Posted on 04/09/2006 10:43:38 PM PDT by MadIvan
This week is the first of a new epoch in American history. It might come to be known by historians as the Post-NBC-Couric Age, or possibly The Second Era of Katie. It is the first full week after Katie Couric announced that she was leaving the television network NBC to join the television network CBS.
You may not have heard of Ms Couric. She is a perky, personable 49-year-old TV presenter. After 16 years as co-anchor of Today, the long-running breakfast show, she has jumped ship to host the main evening news at the rival network CBS.
Now in Britain the departure of a prominent TV news person from one channel to another might make the news pages of the tabloids. It would probably get a fair amount of comment in the media section of the more serious papers. But that would be about it.
Not in America. Here Katie’s departure is officially a National Event of Historic Significance. Imagine Tony Blair resigning as Prime Minister to run for leader of the Conservative Party, José Mourinho taking over at Manchester United or the Prince of Wales leaving the Duchess of Cornwall for Abi Titmuss. Now imagine all three of those events happening on the same day — and you’re beginning to get an idea of the convulsions this event represents in the weirdly self-absorbed world of the American media.
For several days last week, TV and newspapers covered little else. We were treated to serious disquisitions on the state of morale in the various newsrooms, as well as learned critiques of Ms Couric’s hair (several thousand dos in 16 years), legs (better than your average TV newsman’s) and salary (about $20m, apparently).
Iraq was all but ignored. The battle over immigration reform went unheard. Even the start of the baseball season took a back seat.
Why? Ms Couric is not the first person to change networks. She is not the first woman to host an evening news show — there’s already one on ABC. What’s more, in the cable, satellite and internet era, those famous programmes and their presenters have in any case only a fraction of the reach and significance they used to have. A casual look at the products advertised during their commercial breaks gives you a hint of their shrivelled audiences — they’re nearly all for haemorrhoidal ointment, incontinence pants and assisted-living communities.
So why the obsession? The answer is the level of near sepulchral seriousness with which the US media regards itself. Now I know we can all be a little overly self-reflective. It may not have escaped your attention that there are some in the British media who behave as if the world stops at Shepherds Bush or Canary Wharf. But journalists’ self-absorption is on a different plane in America: newspapers, radio and TV see themselves as a kind of holy trinity that guides and protects the nation.
The staff at The New York Times think of themselves, without irony, as an indispensable part of America’s constitutional settlement. The paper still boldly proclaims on its masthead: “All The News That’s Fit To Print” — and its editors and reporters really think that is a literal description.
In TV Land, one of Ms Couric’s predecessors actually used to sign off his TV evening news broadcast with a one-word exhortation to his viewers. “Courage!” he would say, evidently convinced that without his nightly spiritual reinforcement the nation would surely collapse into a self-immolating funk.
CNN’s American schedules are now dominated by a man who, I’m convinced, has become so absorbed in his own centrality that he thinks he is running a parallel government to the one that actually exists in Washington. Wolf Blitzer’s news show is called The Situation Room, and its main feature is a bank of TV screens just like the real Situation Room. Contributors to his programme are now called members of his “ National Security Council”.
And here’s the weird thing — nobody in media world ever laughs at any of this. It evidently occurred to nobody that there were more important things to ponder than Ms Couric’s career. That’s because in their world, there is no more important thing. Or perhaps I’m just jealous.
With print media, I often read news that's been online days earlier.
Thanks, Mad.
They are pathologically self-absorbed because there is nothing else to them. They are ill-educated; they don't read or think deeply, and most of them are criminally stupid, vide, Chris Matthews, Dan Rather...Mr. Courage.
When Christopher Hitchens appears on their "shows," it is too painful to watch. They cannot follow him as he walks them from a basic premise through to a conclusion, since logic is an alien concept to them, and the bumps against reality that logic provides contradict the fakery they pass off as news.
Your news readers were required to have studied history, to know geography, to be fairly literate. It was expected of them to have some understanding of what they were reading and not look and sound like a gormless half-wit pawing his way through a seating arrangement for a state dinner at Buckingham Palace.
Our standards are not so stringent. In America we plump for "perky."
Yesterday I posted on the "Sunday Talk Show" thread that Katie Couric's name is known to more Americans than Oriana Fallaci's. Katie Couric's "news" will not be as vital to the West's survival as even one paragraph from one of Miss Fallaci's books.
Not cute
I think there's a difference between our news readers and yours - with rare exceptions, they're not celebrities.
There are a few, such as Sir Trevor McDonald, who has led a campaign to encourage the proper use of the English language. John Suchet, an ITN presenter, also moonlights doing work on Classic FM, and educating the public about classical composers. Moira Stewart is an institution - but she carries herself with dignity and grace.
The closest we have to your type of presenter is Jon Snow of Channel 4 news. But Channel 4 is a channel for left wing idiots anyway.
Regards, Ivan
BUMER
She will go the way of Barbara Walters, Connie Chung and any other feminazi who tried to be an evening news reader. Katie Colonic is so obvious in her lib/socialist/commie leanings, her snarky comments, facial tics and body language will be push that sends CBS over the cliff.
Katie?
Let me tell you about Kaite
I'm sick of Katie
Got that Katie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It takes about one minute of exposure to become sick of Katie. I prefer to forget her existence. I will never watch her on CBS unless I simply tune in once to see if she can be as horrible at the job as I expect her to be.
"Personally, I think there's a fortune to be made by anyone who markets these pictures as a screen saver. It sort of has the same visual effect as when the SG1 team travels through the Stargate."
I can't find 'em, or I would have posted 'em.
I'd never even heard of that show before LOL!
The situation room? Hahaha what station is it on and who came up with that! LOL!!!
You know, I've been wondering just what it is that Katie could bring to CBS that will turn the news division
around?
Maybe she's gonna do the news topless or something?
Maybe she'll do a five part series explaining the power of the vagina.
Help me to understand, please.
Topless huh? LOL!
There's something I would never want to see Dan Rather do!
Well, I don't know if Katie will contribute much to CBS – I have the feeling she won't make any difference.
I particularly enjoyed the little wolf-bash at the end.
Great Pic.
I cancelled and told them why.
Cannot tolerate those sources.
That being said, I think part of the giddiness that has swept through certain people stems from that same giddiness over Geena Davis in her Commander in Chief role. A kind of pro-Hillary swoon. You know, it's time for a woman to anchor the evening news solo, it's time for a woman to play the President on TV, and now, NOW, it's finally time for a woman president, Hillary of course. The time is 'right' for a woman president, and Hillary (what a shocker) just happens to be poised to promote herself as the 'best' choice. These same people scoff at the notion that Condi could fill those shoes. Not that the FOB's in Hollywood would ever portray a competent, conservative woman as president...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.