Thinking Fool

Foool - Why the Katie Hate? You know you would hit it....

Farts are hilarious.

I remember once having really bad gas and going into a video store and releasing a bomb while perusing the shelves. Having walked to the end of the aisle, I watched from afar two women make their way to that area without knowledge of my espionage, only to stop, look at each other, wave their hands in front of their faces, and exit . I laughed all the way home.

Another time, I remember being on a bus. There was an older woman sitting at the end of the long upholstered bench. I felt an irrepressible one coming, and let it go as smoothly as I could. Unfortunately, it rattled the vinyl without making noise. As I corrected my seating posture to let the birdie fly away, I looked over at the old lady. Her wrinkled nose and intent glare said it all. I still smile when I think of such moments.

Whether I'd "hit it" or not is irrelevant. I simply don't think Katie looks like a newscaster these days; instead, she looks like she's clubbing. Aside from her physical appearance, the content of the new broadcast is simply dreadful. (At least, it was during the two weeks I sampled her program.) I'm sure she's a fabulous mother and she was undoubtedly great on the Today show (too early for me), but she's about as good on the CBS Evening News as Michael Jordan was in the baseball minor leagues. Hopefully she'll get a lot better. If we're only interested in having a female anchor, Diane Sawyer would have been a much better choice.

TF, I thought you'd be interested to know ...

"CBS EVENING NEWS DOWN OVER YEAR AGO... For the first time since Katie Couric became anchor, CBS EVENING NEWS is down compared to a year ago, falling 4% from 8.069 to 7.758 million last week among total viewers, and the program also declined 9% among adults 25-54 from last year's 2.2 to a 2.0 rating last week... Developing..."

(from drudgereport.com)

Fool: I honestly don't see what the hubbub is about. folks act like the network anchors are out there pounding the beat, and that the quality of the new that night is somehow directly related to their skills as a journalist.

Let's face it: network newscasters are glorified teleprompter readers. You really need only 2 qualities:

1. The ability to read.
2. A reassuring voice and mannerism that is comforting but not overly distracting.

To be honest, I get all my news from print and radio sources, so I don't have a dog to hunt in this argument (so to speak). But I can tell you if I did watch the news I would prefer to have it hosted by someone who is easy on the eyes.

over_educated, I respectfully disagree. I don't watch local news because it's a joke. Network news is different. NETWORK newscasters are NOT glorified teleprompter readers. Local news anchors are. Network anchors usually have served their time in the trenches, reporting, hosting, etc. Brian Williams was the White House reporter for years. Jennings spent tons of time covering the Middle East for ABC. Everyone has done something fairly impressive, even Katie Couric (I think she covered the State Department for awhile, but I don't know for certain). These people should be smart (and generally are) and should be knowledgeable (and generally are). The key to their ability as an anchor is how they perform when there isn't a teleprompter, i.e. when there is breaking news. On 9/11, Jennings guided my family and me. On this past Election night, Williams and Company were who caught my eye. The problem with Couric is that she can't even satisfy the second requirement of your two-prong test. Her mannerism (based on make-up alone) are distracting. She looks like a crack whore. Whereas NBC and ABC are more like the New York Times and Washington Post, Katie Couric's newscast is sort of like the Style section of USA Today.