Jewish World Review May 14, 2002 / 3 Sivan, 5762

John Ziegler

John Ziegler
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Did she think I
meant "h--ker"? | As broadcasting professional who has been fired several times for making allegedly insensitive remarks on the air, I am no stranger to how little it takes to offend someone in this era of political correctness.

However, something happened the other night that stunned even a hardened cynic like myself. I somehow managed to insult a very prominent female journalist because I referred to her as a "looker."

The regional TV show on which I work, CN8, The Comcast Network's "It's Your Call with Lynn Doyle," was doing a program on "Sexy Female Athletes." We had as our in-studio guests two of the more attractive and talented members of a Philadelphia Charge soccer team that has become as well known for its collective looks as it is for being one of the best teams in its league. We also had the quarterback for the Philadelphia Liberty Belles football team who, if you met her, you would never suspect that she played the least feminine of all major sports.

Finally, we were joined in Washington D.C. by Christine Brennan, who is a columnist for USA Today, a best-selling author, and one of the most outspoken advocates of women's sports in the country. At least until the show began, Christine was also a friend of mine.

It was, apparently, the beginning of the show that caused numerous problems for Christine. After Lynn Doyle opened the program with an honest description of the issues regarding sex appeal and female athletes that we would be addressing over the next hour, I briefly introduced each of our guests.

When we do the introductions we are usually trying to have a little fun, and I almost always make myself the brunt of the joke. Minutes before the show, as I was reading over what I had written that night, I suddenly realized that I was planning on giving four of our five female panelists a sincere compliment on how nice they each of them looked.

Christine Brennan was the lone exception. Feeling that this would seem like a snub and because I thought I knew Christine very well (she has appeared numerous times on various radio shows of mine and has never hesitated to be flirtatious) I decided to finish her introduction by saying "USA Today columnist, and a looker herself, Christine Brennan."

It was immediately clear from Christine's on-air scowl that my intended flattery had hit a decidedly sour note. Still, I was shocked when Christine broke the cardinal rule of TV guesting and immediately criticized both the nature of the show and the individuals (Lynn and myself) involved in the production of it.

During the first commercial break, Christine actually threatened to walk off the set, which is something she has never done in her many years as a national television pundit. Our producer explaining to her why I had added the "looker" comment seemingly did nothing to assuage Christine's agitation.

Had we not spent an unprecedented amount of money for her studio, satellite time and limousine, I am quite certain Lynn would have been glad to have her leave.

The greatest irony of the situation was that the three athletes involved with the show (two of whom had definitely heeded our request to "dress to impress") had absolutely no problem with the complimentary nature of the program and seemed as confused as we were as to why Christine was so upset.

To her credit, Christine did in fact remain with us for the full hour and even endured several phone callers who were clearly irritated by her hypersensitivity. However, the next day I sent an e-mail to her asking for her perspective on what she thought was wrong with the show. I received a return e-mail (the essence of which I have divulged here without notifying her first) from her confirming that she was extremely disturbed with my description of her as a "looker," as well as with the overall character of the program. She said she felt demeaned, and she even called me a sexist.

While I fully realize that this was an isolated and perhaps unique circumstance, I have to wonder if the feminist movement has gone more than just a bit too far when an intelligent, attractive and well-known woman can be so angered and insulted by someone she knows calling her a "looker" on a television show dealing directly with the sex appeal of female athletes.

While it is obviously wrong to judge a woman (or a man for that matter) based only on their looks, it seems just as inappropriate for someone to view a genuine compliment of their attractiveness to be somehow demeaning to the rest of their personhood.

While it is hardly innovative to observe that that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and "no good deed goes unpunished," it does seem that we may have hit a new low when it is no longer safe for a man to tell a woman that he likes the way that she looks, even when he is just trying to be polite.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Send your comments to JWR contributor John Ziegler by clicking here.

04/30/02: An End To An Endless Story? Why I will never say 'the n-word' aloud again
04/16/02: Congresswoman claims on-air that prez knew about 9-11 in advance and nobody seems to care!?
04/02/02: Calling All White Males
03/26/02: The Juice is Loose, Again
03/19/02: Why is Monica not in jail?
03/12/02: Sir Charles is Royally Wrong
03/05/02: If a Tree Falls in the Forest ?
02/26/02: Where have you gone Gary Hart?
02/20/02: Conflicts in the Media? This is News?
02/12/02: The "Toll Booth" on the "Relationship Highway"
02/05/02: Ban sticks, not flags
01/29/02: 646,000 citizens and one vote
01/22/02: What The Gay TV Channel REALLY Means
01/14/02: Zahn's Too Sexy For Her Promo? A former "anchorperson" comes clean
01/08/02: Will someone please admit that not much has changed?
01/02/02: The Eternal Flame of Silliness
12/26/01: The value of a life
12/18/01: The Lost Truth of the bin Laden Tape
12/11/01: Biased about Bias
12/05/01: Is it what you do, or what you believe?
11/27/01: What if Then Was Now?
11/21/01: I Swear It ain't me   —   I Think
11/13/01: Racial baiting and bias hasn't changed a bit
11/09/01: TV networks show their true colors
10/30/01: Proposed programming for the "Fear Channel"
10/30/01: The Tide is Turning
10/22/01: Narcissism is at the heart of Anthrax overreaction
10/16/01: Let's not overestimate these terrorists
10/08/01: Despite what the media says, ethnic profiling is worth it
10/05/01:What if Osama just gave himself up?
09/24/01: Lessons learned --- or, ones that should be
09/17/01: The silver lining in our darkest cloud
09/04/01: "BREAKING NEWS" Not What It Used To Be
08/27/01: Some guys have it --- and some just don't
08/20/01:"Hollywood in Crisis" --- Please no Sequel!
08/13/0: Misplaced media fan-aticism about football tragedies
The Rules of the 'N-Word'


© 2002, John Ziegler