Tom Shales, Washington Post style columnist, was one of the many mainstream critics who railed on her debut August 1 performance, calling her “miscast,” “shrill,” and “showy” — descriptions some have criticized as sexist. His sharpest critique, however, was the accusation that Amanpour meant to give her respects to the Taliban during the show’s “In Memoriam” segment. “Perhaps in keeping with the newly globalized program, the commendable ‘In Memoriam’ segment ended with a tribute not to American men and women who died in combat during the preceding week but rather, said Amanpour in her narration, in remembrance of ‘all of those who died in war’ in that period,” he wrote. “Did she mean to suggest that our mourning extend to members of the Taliban?”
Viewer commentary after the first two shows that flooded message boards, Twitter, and Facebook, has been similarly negative. “I’ll have to find something else to watch on Sunday morning. I can’t stand to listen to the new host. I also want to know what happened to the ‘round table,’” wrote mlw777888 in the comment section on the show’s webpage. “The table that they have now is as lopsided as the opinions.”
Jdbradley123 on the same site pined for Jake Tapper’s return. “Amanpour is unwatchable and so is the show now. George Will looked like he could not wait to get out of there. Jake Tapper was doing a good job and now we get stuck with this? Amanpour can not be even remotely objective as she was fawning over everything Krugman was saying.”
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato
Pages
▼
Friday, August 13, 2010
Christiane Amanpour Stinks
I could have told them that.
No comments:
Post a Comment