...having the ultimate soccer moo as an anchor would appeal to all demos. Unfortunately, she didn't have the gravitas--and when you take in account the number of female newscasters that could have done the job far better, well, that was all she wrote...

It's the females of America, who were expected to flock in droves to the country's first female news anchor and a bunch of dumbed-down, human-interest-lite 'news' made just to please them. No wonder everyone watches "The Daily Show" instead.

I think the speculation that Katie Couric was bribed to hurt the Today Show's ratings, rather than to prop up the aging ghost of the CBS Evening News, is correct.

Couric's demise could have been predicted from the day she was given the 'anchor' chair. Why? Because she isn't a journalist of the caliber the job requires, which the networks won't permit any longer. Her failure doesn't have anything to do with her gender. Ever since the suits at CBS and other networks decided to blur the line between entertainment and serious journalism the persona of the 'anchor' has taken on ever greater importance. In other words their legs, butts, smile, hair, and makeup are more important than their journalism. Referring to the evening news as a 'show' says it all. Couric is basically an entertainer and in the wrong job.

Serious news coverage costs money, requires editorial independence and judgment. All of the networks are now owned by major corporations more interested in their bottom line and in currying favor with whatever administration is in power in Washington. At the same time the viewers want credible, relevant news coverage, and not Murdoch-like tabloid titillation. The suits think they need to dumb things down further. The viewers, especially given two wars and an economy in crisis, want leadership, insightful analysis, and the truth about what's really going on. The evening news format in the days of the net may be dying, but a modern day Walter Cronkite, younger and more hip, and not a stooge to producers, editors and writers behind the scenes, could revive it within weeks.

The problem is what it has always been: the networks want to make money. The viewers want real news. These days they get it from cable programs, and the net. RIP networks. You dug your own grave.

I really don't get this argument. I live overseas where two of our major networks have female co-anchors and the third's newscast is lead by a sole female anchor. The sole-female anchor is the most popular, probably because she's very serious (sometimes laughably so), the only time any fluff comes in is at the end of the program, and she just generally does a great job.

I think this canard that America isn't ready for a woman anchor is more about America not being ready for a bad female anchor.(I also think it's hyped, particularly in this case, to boost ratings for Couric) I have yet to figure out why it's such a big deal for America to have a female anchor on it's national newscast, just like I can't figure out the big deal for America to have a female president, when plenty of countries around the world have had female leaders decades before.

. . . then may she speak the truth on the evening news for once, about the phony war, the phony election, the hypocrisy of complaining about China and Tibet while we ignore our far worse dealings, etc.. She could go out in style and famously, if there was anything about her that we could be permitted to perceive that wasn't plastic and phony.

One could hope. But Rather was railroaded and to suggest that Couric is being railroaded is silly. She just isn't working out for them. I doubt anyone they would choose would work out for them. Local news or Informercials would be a better use of the CBS "News" spot.

I never really got why they picked her. There are many women who would've been more appropriate in that role--I was thinking Cokie Roberts, Gwen Eifel (from the News Hour), yes, even Diane Sawyer. They certainly didn't improve matters by cramming the show full of fluff pieces. I think the problems was not so much sexism but utter cluelessness.

CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and FOX are the problem.

When Dan Rather left, I no longer had a reason to watch the CBS News anymore. When a lightweight piece of fluff is replaced by an even lighter weight piece of fluff I still will no longer have a reason to watch the CBS news.

I prefer my lies and propaganda delivered with gravitas and an illusion of intelligence decorating the spew of newscrap.

It isn't about gender - there were plenty of qualified women for the position. CBS wanted a pretty faced, non-threatening, obedient, compliant and stupid news reader. They have contempt for their audience, their tradition and their business.

Dan Rather and those memos - it took me ten minutes on the web to find out that an IBM Selectric typewriter was in use at the time and could have easily produced the memos, the fonts and the special characters with "Font Ball Technology". Rather was railroaded to protect the lies about the president.

SCREW CBS and the rest of the treasonous mouthpieces for the pirates who have scuttled our nation.

Couric should go on ET or the CBS morning show and smile a lot.

It wasn't because she was a woman that Katie Couric wasn't a very good news anchor. It was because she was the wrong personality for the job. She was great for the Today show, but not good for the CBS Evening News.

Lesley Stahl and Christiane Amanpour are both female reporters for CBS, and neither lack the requisite gravitas or experience in hard news to be a good anchor.

Bennetts is picking the wrong fight here, certainly with Katie Couric and I would argue also with Hillary Clinton (but that's the subject of another post).

Ironically, given the pairing of these two in Bennetts' article, it was Couric's horrendously unprofessional 60 Minutes interview with Hillary Clinton that really turned me off from Couric's journalism.

It managed to be both puffy and offensive, asking Hillary:

"What were you like in high school? Were you the girl in the front row taking meticulous notes and always raising your hand?"

"Not always raising my hand," the senator replied, laughing.

"Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?" Couric asked.

"Only with some boys," Clinton said, laughing.

***

That night (2/10/08) Steve Kroft had done a "standard" interview with Barack Obama on the same show. At the end I felt bad for Clinton and thought Couric should be fired for doing such a terrible job.

On a final note, why is it "feminist" to suggest that these supposedly strong and powerful women are fooled by such bad advisors?