First, the good. Despite a heavy cold, she is relaxed, having fun with the staff, not a prima-donna. If you, the anchor, are having “fun” so are the viewers, and that is good.
The bad. She obviously does not know or understand the most basic elements of the story, the WSTVC (Why Should The Viewers Care) the backstory, the "whatsnext," or even any understanding of the whole process. She does not even know the simple facts, such as dates.
Peter Jennings would have been very briefed before the show started. With a few updates from the results desk, he could have gone on for six hours hours.... without repeating himself.
Want to see how good it can be? Watch the tape of Jim McKay, a sportscaster (!), doing the ONLY live coverage of the Munich Olympic massacre. Watch Jennings on 9/11 or Challenger. Watch any of us on Nov 22, 63. Watch my old Gulf of Tonkin tapes (only guy on air at 2:00 AM, with every other reporter drunk after the close of 64 Republican Convention.) We were good. She is a talking head ditz.
Thanks for your insight. Your post essentially nailed what I was trying to say. I have to admit I had never seen such an extensive behind-the-scenes footage of an anchor or general newscaster. You can't do everything but surely one is going to fail at such a job if there isn't at least a reasonable amount of self-study. The up-to-the-minute data of course she needs to be fed but...well you know what I'm saying.
She should get a job with FOX News. Oh wait, she's not blonde. Interesting post.