So WHY did CBS hire Katie Couric??

sevenoneeighty

As a person who considers themselves a news hound, I couldn't understand why eveyone was making such a big deal about the hiring of Katie Couric for CBS evening news. Dont get me wrong, I think it is great for a woman to hane the anchor spot, etc. etc. but the way this whole thing was handled seemed so clueless to me...

Do people REALLY tune in in 2007 because of WHO is telling them the news from a tele-prompter? Maybe in 1970, 1980 or even the early 1990's but in 2007 do Americans care about this? With all of the new media outlets spewing information everywhere, how could the corporate heads screw this up so badly.

Did they really think people were going to suddenly flock to CBS because of "KATIE"? Look, I like her but people don't care about that crap today. We want the information to be accurate, timely and informative, but we really don't care WHO is giving it to us as long as they can back their sources . I cant believe how much money they gave her thinking she would make people watch the news - on CBS which has ALWAYS been a 3rd place network behind nbc and abc anyway...

Everyone on network TV has the same news - no really, they do. They show weather, traffic, sports, news, weather, traffic sports, news...and it doesn't matter who the puppet head is giving it - all from the same news wire. They are even on the same dopey schedule so they are showing the same stories, weather, traffic and news at the exact same time in the hour! Then they made it such a big deal that KATIE was coming...as if it really mattered.

I'm just ranting and I have no personal agenda against Katie Couric, but its just strange how these things happen...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06032007/business/the_surprise__fall_of_kati_business_don_kaplan.htm
[/i]

I really believe you could hire any number of local, qualified newscasters to read from the monitor for $100K a year ( or less) and get the exact same ratings on any network. When they complain, fire them and hire another person.

the bloody muffs

I pay attention to who is reading the news - there are some people who just have more credibility than others ....Katie is not one of them.

Even if the script was exactly the same, I'd opt NOT to watch Katie read the news.

sevenoneeighty

Okay,
Cool Flexi. by all means, cast a vote, lady!

So how does one measure credibility in a monitor reading journalist in 2007? Do you trust local newscasters different than national?

I like Tim Russert because of his tough and thorough interviewing style - I think he is fair. I love it when Mike Wallace slams some deserving scumbag against the wall and calls them out - But for straight news...?

I even get local news from THIS SITE from may people that is helpful and I consider the non professional (and professional) posters to have some credibility. But they are all "qualified" to report in some way.

I'm just saying , do we still need superstar monitor newsreaders in 2007 with the availability of information at our fingertips..?

pitu

I don't get my news from TV, but I can assure you that the ratings are driven by the anchor talent, not the quality of the broadcast. It has nothing to do with credibility, more likeability and other fuzzy feelings.

And I think CBS hired Ms Couric to get her off the Today show.
Which is not one of your poll options.

em26

True dat , Pitu.

I think people , especially men , would like the news they hear to come out of the mouth of a pretty face. Some of them tune in just to look at a hott news lady , or newsman.

whyfi

When I had a TV, and when I actually watched the news, I usually watched the least annoying anchors. It was tough sometimes.

boygabriel

Subject: Re: So WHY did CBS hire Katie Couric??

SevenOneEighty wrote: Everyone on network TV has the same news - no really, they do. They show weather, traffic, sports, news, weather, traffic sports, news...and it doesn't matter who the puppet head is giving it - all from the same news wire. They are even on the same dopey schedule so they are showing the same stories, weather, traffic and news at the exact same time in the hour! Then they made it such a big deal that KATIE was coming...as if it really mattered.

I agree, but I'm sure the directors and producers of the news broadcasts would strongly disagree. I hold those people in very low esteem. I think they are at the forefront of dumbing down American political and social discourse. They all claim 'they're just giving the public what they want' but the truth is that people should be made to think when watching the news, not solely be entertained.

Oh Edward R. Murrow, where are you?

pitu

Subject: Re: So WHY did CBS hire Katie Couric??

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]Everyone on network TV has the same news - no really, they do. They show weather, traffic, sports, news, weather, traffic sports, news...and it doesn't matter who the puppet head is giving it - all from the same news wire. They are even on the same dopey schedule so they are showing the same stories, weather, traffic and news at the exact same time in the hour! Then they made it such a big deal that KATIE was coming...as if it really mattered.

I agree, but I'm sure the directors and producers of the news broadcasts would strongly disagree. I hold those people in very low esteem. I think they are at the forefront of dumbing down American political and social discourse. They all claim 'they're just giving the public what they want' but the truth is that people should be made to think when watching the news, not solely be entertained.

Oh Edward R. Murrow, where are you?

I wouldn't blame the little fish -- in teevee, it's the sales dept and the general managers that started their careers in sales, and the greater corporate structure of Disney/GE et al

and I think the trick is to be entertaining at the same time as making people think . . . hello internets!

doublediamond

it's about the "talent" and who the anchor can draw to watch the show. For anchormen it's credibility and anchorwomen it's emotional believability.

Also, notice how over the years the networks went away from hard news to soft news (remember how 48 hours used to be)? This was in response to their declining ratings and the changing nature of disseminating information into tiny, ADD-type bits. Couric supposedly appeals to the younger demographic they are targeting.

I am glad that she's the first female anchor for the nightly news and the sole anchor and getting buttloads of money, but sad that she's being positioned as the Token Woman and that if ratings decline, the PTB might assume it's because people don't want their news from a woman.

carnivore

Start watching at -4:42.

sevenoneeighty

Exactly.
Brilliant!

I couldn't name ANY of those women and didn't care either.
Yes, they were attractive but I didn't care WHO they were really.
Watching was made easier by the fact that they were all attractive women.

Credibility...? When it comes to straight news, for me, I just need the facts. Either something is true (i.e., a plane crash, traffic jam) or it is not.

Anchor:"Hey guys, remember that plane crash I told you about yesterday, well, it didn't really happen, sorry for lying". The credibility thing is a double edged sword. People who hang around long enough as "stars" start to get arrogant and their personal and political views come to the surface.
I say switch them up regularly with qualified people. No more star anchors that put you on the spot if you fire them.

People will watch the news anyway, they really will. I argue The world has changed and new media is a part of that. When I want the latest, i go to the web. Matt Drudge is not a "professional journalist" and yet people get more info and breaking news from him than anyone on the web.(yes, he has been known to have a credibility problem ( as does the TV news), but in this fast paced culture, mistakes are forgotten by the next headline posted that IS 100% accurate.)

I couldn't name one anchor person on NY1, but I watch the regional/ local news in the mornings to get information. I never feel like I'm being duped.

pitu

ha! what a great clip.

so SevenOneEighty the part that *makes you think* is the context and analysis, not the facts that are in any wire copy - from your earlier post it doesn't sound like the plane crash is what you're interested in, but the depth of reporting that would tell you that plane fell apart because it was put together by non-union child labor on substandard wages, or because the air traffic controllers were all fired 20 years ago.
right?

sevenoneeighty

so SevenOneEighty the part that *makes you think* is the context and analysis, not the facts that are in any wire copy - from your earlier post it doesn't sound like the plane crash is what you're interested in, but the depth of reporting that would tell you that plane fell apart because it was put together by non-union child labor on substandard wages, or because the air traffic controllers were all fired 20 years ago.
right?

Sure, I want all the facts, as much as possible.
That was my sad attempt at making a joke about credibility..it fell flat.

My point is about more reporting the facts, whatever they may be - in all of their detail and depth including the child labor and non union workers...
But they don't really have to come from a specific overpaid head...I still want accuracy and depth, but accuracy and famous people are not necessarily synonymous.

It just isn't AS important to me WHO the person is ( in terms of fame, etc) that is supplying the accurate information. But I do want the info - as much as possible.

It was just so funny to me the ALL of the media was going crazy over Katie going to CBS as if it would make a difference. After their self inflicted Hype died down, clearly, it doesn't matter and the execs at CBS got it wrong. I take pride in saying ( at least in my own house) that it would NOT make a difference and they are wasting their money- and its true!

My point was more about the days of the hyped news anchor may be numbered. Accurate news - and more of it is what people want. I'll take an accurate wire copy, but does the head reading it from the monitor need to make $15 million...in order for it to be credible?

Or could a person making $55-75K a year read it from the same monitor as well?

Sorry, Katie.

drano

I had no idea who she was until they hired her and I couldn't get away from the damned stories about it. Of course I finally gave in and checked her out, and I realized that I had never seen the Today Show, or at least I didn't remember having seen it. I'm out of touch when it comes to daytime television.

idlewild

Louis Dodley is probably the best newscaster around. You can see him on NY1. He doesn't scream or give any sided opinion he just presents the facts and he does it in a civilized way. he was really good when he did The Bull Dog Edition on PBS. Then again I wouldn't mind having Ashleigh Banfield give me a lap dance and give me a detailed reports about her undercover work in Afghanistan at the same time.