Good Luck Katie

On Tuesday, September 5th, Katie Couric will begin as a sole anchor of the CBS Evening News.

Couric spent 15 years on the fluff news show “Today” on NBC so some have complained that she won’t succeed on a “hard” news show. Some have said she wouldn’t because of being on “Today” while others say it because she is a woman – they still think a woman can’t deliver the news.

Yes, the Today show is mostly fluff but when there was hard news to cover Couric did well. I remember watching her on Today during the beginning of the 9/11 attacks. I think she know when to be serious and when to be light. Besides Tom Brokaw, the former anchor of NBC news, worked for several years on Today in the late 70’s and he did okay moving to the anchor chair.

The critics says she hasn’t had enough hard news experience. My view is she is just reading the news – she doesn’t have to find it. That is what the staff does. She paid her dues as a local reporter and as a correspondent.

As to those who complain that she won’t do a good job because she is a woman – all I have to say is look at Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. They have a large number of women anchors of their various newscasts and no seems to complain about them. Couric will be doing the same thing those women do only she will be on CBS.

The only thing I hope Couric does do different is not throw softballs at anyone she interviews like a political leader.

Other than that I wish her good luck. I know I will watch at least once.

“Rathergate” still doesn’t change the facts

Okay, let me get this straight.

An “independent” investigation of the 60 Minutes September 2004 report on discrepancies in President Bush’s National Guard service record cost the jobs of 4 CBS staffers. Senior vice president Betsy West, 60 Minutes executive producer Josh Howard and senior broadcast producer Mary Murphy have all been asked to resign. Producer Mary Mapes was dismissed for what was called a “Myopic zeal” in reporting the story based on documents that may have been forged.

Yet the investigation could not state conclusively whether the documents were forgeries or not. The report also found no evidence that political bias was a factor in the network’s journalism.

The secretary for the General who’s signature appeared on the documents said the documents weren’t real BUT the information contained in them was correct.

Also the same discrepancies were reported by different news organizations during the same period of time (September 2004) using different sources.

Meanwhile, the stories reported in the New York Times prior to the invasion of Iraq that said there were Weapons of Mass Destruction caused not even a whimper of outrage. Even after the Times admitted the reporting was “insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged,” the reporter who wrote the stories still works of the paper and reports on Iraq.

So as FAIR comments: it does matter who you piss off rather than what the truth is.

Ironically, the information in the “fake” memos has been reported as not true – which is not the case. Once again the President gets a pass.