The Death of Network News

Well, it looks as if the rumors are true, and CBS really is going to name Katie Couric as anchor of their nightly network news show.

Predictions were that the retirements of the "Big 3" (Jennings, Brokaw and Rather) would lead to the death of the traditional nightly newscast. That was wrong, but this just might do it.

I guess Bob Schieffer just doesn't want to do it forever at his age. (The real shame is that CBS didn't replace Rather with Scheiffer ten years ago.) But to go with Couric, who mixes being bubbly and perky and fun in infotainment segments and celebrity interviews with hard news segments that are so lightly prepared you just want to scream cannot help but change the face of network news forever. Not because she's a woman. But because she's built a career on being a lightweight, which certainly has nothing to do with ability -- clearly this was a savvy and calculated choice.

But they think now she's going to suddenly turn on the gravitas and have it work? They're crazy. That isn't what Couric's fans have come to expect. So either they change the tone and tenor of the evening newscast, or they disappoint the very fan base that makes her an attractive hire to begin with.

And, oh yeah, as with the Big 3, notice there's always money for salary negotiations, just never money for newsroom budgets.

One last item. This was in Kurtz's article:

Couric has been something of a lightning rod for television critics. "There's a lot of jealousy because the woman has done quite well for herself, and there's still some residual sexism in the world," Sorenson said.

I cannot tell you how angry comments like that make me. Couric has been a lightning rod because to do what she does in the mornings and call it "news" is contemptible. There may be some jealousy from people in her field and there surely is some sexism in the world, but saying so should not provide a shield protecting her from all criticism. The fact of sexism should not be used to make it impossible to criticize women. If you're a women in a professional field, your work is subject to fair critique. You can't just wave the magic sexism wand and make all criticism disappear.

Comments

[Ron Hardin]

They aspire to audience, not news. ``News'' is marketing to the soap audience, and it has been for a long time.

There is no viable business market for actual traditional news.

It isn't that they're not living up to journalistic standards, but that journalistic standards aren't recognized for what they are in the first place, which is quite far from what they pretend to be.

As to sexism, men are interested in things that can be abstracted from and settled, and women are interested in complexity and irresolution and things tied together. Women are the better commercial audience, so that's what you get.

The nation has to deal with that editing effect for everybody, in every public debate.

[Ron Hardin]

I may be overly sensitive, but TV news was insufferable to me already in 1971, when I tossed out the TV for good.

I was tired of being addressed as a woman. As most women ought to be, as well, but apparently are not.

[Daniel MacGregor]

"But they think now she's going to suddenly turn on the gravitas and have it work?"

I last seriously watched "Today" back when Hugh Downs hosted it.

My mother continues watching it, however.

One morning, I did catch sight of Katie doing a "serious" interview. How did i know she was "supposed" to be "serious?" Why, she had her "granny" glasses on.

Now, whether Katie needs reading glasses or not, I do remember one Hollywood cliche/stereotype: whenever they want to show that a female member of the species is intelligent, they put a pair of glasses on her.

[hhhhh]

出会い出会いデリヘル