This is so very surreal,

October 11, 2000 12:44 AM

This is so very surreal, its mainstream news read by naked women. I'm trying, but I just can't concentrate on the words.
posted by skallas (13 comments total)

I love the continual zoom-out.
posted by pnevares at 6:46 AM on October 11, 2000

Whoever did it isn't very up on the times, because they didn't include any kind of view-age-check, not even a "Click here if you're over 18" page before access is permitted.

posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:04 AM on October 11, 2000

Silly, all the stories are suitable for a family newspaper. :-)
posted by dhartung at 11:08 AM on October 11, 2000

Yeah. Is there something *wrong* with nudity?

(Hint: no, this is *not* a troll.)
posted by baylink at 11:44 AM on October 11, 2000

Jay, no, there shouldn't be anything wrong with nudity.

But there's what should be and what is and they don't necessarily match. There are a lot of people out there who think it's wrong for kids to actually see nipples, let alone pubic hair, and as soon as some kid at a grade school or library finds this site, all hell will break loose.

I predict they'll end up behind some sort of adult filtration system like "Adult Check" where you have to enter a password to reach the video. That, in turn, will kill their ratings and probably wreck their business model. Possibly they'll sign up with several of those systems so that members of any can get in.

posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:30 PM on October 11, 2000

Steven: why would you care about the opinions of stupid people?
Personally I thought that it was kind of cool. Fortunately I have a slow connection. Otherwise I would be watching it all the time.
posted by davidgentle at 2:58 PM on October 11, 2000

David, I'd just as soon not give the censor-the-net people another poster child. That's all.

posted by Steven Den Beste at 3:52 PM on October 11, 2000

Why? They're going to find something disgusting to talk about. Why worry about news?
posted by davidgentle at 4:48 PM on October 11, 2000

You know I just tried to watch that all the way through. And I was looking at the nakedness until...the news about computers came up. Then I just started listening. How sad does that make me?
posted by davidgentle at 4:58 PM on October 11, 2000

It's... just.. so... perfect! Why hasn't the news always been this way?
posted by Haveed at 5:29 PM on October 11, 2000

because no one wants to see *insert professional news anchor's name here* naked.
posted by mkn at 6:47 PM on October 11, 2000

skallas: phooey to you for teasing me with this link! I can't watch this at work with my killer T1 line (unless you can hook me up with cardboard and spare change after I'm done), and dialup at home it the PITS! (no, I can't get broadband where I live)

So I'm doomed to be the Tantalus of the internet. Argh.
posted by ethmar at 6:53 PM on October 11, 2000

One of the questions I had got answered today: How do they keep from being a one-trick-pony?

If it's the same four women every day and they're always the same (nude) how long before the customers get bored? Certainly people aren't going to rely on this for news...

Well, today one of them started fully clothed and took her clothes off while she was doing her reporting. I confess that I will be checking back to see what other ways they find to keep the novelty going. I am indeed curious.

What I hope doesn't happen is that they cycle through announcers, discarding and replacing staff on a regular basis. That would work, but DAMN that would be offensive. So far their announcers have been trying to something approximating a professional job, one which would even be considered professional if they were fully clothed. But discarding them regularly would acknowledge that they're just naked bodies and nothing else.

But I guess the whole concept of this site is offensive on that level, isn't it?

posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:06 PM on October 12, 2000