Naked Newsreader loses job ..... Why ?????

[Big Bair]

Does anyone else think this is outrageous! What a person does, even someone on TV, on their own time is nobody's business. Catherine Bosley, a local news anchor in Ohio, was on vacation in Florida with her husband when she decided to participate in a "wet T-shirt" contest (actually, she ended up totally nude). I am not sure how the station found out about what she did...but she ended up resigning, for fear of being fired if she didn't.

You can see the whole series of photos at several web sites. Here is one of them: (http://www.glumbert.com/special/bosley.asp)

What's the big deal?

What do you think?

 

[Mary Hall]

This is the way i see it....

Those in the public eye have to act a certain way, some of them are role models and doing a wet t shirt contest while your a celebrity is a little strange

 

[Bobmi357]

I'm more surprised as to why this surprises you. Any business is concerned over its public image, and a TV business, even a small local broadcaster, is especially concerned about its image.

Her photos appearing online, like on the url you cited seriously damages her image and her employers realized that. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but its within the employers right to expect an employee with such a high profile to conduct themselves properly, even when off camera. Those photos hurt her career as anchorwoman, and if her company is serving a largely conservative viewer base, her actions reflect upon her company. That is exactly how her employers will see it.

Fortunately for most of of us, our careers do not normally put us into the public spotlight. So we don't have to worry about it, but this lady showed a serious error in judgement. She should have known better.

You can make a case for her fighting a firing with legal actions, but I suspect they probably told her they'd have to take her off the anchor desk and put her into some menial, off camera role, hence the voluntary resignation.

I don't think its right, or fair, but thats business, the TV company is more concerned with its image than the off screen antics of its employees, and anyone that endangers that image is going to find themselves collecting unemployment.

 

[MMorJon]

i could see Fox sports picking her up though

 

[Ms_Lilith]

I think her boobs are fake.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Mary Hall]

Does anyone else think this is outrageous! What a person does, even someone on TV, on their own time is nobody's business

Not exactly, famous people do have to behave like responsible adults in public, little kids and stuff could find out

 

[ApplesMcgee]

.....

 

[sheath]

*sigh*

In a perfect world, this woman could do as she pleased and as long as it did not affect her job performance, she could not be criticized, at least not from a professional standpoint. That is the way it is meant to work, especially with the privacy laws the (current, haha) Kennedys tried so hard to see happen...at least, that was the noble, idealistic intention.

However, fame changes all that. Fame breaks all rules so far as privacy goes. It is a fine balancing act between doing what you want to do and doing what other people expect to see you do. It's not fair, but there it is.

Should she have been fired? I don't think so. But was it inevitable? Yep. She crossed some invisible line of celebrity that she knew damn good and well was there. And she can fight it, she can get an attorney and get her job back, but she can't erase the tainted 'image' she would now project. Which means eventually she would be fired for legitimate reasons, like low ratings and such.

Someone told me once: you live in the public eye, you live for the public.

I'm going to stop now before I go into serious rant mode.

S.

 

[Bystander]

well she should've known better:/ Feel bad for her but she better than anyone should know the media.

 

[CelticFrog]

I think one thing is important to note here:

She has fake boobs.

Vixenshe's got it for this one.

So we come to the real heart of the matter....
(yes, I'm being awfully facetious to vent frustration right now)

She was fired because her boobs are so disgustingly fake. And the trend in American male preference has been leaning toward returning to the more natural side of things. So there. The ratings would have lowered because of her oh-so-obviously fake boobs, and she would have been fired, like sheath said.

Okay. One of these days I'll come up with a realistic answer, but for now I'm bitter and pissy.

Ang

 

[DuckLover]

[B<SNIP> ...she can't erase the tainted 'image' she would now project. Which means eventually she would be fired for legitimate reasons, like low ratings and such.
[/B]

Sheath nailed the crux of the issue right there. As a newsanchor, she has to be trustworthy and respectable for the viewership to accept her as a serious anchor. Would you really believe the news if Pam Anderson were the anchor? I wouldn't. The station isn't going to wait to lose their market share to the competition before they fire the anchor who lost the public's respect. She got removed from camera ASAP and won't be let back on-air.

It comes down to target market. Typically middle-America families aren't going to choose her over a more respectable anchor. If her station targeted 18-35 year old men, particularly the type who watch "The Man Show", than she might get a raise for such activities.

Her public image, her reputation, with her station's target market is her qualification for the job. With that damaged, she's lost her qualification to hold her job.

 

[Dionysus2003]

I think it is not something she can combine with her job as news-anchor. If up to me it would not be a big deal at all. Hell, I'd serve naked news every day on the hour - but I am not in charge of a tv-station

<sarcasm on>In a world where the double standards rule, there is nothing more to expect than her losing her job over this. She displayed her body, and she had great fun doing it according to her face on the pictures. And that is of course not acceptable. (I notice she has fake tits too, and they are not nice, but that has got nothing to do with it.) One shall not have fun with ones body though - and it is simply too much to display oneself like that with a smile and laughter...<sarcasm off>

As someone said - in a perfect world this would be a non-subject, and she would not be in danger of losing her job. This is not a perfect world - we are reminded of that every day in worse cases than Bosley losing her job however.

It is horrible that someone lose their job due to what they do on holiday, I can agree with that, but we don't know what kind of contract she had with the tv-channel, we don't know what has been going on behind the scenes. All we get is what the media serves, and like in every other case there is most certainly more than we will ever know going on behind the news.

Give her a couple of years and she will be back on another screen somewhere, because if she is a good anchor she will always get a new job when the worst has settled.

However - it is very clear that she will never get an offer from Perfect 10 to pose for them