Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
Bills using Epoch
Updates six days a week
Terrific ethnic, body type and age mix.
Comes with a decent cam site
Cons:
No PU discount. PU has $20. I joined it for $5 through another site.
The nudity is very softcore. Not explicit in any way
Not much erotic focus.
Some of the site cannot be downloaded.
No photos, but you can get some, see below.
Bottom Line:
Naked News is exactly what the name says. It is not sexy news, or erotic news or even stripping news. While delivering the news, they are often nude right from the opening and even when they strip, they are nude in only a few minutes or even seconds. They don’t tease.
The nudity is very softcore and never gets explicit. I am always left wanting the scenes to be a bit more of that special something. I can’t put my finger on the problem and I can’t get hot enough to get me to put my finger down there either.
The feeling I got was they don’t know what they want to be. They could be a news site or they could be a softcore site. They do a so so job as a news site and the heat level is not done well.
The women have a nice variety to them in age, body type and ethnic mix. But that is mostly in the guest anchors.
The main anchors are on the site too much and I quickly got tired of them. Stripping should have a mystery to it, but that would mean a lot more models on every day.
The models nearly all had tattoos and many have implants too. Some people don’t mind, but I found those to be distracting. I did not see a single one that was not shaved either.
There are no photos on the site, but there is an option to sign up for $10 for each model to chat with her and for special content, including photos. Sorry, no. Maybe an extra $10 for all the models, but not $10 EACH.
There is a decent cam site. I looked at it only once and the models were already nude, a plus. A minus is that many were using foreign languages without subtitles. I pass on the cam site.
I got the site for only $5 through another discount site. I think it might be worth that much, but not the $20 PU is giving us.
Current Member for over 1 year (at the time of review).
Pros:
Some of the women are very pretty and fun.
Many of the stories are interesting. If you like naked women and are looking for 'not hardcore' but a site that has some actually useful information, the site can be quite good.
Their fishbowl roundup is fun, depending on who is in it.
Cons:
Used to be an awesome site but it's gotten really old and stale. A lot of the women have been on there for WAAAAAAYY to long and rarely do they retain women who they audition.
There are some good anchors but if you like this site or not seems to orbit around if you like Laura Desiree. She's really tall, while still moderately attractive, getting long in the tooth, and dominates the show.
When she came onto the show she immediately became a producer and it's gone downhill ever since then---unless you are a fan. It's really become the Laura Desiree show and no longer the Naked News I used to love.
Bottom Line:
Some of the segments are great and some of the women are great. They are beautiful with great personalities and the site can be a lot of fun.
If you like Laura, you'll love the site. If you don't, she'll wear you out.
I'd check it out to see if you like it. Then, I'd move on and wait to see if the makeup of the staff changes. Otherwise it's pretty boring.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
-Can preview the entire site
-Updates six times per week
-Has links for discounts to porn sites
-Mostly gorgeous anchors
Cons:
-Biller is Paysafe, not a well known biller
-Prechecked cross sale
-Username and password are random computer generated letters and numbers.
-Inadequate search capacity
-Not all videos are downloadable
-Most anchors do not have any photos.
-Non erotic stripping
Bottom Line:
I find women newscasters to be very hot. Many times I have been distracted and think about them more than the news they cover. A dream come true would be how great it would be to see how they look under those clothes.
This site was started about twenty years ago and does just that.
The women here are mostly very attractive to drop dead gorgeous. Only a few don’t appeal to me very much, but that is just my taste. In more recent years some have the ugly trifecta of tattoos, metal hardware, or even worse, implants.
As a news site, it actually is pretty good. They cover the important news six days a week, as well as feature segments on a great many interesting popular topics, such as sports or entertainment. The coverage does not go into much depth and there is no real analysis. As much as this is reasonably well done, I did not join for the content. There are lots of sources for news that you don’t have to pay for.
As far as being a sexy fantasy site, this one comes up short in many ways. The old adage applies here that you should be careful what you wish for as you just may get it.
This site has most of the segments start and end with an already nude anchor. I appreciate nudity, but a teasing strip works better. The strip segments are the first ones each day and they call them “News off the Top.“
Unfortunately, on this site stripping is not much but mechanically taking clothes off and not done in a very sexy way. In fact often the model is nude under a dress and sometimes they strip from simple lingerie. Layers would work better, so they did not get the memo on that one. A little body movement would be hotter than a stiffly standing pose. Oh excuse me, I almost missed it, but sometimes they move their arms. There are almost no close ups and only rarely do you see her from the back as she walks away. What a shame. They rarely deliver a perfect fantasy wet dream.
There is also another problem that surprised me and I would not have predicted it.
The stripping is in the major news summary, so there is always a video playing on the left side of your screen and the model is on the right. I am completely distracted by this. I can’t get into the stripping, while on the other side of the screen a story is on about a natural disaster or worse yet, while our president is speaking. Occasionally the model goes off screen while the footage airs. I am sorry but I can’t get sexually excited while looking at Trump talking, or even Obama in older segments. No way, not ever, impossible, they must be joking. This requires a degree of focus I can’t imagine. They have been at this for twenty years and haven’t figured this out yet.
I think the solution is that stripping should be on the fluff segments that you don’t pay much attention to. The more I think about it, maybe they should just skip the serious news. If you are focusing on the news, this has failed as a sexy site.
The site also has some lesser faults. The videos start in HD in November 2013. Previous to that the videos are much lower in quality and many can’t be downloaded, not that you would really want to anyway.
The search capacity is weak. If you know the name of the anchor or the date of the broadcast, fine, it works for you. If you don’t know what you want, there should be tags. I guess they did not get the memo on this obvious move either.
At any one time, the number of newscasters is small. True they have guest anchors, but if you have seen a nude body standing and talking in 30 to 100 or even more consecutive updates, erotic fatigue sets in. The newscasters stay on the site for several months, even occasionally for years. Eila Adams has been on the news here since 2009 and Whitney St. John since 2006. After watching a few updates my focus drifted to the news content. This is especially true if she does not appeal to you.
There are 10 main anchors, 6 guest anchors and 59 former ones still listed in the model index. For the former anchors the link leads to a brief biography, but not to the videos. Few current or guest anchors have any photos at all. If they exist they are small and non nude glamour ones. The current and guest anchors listed are all white. In the past there used to be more diversity.
This site is different and maybe worth a one month join since the price is very modest. If you do try it out, don’t set your sights very high.
I give this a 75, but that high only because there are many models that are undeniably gorgeous.
Current Member for over 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Very Entertaining site
Newscasters of every age, shape and ethnicity
You can download and keep the newscasts
pricing is good.
Cons:
Can be a little monotonous sometimes.
A few of the newscasters are not great newscasters.
Slightly higher percentage of tattoos than I'm used to. (personal preference only)
Bottom Line:
OK, first off, the site is EXACTLY what it is named. Naked News. It is not a porn site, exactly... The newscasters don't have sex and don't do anything more than strip. But... I watch an hour of regular news every morning at 6AM and many of the same stories are on the day's production of Naked News at 7PM. But I have to say it is MUCH more entertaining to watch the 7PM show. This site has been producing news for nearly 2 decades (December, 1999!) so clearly they are doing something right!
Naked News is a softcore site with primary focus on the day's events in a newscasting environment. The only difference between this and a broadcast news show is that the newsgirls strip as the newscast progresses. There are different segments like headlines (called bulletins), sports, movies/hollywood and there is even a travel segment along with guest interviews with porn stars and nude models.
There are 6 HD shows a week and the shows last about 20-25 minutes. You can sign up to get an email when the show is released if you want and the show can be streamed or downloaded in one piece or just in the segments you want. The production quality is every bit as good as most national news shows.
I gave the site an 85 because, although it is one of only two sites in this genre that I know of (the other is a not-so-great Playboy branded production), this site does what it does very well. Just DO NOT expect anything other than what the name implies.
Honestly, a few of these women would make terrific regular news anchors, but they are probably having way more fun doing this. And some of the news interview and remote segments are so good you would not know they were not on broadcast TV.
Let me ask you this. Do you have a favorite news show? Is there a hot newscaster on that show? Well, if the answer is yes, it is because that show has tweaked the newscasting formula to keep you watching. Naked news does the same thing, only they aren't sly about it. They KNOW why you are watching.
There are a few ancillary features of the site also, like a cam site, snapchat subscriptions and even clothing optional vacation options like a naked cruise to Alaska! They have some interesting streaming options, too, like a subscription to watch the show on Roku.
Downside? Well, sometimes they have guest or audition newscasters that are a little rough in one way or another. And once in a while I skip a segment because I don't like the look of the newscaster (personal preference again). And there will be times, maybe, when the news is actually more interesting than the naked girl talking about it.
Bottom line: This is a different kind of site. It isn't porn but it IS entertainment. If you watch the news regularly like I do, but you don't like the boring way news is sometimes presented, than this might be a great site for you. Or...if you just hate watching regular news but feel it is important to stay informed. Ta Da! Naked News is PERFECT for you!
After watching it for over a month, I've found a good balance between actually watching the news and watching the generally hot newscasters strip down to their fully shaved nothings. I don't think you will never find a more entertaining news show! Try it for a month at the discounted price.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
-Automatic login to site (if you have cookies enabled). When you go to the site, you are automatically logged in, without having to re-enter your username and password.
-Works with Roku.
-Homepage acts like a table of contents:
--Gives list of anchors (both lead and guest), with nice-sized thumbnails and links to their bios.
(Trying to make a connection to the member so member will be more interested in the site)
--Amateur Auditions. Follow the search for our next anchor
(Same idea of making a connection to the member.)
--Recent listing of news features.
-Bonus content from Mr. Skin, a sister site of celebrity nudity.
-Cam show for site.
-Updates 6 days a week (so 6 new shows per week).
-Multiple download options.
--You can download the entire day's show, or specific segments of the show.
--You have choice of 480p, 720p, 1080p defintion for the download.
-When the news anchor finishes her segment, she turns and walks away. So you can watch her front and back jiggle.
Cons:
-If you want to post comments about the site, there is no internal page on the site.
Instead, you are supposed to post at the Site's facebook page.
Since I don't have a facebook account, this is a negative for me.
-Pre-checked cross-sale on join page.
-Billing processor is third-party company I never heard of.
-This is a softcore site that features female nudity. But no sex.
-I don't know how long the strip/nudity feature will hold your interest.
Bottom Line:
Site theme: news read by anchors who strip and go nude.
So it makes the news more watchable than a regular news program.
Except that a regular news program probably covers a wider range of subjects.
If you like their models, it makes the news much more interesting, to see them strip while reporting the news.
The stripping is not a strip-tease act, the anchors/models just take off their clothes while reading the news.
You have a number of regular female anchors.
You also have a number of guest anchors.
It's a nice idea, the first few times you watch.
Except they must be doing OK. Because this site has been around since 2000. And they update 6 times a week, so they are doing much better than I would have thought.
There is a blog.
The blog is useful, because it lists some of the main headlines for each newscast.
So if you want a preview or summary of each day's newscast, this is the the best source.
You can stream or download each news cast.
$15.00/month with PU discount.
The site is not expensive, but does not appeal to me personally.
The anchors/models are not selected to be the most physically attractive. Some are good-looking, but other anchors are just average-looking.
And some models have implants, or tattoos, which I dislike. That's a personal preference.
You can do search by news anchor, by segment, by date.
I'm giving the site a score of 80.
The site structure/navigation is good.
The videos are professionally shot.
The choices to stream or download are varied.
You get 6 updates per week.
Do I recommend this site?
It's not a bad site. But I would have thought it had limited appeal. However, as I wrote, it's been around since 2000, and still updates 6 days a week, and the site is well-managed software-wise. (I did not find any dead links).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
• Victoria Sinclair
• Unique format
• Real, daily news
• Choice of video resolutions
• High resolution images (up to 4288×2848px)
• 272 free Mr Skin videos (up to 640×360, 15fps, Windows Media)
Cons:
• "The best quality VIDEO on the Internet" a downright lie
• "Low Broadband" and "Dialup" video files the same
• Images in individual ZIP files, one ZIP per image
• "Nothing to hide", yet anchor photographs are non-nude only
• Anchor photographs are rarely updated
• Site navigation and layout
Bottom Line:
When Naked News made its début back in 2000, streaming and downloading video via the Internet was in its infancy. That and anchor Victoria Sinclair, who really could be a mainstream newsreader, primarily contributing to the site's success.
Sinclair ticks all the right boxes as many men's ultimate fantasy figure and seeing her strip naked during a broadcast while managing to retain the air of a consummate professional, must be why the site still attracts new members.
The appeal of the show's lesser anchors varies in accordance to their appearance. Many anchors have been surgically enhanced and while some results have been fairly successful (Whitney St. John) Michelle Pantoliano, for example, has that extreme two-melons-on-a-broom-handle look. Some are genuinely beautiful (former anchor Lisa Benton) while there are those to which mother nature wasn't so kind (Sandrine Renard and Christine Kerr). Once naked, all are either completely shaven or have a tiny landing strip in the French style so if you're a fan of more natural or hairy women, look elsewhere.
Each day's show is broken up into segments or can be downloaded (or streamed) all in one go. Many segments only feature full nudity, with stripping reserved for the main news and certain anchors, usually Sinclair or Roxanne West, who start in typical business attire with classy, lacy underwear.
Unfortunately, while Victoria Sinclair's star still shines bright, the website itself has not moved with the times. Navigation is awkward and most content loads in a frame "below the fold", meaning constant scrolling and erratic "back" button behaviour. Particularly frustrating are the anchor and "Hot Model" images which, although of exceptionally high resolution are only available to download within individual ZIP files. Yes, one JPEG image per ZIP, how stupid is that?
Most of the anchor photographs haven't been updated in many years, and it's also annoying to find that none of them reveal anything in their photos, not even a nipple let alone any pink bits. If they're happy to appear nude in video, why not in photos?
There is a gallery of "Hot Models" (by my count ~1,670 photos) where naked breasts can be found, but full nudity is still extremely rare.
As for the quality of the video itself, it simply doesn't stack up to modern day standards. None of the download or streaming options reach SD resolution, let alone the "Ultra High Quality" promised. In this regard, the site is both disappointing and wholly misleading. The only videos at 30fps are the H.264, and for some unfathomable reason they're only available for the past two days.
While Naked News was on the forefront ten years ago, in 2010 the site looks old-fashioned and amateurish, with the video quality and presentation style both in need of a radical overhaul. It is worth subscribing for a short period just to admire Victoria Sinclair's style, but otherwise the site represents poor value and little to interest connoisseurs of the female form.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+++ VERY original idea
++ girls seem to enjoy it
++ fun to see news anchor undressing
+ added more "unusual" strip patterns
+ added some public topless stuff
+ added a few great-looking anchors
+ pussy haircuts
+ video quality has improved from "very good" to "even better"
+ cheap, plus there is a "3 days free gold membership" promotion right now
Cons:
--- about 50% of the time there is no undressing, girls start nude
-- even when there is some undressing, often it is just from underwear to nude
Bottom Line:
When I've re-joined NakedNews about a week ago, my first impression was that the site operators did read all our complaints here on PU and paid attention to including more undressing in the news. I've even thought "Oh, I might keep my subscription beyond first month" (it doesn't happen to me too often ;-)). Unfortunately, it was just lucky few days :-(, and going through archives, I have run through numerous days where all the girls are completely nude from the very beginning :-((. Funny thing is that owners seem to know what people want, and in "News Off The Top" segment (which starts every day program) they show most of the girls dressed, but it only results in big disappointment when you anticipate some striptease and only get girl who's completely nude from the start :-((.
To be more specific, I've even went through the archives and gathered some statistics to share. Out of randomly chosen 15 days (taken in 2010), I have observed the following numbers (I cannot guarantee they're 100% accurate, I might have forgotten to add 1 here or there):
starting fully dressed - 13 times, starting in underwear - 23 times, starting fully nude - 43 times. I've also counted "unusual patterns" (like panties taken off before bra, or no panties under dress) separately, and the number for the same time was 13.
Overall, the site has stayed more or less the same since my last review, so I will concentrate on differences which I've found compared to my previous review here on PU (which can be found under "Archived" subtitle). First, I "feel" that amount of undressing has dropped (I didn't gather statistics back then, so I cannot tell exactly). Second, they DID add great-looking girls (I especially adored Whitney St John) - and it was one of my complaints back then. Third, they've added "Naked in the Streets" section, which is about the topless girl taking interview in streets or on the beach (loved it). Also addition of program with nude girl cooking was a nice one.
Video quality was very good back then, but now it is REALLY good (with probably the best streaming player I've ever seen).
Bottom line: it is still a site which can be fun to see for 1 month (if you're ok with softcore stuff), and I still don't think it can be interesting for a longer time. On the other hand, I think that IF they would add MORE undressing (especially FULL undressing, not just from underwear), they will become MUCH MUCH better.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
- Loved the site
- Easy to navigate
- Easy to find old news and have different programs you are able to watch them in - browser, windows media player and quick time
- You are able to look at archived videos and able to specify what you looking for - search by date, anchor, segment or an advanced search
- Also able to set preferences, easy help menus and many down loadable material - wallpapers/screensaves, various segments and can watch them on your iphone or ipod!
Cons:
I really have nothing bad to say about it. Its very easy to use and fun at the same time!
Bottom Line:
All in all, I want to watch the news even more now! Like I said before, I really have nothing bad to say about this, its easy to use and brings a new meaning to porn. I would not be spending my time trying to rub one out on this site, its merely entertainment!
Final Word: I WILL BE RETURNING FOR SURE!!!! you have to stay up-to-date somehow right?
Current Member for over 2 months (at the time of review).
Pros:
Unusual, not totally unique site.
Some attractive presenters who strip naked.
Reporting is of a quite decent standard.
Guest presenters add variety.
Large archive
Cons:
Some presenters are sporting too much silicon for my taste.
Sometimes the banter between the presenters is tiresome.
Not enough stripping.
Guest anchors generally appear nude then do a clothed interview? Why not the other way around!
Bottom Line:
OK I know it is Naked News, but starting a segment nude spoils the trip. Perhaps if they want to strike a balance they should have the presenter strip on her first item in the show & appear naked later if she is doing a subsequent spot?
It is not really erotic, but I don't really think it sets out to be. It would detract from their attempts to be a legitimate news service.
In all good value, but the novelty does wear off.
I think they ought to revert to their initial format of fully clothed for longer stripping & rotate the anchors more.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
If you're a fan of softcore erotica and you're looking for something different, this could be it. If you log on and watch the intro video, you'll have a pretty good idea of what to expect. A woman reports on the news and slowly takes off her clothes (or sometimes it's lingerie, or even costumes). If that sounds intriguing, you'll love the site. If not, well, that's pretty much the entire site.
Surprisingly, the news reporting is actually decent. It's a fun way to stay up on current events. The video quality is excellent and available in a variety of formats for both Mac and PC. You can download the two most current programs in very high resolution, or you can download the last 150 days shows in your choice of low/medium/high resolution. However, you'll need to buy the "gold" membership to get the very high quality videos.
Additionally, various years old segments are available for streaming, but not downloading.
Cons:
I'll try to address some common complaints so that prospective subscribers know what they're getting:
The show is not really about sex. Some people may not find it erotic in the slightest. There's no romantic component and, more than anything, it feels kind of silly and carefree. It's actually a fun site, but it's not about sex.
There are about 20 downloadable pictures for some of the anchors, but for some bizarre reason, they're only semi-nude. You won't see things that you see in the video. Think of Demi Moore on the poster for "Striptease." The pics are really more like a bonus than anything else.
It's impossible to tell who the actual current anchors are. You'd think Michelle and Yukiko were still involved, but they're not. This is a bit frustrating. Not all of the anchors are amazing. Some have fake breasts and some are very skinny, but mostly they're pretty hot.
Finally, not everyone is nude all the time. If that's a problem, you'll be frustrated by the site.
Bottom Line:
I've subscribed off-and-on for years and I've always been pleased with the content. There is a real sense of teamwork and friendship between the anchors, and you get a real sense of their personalities.
The video quality, as I said, is outstanding and the download speeds are fast. Add to that the extremely low cost of membership, and you can't lose.
The fundamental question is, do you find the content stimulating? I suspect that for many, the answer is no - it's just too soft and has nothing to do with sex. However, you may find it irresistible.
There are a few specious notions floating around this forum, so please post a response if you want clarification on any point.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
-Good Looking Models
-Good Programing
-Decent Quality Video
-Some Amateur Models
-Price is Low ($14.95/month)
Cons:
-Daily/Hourly Download Limit
-Very Few Pictures with NO NUDITY
-Archives are Limited (See Below)
-No Close-ups of Models Naked Parts
-Videos are Quick Time ONLY
-Some FAKE BOOBS (Not to my liking)
Bottom Line:
I have been a member of this site for on and off over the last 7 years (this is my 7th time joining). While they have improved the programming of the show a great deal, the site quality is lacking compared to what it could be. Placing limits on the number of downloads you can do in an hour/day is ridiculous given that the largest videos are 30MB and most are under 10MB. I was restricted after downloading only 4 days of material! That is about 28 2min clips at moderate resolution. That is simply crap given that only 1/3 of that contains nudity(-10pts)!
This brings me to my other point. While the site advertised .H64 high rez video (which isn't all that great), they do have it---but only for the last two days are available for download(-10pts).
Next we have the Quick Time only video. Although QT is not horrible the videos should be in multiple formats given that this site is basically a TV show. Video is their thing and they are failing with presenting it (-5pts).
Finally, the models may be hot but by the time you wade through the limited downloads, the so-so video quality, and the QT only you essentially get to see a pussy that is composed of about 10-15 pixels. This would not be a problem IF there were quality pictures of the models to accompany the videos. And there are, but they are NON NUDE (-15pts).
So why have I rejoined. Long story short, besides Lily Kwan and April Torres, in 2001 the quality of the video was good for the time and there were no download limits. By 2005 the models had changed and the video quality was somewhat better. Last year the video quality was starting to suck and I was told it was going be HD soon. Now that they have the .H64 QT video they have imposed limitations that are ridiculous for the user.
If you want to check the site out it may be worth it if it is your first time. Too bad you will not be able to see the older anchors since the archive is pitiful (i.e. the older videos have NOT been improved but rather are shown AS IS circa 2000 like 100 X 70). This site is in need of a major reality check given how well other adult sites treat their material. This will be the last time I join given the restrictions imposed which ruins the experience.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
++ very original idea
++ video quality is EXCELLENT
++ mood/attitude/personality of the girls is EXCELLENT - they enjoy it
+ fun to see news anchor undressing
+ different outfits and strip patterns
+ pussy haircuts
+ cheap
Cons:
-- about 50% of the time there is no undressing, girls start nude
-- there is at least one girl which is outright UGLY
- very few REALLY good-looking girls
Bottom Line:
I've re-joined "Naked News" recently, and shall say I've got mixed feelings about it.
It is still news and the girls are still stripping while reading them, and it is still one show every day. The girls are still stripping to all-nude, but not more (not even anything "pink", no teasing, nothing). That's what the site is about, and I don't see any problems with it, just want to be clear.
The first problem I see with it is that while they have some variety by adding different outfits and strip patterns, about half of the time girls start nude, so there is no room to strip further, and no variety :-(.
The second problem is while they're hiring girls who enjoy it, and that's perfectly fine, but there shall be some minimal look standards; there is at least one regular girl which is IMHO OUTRIGHT ugly, and for me it is a major turn-off. I don't have problems with "average-looking" girls there (most of their girls are average-looking and I'm ok with it as long as they have nice personality, and they usually do), but this one is different.
On the positive side, it looks that site has started to pay some attention to make it a bit more erotic: while there is still no "pink" and no "teasing", it looks that girls have started to make nice pussy haircuts :-) (warning - you won't see any close-ups of it, the view is always like in the "normal" news - either full-height or above-waist).
Bottom line: a site which can be fun to see for a month (if you're ok with "just nudity"), but as a long-term fun I don't really see it happening. It IMHO even became a (tiny) bit worse than a year ago because of problems outlined above, and it's reflected in the score. If they would add more stripping variety (outfits, stripping patterns and so on), and pay a BIT more attention to girl looks (I REALLY like girls smiling and have no problems with "average looking" girls, but there shall be some minimal standard) it IMHO could help significantly.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
unique and outrageous concept
convincingly performed by attractive women
high quality video
cheap
Cons:
hourly/daily download limits
unhelpful file names in zip files
can only download last 6 months
can only download 1 scene at a time
Bottom Line:
I love the concept of nude women stripping and reading the news naked, I couldn't quite believe it when I saw a clip on TV. The news is real and probably better quality than that in the English tabloid press. The models are attractive and many of them are shaved which is a big bonus when they aren't opening their legs.
When I join a site I aim to download a lot and watch it at my leisure, this is where I had difficulty. Only the last 6 months are available to download, and each day's news is only available as around 8 separate zip files, one for each news item which is rather tedious to download, and the zip file names aren't unique so you need to create a folder for each day. If I spend some time downloading I often run into a daily or hourly download limit which is frustrating.
If you want a daily ritual of watching the latest news then the site is perfect. Even if that's not your plan then the fun and well produced content is still worth a membership.
Current Member for over 3 months (at the time of review).
Pros:
This site bills itself as a real news program where the anchors happen to undress and present the news nude. Indeed, the female anchors do strip nude, they are indeed attractive, and they do present the news in a professional manner. There are also many special features, such as "News on the Street", where topless reporters interview the man or woman on the street about various topics. The news is real and there are a lot of new segments available each day.
Cons:
Although this site claims that people keep coming back, not only for the nude women but also to get real news, that is debatable. The news is--although much more professional and real than you might expect on a softcore porn site--nevertheless not likely to be sufficiently hard hitting for anyone to really get their news from this site. Some of the features are a little silly, as well, and distracting if you want the illusion of getting real news from nude women.
Bottom Line:
The women undress while presenting virtually all news, including news which might be seen as rather tragic. This can be strangely erotic when you see a woman undressing while announcing news of a serious tragedy. The women keep their clothes on only for the most extreme of tragic news stories like 9/11. The site is also quite inexpensive and the women are quite articulate and interesting in presenting the news. The bottom line is that this site does not quite reach the stated goal of being trying professional journalism, but it is close enough that it can be very erotic. Definitely recommended if you enjoy watching women undress but the 'Wall Street Journal' this site is not.
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
- very unique concept (girls read news while stripping);
- girls are very good (also very funny when necessary) in doing it;
- a funny way to keep updated about world news;
Cons:
- can be pretty boring if watching daily, which is somewhat offset by different stripping patterns.
- stripping only;
- needs pretty good connection to work ok (when my ISP has problems with bandwidth, it stucks intermittently).
Bottom Line:
Site is made by a Canadian company, with girls from all over the Canada, including French girls from Quebec.
Concept is pretty simple - girls read news (yes, real-world news with a slight twist towards entertainment), but the girls undress while they read the news. Girls are beautiful and read it quite professionally (which is a surprise). The biggest problem with the site is that if looking at it daily, it becomes pretty boring; they're trying to make it more interesting by changing clothing and strip in different patterns, but unfortunately there is not that much choice with really different stripping patterns, especially as they need to look into the camera all the time.
Bottom line: funny thing to try for a month, but most people aren't likely to renew (maybe in half a year or so).
Was a member approx. 4 months prior to this review.
Pros:
-Ipod Downloads
-Choice Of Streaming Or Downloading Of Naked News Programming
-Anchors Are Very Attractive
-Fairly Good Priced
-Very Quick Download Speeds
Cons:
-Ipod Downloads Can Only Be Accessed For Current And Last 2 Days
-News Broadcasts Could Be Longer
-Nothing Else Except For Naked News Programming Is Really Worth A Second Look
Bottom Line:
If You Are Looking For News With Nudity Then This Is Defintely The Site You Want To Check Out.
This Website Is Not That Pricey So It's At Least Worth 1 Look Or 2. The "Extra" Content Is Okay, Like The Pics They Add Of Models Here And There. Ipod Downloads Are Great For People On The Go! That Was A Big + In My Book! :)
Was a member approx. 3 months prior to this review.
Pros:
-Very good video quality
-Numerous options for dowloading/viewing content
-Daily updates (6 days a week)
-It delivers actual news
Cons:
-Format hasn't really changed since site began
-Softcore all the way
-No interaction with models/newscasters
-Very limited niche: If you don't like stripping and/or softcore vids this site definitely isn't for you
Bottom Line:
I signed up with this site because it was inexpensive, looked very different than anything else out there, and I find newscasters who DON'T take off their clothes hot. So, a site that had girls in business suits taking their clothes OFF would be awesome! I stayed a member for quite awhile, only canceling recently due more to money issues than a lack of satisfaction with the site.
One thing that really surprised me about the site was that you actually get the news and the girls are very good at delivering stories while they strip. I doubt Tom Brokaw could do it and even if he could we wouldn't want to see it! It would be easy to do this kind of site half-assed, but the on air talent take it quite seriously and you can actually learn something while...you know. :)
While I have enjoyed the site, I can definitely see why others would hate it. The format of the broadcast hasn't changed much at all over time and if you like variety in your porn this just won't cut it. There isn't any personal interaction and absolutely NO hardcore content to be found.
Bottom line: If you like to keep updated on news, enjoy a stable "lineup" of models, and are a business suit/lingerie fetishist you will love this site and its low price. If you are into hardcore, enjoy a variety of themes and models, and want a personal touch you would be well advised to look elsewhere. If you are at all curious after reading this review I recommend giving it a try and it will only set you back 10 bucks.
*Newbie reviews and ratings don't count toward a site's overall score/rank until the user reaches the Rookie status level (5 points). This rule is needed to help prevent fake (or heavily biased) profiles and reviews.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
