Since I can read the news off a screen five times faster than I can listen to it being read, I don't really see the point of having newsreaders at all. But if we must have them for some reason, they may as well be nice to look at. All I object to is having them given large chunks of my taxes for a job that could be done effectively by a Speak-n-Spell machine.

Some readers will remember the outrage with which Quentin Dempster, a staunch unionist, reacted when, after he had revealed the salary of an ABC Chairman, the Chairman in question pointed out that it was considerably less than Dempster's own. Perhaps if the ABC spent less on talking heads and more on news gathering, it might arrest some of its declining fortunes.

It isn't young looks and pert titties that the author should be railing against. The fifty-something Liz Hayes, Sandra Sully and others show that there is no discrimination against mature women and that pride, healthy food portions and fitness can defeat growing that Julia butt. Nothing wrong with Sully's rack, but it is her personality that makes the package attractive. She doesn't scowl and denounce half the world's population at every opportunity which is a bonus.

What is the problem is that since the women's movement got going, the media has focussed on affirmative action targets. It was a gender thing and suitability and skills were not as important. In that environment, so often the assertive opportunists win through. But while they are good at working the connections to get the jobs, they do not always have the ability. That is true everywhere and especially in the public services.

Editors have allowed feminist women journalists a lot of elbow room to spruik their new religion, which many seemed not to grasp very well themselves. Not that it was necessary to comprehend, it was enough to regurgitate the abundant pap from overseas. Enough to be 'advised' by their feminism. Or so they said. Not that editors particularly cared about quality control or developing them either, editors thought the fad and the abraisive, opinionated women who rode the bandwagon would go away some day. Countless articles over countless years writing about vaginas and still the same columns are posted. Idiot women hanging around footballers' changing rooms. Who carea? No-one takes notice of them anyhow.

Now the affirmative action push has swung to multiculturalism. Mercy!

However, The Box can be turned off (except for Sully), tabloids do not have to be read and there are always The Economist and The Financial Review instead. How anyone can sit through Q&A's same old, same old, God only knows. They deserve a Wheeties Box toy or something.

'How anyone can sit through Q&A's same old '

Dare I say any woman whether competence or not would be able to hide their bias better than Tony Jones.

"Trioli and Brockie are awesome as are Ellen Fanning, Lenore Taylor and Laura Tingle to mention just three."

Hilarious; and obviously an abc viewer: "to mention just three"; count the names.

A more balanced view of trioli:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abcs_trioli_farewells_a_conservative_guest/

I think that captures her perfectly.

Rhrosty,

<< There's nothing wrong with white teeth or pert breasts!>>

So true but what about the females?

Jenny Brockie is just sooo academic, it hurts to listen to her. She simply doesn't know how to ask questions. She always ensures she gets the answer she wants to hear rathe than what she should be listening to. Her show never offers any solutions, it's always about making some ignorant academic experts look intelligent. Why do these shows never have ordinary people on their panels ? I think each show should have at least one member of the wider community sit on the panel. Always the same old experts talking dribble is not very enlightening at all.