News Anchors... Told NOT to Shoeplay?

[Ravenstein]

Okay, I watched RT from 2008 'till now and I've noticed...

1) RT has a ton of HOT and SEXY female news anchors, like Anissa, Sophie, Sarah, Dina etc...
2) A lot of them wear killer sexy heels and flats
3) They never really dangle or shoeplay... none of them

Here is the question: do you think news anchors are being told specifically to not play around with their shoes? I noticed in the past some people actually send live messages to news channels and tv shows saying things like "WOW THIS NEWS ANCHOR HAS SEXY FEET, SEND HER SHOES OVER!"

I think now news anchors are being told, thanks to some people purposely freaking them out, not to shoeplay.

I know Rachel Marsden. She actually got asked live by a viewer "can you guys send me her shoes?" Then she never really plays with her shoes on air on Redeye but then when the show closes, and she thinks the cameras are off but they aren't, she EXPLODES into a vicious dangling action with her heels immediately!

Either that or they started putting banners just to block shoeplay. I know this because on a YouTube video, it was originally submitted without any banners but I guess after some people blatantly post sexually-themed messages to the comments, they ended up adding banners that ended up hiding 8 girl's feet all in flats.

[usuallyright10000]

In short, no. I think your hypothesis -forgive me for being so blunt- is pretty far fetched. Here is the central reason:

Even assuming the women have seen such emails (unlikely but possible) it strikes me as extremely improbable that it would be the *producer* who would find them most objectionable. If the women are abstaining from shoeplay as a result of emails and messages, surely they're doing so of their own volition. Why would the producer care? A fortiori, why would he/she care more than the onscreen talent, to the point feeling it necessary to issue a command?

The much more parsimonious (that is, simpler and less speculative) explanation is that shoeplay on newscasts has always been very rare, and RT simply is no different from the vast majority.

Now you might be tempted to point out all the examples that have been culled from decades of newscasts through the coordinated efforts of hundreds (maybe thousands)of fetishists, but in grand total these add up to a few dozen *at most*. (Google "availability heuristic".)

Believe me, I understand the frustration that occurs when you're watching for shoeplay and nothing is happening. This feeling can almost be a kind of outrage, where you insist to yourself that dammit, something SHOULD be happening; you have every right to some reasonable expectation and yet...nada. WTF?
This is when we're vulnerable to rather fanciful speculations. (I've certainly entertained my share.)


I have to go to lunch, but I have, if anyone wats to hear it, what I think is a fairly good hypthesis for why shoeplay is so much more common in a cafe than in front of a camera.

[llama]

Usuallyright...I would assume its the same reason I've noticed people never really shoeplay on the afternoon trash talk shows...Shoeplay happens when a woman is in a relaxed setting....When on camera she is on her "best behavior", especially if she is not comfortable on camera .

[Mr. Mike]

Its been well documented that on the Shopping Channel shows, the hosts have been flat out told not to show their feet. The girls have even said so much on the air with phrases like "I know Im not supposed to show my feet...but" or other things similar to that! It directly stems from emails being sent to the girls to show their feet...how else would the producers know about us foot fetish people!

[usuallyright10000]

Well documented or anecdotally rumored? Even if those exact words were uttered by by a host at some time, it still seems to me a pretty big leap from premise to conclusion. I'd have to see the exact clip *in context*, but the (alleged) quote, on its own, without any context, would appear to me to leave plenty of room for other interpretations.

Let me hasten to add though that in the case of the shopping channels I don't have any trouble believing it's likely that both (a) the hosts were emailed and (b) that they saw the emails. (Though the second definitely doesn't follow automatically from the first.)

What I think is unwarranted by the evidence is (a) that there is any reason at all to draw the same inference about RT (b) that the producers would particularly care

The second in this case just strikes me as...curious.

Really, why *would* the producers care? I could easily see the the hosts being creeped out -in fact I would bet on it, heavily. But the producers? More so than the hosts?

I'm always open to further evidence, and always willing to reverse myself on a dime if it's provided.

All that said, I'm really with Mr.Mike in my *extreme* frustration with guys who do email hosts, and think we should always keep as low a profile as possible if we don't want to damage future prospects.

Cheers.

[Godiva]

I've seen it first hand on HSN countless times. Lopez, Keaney, and to a lesser extent Murphy are the only natural shoeplayers left, and they are always VERY aware of what the camera is recording. I've seen camera shots raise, quickly switch angles, or the hosts make sure their feet were not exposed before shoeplaying.

[MM12]

Well documented or anecdotally rumored? Even if those exact words were uttered by by a host at some time, it still seems to me a pretty big leap from premise to conclusion. I'd have to see the exact clip *in context*, but the (alleged) quote, on its own, without any context, would appear to me to leave plenty of room for other interpretations.

Let me hasten to add though that in the case of the shopping channels I don't have any trouble believing it's likely that both (a) the hosts were emailed and (b) that they saw the emails. (Though the second definitely doesn't follow automatically from the first.)

What I think is unwarranted by the evidence is (a) that there is any reason at all to draw the same inference about RT (b) that the producers would particularly care

The second in this case just strikes me as...curious.

Really, why *would* the producers care? I could easily see the the hosts being creeped out -in fact I would bet on it, heavily. But the producers? More so than the hosts?

I'm always open to further evidence, and always willing to reverse myself on a dime if it's provided.

All that said, I'm really with Mr.Mike in my *extreme* frustration with guys who do email hosts, and think we should always keep as low a profile as possible if we don't want to damage future prospects.

Cheers.

Well said. I agree with this completely.

[hiker]

Really, why *would* the producers care? I could easily see the the hosts being creeped out -in fact I would bet on it, heavily. But the producers? More so than the hosts?

I've thought about this before.

The biggest change I've noticed over the last decade, especially when folks started sending emails to the hosts, is the set design. I remember seeing open bottom sets that clearly showed the hosts lower legs and heels. Perhaps that's just a coincidence.

As far as "why" the producers would care.... I would think they want to keep their show a legitimate and credible source for media. I'm sure they are aware of the emails sent by various fetishists, and want to steer clear of that so as not to cater to these guys and have their shows develop some sort of a fetish cult following.

As far as why I think that... don't have any evidence on that. It's just what I would do if I were a producer for one of these shows.

Just my thoughts.

[usuallyright10000]

"I remember seeing open bottom sets that clearly showed the hosts lower legs and heels. Perhaps that's just a coincidence. "

If you mean this is a general trend across all "live" television (for lack of a better catch-all term) I don't share your perception.
If you mean this to apply narrowly to the shopping channels, for all I know you're quite right but haven't payed close enough attention to have a sufficient "sample size" for my own judgment.
I will say -this is just my own hunch- it seems to me extremely unlikely that whatever motivation there is to thwart the fetishists would extend so far as to altering set design to this end. Remember, these are TV shows, and making money is their first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh priority. And whatever the hell is eighth is a very distant eighth.

'As far as "why" the producers would care.... I would think they want to keep their show a legitimate and credible source for media. I'm sure they are aware of the emails sent by various fetishists, and want to steer clear of that so as not to cater to these guys and have their shows develop some sort of a fetish cult following.'

For this to be of any significant concern, we would have to become a much larger percentage of the audience -and I mean by several orders of magnitude- than we are ever remotely likely to be. Even then, how the heck would this "delegitimize" them as "a credible source for media"?
I don't know about you, but when I'm watching a TV show, I have zero access to any data on the demographics of the other members of the audience. It's not like this data is run across the bottom of the screen like the stock market information, nor are we all huddled together in some gigantic theater. The data exists, to be sure, but it's almost always proprietary and thus not readily available to the public (or the competitors of whomever is conducting the market research).

In the extremely unlikely event we became a large enough percentage of the audience, the producers would just start catering to us and the shopping channel would become the FootFetish channel, just as the The Learning Channel gradually became The Whatever-The-Fuck-Is-On-It-Now Channel.

If television executives and producers have ever shown even the slightest genuine concern with "legitimacy," that's certainly news to me.

[Mr. Mike]

I gotta agree with HIKER...the sets changed literally overnight, probably right around the height of the recording and posting of shoeplay videos. I for one have recorded 100's of hour of Shopping Channel stuff...they have moved the logos purposely in the way, I've seen camera guys in mid show re-adjusting the view so that the logos and graphics cover their feet, I've seen the girls look down at the monitors just before the remove a shoe and we've all seen them quickly scuffling looking to get their shoe on as the camera is hitting them.

I haven't recorded much news stuff but have done so much shopping channel recordings, that I think we are spot on!

[llama]

Sorry I gotta agree with usually right....to think that they spent thousnads of dollars to build sets just to hide shoeplay from an admittedly vocal minority of guys emailing them is a little far fetched. The original question was is there a directive from the producers telling them not to shoeplay. I think that is false.

Are shopping channel hosts trying not to shoeplay on cam to avoid the creepy emails on their own? That seems more feasable to me. i did hear Kim Prentiss on, what was it Shop At Home? , many years ago refer to getting emails right before showing a models feet in fishnets with another host. She was a notorious dangler. She said something like "Here's for all the foot fetishists out there..and they are ..I get the emails" Shop At Home was a much more low budget production then QVC or HSN. It was almost as if she and the other host were doing it as a goof the way way they encouraged the camera man to show the models feet in the fishnets they were selling. This had to be maybe 10-15 years ago.

I realize that shopping channel content has dried up over the last 20 years but I think it has more to do with the hosts being more careful, then any concerted effort of channels themselves. why do hosts still model shoes during some shoe shows if that were the case? Or why do they "subject" their models to harrassment by showing their feet during shoe shows? I think this "conspiracy theory" is just that.

[llama]

Classic Kim Prentiss dangling.....the good ol days

[usuallyright10000]

"...the sets changed literally overnight..."

As opposed to gradually, on camera, with the hosts ducking ladders and brushing sawdust off their shoulders? I know, I'm being a smartass. Sorry.

"probably right around the height of the recording"

If you can change "probably" to "definitely" and "right around" to "immediately preceding" I'll be less skeptical. Wouldn't a more efficient way to achieve this goal be simply not to pan the camera down? That costs exactly zero dollars and zero cents, and it's amazing how quickly you can not do something, especially if you practice.

This is off topic, but I never cease to be amazed at how often intelligent people (Mr.Mike strikes me as pretty sharp) commit basic logical fallacies, simply because they've never taken a course in basic logic. (I don't mean this as an insult any more than if I say most people lack basic basic medical training -as I certainly do.)

I recommend an amusing experiment (kind of like a drinking game): google "basic informal logical fallacies" -then watch any discussion of any serious issue on any TV show, and see if you can get through the whole show without checking off every single fallacy on the list.
You'll never want to watch cable news again (if you even do now).

[Footsiefreak]

I wouldnt think that the producers would tell news anchors not to shoeplay.RATINGS ARE RATINGS and the more people who watch their show the more it profits the network.

I am sure way more freaks write in about them wearing short skirts,cleavage etc etc. then we would comment on foot related stuff

[paradigm88]

In reflection on this subject, something to consider is how TV broadcasts have changed in the last several years. In the late '90s, I remember my local news station did the thing where they'd move from the newsdesk (after all the relevant stuff was broadcast) to a more informal "living room" set (or, on the weekends, they'd use the set they used for special debate and discussion programs, more of a conference room with a couple nice chairs and a coffee table). They'd close out the half-hour in the more informal set before returning to the newsdesk to start the hour. This was around the same time as Fox's "Breakfast Time"/"Fox After Breakfast" morning show shot inside an apartment, the relaxed setting of WPIX/11 that featured the always-shoeless Linda Church, or the other news shows that had a more informal, less-newsroom air to them. That's kind of gone away. Now, it's just the newsdesk. The same goes for the "behind the scenes" shots that showed part of a studio, in which you might catch a shoeless host off-camera. Part of that was that the news became a little less frivolous after 9/11, but that's not all...maybe it was a credibility thing. I'm not sure if other news channels still do it.

But there actually could be a more obvious answer to all of this...though it's largely conjecture based on societal observations.

Back in those "glory days," what percentage of the directors, producers and film crew were men? Not that it was very likely to be an even fifty-fifty split, but I'm going to guess the vast majority of people involved in that level of production were men. Given a cast of attractive well-dressed hosts, there may have been no conscious effort to provide eye candy for the viewers, but there was certainly no effort to suppress it.

The change we're talking about falls right about where more and more women became involved in the decision processes. Again, it doesn't necessarily have to be a conscious effort. But women are the key audience, and when involved in the production process, they're likely to influence the program to be more like they would watch. It's all little things like when HSN's hosts started wearing workout gear to demonstrate workout equipment. It actually makes a lot more sense than watching a well-dressed woman demonstrate exercise equipment in heels, tights and a pencil skirt. I'd say it's as much of a result of the trickle-down of a more casual society; maybe in the '80s such a host would have hesitated to appear in a tracksuit on TV, where in the '00s, it wasn't tacky and was actually more appropriate for the activity in question.

So take a little influence by people who maybe don't have a wandering eye, add a shift in what's considered acceptable for a TV host (situational attire versus all-the-time business), and then add the stream of information overload as the graphics people try to sneak more product factoids, Web URLs and Twitter hashtags into the graphics that populate the screen. That's a lot of factors in play.

Were/are there guys out there requesting a little fanservice in the form of shoeplay? Most definitely. Unfortunately, it's still viewed as a taboo when compared to the more conventional T&A-centric requests. (That, and women seem less reticent about showcasing the "acceptable" assets when compared to the "fetish" assets.) But I'd say many of the changes are probably just part of the evolution of the broadcast.

[Mr. Mike]

I still hold to the fact that they "were told not to show their feet or shoeplay" Too many times Ive heard one of the girls say "Im not supposed to show my feet or sorry about that and even heard one girl tell the cameraman he was n't supposed to do a wide shot"...she was shoeless. These girls wouldn't be saying this unless something was mentioned to them in a meeting. Look at set changes, all those cosmetic shows had upon bottoms and you could see their legs and feet. Then, they put that frosted panel up and now you cant see shit...just my opinion!