As many of you know, I work surrounded by professional television producers. They're people who know what makes a great newscast. Heck, the guy who sits next to me each day won a regional Murrow this year for his 10 p.m. newscast, meaning that it's the best newscast in Okla., Texas, La., or N.M.
Anyway, we talk. Today, we discussed Katie Couric. Yesterday, we discussed the new CBS anchor, too.
I've been a bit kinder to her debut than he has; however, we both agree that the structure and content of her first two shows is just a cacophony of non sequiturs.
In one segment, we saw war footage followed by Oscar the Grouch and then C3PO. If you happened to have dropped acid at about 4:30 p.m. CDT this afternoon, by 5:45 p.m., your trip got clean the f*** whacked into Neverland with the random imagery the CBS News peeps were throwin' on screens nationwide.
However, I think Katie has a TON of potential. I love their free-speech segment, which features a different ideologue or personality discussing the issues of the day in very much an NPR radio-essay type of format, except with pictures. It reminds me very much of something Charles Kuralt or Osgood would have done with the CBS Sunday Morning programs of the past couple of decades.
I do think she has a vibe about the news, bringing to it nearly the same level of class a Diane Sawyer brings. Nearly. Right now, it's way too forced. Right now, I'm still not buying it.
Sure, she was part of NBC's entertainment division for years, but I watched "Today" every day for like eight years, in Dallas, and I absolutely trust her news chops, inasmuch as I would trust somebody who is as much a personality as she is a journalist.
One of the biggest knocks on Katie's debut is that there isn't nearly enough NEWS. That would be NEWS with a capital 'N.' Tom Shales said something to the effect that no news wasn't the best news for Katie's debut.
However, I think CBS News is moving in the right direction, by marrying some parts pop culture with other parts news. Truth is, putting together a news show is about knowing your audience and delivering the information they're interested in. It's not about what our opinions are relative to the issues of the day, what we consider to be most important.
Producers essentially guesstimate, based on research and focus groups, what you think is important as viewers. Overwhelmingly, viewers don't want hard news, done NPR or BBC style, thrown at them for 30 minutes. Stories from countries they can't spell not only aren't interesting to those folks, they're not interesting to me -- and I can spell every country correctly.
Even Uzbhekistan. Is that right, btw? Oops, no, it's Uzbekistan.
People want to hear news that has either a direct effect on their lives or a direct effect on the things or people they love in their lives, and that's where the marriage between news and pop culture becomes most relevant.
The trick for CBS' producers is to piece together a 30-minute show that's a little more cogent and cohesive.
As for Katie's look, and I'm no fashion model, but it's clear she got pumped full of Botox this weekend. She looked like an alien on night No. 1 and just a bit less than an alien tonight. Truth is, I think any wrinkles she might have would serve her well with the audience that watches the 5:30 p.m. news.
Second, one of the biggest mistakes Elizabeth Vargas made, in my estimation, on ABC was in dressing like a housewife. No offense to housewives anywhere, but she often dressed for the 5:30 p.m. like my Mom dresses to go to church.
No offense, mum, but it just doesn't fly with delivering the evening news.
So, Katie, if you're reading, stick to blacks and grays. Minimize the jewelry. More suits, fewer dresses. Think Murrow and not Walters or Vargas.
My honest guess is that the buzz she's gotten her first couple of nights will subside considerably over the next couple of weeks. However, anybody who thinks Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams aren't up against a challenge is completely fooling themselves.
Call me a traditionalist, but it makes me ill to see the CBS nightly news turned into Entertainment Tonight. Katie Couric is the right person to tell us why Julia Roberts prefers breast-feeding to formula. She can tell us why flip-flops are in fashion. She has no credibility telling us about war in the Middle East. Couric is a fluff piece expert whose only experience is in the entertainment division of her former network. I see Katie Couric's new promotion as evidence of the decline of western civilization. Her success will be proof of the marching morons theory.
Toad, truth is news and entertainment are intertwined because the American public has deemed it so. Is it progress? Probably not, but remember the line from the West Wing when ol' Jeb was talking policy too much.
"Nobody likes a nerd."
Same goes for news. The people who want nothing but hard-core, in-depth news should watch Jim Lehrer on PBS. For the major networks to be able to continue with a 30-min. news format at the dinner hour, they MUST acknowledge that society has changed in terms of our collective news interests.
I think you are probably right, but I still intend to bitch all the way down on America's slide into collective stupidity. People do not want actual news. They prefer sports stats and prurient titillation. I don't even think it should be called the evening news anymore. Ratings would increase if we called it "This Evenings Violent and Dirty Pile of Shit".
You nailed it. People don't want news. However, really we should say that people want what they perceive to be news. They don't really have the education and intellect and sense of globality to understand what is important. We've talked about intellectual connections and a person's ability to extend beyond facts and move toward making those connections, and I think the public inability to do so is why the news is the way it is.
I don't mind it at all, for my sake, because I know of sources I can turn to for the hard stuff when I want it. For those who can't afford cable or have never heard of PBS or NPR, it's really a shame.
Uggghh. Why does everyone have to comment on her clothes? She looks professional, unlike Laurie Dhue-Me (formerly?)of Fox News with the tawdry lipgloss. If they don't look unprofessional (ie too casual, seductive, etc.) then why does a female anchor's outfit matter? Will everyone start obsessing about her hairstyle next?
However, about her reporting style; I think she is trying too hard to grab for ratings.I just hope I don't have to watch her interview Britney Spears. Or Baby Suri. Oh, wait, she already went there, didn't she?
Oh, well. Maybe the next solo female anchor will be perfection on a stick.
You'd be surprised what causes people to watch TV news, what causes people to like anchors and reporters. It might be a sad commentary, but I'm willing to bet there was at least one focus group responsible for Katie's first week worth of outfits. :-)
I just had to revisit this issue after watching Katie's coverage of 9-11 today; she looked like a hag.The clothes were drab and ill-fitted and her lipstick was a dark slash of dried blood across her blanched face. And then there's that headband; the Hillary Clinton look circa 1992. I have to conceed the point to you here, because I honestly couldn't pay attention to what she was saying because of how awful she looked. My husband even came home and asked if Katie pissed off her stylist or what. It was bad, very bad. Katie needs to buy a selection of stylish, well cut grey, navy and black suits and light colored coordinating blouses and be done with it. Oh, and flush the headbands, not that my opinion matters, but I just had to let you know that you were right. But you knew that already didn't you?
Well, I know how much anchors at the national level put into their look. It is VERY purposeful, particularly women.
Katie's biggest, biggest mistake was doing the BoTox like two days before she started ... she looks like she's among the living dead. ;-)