Katie Couric
 

Not to start a ton of threads or anything, but what is with the Katie Couric stuff. Cool, she got a new job. Awesome. Who really cares? Sure, she seems pleasant enough, and I'm sure she's fairly intelligent, but she's not any sort of earth shattering journalist. Also, after CBS used 20 minutes to show a story about Suri Cruise, I think they should just eliminate "evening news" from the title of the show. Watching network news is like tuning into entertainment tonight...only with a liberal slant.

You need to watch this, if you haven't.

http://media.bestprices.com/content/dvd/50/156754.jpg

I really wanted Bob Schieffer to freak out and yell "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!!"

One of the unfortunate things about living in the Mountain Time Zone is that the national news is on at 5:30, and a lot of us aren't home in time to see it.

I caught the last ten minutes or so and thought it was OK.

Nice new set for her to walk around.

The content will work itself out -- they're in experimental mode at the moment, obviously.

I thought she looked and sounded nervous -- understandable given the huge buildup and pressure on her.

Finally, as I've said before, most of the folks on this forum only remember Couric as the host of TODAY. Before that she was a local and national (NBC) network correspondent with solid journalistic credentials covering stories all over the world.

My contention is not so much with Couric as with the concept of evening network news. Lets be honest, very few people on network(or cable) news are thought provoking and story-breaking journalists. It seems as though the requirements are to be fairly attractive and well spoken, but it isn't required to have the cognitive ability to understand the stories you're reporting. I think most people who really pay attention to current events/politics/policy would agree that that the evening news is packaged for the masses.

Ever met any of them?

You would be surprized.

I've met a couple fox news guys and Anderson Cooper, but never any network people. Me saying they're not smart enough to understand the stories they report is most likely a stretch, but I still think its style over substance.

I dare say you are right. But I think Shinerbock is on to something as well. Perhaps it's that network people rather than news people are ultimately in charge of the news show. Perhaps its that in this day of news anytime, trying to put the day's news in 20+ minutes just doesn't work as well, so while the people may be thought-provoking, the stories aren't. Perhaps it is the trend toward news as entertainment, although I think that is more prevalent in local TV news. Perhaps its just that I'm eating supper with my family and hearing about the day at school when the network news is on.

I grew up in a household that watched the local and national news religiously -- I can still see and hear the Huntley-Brinkley Report, and among my earliest memories are those of the reports from Vietnam, including the casualty count for the day.

But I truly can't remember the last time I watched network news -- it may well be 15 years. I get my news from a variety of sources, but network news is not one of them, nor is Katie Couric or any other anchor going to change that. I couldn't even tell you who the anchors at NBC or ABC are. Fairly or unfairly, my feeling is that network news is past its prime.

Please remember that even with names like "managing editor," the anchors don't really format the shows.

Frankly, I think most (not all) of the cable net anchors are lightweights -- just readers. That's not been true of any of the major network anchors I've worked with. They are remarkably bright and well informed people.

So they write the copy?

They do most of the fact checking and investigation on their own?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Which "they, and what copy?"

I think he means that the network news anchors write their own copy and do the fact-checking and investigation on their own. He's asking if that is the case (which I don't believe it is, aren't there writers and researchers who do all of that?).

My journalistic experience is in print, so I'm not much help in this thread. The only experience I have with the inner workings of news is at ESPN, where the SportsCenter anchors write most of their own copy and do a lot of their own research.

I don't know about the big guys, but locally, it really depends on the anchors. Some are reporters at heart, and act like it, and some are just good at reading a teleprompter and looking concerned.

This means you, Erica Bryant. Especially the looking concerned part.

"There are stingrays on display in a local mall in Tennessee. Are they dangerous? Could a child die? News at 11" *CONCERNED FACE*

/seriously people it was a freak accident!

ksigkid pretty much summed it up - I want to know the extent to which the network anchors do the work of a reporter.

How much journalism do they do on an average day?

On a side note, Ann Coulter wrote a great article yesterday about the Valerie Plame Non-Affair. It talks a little about how the media portrayed the "scandal" and how it actually turned out. www.anncoulter.com

You're absolutely on the mark. In a major network, the anchors and reporters are referred to as "talent," for a reason. It's because they're paid to look nice and sound nice. Most of them never write anything. You'd be surprised how many don't even proof their copy, and just read what they're handed cold.

When they do a live, oncamera interview... they're handed extensive research and fed the questions.

There is a huge pool of writers, producers, and bookers who do everything for "the talent.". This is unlike local news where the reporters and anchors actually research, write and produce their own copy and field stories.

There's a saying among writers and producers in the networks.. "We paint the masterpiece and then hand the brush over to the anchor so they can sign it and take credit for it!"

But there are times when the anchor has to really earn his/her pay.. and that's during a breaking story such as the shuttle crash, Katrina, etc. That's when you see what they're really made of.

And.. in the major networks.. there is extensive research done in order to find out "what sells." Focus groups are conducted and consultants are brought in.

Honestly, it depends on the day. Most of the network anchors I've met and worked with do write their own copy -- or at least edit it -- if they're not traveling or whatever.

If you are asking if they check the details of all of the stories, I'd say that would be in impossible task, because many of those stories are fed in at the last minute. A news organization, whether broadcast or print, has to put some amount of trust in its reporters. That's what they do.

Most of them (the anchors) have an almost insatiable curiousity and encyclopedic memory. You see that during the "breaking news" times like 9/11 or earthquakes or other disasters. I can't think of any of the network (I'm talking broadcast, not cable or local) anchors who don't have extensive reporting and writing credentials prior to landing in the anchor chair.

You just can't imagine how difficult it is to hold things together while still communicating effectively in those situations.

To me, this is the same as saying "very little actual journalism, although they do edit other peoples' work to fit their own on-air style."

Agreed, but again - the trust is in someone 'behind the scenes' . . .

I'm not impressed by this, because that's their job.

My entire contention here is that network news anchors are very impressive at what they do - but what they do is far removed from journalism, and much closer to strict entertainment (such as acting, directing, etc - all arts in their own right).

Put another way - we don't laud the guys who write Cliff's Notes for being great writers, even though they perform a very useful service and we do laud their success.

I'm not claiming network anchors aren't intelligent, driven, etc - obviously there are so few of them in the world that it is an elite self-selecting group. I respect that a ton - just as I can respect the Cliff's Notes empire for recognizing a niche, capitalizing and driving a truckload of money home.

I also can't imagine how difficult it is to invent a prosthetic vein, but someone did it. I feel like one is more important than the other.

I absolutely agree, but that doesn't mean that news anchors are second class citizens.

If anchors were super people, why would we need reporters, writers, producers and the rest of the major news organizations?

I'm not sure anyone could meet your standards.

Exactly. I was able to see her last 10 minutes on Friday because I left work early and I wasn't impressed. I felt she didn't have the force or presence that Brian Williams has. She was just so "down home", quiet and pleasant.

I think she has the journalistic skills to do it but I'm not so sure about the personality part.

I posted a thread on this in "Entertainment," but also wanted to post it here simply to say that not all anchor people get their jobs simply because of a pretty face...

Some, including Couric (my opinion) and the gentleman below have a few other solid reasons.


..from West Point, New York and the Associated Press...Tom Brokaw Honored with West Point Award:

Tom Brokaw became only the second journalist to be honored with a prestigious West Point award Thursday.

Past recipients of the Sylvanus Thayer Award include Gen. Douglas MacArthur, former President Ronald Reagan and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"To be - in just a small way - in that company means a great deal," Brokaw said Thursday.

The award, named for West Point's fifth superintendent, is given to a U.S. citizen who exemplifies the ideals of the academy's motto, "Duty, Honor, Country." It has only been given to one other journalist - former CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite.

Brokaw, 66, was an NBC news anchor for more than two decades until his retirement in 2004.

He was honored partly for his contribution to the public's understanding of World War II through his books "The Greatest Generation" and "The Greatest Generation Speaks" and his work reporting from war zones.

It also occurred to me that Couric takes a lot of flack because of her TODAY show role which included doing "fluff" interviews, etc. Why isn't Charlie Gibson held to the same standard? He came from GMA.

My whole point was that I felt you were characterizing the news anchors as 'super people' - ha, I think we've tangled ourselves here, delt.

She isn't that good as an evening news anchor.

I miss the days when the evening network news was something to actually look forward to. The anchorpersons were respected and accomplished journalists and the stories were top notch. It wasn't about being cute, mainstream and flashy (although ratings always matter). If I wanted to see cute gibberish, I'd continue watching the morning news shows and the local news.

Yes...I am a dork who used to love watching the evening network news.

It's not that she came from Today or any other morning show, it's the way she carried herself and presented herself while on that show.

Ann Coulter is funny looking and most of her opinions are "shock jockingly" moronic.

*concerned face*

I was OK with Katie Couric until she pronounced Kofi Annan's name incorrectly on the evening news.

You know, he's only been the Secretary General of the UN for almost a decade.

It's not like he's famous or anything. Or that he has ANYTHING to do with anything in the world today.

Seriously Katie. Kofi Annan. Not exactly a hard one to figure out.

And that has what to do with Katie Couric??

Reading is FUN.

I'm sorry. My brain didn't remember that post from almost a week ago.:rolleyes:

You're forgiven.