Funny how a presenter of a prime time show can attract so much controversy, with some inspired wardrobe choices and two large natural assets. As a draw for the show it is clear the people in charge have no intentions to rid the show of her low cut tops and tight fitting dresses. However if you look beyond the cries of the super conservatives who think low cut dresses are an appropriate thing to complain about, having clearly never accidentally flicked past MTV when any modern music video is playing or indeed walked down any beach in the world, where you will see far more skin on display, and unattractive skin at that. Then you will find the casting of her as presenter is nothing to do with her connections to great music, nothing to do with her ability to make countless mistakes reading from an auto cue, but in fact do with her attractiveness.
I have no problem with reality shows casting who they like, I do mind the awful monotone nature of their presenting and awkward fumbling of any unscripted interviews but I don't think that her dresses are particularly controversial, considering some of the outfits modern pop stars wear on stage. People should be free to dress as they choose, or in this case, as directed by a contract which no doubt contains a clause about skin to cloth ratio of below 40%.
I say let the dresses continue but please just provide her with some training about reading an auto cue. It's not a hard skill to master, reading from a little screen hidden under the Camera, you literally just need to try and make it sound like you are not reading, perhaps she could be given a script beforehand to memorise the bits she really needs to know. The appauling mistake of BBC flagship reality contest was in fact her reference to the winner of the voice 2003. Which clearly shows a blonde moment from a presenter who is stiffer than a 15 year old schoolboy staring down her low cut dress.
No comments:
Post a Comment