For those (including Katie Couric) who think criticism of her is sexist in nature, here's a clue: Monday's Howard Kurtz interview with Ms. Couric is replete with quotes that exemplify what one might call the Couric Problem:
Just because people have tired of this war doesn't mean we should stop covering it. You wrestle with it on a nightly basis. Of course, people are obsessed with the [presidential] campaign right now. That's something we have to be on guard against, neglecting Iraq. It's obviously hugely important for this country, even if people have slightly lost interest.
"I think people have pretty much lost interest in my love life."
For someone who spends the vast majority of her day (and days) inside the cocoon of West 57th Street, it's amazing she knows that much about what "people" think. Too bad Walter Cronkite wasn't as psychic.
A suggestion: knowing more about what's important, and newsworthy, might be a better use of the brain cells currently occupied with poll results.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If she knows what I'm thinking, that usually puts her one up on me.
She has got to be one of the WORST interviewers of all time, next to that guy she sat next to during that morning show.
Her vapidity has nothing to do with the fact she is a woman. It has everything to do with the fact she is inane.
Couric's problem has nothing to do with her making bad choices as to what news to cover. What choices? The big 3 networks feature the same lead stories every single night with no variation from each other. Network anchors are talking heads and the audience has been conditioned to accept a look and a voice that goes back to Huntley/Brinkley--either you have an authoritative baritone or a folksy southern drawl, delivered by a guy in a business suit. She doesn't have any of that and that's the problem.
Walter Cronkite was an "ass" and self-deprecated journalist who knew nothing about the world. He was a "corporate man" ready to defend Bush and "sell short" Dan Rather. I am sick and tired of people like Howard Kurtz (another crony) who think they are the center of the world: We can think for ourselves and getting raw news from the same "feeders" the WP, the NYT, and the other many newspapers do. These "journalists" and their newspapers don"t have reliable "in-house" correspondents any longer; they rely upon self-employed people in many counties. I have enough sources and friends from countries across the world to get my own "feeds" and the thinking is my own. So please stop picking on Katie Couric because she does the same job if not better than the ones at the same position as hers.
What did Andy Rooney say about the $20 million they pay Couric?
That they should take that money and hire a couple dozen reporters around the world.
And they should. Who needs celebrities reading the news? We need reporters on the ground finding out what in the world is happening out there. No pundits and no polls.
REPORTERS!!!!
Brian Unger had a great take on an interview Katie subjected John and Elizabeth Edwards to. This is a little over a year old now...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9284381
Couric is the cute and perky version of the vapid, vacuous, sold-out male dunderheads who inhabit the so-called news anchor chairs in the useless mainstream media. Is that sexist? Sorry Katie. I didn't mean to attack you, just because you are a woman.
The Republican Party is always telling the American people how/what Americans think.American think we should go to war and so on. Couric is a piker compared to the Republican Party. I've not heard a Republican say that the American people likes Social Security, Medicare, a better medical system in terms of value for care received. According to the Republican Party the American people like paying taxes in exchange for no services provided.
This is my first comment. So much said about Couric I have to relate this story i watched when she covered the Olympics. The wreath of olive branches placed on gold medal winners' heads was on her desk. She refused to put it on her head: it was rough to the touch, she made a face and it would mess up her hair. Can u imagine such an attitude about a victory symbol? how can she call herself a reporter? Ever since i saw that, i lost all respect for her.
She's not a "reporter"; she's a vapid "personality".
The cocoon of NY/LA has always been a big problem. Of course the biggest example ever was when Pauline Kael, writer for the New Yorker, after Richard Nixon won 49 states in a huge landslide over McGovern said "I don't know how this happened, I don't know anyone who voted for Nixon."
Look where she came from and where she is going. (Nowhere?) She's fluff. Pushing 50 and floundering on the increasingly pointless CBS news. People can get their news from so many other sources that old fashioned broadcasts like hers are finding fewer and fewer viewers. She is in worse shape than the other two nightly news shows since her promotion seemed like a popularity contest victory. I'll wager when her contract is up, she'll be gone for good from the boob tube.
she's past 50!
that's ok, i'd still do her...so I guess that means she's wrong..people are thinking about her love life...
I hate when it is computer time at the drug rehab.
I guess what we're really learning is that cute doesn't go very far, does it? Uh-oh, one must have some brain activity too, huh?
There are 2 social and political paradigms. Democracy and Totalitarianism. Both work equally well. One hope that in the latter you get a Philosopher King who truly works for the benefit of the people. In order for Democracy to work the People have to be totally aware and engage in the process. That means knowing what is going one with their government and not let them hide their dirty little secrets. That also requires a free press and media that snoop and probe and report everything they find.
Americans have dummied their education down to where it is what to think, not much, thankyou! And the Wealthy have bought up the media so they can have the government they want by buying the politicians they want. The People have abrogated their responsibilities so why shouldn't the press?
The media does what it has always done, report on what meakes them money. Media does not totally exist for bringing us what is important to everyone. One only has to look at the dearth of reality shows and American Idol type shows that Americans think is entertainment to know how poorly this population thinks. In the past there have been good investigative programs that looked into what was going on in this country and exposed the dark underpinings of business and government. Now we have to go looking elsewhere. There is Democracy Now, Bill Moyers report, The Nation Magazine but the problem is that one has to hunt for them and that shouldm't be the way it is.
As far back as the Mexican American war rich owners have driven government policy and war through their newspaper. Now corporations can do the same by owning their own mouthpieces. Harry is spot on about Katie Couric. She reads what the owners tell her to read. Hanging out at the studio or the spa or at some plush country club is not thesam as hanging out on the Hood or down at the Boys or Girls Club with other not as rich as her people. She was hired as a pretty face to read infotainment! You won't see her treking through the vast hinterlands of the US insearch of how Americans really feel..
Continued below
You sure you meant the "dearth" of reality shows? That means not very many.
Maybe you mean proliferation? I couldn't even name them all!
Harry, I'm not sure why you wield a stick with Couric's name on it. I don't watch her and don't consider her particularly consequential. Surely (I hope you don't mind the appellation [Appalachian? I'm not from the mountains!]), your skewer can find sweeter, more deserving meat. N'est pas?
Do you think she could tell me how many times Senator Obama said 'uh' during the Patreaus questioning? Could she tell me when we will be totally out of Iraq?
Her and the media in general's job is not to tell us what we're thinking, but
to suggest what we SHOULD think, and imply that it's common sentiment.
are you kidding? they should tell us what we "should think"??? ...imply that it's common sentiment? That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard so far I think. You're basically saying the media should dictate what we think, then trick us into believing that's what we do think, so that in the end, we actually do.
Wait a second...that IS what the media do.
What ever happened to people just wanting the facts and journalists giving them nothing more? Take me back to that day, because I miss.
Really? The media should tell us what we *should* be thinking? I don't think so - I prefer to think for myself!
Maybe the media could suggest things we could think more about. Alert/inform us about things we may not be aware of.
What ever happened to that crackerjack reporter at CNN Katherine Couric? She kicked ass and took names. Dam shame she's not on anymore.
Harry, no matter how you deride Katie, I still think she's the pertest little putz on the air!
This is an interesting point. Because it is often media that gets tired of topics. Media people just get sick of covering a story, and they then say that "people" are tired of that topic. I am not tired of the topic of Iraq--I am just tired of hearing and seeing half-baked stories about it. I am tired of pundits who have never been to Iraq, who nevertheless claim a special insight into the current situation there. Another example: I was not at all tired or bored with the voter recount in 2000. But every day I heard another half dozen bored and lazy media talkers expressing how awfully tired "people" were. I assure you, regarding the leadership and future of my country, I was not tired of recounting the votes that might have spared us eight nightmare years. Any journalist who tosses around this idea that "people" are tired of a story ought to be suspended without pay for failing to do their job.
great another Courric dumping....same ol same ol
Is there an IQ test to become a national network news anchor or just a reading test?
(cont.) I used to think that Harry was one of the rare, sharp-witted people in the generally dim-witted world of showbiz. I was proud to cite him as a fellow alum of my alma mater. Now I just think he is a terribly mean person with an obsessively large chip on his shoulder about the Army Corps of Engineers & the New Orleans levee system (but apparently not so much about FEMA's response to Katrina, or any of the other post-Katrina screw ups, or even Katrina itself, for that matter). Oh, and now he has it out for the Dem. Party because they wouldn't hold their convention in N.O. I don't know what slight he thinks Katie Couric perpetrated him, but whatever it was, he seems now to be concentrating the same venom on her. I don't think she's any better or worse than any other network newsperson, but it's clear he's singling her out and joining in on the sexist pile-on.
HARRY RESPONDS: Let's take these in reverse order. I'm not piling on, I didn't force Howard Kurtz to interview her or her to be interviewed; I just found the quotes sadly revealing. There's no "chip" on my "shoulder" about the Army Corps: the entire City of New Orleans knows what happened and why, and I find it close to shameful that the rest of the nation--you, apparently, included--doesn't. There was plenty of outrage about FEMA's response, though not nearly as much to FEMA's attempt to cover up the CDC's toxicology expert's opinion that the formaldehyde fumes in the trailers represented a health risk to the inhabitants. "Katrina itself"? In the words of Dr. Bob Bea, of UC Berkeley, absent the catastrophic failure of the levee "system", the worst that storm would have perpetrated on New Orleans would have been "wet ankles".
"In the words of Dr. Bob Bea, of UC Berkeley, absent the catastrophic failure of the levee "system", the worst that storm would have perpetrated on New Orleans would have been 'wet ankles'. "
I've seen you cite Dr. Bea numerous times. I am admittedly not as well-read on the levee system as you (and just because it didn't work or wasn't completed or you don't like it, Harry, doesn't mean it's not a system, so putting "system" in quotes just seems . . . strange), but is he the only academic who's weighed in on the issue? Does the Corp of Engineers not have any "experts" with equally impressive academic qualifications who happen to disagree with Dr. Bea on any of his conclusions, or is he, in your "expert opinion," the final word on everything Katrina-related? Having participated in numerous "wars of experts" in both Criminal and Civil cases, I am always suspicious when only one side is presented as fact. I understand you are an advocate and your goal is to get public opinion on your side, but to me, it appears disingenuous.
HARRY SUGGESTS: Apparently, you have't read as many of my posts as you think. With great regularity, I cite the ILIT report (which Drs. Bob Bea and Ray Seed co-led out of UC Berkeley) and the Team Louisiana report, out of LSU, both of which severely criticized the Corps' design and construction of the "system"--which, btw, is in quotes because the Corps' own report called it "a system i name only". And yes, the Corps has experts, whom it has paid, and who come to conclusions--surprise!--more favorable to the Corps. The authors of the reports cited above--at least the UCBerkeley one--donated their time.
Thanks, Harry, for not only being one my favorite satirists but a unique blogger here on Huffington Post with the cojones not only to read what is submitted, but for having the cojones to respond to many of them.
I cite Bill Maher here by contrast -- he pulls the pin on a biofuels hand grenade, throws it into our midst, and then runs & hides. A blogger with strong views should have the guts to hold his/her ground when the ruckus begins. You get high marks from me for doing just that.
You are also to be commended for continuing to remind the rest of us who don't live in or near the Big Easy or the po' side (non-Haley Barbour "stage-managed") of the Gulf Coast of the ongoing nightmare that is the Katrina aftermath. You are passionate and steadfast in your efforts to get serious attention on this national disgrace and focus on how we keep it from happening again.
Maybe if CBS, the "MSM," and the rest had any conscience left, Katie Couric would be a regularly visitor to and reporter from New Orleans, a city which is the classic example of Bush adminstration malfeasance and negligence. Not going to happen, though.
Anyway, please keep up the good work!
You want, in your perfect universe, some sort of confession from everyone involved in the design and implementation of the levees, that they deliberately & maliciously foisted this travesty on an innocent and ususpecting population, an acceptance of complete responsibility and liability for all the lives & property lost, including a payment therefore, and a comprehensive apology to you personally. Anyone who disagrees with that you brand a devil or idiot (or both). I was a criminal prosecutor for 10 years. Even in cases where defendants were tried, convicted and sentenced, do you know how many times I ever saw such a confession or apology? Maybe once. 'Taint gonna happen. What is it that Katie Kouric did to you? Make you wait in the green room when you were promoting Godzilla, and then bump you in favor of a "more important" breaking story?
HARRY RESPONDS: Yeah, that's exactly what she did. You must be a mind-reader. You certainly don't read words, because never in the time I've been writing about New Orleans have I ever called a commenter either a devil or an idiot. Not even you.
(cont.) and 3. To a lot of people, it seems almost bizarre the way you've made Katie Couric the lightning rod for your ire with the mainstream media. I get that you would argue that she is the poster child for all that is wrong with the msm, but jeez--she's just a news READER. She's not the Les Moonves (sp?). At least spread it around a bit more fairly. The off-air satellite feed tapes are taking it over the top.
You don't have to use the specific words "devil" or "idiot" to belittle people who disagree with you. You can instead use phrases like "I find it . . . shameful that the the rest of the nation--you, apparently, included--[don't know what happened in N.O.]" or "you apparently get your news from the Anderson Coopers and Katie Courics of the world" or "So maybe you don't get the point." Those are just relatively mild examples of your dismissive tone to me on this page. I could cull countless others from this and your other posts, some with a tone much worse. You constantly argue your point on the Katrina issue as though no one with a rational mind could possiby disagree. I'm a trial lawyer by trade, Mr. Shearer. I understand adversarial discourse probably better than most. The points that YOU apparently "don't get" are 1. I obviously don't just rely on television news (I read HuffPo and specifically YOUR posts, for example, or didn't you notice?); 2. Just because someone disagrees with your near outrageous stridency, it doesn't mean that they disagree with your entire position (Believe it or not, I understand and to a point agree with what you've said about the levees--I just think you're being unrealistic in your apparent goals, and attacking some of the very people who could most help your cause--your tone is what is most objectionable.);
This response is so personal and misleading that it didn't justify a response from Harry. I can't help it. He never criticizes anyone who disagrees with him no matter how big an opening he gives them, let alone brand them a devil. Never has he demanded apologies from anyone. As a matter of fact, the mockery of the apology is one of his regular bits on his radio show. From what I can gather from his tireless coverage of the issue, however, is that we shouldn't let continued incompetence, and worse negligence outright dishonesty lead to more unnecessary suffering.
Harry--It's not that we don't know. It's all you've been harping on for the last two years, and at least speaking for myself (contrary to your snarky suggestion) I get the point. The truth is that we prioritize. Unlike you, who for whatever reason, have made this your life's crusade, we DON'T think it's the most important issue affecting the world or the United States at this time. I can think of several issues that are more "front burner" than New Orleans. Don't get me wrong--I sympathize with New Orleanians (?). I experienced a big hurricane (Iniki) first hand myself, and I am aware of the damage it can cause. It's 16 years later, and the Island of Kauai still isn't close to fully recovering. Katrina, incidentally, despite all your protestations WAS a big hurricane. Either you weren't there, or you just decided not to watch television that week, but the eyes of the world saw what was happening. I can say without equivocation that Katrina made Iniki look like a spring shower. I don't doubt that properly designed and maintained levees would have lessened the devastation. The fact remains that the system was in place for years without a breech, and it took Katrina to push the domino.
HARRY RESPONDS: That's the problem, you apparently get your news from the Anderson Coopers and Katie Courics of the world. Fact: according to the National Hurricane Centers final tally, Katrina at New Orleans was a strong Cat 1 or weak Cat 2 storm (unlike its intensity when it hit the Miss. Gulf Coast). That's lower than the levee system was rated to withstand. Fact: the levee "system" was not in place for years, it had not really been completed at the time of Katrina. You can argue with the conclusions of the three idependent investigations into the disaster if you like. So maybe you don't get the point...yet.
Posted April 7, 2008 | 11:23 PM (EST)