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.
