of her blatant hypocrisy.

Not only does she admit that she herself is complicit in the kind of stuff (constantly having her hair done and spending vast sums on new outfits) that promulgates the discriminative systems she rails against so publicly, but seems blind to the fact that her entire career has been based on the worship of youth: when she got married, did she change her surname to her husband's (Jones) as per widely accepted custom? No - she made her decision to stick with the name "Young". I don't think I need to say much more.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I blame it on all the pasta she eats.

[PeckhamRose]

oooh I think she is soooo luvverly that Kirsty. And then she puts a black wig on and does that location programme!

[cate]

Is this posting for real? Why should she change her name? Why shouldn't she spend money to look good?

[paragon]

tis a wind-up. look at his posting history.

[PeckhamRose]

Baffling!

[jrussel]

cate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is this posting for real? Why should she change

> her name? Why shouldn't she spend money to look

> good?

Because her point is that the whole industry values appearance over competence. And yet she happily plays along with it. If she really wants to make a point, she should spend her money on some sort of education or training instead, and cut back on her beauty spend, and challenge her employers to accept this and if they don't, then make a big fuss and an example of them.

It's not hard to understand.

[*Bob*]

Fiona Bruce cut-back her spend on stylish clothing - of any sort - some years back.

And it didn't stop her landing a prime job presenting The Antiques Roadshow.. dressed - week in, week out, like a total plum.

[Jah Lush]

4/10. Must try harder.

I would have thought she has a clothing allowance expense account for her TV appearances so why not spend it. I think she's rather lovely and your talk of hypocrisy is competely without foundation.

[????]

She tried to find a Mr Right with th surname Old but realised she was tapping on a bit

[jrussel]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would have thought she has a clothing allowance

> expense account for her TV appearances so why not

> spend it.

Exactly the kind of thinking that ended up with the MPs scandal.

It's the "I wus just following orders guv" defense.

[*Bob*]

I can't think of single reason why television production companies, mostly headed-up by lecherous married men in their forties and fifties, might be inclined to have their productions fronted-up by buxom jelly-headed eyelash-batting crumpet.

[Brendan]

If what you say is true and televisions companies are, mostly headed-up by lecherous married men in their forties and fifties, why aren?t there more women with their tits out on the telly?

[????]

Did you never watch the 'Topless News'?

[*Bob*]

The tits usually end-up on the cutting room floor.

[????]

I think there is an attainable compromise between journalistic integrity and showing a bit..

and this is it

[jrussel]

This is not about journalistic integrity. You are missing the point.

[HonaloochieB]

jrussel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This is not about journalistic integrity. You are

> missing the point.

They are JR.

It's about that hypocrite Kirsty Young.

Astonishing they missed it.

[HonaloochieB]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I can't think of single reason why television

> production companies, mostly headed-up by

> lecherous married men in their forties and

> fifties, might be inclined to have their

> productions fronted-up by buxom jelly-headed

> eyelash-batting crumpet.

Might it be that their wives mayn't altogether approve.

And that when they bring their daughters into work on that BRING YOUR DAUGHTER TO WORK DAY, they might feel quite awkward about the whole thing.

Kirsty Young, buxom jelly-headed eyelash-batting crumpet?

Not so sure *Bob*, she's crumpet, of that there's no question, but as for the rest, aren't you thinking of the quare one off of Channel Sky.

Name escapes me for the moment, buxom jellyhead who could eyelash bat for Britain. Even Great Britain.

Siobhann something? Toni?

Mariette, with an onomatopoeic surname? Sslam? Hitt? Flutter?

I'm sure it's one of those or similar. Smilar? No that's not it.

But to get back back to my original point *Bob*, I mean to say really. I mean, what? I shall leave it at that and fair's fair.

But in future...well, you know what I mean.

[Wilhelm]

Misread the title of this thread.. thought it said 'Astounding hiphoprisy'etc. Was fully prepared to discuss the attractive Scots journalist's beatz and riddims, instead I'm confronted by titty vids and kvetching

[Moos]

2/10.

I really enjoyed the last one. What's happened, JR?

[Brendan]

True not as good as the last one. Although nobody name checked Siobhann Sslam in the last one so I suppose it has that going for it.

[jrussel]

Yet again certain self-important members of the EDF fail to engage with a serious concern.

[Narnia]

Who is this a serious concern for jr? You called someone a hypocrite. Aren't loads of people like that?

[HonaloochieB]

jrussel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yet again certain self-important members of the

> EDF fail to engage with a serious concern.

I know, it's a sod, innit?