It was a perfect reflection of the self-centered, navel-gazing audience and the corporate enablers. We are losing our democracy and they show us Suri and worry about a catch-phrase.

Did I miss the Halloway update?

Anyone notice that photos of Couric's cleavage are all over the place? Perhaps, this is what passes as "gravitas" for a female anchor...

It is all too sad.

I was hoping for more from Katie. I was hoping for more from female journalists. This is the best we can do? Disappointing.

...it would be Ms. Havrilesky, the "chicken counter."

This whole piece ignores the fact that CBS is trying to compete with two other broadcast networks and three major cable news organizations for the eyes of viewers. It's obvious that to compete in that environment, something has to be done differently than the other channels.

Couric's breasts seem to be part of the equasion, but that won't be the deciding factor - as I recall, there's something called "naked news" available in hotel rooms and pay per view - and it isn't setting the world on fire.

Short headlines and opinions are more interesting. It's assumed that news junkies will be turned to MSGOP, Faux News or CNN if they want obscession about a story or massive details. Something else for human beings who have lives outside of news would like something more concise.

The news junkie networks also have long opinionated rants, primarily conservative. Short, concise statements of opinion (that aren't edited to fit the network's political slant) are rare. If CBS wants to give Rush Limbaugh two minutes to talk (has he ever said anything in such little time?) it should be entertaining.

The question to ask is, will CBS be fairly diverse in picking the op-ed contributors? Will they stick with celebrities from other networks and from entertainment? Will they emphasize one side of the political spectrum? Will they occasionally allow some unknown, average people who can speak without stuttering or yelling "Howard Stern's Penis! Baba Booey!" to offer an opinion? If they're just going to allow existing celebrities to speak, then yes, this can be declared to be a stunt that will fail.

It's easy for Havrilesky to second-guess CBS or Couric. I did notice that CBS didn't ask her how they could rework their newscasts to become competitive. I also noticed that she had no ideas about what should be on the news, although I think she would insist her fabulous life and her cappucino chef should be the center of any coverage.

With the dead-on camera angle that was used for much of the night's broadcast, Katie's face looked like Marcia Brady's after getting whacked with the football.

Did Heather expect the world of news to change instantly the very first night Katie was there? Give her some time folks! I heard an interview last night where Couric specifically talked about wanting news peices that go more in depth so that everyone has a better understanding. She herself is aware of this problem and wants to rectify it.

Spurlock"s peice was really great as far as I'm concered. Straight, to the point, and quite entertaining. Also, the fact that there is a free speech segment impressed me.

Heather did not mention the peice on the Talaban, which I thought was very revealing, and not something the administration would have directly signed off on, not to mention that a woman was out there risking life and limb to chat with the hateful group.

No, really.

I'm going to be late to work so I can post this. It was god awful. First of all, Katie looks like a Romulan from Star Trek with her brow lift. I kept shouting at the TV every time she rolled out another fluffy, ridiculous segment, ("Snapshots...of Prince Charles as a baby?--KILL ME NOW!) And then the one with the beloved Morgan Spurlock wearing some kind of carnival barker suit and sounding like any Fox News flunky--decrying partisanship--oh cutting edge!...oh, it was awful...and then the lead ins from the local monkeys that this was Katie's big debut as though this woman had just won the Nobel Prize...and then her sign-off as though anyone gave a sh*t...that she had to cute it up with all the focus on her and how she would end the show.

It was truly everything I hate about newsotainment or whatever they are calling it these days.

I really thought she'd try harder to distance herself from the celebrity-kiss-fest of the Today show but NO....she is and will always be the Today show.

Did anyone notice how she had to move 3 or 4 times around that glitzy Vegas set...so that her her people in the dark would't get bored, I guess. You wait, she'll be doing costume changes at commercials soon.

Gravitas, my ass!

the real infection is underneath.

"First in a lineup filled with superficial features..."

Bitch and complain all you want about Dan Rather (and the like), but he fronted a news program. Couric was a deliberate choice to present fluff. Matt Lauer and Anderson Cooper both get their share of dismissive remarks, so I don't think this is sexism. News programming is either conservative slanted preaching and shrieking or companion pieces to Entertainment Tonight.

And we wonder why a large percentage of American still believe Sadaam was involved with 9/11?! We're being spoon fed this pablum masquerading as news.

As if the world doesn't have enough reason to laugh at us already, we now have our supposedly most serious, sober news report -- doing a feature on Tom Cruise's baby? Comparing it to the birth of a future king of England? Or never mind Prince Charlie, just the whole idea that a numbskull celebrity event would make its way onto the broadcast of Morrow, Cronkite, Rather... it's too much.

Should she evoke Murrow?

"Good night, and good episode of Surivivor, tonight at 8."

Cronkite?

"And that's the way it wasn't."

Garroway?

"Peace. Or not. Whatever."

Olbermann, minus the irony?

"It's been [#] days since we accomplished our mission in Iraq."

Rather?

"TomKat."

Wait, I've got it. Fisher.

"Narm."