Ramp Girl to Host World Movies Show news

Don't think really that this concerned cinema in any way. It's not even about some kind of a programming lineup from a channel. But a hostess, who no one has heard about by the way, for an obscure program on a TV channel: should this be really a post in any form at all? Forget being a page in itself.

Ankur, seems only the "hostess" caught your attention.

It's a news item about the first television show in India that will report on International film festivals. I really don't know how good or bad, it's going to be, but I do think it's really worth taking a note of.

Check the headline, Bikas...I think it's something like ramp girl hosting whatever. I don't think my sense of emphasis is that much off.

I didn't know "ramp girl" is such a big put off to you..
I derived a sort of pleasure writing the headline......and it's great to know you found it outrageous...
I'm not sure if you think cinema is an austere medium.... but it's a fact that this "ramp girl" is hosting the first "world cinema news" show in India.

Guess this boils down to the question whether Dear Cinema should-or should not-report about "trivia" in the world cinema space. If a Channel on World Movies can deem fit to host a pretty face to draw the crowds, then makes sense for Dear Cinema as a site on World Cinema to report it. Stands to reason that the same audience who would watch a world cinema show would be interested in this site also.
Ankur, there is a thin line between what Bikas has reported here and Page 3 reporting, but I think that Bikas is on the safe side so far. After all we need eyeballs too, just so long as we dont compromise..

Also, I believe this is a definite piece of news coz it shows how world movie channels are going all out to attract audience. World movies which is more or less associated with intelligensia or academia is now being marketed by a glam doll! For me it does show a definite shift in the marketing strategy of this world movie channel to expand the market of world cinema viewers...

I think it's unfair to value-judge the "intent" instead of looking at the content objectively.

First of all this is not an opinion piece, it's a news reports based on a press release.

If you ask why it's here, I would say because it concerns a channel that's of interest of world cinema audience.

And the show is not about a beauty pageant, that doesn't concern me as a "world cinema" aficionado, but it at least claims to be an "informative show on international film circuit".

I could also sense a degree of parochialism in one of the remarks as if world cinema is meant for "higher beings" and "ramp girls" are intellectually less evolved. I'm afraid we're overestimating ourselves if what I sense is right.

No, I didn't mean to devalue "ramp girls." But what I rather sensed was that you and the other world are regarding ramp girls as such, as some sort of an eye candy. And that's why these Page 3 headlines, that's why the expectation that people will flock to a show just because of a ramp girl.
Maybe, they will, but should they? Cinema is not something austere in my mind, or to be viewed or commented upon only by a certain kind of audience. But when a world movies channel brings down cinema to level of titillation (which it has; the ramp girl might be intelligent or not, that is besides the question; but the decision of making her a host is simply on the basis of her perceived ability to attract viewers), then it's an issue. It's a further issue if a site for which I am one of the authors seconds that. I think Aniruddha this post was not on the safe side: I can suggest you even better, but worse, measures that will bring in eyeballs, if that's all you want.

Whats wrong with bringing eyeballs, you are one of the authors of this site, just like me. Don't you also want the site to grow and become popular? I am not saying that we need to titillate to attract viewers, I am only arguing that what applies to a world movie channel should apply to us as well. As Payal correctly observed, this is a marketing strategy adopted by the firm. We are merely rreporting it, not endorsing the strategy itself.

Also, even if a world movie channel brings down cinema to a level of titillation, should we take a moral stand on it and not report it? That is the issue. I guess.

It could have been an extremely useful discussion, had it examined the "text" in question objectively, or proposed what suits DearCinema and what doesn't and why?

However, since the discussion is all about "intention" and to be specific "my intention" behind publishing such a report, it has become aimless as well as meaningless. Primarily, because I only could be the best spokersperson of my "intention" and secondly, DearCinema in itself is a statement of my "intention" and "motivation".

As far as "eyecandy" theory is concerned it's flawed, because we're not sold on newsstand so peope based on "eyecandy" will buy us or subscribe to us, doesn't seem plausible. Since we exist in the domain of web, whoever has a look at the site, generates traffic and adds to our visitor base. So our readers/visitors only can see the "eyecandy", it in no way can add to the "circulation".

I would appreciate if instead of spending your valueable time on gauging my "intention" and "motivation", you state your objection to the text in a logical manner. We can have an open discussion on what we should carry and what we shouldn't.