On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM, David Lynch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per the Sports Illustrated story Variety cites as its source, the official > reason is that she's going to be doing other things starting after next > season, and this is a transition, but also said this: "A veteran NFL > reporter -– who has worked in television and asked for anonymity -– offered > another reason. 'She’s not blonde, nor is she in the demographic,' said the > reporter." > > http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/07/14/pam-oliver-erin-andrews-fox > I think the "not blonde" is maybe not fair. Pam herself got the #1 sideline gig because when she started she was marketable as hot and sexy (in an exotic, not blonde way, but the machine doesn't care about that). At 53 she is a little long in the tooth for that role, and Andrews (for reasons frankly that have always been lost on me) is seen as hot and sexy and no doubt Fox wants to get its money's worth. If Andrews was 53 and Oliver 36 (with a vague aroma of sexuality hovering over her) we would not doubt be seeing the reverse of this move. It should go without saying that the "younger and prettier" reason is hardly much better than the "whiter" argument. Just want to be clear as to which abhorrent motivation we might want to condemn Fox Sports for using here. -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
