In the constant quest to constantly fill the airwaves/virtual pages, journalism has undergone a creepy transformation. Not just the OJ trial but the *&^#%# OJ Bronco chase; Amber Holloway, kidnapped kids, the 'mommy wars' and Paris effin HIlton are in the news as often, or more, than insightful analysis about the ongoing MidEast Conflict, state of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, where the EU stands on the American war fronts, the economy in Japan, stem cell research and other scientific horizons, etc. In the 24x7 infotainment culture, anchors have become pretty talking heads - I don't know anyone who seriously considers that the anchors are actually the ones doing all the research, legwork, interviewing and writing that comprise a story. They are the talking head - their job is to read the story in mellifluous tones, and attract an audience with their personal celebrity quotient. Local news is a complete joke. Most local papers are a complete joke.

Katie Couric anchored a morning chat program for years. She did recipes, celeb interviews, and basically goofed. She acquired a mien of seriousness when her husband died of colo-rectal cancer and she brough attention to the need for colonoscopies...but no one in their right mind would look at her career and call her a journaist. She was the anchor of an entertainment program. I watched her interview the Friends cast on the eve of their last show -she made it as much about herself as them. Let's picture for a moment Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings doing this sort of fluff and still holding them in high esteem as news anchors/journlaists. Can't do it.

I don't think it's Katie's gender that is devaluing the position of news anchor, it's the career she's made of her info-tainment sensibility. The journalism culture is infected with it, and yest, it's lost a sense of legitimacy as a career. Men are smart to stay away and let all the blow-dried blondes step in and perkily smile while reading the teleprompter. Guys like to feel they are in control; women often settle for feeling like they are 'contributing'; when it comes to planning a career, these differences steer men away from journalism and women towards it.

And when his alter ego Paul Rubens was caught masturbating in a NY theatre, he lost HIS gig too.

The Murphy, Rock and Williams examples are irrelevant - there entertainment is targeted to adults, not children. When their voices are used in animated kiddie flicks, they are not being presented as their entertainment personna, a brand marketed directly to kids. In the cases cited by Traister, the cartoons are the stars. Kids neither know nor care who is doing the voices.

PBS fired Martinez to avoid losing funding when the religious right goes after them for retaining an employee who openly talks about engaging in anal sex. It was politics, not personal. But I daresay that most parents, given the choice, would vote to have her removed too. In this era of "better be 10000000% safe than sorry when it comes to protecting my kids" it's not all that surprising.

There is no evidence of sexism here - just evidence that softcore adult porn humor does not mix with kiddie programming. Having Martinez in the host spot mixes the two, like it or not. All PBS would need is some vlogster to put the bit about anal sex up on the net, neatly edited with one of her muppety bedtime stories. Leno and Letterman and Steward would pick up on it in a flash, and invite the sweet-hot Martinez on the show. Public broadcasting funding is hard enough to come by without that sort of exposure.

I think PBS did what most of us would do in the same situation. Harsh, yes. But it's not as if Martinez didn't make her own bed on this one.

I don't support the PBS stance. I think the current environment of hysterically overprotective parents is nauseating. I was simply pointing out that socio-political agenda behind the PBS decision. My personal opinion is so what - the technical virgin stuff was far away both time-wise and content-wise from her current gig. This one-strike, zero tolerance approach toward issues is destructive and cowardly and makes lives unnecessarily difficult, while usually not really solvling or preventing any problems of moment. But to ignore the landscape in which show airs, and the importance of certain elements of that landscape to PBS to secure funding, is just naive.