Whenever you see someone (on tv) talking on a radio station or whenever someone is in a studio, you always see microphones that look like this or this.
This is very different than what most normal people think of as a microphone.
First, the radio ones always have a webby thing holding them. Is this to cut down on vibrations or something? If so, why don’t we always use those for all microphones?
The radios ones also tend to be weird shapes too. More flat and angle like.
Any reasons?
I am no expert. But it all has to do with with kind of sound you are recording and what kind of environment and how much $$$ you are throwing at it and how it is all used in the end etc etc etc. It’s a whole world, not trying to be snarky. 
Agreed. There are many different types of microphones. Some are omni-directional, ie, they pick up sound from any direction. Some are uni-directional–they only pick up sound from one direction. Some are higher quality, more sensitive, or offer more options to the sound engineer in the control room.
I’m not really a sound guy, but I’d assume in a broadcast environment, you’d probably want a uni-directional microphone in the studio for a regular announcer, possibly a bi-directional version for an interview or multiple announcer setting.
The “webby thing” you’re referring to is called a shockmount. Yes, it’s used to reduce vibrations. The reason they aren’t used on all microphones is because they’re relative large, heavy and somewhat breakable. As a result, they’re best used in a permanent installation, like a studio.
in ancient times microphone technology was such that all microphones were shock mounted often with metal springs, they would pickup handling and floor or desk vibrations.
The big mics with shockmounts are usually condenser mics (but also could be ribbon or other). The angular ones are usually large diaphragm mics.
Studios generally use condenser mics that provide better sound, but are more fragile, require power, and are very sensitive to ambient noises. Live performances generally use dynamic mics which are sturdier and have better noise rejection. See Condenser vs. Dynamic Microphones.
What “most normal people think of as a microphone” is a dynamic microphone. Cheap, durable, rather low quality. But good enough for the normal on-scene reporter to use, and cheap enough to replace easily when they break it.
The microphones in your other links are condenser microphones. They are much more expensive, more delicate, and much higher quality. Because they are more sensitive they are usually placed in a shock mount, to prevent them from picking up extra sounds from people walking across the floor, etc.
They are typically used where much higher quality is needed, like in a studio recording an orchestra, or a master recording of a singer, where there is a much greater range to record than just an announcers voice.
The one in your first link looks like a Neumann U-87 mike – that’s a classic, well-respected workhorse of the recording industry. It sells for $3,800 new, though used or reconditioned ones are available for around $3,000. Really high-end microphones like the Brauner VM1 are around $10,000 each.
By contrast, the Shure SM58 you show as “most normal people think of as a microphone” sells for $139 list price, it’s often available for less than a hundred bucks. Not in the same class at all.
