USAToday.com:

NEW YORK—Fox News responded to sexual harassment charges levied against the network by former Fox News host Andrea Tantaros Monday by arguing in a court filing that the broadcaster is “not a victim” but rather “an opportunist.”

Tantaros last week filed her lawsuit against the network, former Fox News CEO Roger Ailes and other Fox executives.

The charges came in the wake of an earlier suit filed in July by former Fox News broadcaster Gretchen Carlson, who alleged that the 76-year old Ailes decided not to renew her contract after she refused to have sex with him. Carlson also claimed that Ailes ignored her reports of “disparaging treatment in the newsroom.”

Ailes who has denied the charges, stepped down July 22 and left the conservative-leaning network with a $40 million severance package.

In her own suit, Tantaros said that “Fox News masquerades as defender of traditional family values, but behind the scenes, it operates like a sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult, steeped in intimidation, indecency, and misogyny.”

 

Are we at all surprised?  Just walk past the screen when Faux News is on.  The women all show cleavage and leg.  The women are all very attractive and yes, sexy.  Legs are all crossed synchronistically, like a well-choreographed chorus line.

Why would a family values 24 hour news show display these characteristics in their women anchors and hosts?  It should be pretty obvious when looking at the demographics of those who are Fox News followers.  It’s just a 24 hour T & A show.

It doesn’t surprise me that the women were sexually harassed.  All made good money and women like Rachel Carlson have a strong Vita.  She was a valedictorian, a former Miss America and she is a Stanford grad.  One has to ask themselves why this very talented woman performed daily like a bimbo.

 

8 thoughts on “Faux News: sex-fueled, Playboy Mansion-like cult?

  1. Robin Hood

    Faux News! I like it because it is such a fitting characterization. (Je parle francais un petit peu.)

  2. punchak

    Must be a clause in their contracts.
    I have wondered who actually arranges their legs. And they do not
    move them the whole time they’re on air. Thought it
    must have been Ailes, but this happens even after his departure. 🙂
    Odd man out usually sits with his legs spread wide.
    There’s just no justice in this world! 🙁

    1. No kidding. I have had the same thoughts, Punchak.

  3. NorthofNokesville

    Good thing we’ll have Bill Clinton back in the White House… oh, wait…. At least Huma’s ex won’t be when she’s chief of staff.

    Fox is largely info-tainment, more news-trolling than generating, like it’s counterparts on the left. Doesn’t mean news can’t/won’t emerge there, or that the analysis is always wrong, but it’s not the point, anymore than, say, MSNBC is really news. The point is content that draws an audience that pays for ads. And in major corporations, cult of personality is the norm. I think it surprises us in the US because of our puritanical roots, and more so on the right because the evangelical and cultural conservative tribes are part of the base. Contrast with the UK (where until recently the leaders on the right were notorious party hounds, and where generally r-o-c publications and institutions are well known animal houses). God save the queen.

    1. Much of MSNBC IS real news. I am not talking about its opinion line up, just pure news.

      Ever watch Morning Joe from 6-9 am? You get a good cross section of opinions. I believe that MSNBC has greatly changed its format.

      1. NorthofNokesville

        @MoonHowler

        It’s news, narrowly. But go to the webpage. Just the headlines… of top 10, 5 are re: Trump (none positive). The only mention of Clinton is (ironically) from Joe Scarborough. You might be excused if you got the impression it’s a one person race. Everyone’s got their angle of what’s featured, or downplayed, or not discussed at all. And they generally line up as you’d expect with the politics.

        Give me HuffPo any day… no pretense of coverage per se, it’s got an angle (and sometimes uncovers interesting things – for example, they got Radley Balko from Reason and gave him a bigger platform to discuss law enforcement/police militarization issues well before it became a fashionable flash point).

        I agree Joe S is a more tempered and better host than the male yellers at FNC (or CMatthews at MSNBC), and the format lends itself to more open discussion versus the gruesome editing you get on Hannity or BO’R (and that’s as much personal as political… you can be right of center and if they don’t like you or you make a distinction on an issue… boom). The ones I truly miss are Tim Russert and Tony Snow. Russert had a POV, wasn’t shy about it, and could eat up an interview no matter who it was. Snow also had a POV, but carried himself well and generally held people to account. Both also had a good sense of humor, and came of as genuine versus people playing a part.

      2. Please don’t make the mistake that I like Joe Scarborough. I don’t. He is a blow hard, rude, and talks over women, especially Mika. But, having said that, the show is “fair and balanced.” (once Joe reminds us that he used to be in congress.)

        The show’s goal is to present different POVs on current topics. They do a good job from all different slants.

  4. Pat.Herve

    I am actually surprised that it has taken this long. There are many times where the big named talking heads have spoken down to woman – and no repercussions. And, they have had to have had a dress code – because no one I know wear’s the dresses that the woman on Fox wear. As noted, they all must hold an aspirin between their legs during taping.

Comments are closed.