<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Newman&#8217;s stunt puts the skids on Footy Show audience</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/23/newmans-stunt-puts-the-skids-on-footy-show-audience/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/23/newmans-stunt-puts-the-skids-on-footy-show-audience/</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:39:23 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Theo Zographos</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/23/newmans-stunt-puts-the-skids-on-footy-show-audience/#comment-16505</link>
		<dc:creator>Theo Zographos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-16505</guid>
		<description>The Footy Show (AFL) has always been focused on capturing the Melbourne audience. Adelaide and Perth are a bonus. National figures which include the NRL share are irrelevant. The Melbourne share has hovered at 380,000 for the past 3 years and spikes up 65,000 on average when the show generates publicity outside of broadcast and in the lead up. After 15 years, these numbers are excpetional and are testament to Newman&#039;s marketability. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Footy Show (AFL) has always been focused on capturing the Melbourne audience. Adelaide and Perth are a bonus. National figures which include the NRL share are irrelevant. The Melbourne share has hovered at 380,000 for the past 3 years and spikes up 65,000 on average when the show generates publicity outside of broadcast and in the lead up. After 15 years, these numbers are excpetional and are testament to Newman&#8217;s marketability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/05/23/newmans-stunt-puts-the-skids-on-footy-show-audience/#comment-16506</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-16506</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve literally stopped watching Channel 9 altogether. Even Underbelly, which I&#039;ll get on DVD (I&#039;ll get to see it uncut that way anyway).  The constant pandering to the contemptible Tony Grieg was bad enough.  The &quot;boning&quot; of Jessica Rowe made me seriously angry - OK, she was hopeless, but it was concerning that the efforts to fix Today simply consisted of cycling endless female co-hosts past Karl Stefanovic, like they were the only possible reason the show was tanking. And it bothered me that Maguire should use a word usually indicative of sexual activity to describe what he intended to do to Rowe - it gives a pretty clear impression of how he regards women generally.  The sacking of Christine Spiteri and some of the racist and sexist comments made about her by management only bolster my unease.  But the fact that this network not only continues to employ the truly disgusting Newman, but defends him, is both unforgivable and really, really unsettling.  As a woman it is actually quite scary to think that there are still people out there who do not find this behaviour absolutely unacceptable.  I absolutely will not watch anything on Channel 9 any more; I do not care how much I want to see it.  Thank you, Crikey, for the list of sponsors.  I have already opened an account with ANZ, and I will be writing to each of the other sponsors asking whether they endorse Newman&#039;s behaviour, and if not, why do they continue to sponsor this abysmal, unfunny, pathetic exercise in atavism.  And are men not embarrassed and ashamed and offended by this sort of behaviour?  Or is this really what men think women deserve? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve literally stopped watching Channel 9 altogether. Even Underbelly, which I&#8217;ll get on DVD (I&#8217;ll get to see it uncut that way anyway).  The constant pandering to the contemptible Tony Grieg was bad enough.  The &#8220;boning&#8221; of Jessica Rowe made me seriously angry - OK, she was hopeless, but it was concerning that the efforts to fix Today simply consisted of cycling endless female co-hosts past Karl Stefanovic, like they were the only possible reason the show was tanking. And it bothered me that Maguire should use a word usually indicative of sexual activity to describe what he intended to do to Rowe - it gives a pretty clear impression of how he regards women generally.  The sacking of Christine Spiteri and some of the racist and sexist comments made about her by management only bolster my unease.  But the fact that this network not only continues to employ the truly disgusting Newman, but defends him, is both unforgivable and really, really unsettling.  As a woman it is actually quite scary to think that there are still people out there who do not find this behaviour absolutely unacceptable.  I absolutely will not watch anything on Channel 9 any more; I do not care how much I want to see it.  Thank you, Crikey, for the list of sponsors.  I have already opened an account with ANZ, and I will be writing to each of the other sponsors asking whether they endorse Newman&#8217;s behaviour, and if not, why do they continue to sponsor this abysmal, unfunny, pathetic exercise in atavism.  And are men not embarrassed and ashamed and offended by this sort of behaviour?  Or is this really what men think women deserve?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
