SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (19163)4/5/2006 10:27:46 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    What bothers me is all the reverence the rest of the 
media has for the people at the top of their profession
and, worse, the grand fiction that there is a high wall
between entertainment and news.

Bar the door - it's Katie

by Jonah Goldberg
Townhall.com
Apr 5, 2006

It looks like Katie Couric, that apple of America's eye, will be the next anchor of "CBS Evening News," arguably the most prestigious job in television journalism. Not only will Couric be following in the footsteps of Murrow, Cronkite and Dan "Fake But Accurate" Rather, she'll also be joining the bullpen of "60 Minutes," the best TV news magazine in the history of television.

There is nothing the press likes to talk about more than the press, so we can be sure we will be hearing about Couric's career move ad nauseam. Much will be made about Couric the Female Pioneer who has finally broken the glass ceiling for female news anchors (though Connie Chung did briefly co-host "CBS Evening News"). Others will find even more evidence that it pays to be a conventional knee-jerk liberal in the mainstream media. Most media critics, however, will focus on the inside-baseball stuff like ratings and staff musical chairs at the various networks. You can be sure that TV writers will form something of a Manhattan Project to discuss her hair, clothes and level of perkiness once she starts reading a TelePrompTer every night.

But one thing few people invested in the glamour and seriousness of big-league television news will say is what a sham the whole enterprise is. Broadcast journalism is one of the only fields in American life where the job gets demonstrably easier the higher you go. Or, to be more fair, the parts of the job that have to do with what everyone thinks of as "journalism" get easier and easier, and in some cases the journalism simply vanishes altogether.

Consider how the respected television analyst Andrew Tyndall defines the job of news anchor. The job has two parts, he told The Washington Post. First, they have to read the TelePrompTer. The second part involves "sitting behind the desk when there's a crisis."

One can be as charitable as possible, conceding that reading a TelePrompTer convincingly in front of millions of people is not a skill all of us have, and it's still difficult to find what most of us would describe as journalistic substance there. And if CBS pays Couric the $15-million-a-year salary that's been reported, she will be compensated to the tune of roughly $60,000 per half-hour of on-camera work (that assumes no vacation time, by the way).

Now, as a free-market guy, I have no huge ideological problem with this. Executives at CBS have apparently concluded that they can sell more soap by having Ms. Couric read the news. What bothers me is all the reverence the rest of the media has for the people at the top of their profession and, worse, the grand fiction that there is a high wall between entertainment and news.

For example, in 2000, ABC News selected Leonardo DiCaprio to interview Bill Clinton about the environment for Earth Day. The staff, including Sam Donaldson, and outside critics erupted in a barrage of outrage. How dare ABC suggest that a dim-bulb movie star can do the same job as a seasoned journalist? The defensiveness was telling. Because the truth is that most news readers are little more than actors. That's one reason so many attractive young women want to be an actress/model/news anchor when they grow up.

Consider Barbara Walters. In the '70s and '80s, it was drummed into us that she was the Susan B. Anthony of American journalism. Even today, whenever her bona fides as a serious journalist are questioned, she gets her hackles up and plays the angered feminist. Then she returns to asking Hollywood movie stars what kind of tree they would be if they could be a tree and hosting that paragon of Cafe Vienna Moment journalism, "The View."

Indeed, the current host of "The View," Meredith Vieira, is NBC's first choice to replace Couric. Vieira has another job: She hosts the daytime version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" Ms. Vieira's official bio touts up front that she won a Daytime Emmy as a game show host and buries the fact she won five real Emmys for her work as a "60 Minutes" reporter.

As co-host of the "Today" show, Couric seamlessly moves from hosting a fashion show to baking ladyfingers to discussing Social Security reform. The only thing that distinguishes her "news" personality from her work as a cruise director is which camera she looks into and how she pitches her voice. Often it's difficult to tell the difference. She began one interview thusly: "When I got this assignment I thought, 'Whoa, slow news day!' But the importance of the sports bra to American women can't be overemphasized."

Again, on the merits, none of this is that bothersome if you don't take television news too seriously. What is bothersome is how seriously television journalists take themselves.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online. A fantastic podcast with Jonah is now available for free from the Ashbrook Center.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)4/5/2006 12:46:36 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
KATIE'S NO "MOVE TO THE CENTER" BY CBS

Tim Graham
The Corner

Cornerites are correct to assume that by trading Katie Couric for Dan Rather, you are NOT in any way getting a shift toward greater objectivity or fairness to conservatives. (On women’s issues, you are in fact getting MORE passion.) The MRC’s Couric page has been updated for this not-as-historic-as-vaunted occasion. Start with the outraged hounding of “Catholic Town USA.” (link below)

corner.nationalreview.com

mrc.org



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)4/5/2006 2:39:59 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
OVER HER HEAD

Posted by Guest Blogger Evan Maxwell
Patterico's Pontifications

It ain’t a new insight, not by a far sight, but add me to the list of scribblers suggesting that the Katie Couric news suggests that television news has just jumped the shark.

Don’t blame Ms. Couric. She is only exploiting the opening that has been given her. She is only guilty of overreaching, which is the most common sin in the media world, maybe in the human species.

No, blame the decision makers at the network hiring her away. The program they develop for their nightly news slot will have to be tailored for her talents, such as they are. But whatever goes out on the air will be as far from network nightly news as Oprah is from Jim Lehrer. And I am willing to bet that the show will appeal to the same anxious, hypochondriacal audience that laps up the thin gruel of Today.

Saying that, I realize the Couric News may well be be a vast TELEVISION success, just as Oprah is. Just don’t expect much substantive content from it. No policy wonks will appear and the talking heads will tear up regularly over injustice, untreated malady and unprosecuted child abuse.

I didn’t know that sharks could swim in such shallow waters.

Posted by Guest Blogger Evan Maxwell, who has had it up to his chin with shallow lightweights.

patterico.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)4/6/2006 5:19:16 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
CBS prolongs our agony...

Roger L. Simon

...Determined somehow to prove that an anchorman (or woman) is still a relevant profession in 2006, CBS has named Katie Couric, in the words of their press release,

<< "Anchor and Managing Editor of The CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC." >>

Note the nearly (or actually) pathological narcissism of the title, undoubtedly negotiated to death by a team of lawyers, which elevates Couric to equal billing to the news itself. It's almost as if CBS were acknowledging that this was not going to be the truth, but only the "world according to Couric," a field day for deconstructionists. The desperation in this choice and in the need to preserve the role of "Anchor" itself is palpable.


In the summer of 1995 I issued an endangered species alert for the Anchormanus Pomposis. I didn't know then the Anchormanus Pomposa was in the wings.

rogerlsimon.com

drudgereport.com

rogerlsimon.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)4/7/2006 7:04:06 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
New Time, Same Katie

CBS abandons the pretense of neutrality in the evening news.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Friday, April 7, 2006

The appointment of Katie Couric to anchor the CBS "Evening News" marks the end of an era in American journalism. Not because she's the first woman to go solo in broadcasting's most prestigious job: Her next employers probably figure that her sex will be a boon in the ratings war, not something they, or she, have to overcome.

But the job has been changing, and one real breakthrough that CBS has made is to acknowledge that fact. The television news universe of anodyne, gravelly voiced authority is collapsing. Personality and celebrity make that world go around now. Americans weren't interested in Chet Huntley's personal life, but they can't get enough of Ms. Couric's. In the days before her decision to leave NBC was final, speculation about a CBS offer bombarded us like those promos for "Survivor": Would Katie join a rival tribe?

A Wednesday press release from CBS labors to prove that Ms. Couric has hard-core journalism credentials by listing the politicians and other serious people she has talked to over the years. No mention of the thinness of some of those conversations. Or of all the movie stars and other fluff-balls she has chatted up on "The Today Show" or the wacky costumes and short skirts she has famously worn.

That's OK. In an infotainment age where even the late Peter Jennings had to host an ABC "news special" on UFOs, you can't fairly mock Ms. Couric for doing in-depth interviews with the likes of "the runaway bride."

What's more interesting about Ms. Couric's becoming managing editor of a major network news show is that it will mean the end of the anchor as political cipher. In days past, whatever we suspected about their leanings, anchorpersons felt compelled at least to pose as disinterested reporters of "the way it is." Ms. Couric dropped that veil long ago.

The list of her utterances and leading questions posted on the Media Research Center's fretful Web site
( mrc.org ) may not fully represent the range of her opinions and peeves. Unless she's a total fake on camera, though, there's little doubt about where Katie stands across the great red-blue divide. Democrats and their pet causes get tender respect; Republican and "conservative" policies get introduced in terms of the alleged threat they represent to our great nation.

Arguably, it's better to know this and be done with the illusion of true neutrality. There are so many information outlets available now that alert consumers can choose to avoid newscasters whose judgment they don't trust or shows with an unwanted political slant.

As for the gravitas issue, there's a whole raft of observers who would claim--only half joking--that Ms. Couric may have too much heft for the evening news, so trivial has it become: a few minutes of actual news, followed by "This stroller could kill your baby," "Dr. Mary on 10 ways to avoid stress," and a sob segment on some victim/survivor of adversity or government indifference.

Don't blame Ms. Couric for any of that. It's all based on ratings. American viewers are the ones who apparently want the soft stuff. Who got tired of the Eric Severeid pronouncements. Or, to use one of Katie's locutions, who watched newscasts delivered the old way and said, "Blech!"

opinionjournal.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)4/10/2006 4:24:23 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Central Perk

Putting Katie Couric on the CBS throne is like replacing one Dan Rather with another.

By Tim Graham
National Review Online

The torch of Dan Rather has been passed at CBS, and another liberal flame-thrower is on the job. Katie Couric may seem to some as too stuffed with Perky Morning Cuteness to be attacked as an icon of the Liberal Elitist Media. But as different as her sparkly "That Girl" personality is from Dan Rather's wizened weirdness, they have one thing in common: Truth is a malleable commodity, something to be stretched and smudged like Silly Putty on the Sunday funnies if the political cause is right.

One moment sticks out in remembering Couric's approach to journalism.
Reporters rarely admit their political leanings, but on the network morning shows, the female anchors are bold enough to identify themselves as part of the feminist movement. The words "feminist" and "we" can be interchanged, as they were in a June 2, 1994, Today interview when Katie Couric asked author of 'Who Stole Feminism', Christina Hoff Sommers, "what should we be using other than this angry rhetoric" in the feminist movement?

But a much more pernicious form of bias was revealed when the talk turned to statistics.
Sommers scowled at the thoroughly discredited statistic that domestic violence increases after football games. Discredited statistics discredit the cause. But not for Couric, who suggested the feminist cause is more important than the truth: "Let's say, if one accepts your thesis, that these statistics are inflated or are used incorrectly. Aren't you worried about throwing the baby out with the bath water? So Super Bowl Sunday isn't the biggest day for men battering women. Aren't you afraid that you're going to be dismissing the problem all together if you refute that, or if you constantly criticize that?" Couric's Law: Don't refute errors if they set back liberal progress. Katie Couric needs to be taken seriously: as CBS replacing one Rather with another.

It's not that critics can't mock her for bouts of unbearable lightness. It's easy to remember her reading a Washington Post satire of Bob Graham's bizarre daily chronicle of his own small doings in 2003, then reading it to Graham as if it was real, even though it had laughable stage instructions like "Ascend stage, stumble, regain balance." Or asking Time editors later that year why there was no woman on their Person of the Year cover on the American soldier, when there was a woman standing in the center of the cover.

In 1997, after Lisa Myers profiled Sen. Fred Thompson as hearings began into Democratic fundraising abuses, Couric asked: "Lisa, back to the really important things. I remember he brought that country singer Lorrie Morgan to a Washington dinner once a few years back. Is he still dating her?" But even in the light-hearted moments, she can be mean-spirited to conservatives. Katie Couric thought Rush Limbaugh's prescription-drug addiction was killer comedy fodder when she guest-hosted the Jay Leno show: "I feel actually good because I flew out here, and Rush Limbaugh sat next to me on the plane. He gave me some vitamins. Whaa! It feels good!"

CBS will be under extra pressure from outside as well as inside the news division to give Couric a gravitas transplant, to be hard-hitting, and guess who will be getting slapped. Couric has a long record of liberal bias, especially on social issues. It was Couric who heavily suggested to David Brock he could not be trusted on the Anita Hill story since he came from the "ultraconservative" American Spectator, even as she interviewed Hill with syrupy questions about her historic legacy. But three years earlier, when she was just a reporter, she hailed The Nation magazine without even a liberal label: "It's always been a platform for speakers who have been ahead of their time. This morning, we'll look at a new book that reminds us how important that platform has been."

It was Couric who presided over two days of stories implying that Christian conservatives created a "climate" that led to the brutal beating death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. More recently, it was Couric who dragged the Nazi connections out, no matter how strained, for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pope Benedict, and then lectured others about peddling "dirty" allegations. Just weeks ago, it was Couric who pounded Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan about how his vision for a Catholic college town in Florida was "like, wow...really infringing on civil liberties," and "eschewing diversity and promoting intolerance" and "de facto segregation."

But the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric will probably still be a very comfortable neighborhood for liberal heroes, especially liberal women. She's hailed Madeleine Albright as a "rock star" and welcomed Nancy Pelosi to the House leadership with a "you go, girl." She is well known as a bowing and scraping ring-kisser of Hillary Clinton, going all the way back to 1992. In April of that year, Couric talked with Hillary about charges she'd be the "power behind the throne" and asked: "Do you think that those kinds of reactions, Ms. Clinton, are the product of just good old-fashioned sexism?"

She was still doing it when hailing "candid" Hillary's memoirs in 2003, and remembering the health care debacle: "But were you surprised at the backlash? The really vitriolic, violent backlash against you in many ways? Do you think it was good old-fashioned sexism?" With all this sympathy and you-go-girl feminist cheerleading, do Couric and her new employers really think it outrageous for conservatives to wonder if she won't have an enormous rooting interest in Hillary for president in the next year or two?

Disapproval of the idea of Couric succeeding Rather at CBS is not old-fashioned sexism. It's not the same as disapproval of a woman anchoring the news. Many women have done that with credibility over the years. It's disapproval of the ascent of yet another anchorman or anchorwoman whose professional output over the years screams the view that conservatism is a frightening caveman creed and liberalism isn't merely desirable, but inevitable.

— Tim Graham is director of media analysis at the Media Research Center and an NRO contributor.

nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)4/12/2006 6:36:10 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
A perky version of Mary Mapes

Power Line

Nearly all of the commentary about Katie Couric's selection as CBS anchor misses what I think is the central point -- CBS has selected an out-and-out liberal who has placed the desire to promote her political agenda ahead of regard for the facts. We know this from Couric's own words. As Tim Graham reminds us on NRO (via the Washington Times), Couric once challenged Christina Hoff Sommers for refuting bogus statistics on domestic violence, not because Sommers' refutation was incorrect but because of fear that "you're going to be dismissing the problem altogether if you refute that." As Graham aptly paraphrases it, don't refute errors if they set back liberal progress.

powerlineblog.com

washingtontimes.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)6/27/2006 12:07:29 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Katie's listening tour

by Cal Thomas
Townhall.com
Jun 27, 2006

Emulating the “listening tour” of Hillary Clinton when she first ran for the Senate, the newly minted anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” Katie Couric, will soon embark on a listening tour of her own. Executive Producer Rome Hartman says, “It’s an attempt to hear from regular folks on a whole broad range of things that help us make decisions on how we can better serve our viewers.”

The general manager of the CBS affiliate in Denver, Walt DeHaven, said in a press release that when Couric visits his city, “She intends to meet a diverse cross section (of people) so that she can really get to the heart of the community.”

In order to be in the presence of the first female permanent anchor of a broadcast evening news program, one must fill out an application. From those applications, “100 people from all cross sections of the community will be contacted and given the opportunity to participate” in the July 13 forum.

I suppose this is good public relations, though Couric is already one of the most recognizable faces in the country. What I don’t get is DeHaven’s comment that Couric’s visit will help her “understand what Coloradans feel is important, what issues our community faces and how she can help bring significant news stories to television viewers, not only in Denver, but nationwide.”

By the time one ascends to the anchor chair at a broadcast network, shouldn’t it be assumed that the person already knows what news looks like and what the public needs to know?
Does a surgeon ask a patient for advice before operating? If our children say they want cereal for dinner, instead of a balanced meal, do we agree to their tastes, or tell them to eat their vegetables?

Will the Denver visit (San Diego and San Francisco have also been selected for visits by Couric) include ideological diversity? If a conservative gets up (assuming he or she clears the screening process) will that person be allowed to ask why conservative views and values are rarely covered, except in stereotype? And if that question is asked, will it make a difference how Couric, who will be managing editor, orders up such stories?

The Media Research Center has compiled a record of Couric’s liberal pronouncements on various subjects. The introduction says, “Since becoming co-host of NBC’s ‘Today’ in April 1991, Katie Couric has often used her perch to salute her liberal heroes (including Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter) or complain about ‘right-wing conservatives.’ In her years on ‘Today,’ she’s lectured Charlton Heston about the need for gun control, championed the need for campaign finance ‘reform,’ and even touted the wonders of France’s nanny state.” Her perspective is unlikely to change after one listening tour.

There were tours by journalists when I was with NBC News in the 1960s and ’70s, but those were different. Foreign correspondents would come home from their posts and visit college campuses and other venues. They would “report” on their areas of expertise and the effectiveness of U.S. policy in the region. The audience asked serious questions about the countries, ranging from their military strength and political intentions, to their economies. Correspondents did not solicit the views of the audience so they might do a better job covering the news. The audience solicited the views of the correspondents, believing them to have important information they needed and wanted to hear.

I’m all for anchors visiting “fly-over country,” but given their privileged lives, large salaries, and the similar worldview held by their friends and professional associates, don’t look for Katie’s listening tour to be much more than hype for the new “CBS Evening News.”

Here’s how we’ll know if Couric pays attention to what conservatives want to see: Katie will do stories on heroes in Iraq; a religious conservative will not be called “intolerant” for wanting to protect the unborn, or preserve marriage between men and women; terrorists are treated as evil and the Bush administration, which is trying to defeat them, is at least occasionally portrayed as the good side.

Don’t hold your breath, but do keep the remote handy.

Cal Thomas is the co-author of Blinded By Might.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (19163)7/14/2006 4:24:21 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Scoping Katie Couric's career

By Kathleen Parker
TownHall.com
Friday, July 14, 2006

It is axiomatic that when you reach the summit, people will try to take you down. Witness history, and now, Katie Couric.

The rising "CBS Evening News" anchor, who is trying to shed her morning "perk" for evening gravitas, has been dissected, analyzed, criticized, labeled, niched and positioned to within an inch of her life.

Can she do it? Of course she can. Can she talk? And how. Can she conduct an interview? Yes, of course, but we'll probably have to forgo the legs.

See what I mean? I hate it when I do that.

But let's face it, when you appear on television wearing a short skirt and high heels, revealing gams only a personal trainer can buy, you invite commentary. Couric can't have wished it otherwise, and there are worse things than being noted for great legs.

Such as having a public colonoscopy. There I go again. In fairness to my inner feline, certain acts invite objective criticism, and surely having a colonoscopy in front of millions of television viewers qualifies.

At the time, I wrote a column critical of Couric's now-legendary probe and was rewarded with a slapdown by hundreds of her fans, including my mother, who saw only courageous public service in the televised procedure.

That is to say, Couric has the sort of base any politician would envy. Her fans may tilt toward the taupe end of the age demographic, but that's called a majority these days as increasing numbers of baby boomers enjoy senior discounts.

To put an end to any speculation, I'm pulling for Katie. She's paid her dues and earned her place at the big table. The idea that a woman is somehow less acceptable in a "serious" role is silly on its face and otherwise is the stuff of Taliban fantasy.

That said, the decision to send Couric around the country on a "listening tour," scheduled to wrap up Monday, was a poor calculation. First off, the free-associative mind goes straight to that other trailblazing female, Hillary Clinton, who launched a listening tour before running for U.S. Senate.

Katie, Hillary, Katie, Hillary - two liberal peas in a pod? The question burrows in the mind and wants to stay.

And what's with this listening shtick, anyway? Couric isn't running for public office. Being an anchor isn't an elected position, though viewers ultimately will vote with their remotes. But shouldn't a newsperson be about the news rather than about the person?

The fact of the tour, which is taking Couric to six cities in order to expose her to what the media like to call "Ordinary Americans," merely confirms what those same Americans already dislike about the media - and especially about media personalities on the celebrity level of a Couric.

That is, Couric and others who decide what Americans should know are out of touch with real (preferable to "ordinary") Americans - the ones trying to raise families with familiar values, who volunteer to serve in the military, and who believe that the media are working against the country's best interests.

If you only talk to others like you, which is the case for many journalists inside the media centers of New York and Washington, you begin to think that everyone thinks - or should think - as you do.
The joke in the green room, where talking heads gather before the food fight, is the guy who says, "I've been out there! I've got the pulse (of Ordinary America)."

Which means he flew to Topeka that morning, parked himself at the counter of the Roadkill Cafe during lunchtime, interviewed a few locals, and flew back to D.C. in time for "Scarborough Country."

Couric's tour has the same feel. The girl has pizzazz enough to bottle and sell on eBay and the kind of charisma that will get her through red and blue America with Clintonian (Bill's) effect. But what she'll learn along the way shouldn't come as a surprise.

Most Americans want one thing with their evening newscast - news.

The old-fashioned kind that offers depth and context without spin. Straight reporting without commentary, implicit or otherwise. News that respects viewers' intelligence and allows them to draw their own conclusions.

With all the talk shows and galaxies of opinionators orbiting the blogosphere, the world is not starved for commentary. What's most critical to the mix - indeed what drives the rest - comes down to three words: reporting, reporting, reporting.

All Couric has to do to set herself apart from the pack is dig deep and tell it like it is. The rest is opinion. And, as Couric once so vividly reminded us, opinions are like colons. Everybody's got one.

townhall.com