Posted on 02/02/2007 3:36:04 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
How can Katie Couric claim to keep her politics our of her work when she offers up her own editorial positions on a variety of subjects? She does so in the course of her "Katie Couric's Notebook" segments. It's true that Katie normally avoids the controversial. On January 16th, for example, she took a bold stand against procrastination. And when she did address abortion on January 22nd, she played it largely down the middle -- though pro-lifers might argue that her mention of the way the issue has sparked violence ignores the daily violence of abortion itself.
But at times Couric takes positions on hot issues of the day, such as on January 12th when she expressed the hope that the Gitmo prison "is closed down soon." On January 26th, Couric came out for "breaking our addiction to oil." Or how about this one, in which, incredibly, Couric argued in favor of congressional earmarks!
Then yesterday, in a segment modestly entitled "Saving our Daughters" Couric came out for universal vaccination for the human papillomavirus, HPV, for girls. This is a highly-controversial issue. Many traditionalists are strongly opposed to mandatory vaccinations for girls as young as 11. For example, take this column on the subject from the Independent Women's Forum in which the author writes:
The latest from an immunization panel affiliated with the National Centers for Disease Control: force every single little girl, female teenager, and young woman in the country to be vaccinated against cervical cancer--actually against sexually transmitted disease that can cause cancer.Whatever your views on this particular issue, don't we have reason to suspect Couric will tailor her treatment when covering candidates who favor -- or oppose -- her position? To use a time-honored Couric trope, I suppose "some might say" it's better to have Katie put her politics out there. In any case, looking at the body of her "Notebook" work, and however she might strive for a moderate tone, it's hard to see Katie other than as a predictable liberal MSM voice
Heres the New York Times report:
"The vote all but commits the federal government to spend as much as $2 billion alone on a program to buy the vaccine for the nations poorest girls from 11 to 18.
"The vaccine, Gardasil, protects against cancer and genital warts by preventing infection from four strains of the human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted disease, according to federal health officials. The virus is also a cause of other cancers in women."
If you think 11 sounds young for sex, how about age 9--the recommended age in some cases?
But there are a few hitches--such as parents who, uh, balk at the idea of telling prepubescent girls that its just fine for them to have all the sex they want, cuz now theyll be vaccinated! And isnt it against the law to have sex with children?
Campaigning-Couric ping to Today show list.
Hopefully her ratings will continue to decline and she'll get canned soon. There is nowhere to go for her after the anchor chair, and we'll be spared her idiocies from then on.
I don't like Couric at all.... but this is reaching for a reason to hate on Katie.
I don't think giving a vaccine to an 11 year old that may prevent her from dying of cervical cancer decades later is an endorsement of sexually active 11 year olds.
The main reason to get this is for prevention of cervical cancer, not prevention of genital warts.
I like the NewsBusters site as well, but this is being taken completely out of context IMO.
Is Katie Couric still on tv?
She and CBS are made for each other.
I think Newsbuster's point is that Couric should be reporting the news and not endorsing positions one way or the other. By doing so, she is negatively impacting any credibility she has in reporting the news because she can no longer be seen as being independent and unbiased.
Please have a look at the excerpt from the column from Independent Women's Forum that is included in the article. You and others might feel the vaccinations are a good idea, but there are responsible voices on the other side. Katie is thus injecting herself, pun intended, into a controversial subject.
Read the complete article, read the comments as well.
That's a pretty weak commentary against the vaccination.
I think the biggest obstacle is the cost of the 3 stage vaccination - $360.
My grandmother died of cervical cancer, and it is an issue in my family. Perhaps that sways my judgement a bit, but I support Couric on this.
She's still a hateful bitch and a disgrace, but for once I think she is doing the right thing.
I respect your opinion - I might agree with you. But that is really not the point. There is simply no denying that this is a controversial issue. Traditionalists oppose mandatory vaccination for 11-year old girls as sending a very wrong message. Couric was clearly stepping into a political debate.
Me thinks Merck got to dear Katie with some green. Yes indeed.
Genital Warts.....spread by unprotected sex.
Sincere and heartfelt best wishes to you for a prompt and complete recovery.
We've already been through her colonoscopy. If she tries the pap smear thing on TV, I'm calling the FCC.
She can't pay for her own vaccination?
I've always defended Katie for having the televised colonoscopy, since it no doubt saved lives by encouraging others to get one.
Still, have to give a big LOL to your post!
*TEXAS IS FIRST TO REQUIRE CANCER SHOTS FOR SCHOOLGIRLS:
Texas on Friday became the first state to require all 11- and 12-year-old girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated against a sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer. Averting a potentially divisive debate in the Legislature, Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, signed an executive order mandating shots of the Merck vaccine Gardasil as protection against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, starting in September 2008. Mr. Perry's action, praised by health advocates, caught many by surprise in a largely conservative state where sexual politics is often a battleground.
Also found in the New Your Slimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/us/03texas.html
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.