Connie Chung needs to go!

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Anyone else with me on how bad Connie Chung on CNN is? Her interview questions are so poorly asked usually with her screwing it up or having to repeat it. Even though the questions are pre-written for her!



I think we finally see how bad she is when she has to think on her feet. Previously she's been able to edit and come off looking smooth and polished.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Yes, she's completely useless. People think Bill O'Reilly is mopping up the competition because he's just really good (actually, he is...and very entertaining).



    But here's the real reason: LOOK at the bullcrap he's up against! Mrs. Maury Povich and Mr. Irrelevant himself, Phil "Is thing thing on?" Donahue.







    Chance are, I could have a TV show on at 8pm and beat those two chuckleheads in the ratings.



    Connie Chung honestly comes across as though she's never been on TV before! Amazing. And I'll get totally sick to learn what the idiot higher-ups at CNN are paying her. I'm sure it's something completely over-the-top and unjustified.



    I'd call her bumbling and amateurish, but that would be an insult to bumbling amateurs.







    My prediction: come March (if not sooner), Ms. Chung will no longer have her CNN gig. Surely SOMEONE there will come to their senses and realize just exactly how unwatchable her little show is.



    Uh...same goes for Donahue too.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by pscates:

    <strong>

    And I'll get totally sick to learn what the idiot higher-ups at CNN are paying her. I'm sure it's something completely over-the-top and unjustified.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think I read somewhere it was 7 million a year! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 3 of 18
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    She's not even worth $70,000!!!











    She's like those lame local anchors you see on Bob Saget's show, screwing up the news and misreading the teleprompter.







    She's one of those people, like P. Diddy (or whoever the fück he calls himself), Tom Arnold and Ozzy Osbourne's two brats, who just needs to fall on her knees every single night and thank the stars (and whoever she prays to) above for her good fortune and good timing or whatever the hell it is that keeps her (and the other's) from being homeless and unemployed.







    It sure isn't any noticeable skill or talent.



    [ 12-15-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 18
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Hey Lester Holt is a good guy. Used to be local in Chicago.



    I guess that's off topic
  • Reply 5 of 18
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    and all the face work she's had is showing very very clearly.



    Nothing is uglier than too much plastic surgery
  • Reply 6 of 18
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    Yup, she sucks.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    Well as much as I hate to contribute to the potentially misogynistic undertones here, I definitely agree that her show is not a very good one. The only reason O'Reilly's show is worthwhile is because of the man's wit and his tongue. He spews garbage like a landfill that was denied expansion permits, but yeah, I could see how conservatives think he's entertaining. Now if people actually take seriously what he says, like John McEnroe, that's another story... I can't bring myself to watch a network that belies its very clear ideological position, but that's another story too.



    Connie Chung should get the boot.
  • Reply 8 of 18
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce:

    <strong>Well as much as I hate to contribute to the potentially misogynistic undertones here, </strong><hr></blockquote>



    "misogynistic undertones" <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 9 of 18
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Shawn, not everything that's slamming someone has some sort of evil "undertone", tied to their particular character, gender, etc. trait.



    In other words, I can think "Will & Grace" is an unfunny, overrated mess of a show and NOT be a homophobe.



    I can think Connie Chung is an absolute clueless train-wreck on TV and it has no "misogynistic undertone".



    Come on...







    If I went on about how "as a woman, she has no business being on TV. She sucks. She's probably PMSing. Her boobs are too small. She's a bitch. She's trying to crash a boy's club...", etc., THEN you might have a point.



    Every post here is about how awful the SHOW is (with her help, of course). That she happens to be a woman has nothing to do with it.



    Guess what? I think all of the same things about Larry King and his idiot show and the stupid questions he asks, the number of times he interrupts, the way in which he appears to be more interested in asking another dumb question than listening to the answer currently being said, etc.



    :confused:



    What does that say?



    By the way, I have a couple of buddies just slightly to the left of ShawnPatrickJoyce who think O'Reilly is a riot. They love him because he dings on EVERYONE and calls ridiculous people on their bullcrap.



    It's not just "conservatives" who watch O'Reilly. That's too easy, Shawn, and is completely not true.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I think that's sort of a modern trait in many people, actually. Particularly left-leaning, PC types.



    Seeing everyone tied into little groups and stuff - from a particular mindset - that criticizing an individual simply can't be seen as that. It's about "misogyny", "homophobia", "racism", etc.



    :confused:



    How about "no, they're an idiot and they're doing wrong (or bad)?".



    In a roundabout way, you're kinda saying that Jesse Jackson, Ellen Degeneres and Susan Sarandon all get a pass to do/say as they please, because to criticize them is IMMEDIATELY being racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.



    No, I don't believe that at all.



    But that's the current, popular way it's always framed.



    Jackson's TOTAL problem is that he isn't criticized enough. You'd think, just watching the news and all, that EVERY black person in America thinks he does no wrong and is their unofficial leader, spokesman and standard-bearer.



    Truth is, I don't know one black person who has any respect whatsoever for him. The same way that most white people I know (including myself) can't stand Falwell, Swaggert and Bakker, no black person I know takes Jackson seriously.



    I can't tell you how many times I've heard black co-workers, neighbors, buddies, classmates, etc. over the years basically say "that @#%^& doesn't speak for ME!"







    That leads me to wonder if he's just propped-up by an (hopefully) ever-decreasing constituency of malcontents, victimhood seekers and other pains-in-the-butt? Helped by the media, of course.



    To many, Connie Chung is a woman, an Asian THEN a bad journalist.



    I simply discount the first two when I'm talking about how awful her little show is. It doesn't even OCCUR to me that I'm bashing an Asian woman (Gasp! Why, that's grounds for execution right there, huh?). No, I'm simply talking about a bad journalist and a trainwreck of a television personality.



    OTHERS, not me, tend to read other, more "sinister" undertones or whatever into it and try to make it about something it isn't.



    That's just wrong. And - thankfully - it seems to fly less and less today because people can see it and point it out and aren't afraid to. Or shouldn't be.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    She ser4iously needs to get fvcked...Maury (whatever yer stupid jewbag name it is) just doesn't give her the love juice that she neeeds.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 12 of 18
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    There's nothing misogynistic about this, except maybe the fact that Chung's carreer continues "only" becuase it fuses a pre-established brand with a female (and minority) identity. She's got to be the weakest interviewer/host/news personality on TV at the moment, that in itself is a damning indictment when you look at the quality of TV news mags in general. I find it hard to believe that there aren't scores of better female choices out there. Keeping her on the air? That's misogyny, makes women everywhere look bad.
  • Reply 13 of 18
    [quote]I can't bring myself to watch a network that belies its very clear ideological position<hr></blockquote>



    you must read a lot of papers then. although i hope you can read newspapers that have a slant to 'em, or you'll never hear the news from ANY source.



    face it, there isn't a single completely nuetral news source on the planet, to pretend otherwise is naive.



    oh yeah, preach on brother pscates.
  • Reply 14 of 18
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Hey pcates, tell us how you really feel
  • Reply 15 of 18
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong> I find it hard to believe that there aren't scores of better female choices out there. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Exactly. You need look no further than people like Sheila McVicar (fellow Canuck) or Elizabeth Vargas. Both better at delivery and certainly much easier on the eyes too.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    [quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:

    <strong>She ser4iously needs to get fvcked...Maury (whatever yer stupid jewbag name it is) just doesn't give her the love juice that she neeeds.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    "Povich" is a "stupid jewbag name"? I know you're joking so
  • Reply 17 of 18
    Well there's been a lot of spazzing out since I last posted, so let me clarify:



    In what way do you think the following are different:



    1. misogynistic undertones

    2. potentially misogynistic undertones



    The latter was a minor point that I myself brushed away, so chill people! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



    As far as the O'Reilly calling people, yeah, that's why he's entertainment because he calls people by using factually incorrect statements. He's entertainment and not to be taken seriously as any great revealer of truth.



    Alc, is the New York Times newspaper a tv network? What news channel do you know that leans as far as FNC does while claiming neutrality of ideology- very prominently i might add. I do have a problem with that. The NYT is reputable. FNC is not.



    [ 12-16-2002: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 18
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    [quote]Originally posted by Artman @_@:

    <strong>She ser4iously needs to get fvcked...Maury (whatever yer stupid jewbag name it is) just doesn't give her the love juice that she neeeds.

    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    Now see...when done PROPERLY, stuff like that is really quite funny!







    I spit out a bit of my Dr. Pepper halfway into that sentence.
Sign In or Register to comment.