Why is Christine Bleakley getting slammed by media?

wishinonastar

im a huge fan of christine bleakley...no i dont watch daybreak and i never watched the 'one show' but i did happen to see her water skiing across the channel attempt and since than if i see an article or interview with her/about her i ll read it. I cannot understand why the media (british especially) slam this woman? Yes she dates a footballer but she earns her own money and did long before she met Frank Lampard. Yes she always looks like glam but she works for her money so why not treat herself? really annoys me when ppl like Christine get villified for working so hard. what are ur thoughts?

Richard Dower

A driven and ambitious woman = bitch to the media.

ejmaztec

I see that she caught herself out recently, after making out that her transfer to ITV wasn't about the money. In a court case involving her sacked agent, the real reason for her transfer was revealed in court, and surprisingly enough, it was about the money.

Apart from that, the media seems to like having a dig at wags and their overpaid brain-dead partners.

Dozen Wicked Words

ejmaztec wrote: »

Apart from that, the media seems to like having a dig at wags and their overpaid brain-dead partners.

Lampard is supposedly quite clever, daddy sent him to Private School. Hes not a popular footballer though, so that doesn't help her popularity.

Sibylla

I don't know about anyone else but I just can't warm to her, There is something incredibly fake about her. I think that's why she hasn't reached the same level of popularity as Holly Willoughby etc, I think she lacks that down to earth quality, Her recent relationship with Lampard isn't helping either.

Ammsy500

I cant put my finger on it but I agree with Sibylla I just cant warm to her. She always comes across as very smug and a bit up herself. I think the rumors about her and Adrian Chiles probably didnt do her any favours since he was a married man and their they were always practically sitting on top of eachother and flirting. I also think the whole umpa lumpa look, wag hair and nails doesnt do her any favours either but thats just my opinion .

kraggy

Incredibly overated in the looks department and she has the personality of a turnip.

temply

Don't like her much myself - nor her footballer BF. She dumped her agent quick smart too didn't she? I'd say she is ruthless.

ejmaztec

dooferoaks wrote: »

Lampard is supposedly quite clever, daddy sent him to Private School. Hes not a popular footballer though, so that doesn't help her popularity.

I went to a UK private school, and there were quite a few there whose parents assumed that spending money on their kids' education would would turn them into Einsteins (not my parents, though:pac:). I think Lampard jr. only got a few GCSEs, and most of them are impossible to fail.

I think Bleakley's the one with the brain-cells, all working overtime.:eek:

parker kent

ejmaztec wrote: »

I went to a UK private school, and there were quite a few there whose parents assumed that spending money on their kids' education would would turn them into Einsteins (not my parents, though:pac:). I think Lampard jr. only got a few GCSEs, and most of them are impossible to fail.

I think Bleakley's the one with the brain-cells, all working overtime.:eek:

He got 11 GCSEs. Remember that from about 14 onwards he would have been extremely serious about football, so he wasn't exactly concentrating on school yet still did quite well. He also has an above average IQ.

The Chelsea and England lynchpin attended the prestigious Brentwood School, where he got 11 GCSEs, including an A in Latin, which may explain why he decided to name his daughter Luna. His team-mates at Stamford Bridge nicknamed him ‘The Professor’ after he scored significantly above the national average IQ in a test conducted on the squad earlier this year. “Frank Lampard scored one of the highest set of marks ever recorded by the company doing the tests,” reported Dr Brian English, with newspapers suggesting that his score was higher than that of Carol “Thinking Man’s Totty” Vorderman

http://blog.sport.co.uk/Football/382/Top_Ten_Educated_Footballers.aspx

He declined to released the England midfielder's precise score, but the newspaper quoted sources claiming it was more than 150 on the IQ scale, putting him in the most intelligent 0.1 per cent of the population.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/4940708/Frank-Lampard-has-higher-IQ-than-Carol-Vorderman.html

ejmaztec

parker kent wrote: »

He got 11 GCSEs. Remember that from about 14 onwards he would have been extremely serious about football, so he wasn't exactly concentrating on school yet still did quite well. He also has an above average IQ.


http://blog.sport.co.uk/Football/382/Top_Ten_Educated_Footballers.aspx


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/4940708/Frank-Lampard-has-higher-IQ-than-Carol-Vorderman.html

He's obviously not as thick as I thought he was, so he should get a proper job and waste no more time kicking a ball around.

parker kent

ejmaztec wrote: »

He's obviously not as thick as I thought he was, so he should get a proper job and waste no more time kicking a ball around.

If you're being serious, that is a ridiculous comment.

ejmaztec

parker kent wrote: »

If you're being serious, that is a ridiculous comment.

No more ridiculous than wasting brain-power and kicking a ball around for a living.

pooch90

Brain wasting, yes. Enough to retire on after only a few years of 'working'- seems like the smart option to me....

parker kent

A) He makes millions playing football
Several well regarded studies have proven the need for high intelligence to succeed in sport (before the usual what about Wayne Rooney type comments, you can be intelligent and academically weak for dozens of reasons)
C) You are being snottily dismissive of one of the biggest businesses and movements in the world
D) Calling it "working" is ignoring that he is involved in something that sees 40,000 people come to see him every week. Plus you have to work incredibly hard to make it in football. Millions fail. Thousands others become average. He became a top player. The sheer dedication that takes is incredible. He is involved in one of the top entertainment forms in the world. Plus he is physically wrecking his body. Look at the amount of footballers who require hip replacements when they retire. Most will suffer from chronic leg pain. He may be handsomely rewarded, but he has put the effort in to get it. Sure they are not doctors, nurses, firemen etc, but it is not as if he is doing something that millions others could willy nilly do.

Anyway, Bleakley is "slammed" by the media because she is not likeable, or more to the point lacks the normal attributes the media like to see in their darlings. If/when Daybreak fails or if she were to marry Lampard and he cheated on her, then people would like her. As it is, an attractive, intelligent, successful woman with a handsome, talented, millionaire boyfriend is not normally liked.

ejmaztec

parker kent wrote: »

A) He makes millions playing football
Several well regarded studies have proven the need for high intelligence to succeed in sport (before the usual what about Wayne Rooney type comments, you can be intelligent and academically weak for dozens of reasons)
C) You are being snottily dismissive of one of the biggest businesses and movements in the world
D) Calling it "working" is ignoring that he is involved in something that sees 40,000 people come to see him every week. Plus you have to work incredibly hard to make it in football. Millions fail. Thousands others become average. He became a top player. The sheer dedication that takes is incredible. He is involved in one of the top entertainment forms in the world. Plus he is physically wrecking his body. Look at the amount of footballers who require hip replacements when they retire. Most will suffer from chronic leg pain. He may be handsomely rewarded, but he has put the effort in to get it. Sure they are not doctors, nurses, firemen etc, but it is not as if he is doing something that millions others could willy nilly do.

Anyway, Bleakley is "slammed" by the media because she is not likeable, or more to the point lacks the normal attributes the media like to see in their darlings. If/when Daybreak fails or if she were to marry Lampard and he cheated on her, then people would like her. As it is, an attractive, intelligent, successful woman with a handsome, talented, millionaire boyfriend is not normally liked.

As you might have gathered, I don't like soccer, and never have. It has ludicrous amounts of money thrown at it, and the only patricipants I feel sorry for are the fans who can't afford to watch it.

parker kent

ejmaztec wrote: »

As you might have gathered, I don't like soccer, and never have. It has ludicrous amounts of money thrown at it, and the only patricipants I feel sorry for are the fans who can't afford to watch it.

Regardless of whether you like it or not, you can't ridicule something because you don't like it. Hundreds of millions disagree with you and willingly pay money to see them play. I'd rather the guys on the pitch got it than a guy in a suit in a luxury box. For example, I don't like musicals, but I'm not going to ridicule people involved by saying they are wasting their intelligence by taking part.

You don't like the sport which is fair enough, but it doesn't give you a right to assume footballers are dumb or when you find out they are intelligent, to say they are wasting their lives.

ejmaztec

parker kent wrote: »

Regardless of whether you like it or not, you can't ridicule something because you don't like it. Hundreds of millions disagree with you and willingly pay money to see them play. I'd rather the guys on the pitch got it than a guy in a suit in a luxury box. For example, I don't like musicals, but I'm not going to ridicule people involved by saying they are wasting their intelligence by taking part.

You don't like the sport which is fair enough, but it doesn't give you a right to assume footballers are dumb or when you find out they are intelligent, to say they are wasting their lives.

I've every right to make assumptions, just as you have every right to criticise my making them.

It would be extremely rare for a character in a musical to rake in the obscene amounts of money that a professional footballer gets paid.

Richard Dower

She looks like a b!tach, that's my reasoning and logic.

parker kent

ejmaztec wrote: »

I've every right to make assumptions, just as you have every right to criticise my making them.

It would be extremely rare for a character in a musical to rake in the obscene amounts of money that a professional footballer gets paid.

It would be rare for a musical to get 40,000 every week to see them as Lampard gets at Stamford Bridge or 90,000 like he gets in Wembley. Who do you want to make money in football? Business men? Advertisers? Or the guys who have given their lives to becoming the very best at what they do and are the people who fans actually pay to see?

Don't let a dislike of football make you act in a narrow minded fashion.

ejmaztec

parker kent wrote: »

It would be rare for a musical to get 40,000 every week to see them as Lampard gets at Stamford Bridge or 90,000 like he gets in Wembley. Who do you want to make money in football? Business men? Advertisers? Or the guys who have given their lives to becoming the very best at what they do and are the people who fans actually pay to see?

Don't let a dislike of football make you act in a narrow minded fashion.

You were the one who introduced musicals into the scenario, for some reason.

It's naive to think that businessmen, advertisers etc, don't get big bucks from their investment in football. Do you think that they're run by charities?

Football fans are tribal in their outlook, and that would be a narrow-minded attitude in my opinion. Big businessmen are pulling the wool over their eyes and taking them to the cleaners.

parker kent

ejmaztec wrote: »

You were the one who introduced musicals into the scenario, for some reason.

It's naive to think that businessmen, advertisers etc, don't get big bucks from their investment in football. Do you think that they're run by charities?

Football fans are tribal in their outlook, and that would be a narrow-minded attitude in my opinion. Big businessmen are pulling the wool over their eyes and taking them to the cleaners.

It was a simple example of somebody not liking something but choosing not to ridicule the people who take part in it. I could have chosen any form of entertainment that I don't like. The same way I don't like rugby but choose not to ridicule the fans or players by suggesting they are dumb or clueless.

I obviously know business men make money from football, I'm not a clueless, tribalistic goon who has the wool pulled over his eyes. But there was a time when everybody else involved in football made money except the actual players. Now the players are getting their just rewards and that is what I referred to above. Players are now getting a deserved slice of the money made in football.

I have a masters in business (thank you recession for that time and money killer!)and did a project on the history of business in football, so I know what I'm on about. Plus there are literally 1000s of books, articles etc on this so a large proportion of football fans will know exactly where their money goes. Look at groups like the MUST, the Manchester United Supporters Group as an example.

Anyway, Bleakley is not dating a dumb footballer, nor is he wasting himself.

ejmaztec

parker kent wrote: »

It was a simple example of somebody not liking something but choosing not to ridicule the people who take part in it. I could have chosen any form of entertainment that I don't like. The same way I don't like rugby but choose not to ridicule the fans or players by suggesting they are dumb or clueless.

I obviously know business men make money from football, I'm not a clueless, tribalistic goon who has the wool pulled over his eyes. But there was a time when everybody else involved in football made money except the actual players. Now the players are getting their just rewards and that is what I referred to above. Players are now getting a deserved slice of the money made in football.

I have a masters in business (thank you recession for that time and money killer!)and did a project on the history of business in football, so I know what I'm on about. Plus there are literally 1000s of books, articles etc on this so a large proportion of football fans will know exactly where their money goes. Look at groups like the MUST, the Manchester United Supporters Group as an example.

Anyway, Bleakley is not dating a dumb footballer, nor is he wasting himself.

Nice to know you're not wasting your brain-power.:P

parker kent

ejmaztec wrote: »

Nice to know you're not wasting your brain-power.:P

Ha! That made me laugh

Though I have two masters and no job so who's the idiot, me or Frank? :pac:

jmolloy

I don't think Lampards an idiot but he's a jackass as far as i'm concerned Chelsea must have the most hateable team in the league to be fair. Doesn't help that Jamie 'I must big up my cousin everytime he plays' Redknapp is on coverage for most of Chelsea's games

As for Christine Bleakley certain sections of the media built her and Adrian Chiles up when they were on the one show. They didn't get the pay rise their work on that show merited so the upped sticks and left for more money so the papers now have a rod to beat them with

On a similar subject you would though so fair play Frank I don't like you but I appreciate what you do