Paula Zahn's Divine Proportions
 

http://evolutionoftruth.com/images/zahnface.jpg
Paula Zahn's beautiful face is heating up
the anchor wars, and the news.

She's hot, and her credibility adds to her sexiness
... not vice versa.

Throwaway opinions:

The "Divine Proportions" site: I'd send that webmaster to http://www.losingmyreligion.com/ .

The Paula Zahn controversy: unflattering in almost every way to CNN, who should try to take the high road against Fox. See, the already-ridiculous Fox is apparently trying to corner the market on "newsbabes".

See, I believe that the era of bad news in general has got to go. Instead of beautiful news readers, we need smart people who understand what they're reading, and thus can communicate it effectively. Anchors who are actually in control.

And if they're smart enough to have a bias, they're also wise enough to understand how and why NOT to apply it. They say Cronkite was a flaming liberal all those years - well how much a credit is it that this wasn't really all that apparent?

So are you saying that you'd rather have Greta van Sustren read you the dailies than Rebecca Romijn-Stamos? yecch!

I couldnt help but think of the scene in Broadcast News (love that movie!) when the terrific Albert Brooks character finally gets his chance to anchor and literally melts. There is an definite performance aspect in broadcast communication that has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding content. Now if you can find the lucky combination... There's divine proportion. Paula? not really. She strikes me as one step right of Joan Lunden selling hand cream.

Yes, yes I would, if the information is important. If it's nonsense news, then it doesn't matter how good someone is at communicating. But if the information is important things that I need to know, I'd rather have someone smart and dumpy.

Of course, 95% of the news is nonsense news. But I think that, too, will change. Certainly in September 90% of the news was NOT nonsense.

Blowmee, if you're looking for good looking ladies to bring you the news, you can always check out Naked News. :)

I was so frustrated in the immediate post WTC days- I sought out BBC, CBC and Jim Lehrer. Cut the crap and just tell me what's happening. The whole idea to create/cast/spin Geraldo Rivera as intrepid war correspondant makes me shiver in disgust. Why not send Springer? He really knows how to rev 'em up for the camera.

<b>Sycamore</b> -- I used to watch "Headline News" because Jane Russell is <i>HOT</i>, but then she quit. Now I stick to Naked News and MarketWrap Unwrapped :)
On a side note, the women of Naked News were featured in Playboy a few months ago. Anyone else catch that? I wasn't too impressed. Then again, they were plastered between Bunnies, which makes for a tough comparison.

Warch--I agree. I read a lot of BBC and CBC after 9/11. I don't hit it as much as I should now, although I listen to CBC radio on occasion.

The whole Rivera thing is a FARCE. He was finally becoming "credible" on NBC...now he's pissing it away again.

Truth be told, the Naked News ladies aren't bad, but aren't spectacular. The black gal on there is pretty good looking, although I haven't seen her naked.

I don't know how Playboy does it. They always find very nice looking ladies...and they're tasteful.

THIS is the woman that recent news story/controversy was all about? I've never seen her before and she's, well, bland looking. Maybe it's just the photo, maybe it's the unnaturally white, bleached teeth... I dunno, I wouldn't call her ugly but "sexy" is stretching it. :)

Pete

There's good explanations of Paula's face's golden sections on the linked webpage.

Interestingly, the page seems to be one element of a website supporting some form of creationism (i.e. we're all here by divine design, as evidenced by the golden ratio in our heads.) It was neat to see such an argument based not on bible thumping, but math.

I think I've watched the news once since 9/11. I caught Jim Lehr who I think does a fair job of emulating Walter. TV news is great for showing the scope of disaster, an exiciting car chase, or creating public images of our political masters but when news is paired down to fit the format the information is too predigested.

How opposite we are Griff: I have CNN on in the background as I write this. If I'm not careful here I'll accidentally resurrect the Xugumad exchange from the other month, but I use it as the modern equivalent of background music. The big value of the electronic media, I believe, is that it gets us information really fast.

CNN varies between incredible news and soap operas. In the same hour, while I watch, I'll learn how the Pentagon is interrogating Al Qaeda prisoners - and then watch a half-hour of the rink rage trial, which is just a non-news soap-opera event.

RIGHT NOW they say that FBI analysis of Richard Reid's shoe bomb shows that it was actually an incredibly sophisticated bomb, containing two different explosive agents. This indicates, they say, that this is evidence that the terror network may be more sophisticated than originally thought who can manufacture explosives beyond the capabilities of airport screening. Now that's information I want to know.

But they follow it with news of the Beamer birth, which is just sentimental fluff.

I'm too easily mesmerized by bright lights and shiny things, one reason I stay away from malls. I can't have the tube on, its too distracting, I lose focus. I suppose there is a form of intelligence there, which I haven't developed, but maybe its not something I need. If you are my opposite, I guess that makes you the evil Kirk. ;)

Well I like to be distracted and mesmerized throughout my day, so it's just a style thing.