Dw. Dunphy On… Katie Couric

couric1Katie Couric is sexy. I’ll give you all a moment to digest that.

Aaaaaaaand … scene.

I’m not kidding here. I find Miss Couric genuinely attractive and, to add to that, I think that is the primary stumbling block for her turn as anchor of the CBS Evening News. To understand where we are, we need to remember an important detail. From the beginning of news dispersion, from radio to the infancy of television to the Golden Age of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, this has been a patriarchy, a game run by men of age and experience with that commanding “Voice of God” presence. It is a role the networks have been only too happy to fill, even if the distinguished gentlemen taking the spotlight weren’t the most qualified to serve. They looked and sounded the part. That was enough.

In an effort to energize their sagging news division, CBS put their faith and a large amount of prestige behind Couric, going 180 degrees away from the standard. Since then it has been nothing less than a death-clock countdown to her stay there and, really, that is unfair. Yes, the viewership has moved to other networks and other anchors — male anchors who can wear the suit and sound appropriately authoritarian — but most of these viewers probably get the bulk of their news from old media anyhow. Network news and, in shockingly severe numbers, newspapers have been losing eyes to cable news outlets and the catch-as-catch-can speed of the Internet. The exodus from Couric, while partly due to this gender shock, is more about the waning relevance of these organizations.

savitchGender shock? Absolutely. Consider that while Couric is the newest element, the organization still consists of the writers and reporters that served under Bob Schieffer; some of them may have even been there during Dan Rather’s stay. How is it that the footsoldiers remain, yet there is such a perceived difference? Because those last viewer holdouts are hardwired to the old media and ways thereof, the bias persists. Perhaps it would have been different if it was the late 1970s. Not that we have to imagine too hard, because there was a definite possibility of the paradigm being, if not shifted, then severely nudged. Jessica Savitch found a home at NBC as the weekend anchor of their news broadcast after moving up the ranks of local outlets. This was during the tenure of two of broadcasting’s most venerable — John Chancellor and David Brinkley. Savitch was also attractive, but in an angular and somewhat stern way, possibly played up a bit to fit into this boys club rather than to tweak the standard too much.

She was getting a lot of buzz as a possible future solo anchor of the more prestigious weeknight spot, which would be a first. Women had been accepted as co-anchors on local news for many years but to be “the one” before the national broadcast would have been historic. There were three things that prevented this from happening, the first being those same biases we’ve previously discussed. Sure, Savitch had credibility and had appeal, but would America actually buy into the plan? This anxiety fed into the second hindrance — Savitch had, years before, a substance abuse problem, and it appeared to be creeping back into her life, both personally and professionally. On a prime-time “update” between programs on October 3, 1983 she slurred her statements, mangled the copy by not saying parts of it altogether, and it appeared those old demons had returned. Twenty days later, the ascending star was dead, drowned in the backseat of a car driven by friend and vice-president of the New York Post newspaper Martin Fischbein. Neither drugs nor intoxication played a role in the accident. History eluded Jessica Savitch.

With her appointment to the CBS Evening News, Couric succeeded where Savitch couldn’t. She became the first solo female anchor of the network national broadcast, yet those old prejudices hamper the victory. Reports have claimed, with equal intensity, that the directors of the news division stand behind her and, at the same time, her stay with the Tiffany Network is drawing to a close. Some will say that her perky, celebrity-driven personality, the personality that propelled NBC’s Today Show to the top of the morning show heap, is the problem which is preposterous. The Evening News is just that and not the variety and current events that morning TV consists of. Others will say that they tuned in for that Katie, the smiling, perky one, and found news like any other CBS Evening News airing, which is equally galling.

couric2No, it seems that the last of the network watchers just aren’t able to process an attractive woman in that role, a concept that reduces the viewing public to little more than insecure high schoolers exorcising their adolescent Isms… But I’ll defend Couric, her right to sit in that chair, and her right to take that job. She has earned it through her work and some would rightly argue she is more emotionally stable than one of her predecessors who shall remain nameless (cough — “Kenneth”.)

Katie Couric is sexy. Grow up and deal with it.

Hot Chocolate – You Sexy Thing

Tags: , ,

  • JonCummings
    CBS hired Katie to bring her perkiness to the evening news, with the promise of transforming the format to fit her strengths. But by the time she debuted, she and/or they had downplayed her strengths and created a format that didn't suit anybody.

    She seemed stiffer, less relaxed, like she was playing dress-up in Walter Cronkite's closet. And the newscast, with its live interviews and soapbox commentaries, was too different from the normal format for traditional evening-news viewers -- yet not similar enough to the "Today" format for traditional Katie Couric viewers.

    I believe the lesson learned here is not just about sexism -- though I agree that's part of it -- but also about the differing audiences for the morning and evening news formats, and the thread-the-needle difficulty involved in trying to bring those audiences together.

    Rather than give up on Katie, CBS -- whose evening newscasts have been mired in last place for well over two decades, through Connie Chung and "courage" and the rest--should blow up the evening news format entirely and build a broadcast around her. I don't know what shape that show should take, maybe a mix of hard news and entertainment with her as the centerpiece among a set of anchors. But considering CBS' long-term failures as a news organization and Katie's long-term success as a news/talk personality, I think they should choose the latter over the former and see what happens.
  • So. I assume you have a similar stance towards Kelly Ripa?
  • Oh God no. She's a skeleton with a blond wig on.
  • Dan
    She is a cutie. But her news problem is that she spent 20(?) years doing cooking segments and riding donkeys and interviewing the likes of David
    Arquette, and trying out moonshoes.
    You can't suddenly say - I AM SERIOUS!
  • WHarrisBullzEye
    I believe she has referred to interviewing David Arquette as "my own personal Vietnam."

    Or possibly not.
  • Ted
    If you bracket the the cooking segments and celeb interviews and flash back to the 1992 presidential campaign, Couric was one of the only mainstream journalists to ask George H.W.Bush about his role in Iran-Contra. Sure, it was during a fluff piece featuring Barbara Bush, but once Bush Sr. came the in the room, she proved that she could think fast on her feet. Plus, she was a reporter for years prior to joining Today, so it's not like she just woke up one morning, looked in the mirror, and said to herself: "Today, I am a news anchor."
  • kar
    I have to agree. Her image is that of fluff pieces on morning television. Which appears to be exactly the package that CBS decided to sell. Not the veteren journalist, the pretty woman.

    No wonder it failed.

    Any other time they would've designed a campaign to emphasize her experience and credibility as a journalist. Run lots of clips of past "tough" interviews and montages of her being on the air for decades.

    No interviews with the fentertainment shows about how this is a natural progression for a seasoned pro in the business for years, no big interviews hghlighting her experience in hardcore television journalism. The talk was about the novelty of having a woman as an anchor, not a trusted news personality that America could embrace.

    I don't think that America would've balked if they'd sold her differently or played on her creditials. Instead they positioned her as Deborah Norville, not Cokie Roberts.
  • Elaine
    There is one component to the discussion of Katie Couric that is missing here. She is, has always been, and probably will always be, a political activist type liberal. She is proud of it. She's made no bones about it over the years. Pick any hotbutton topic and search for her quotes.

    This is America; it's fine, she can do whatever she wants. But there's a sizeable portion of the American viewing public who is not going to buy her as a hard news anchor, because they are already acutely aware of her political bias.

    Look at the difference in the across-the-board support for Tim Russert this week (may God rest his soul). He specifically went out of his way to prove he wasn't going to carry his former political career into his television news career. People respect that in a journalist who wishes to be considered unbiased. Call me old school, too, but I'm with Tim.
  • I'm not about to take anything away from Russert. He was a consummate professional, and yet he still has his detractors who feel he had his own agendas to flex and his own angle to push. I'm inclined to believe that if the news is bad, and you report it as such, you're not in the position to editorialize unless you plan to totally hijack the broadcast.

    Yes, Couric has her causes and her viewpoints but, to my knowledge, she's never roundhoused the CBS Evening News to fit her views. I think a lot of people actually wish she would, by shoehorning her celebrity in with her worldview to almost impose a bully pulpit, but I truly think she's more professional than that.

    In this day and age however, quality journalism and news reportage is hard to gauge. If you're doing it, and doing it well, it is an invisible trick. You sense it, but it's not screaming at you and, unfortunately, you don't get the complete impact of one's talents until they're recalled in memoriam, as many will see with Tim Russert. However, we certainly know when we're getting heavy slant. There is a reason why Fox News has become a butt of the joke. They're flashy, boisterous and (gag) in-your-face, true attention whores across the board. Those who do their jobs well cannot be immediately recognized while the class clown are making fart noises with their armpits.
  • Dan
    I have no reason to believe that she is politically liberal. Can you provide any quotes to support your statement?
  • Elaine
    Sure I could. But why? I'm not going to. Like I said, pick a politically charged topic and Google it. To post things here would lead to arguments about what everyone does or doesn't consider to be bias, and that's a waste of time and will just create hard feelings.

    My point was to tell you all that a great many people are aware of her politics, and will never give her an inch if she declares herself to be an objective journalist. Which, by the way, I don't believe she has actually made overtures to suggest anyway, which I also said already. I don't get the feeling that she cares about it. Maybe it's a holdover from the morning show mentality, where there was less need to maintain (and convince the audience about) journalistic integrity, strictly speaking. But I think it's fair to say that CBS doesn't care about it, either. Like kar said, they've pushed the perky, cute, pretty woman angle.
  • Dan
    "Sure I could. But why? " Because you made a blanket statement with nothing to back it up, then put it on other people to disprove it. You couldn't get away with that BS in an 8th grade composition class much less a debating team.
    If you can provide evidence to back up your supposition, then it won't "lead to arguments " as you fear. It will have been proven.
  • Elaine
    I'm sad to say this is exactly the response I expected. No, I will not get into a pissing match with you so that you can tell me I'm wrong. If I post one of her quotes about gun control or abortion, you'll call me names for being upset by them. Whatever.

    Again, I am telling you that a large number of people believe she is agenda driven for the political left. This isn't 8th grade or debate class. It doesn't matter if you or I agree or disagree. The opinion I'm giving you isn't about whether it's true. I'm simply stating that it's a problem stacked against her, and whether you believe me or not, I am convinced it's a big part of why her anchorship of the CBS Evening News has failed miserably.
  • shawn
    Yes she is pretty, I've always thought that.
    Besides the fact that "the evening news" media is dying and everyone under the age of 70 now gets their news from the Internet, she has what appears to me to be a clear left-wing agenda. Translation: she comes off as bitchy.
blog comments powered by Disqus