"Can Katie Couric Ever Win?"

[GreenPartyVoter]

NEW YORK (AP) - After months of whispers that she was too soft for the evening news, now Katie Couric is being criticized for being too tough on John and Elizabeth Edwards during a "60 Minutes" interview.

Can Couric ever win?

It's a stunning turnabout for Couric, once America's sweetheart on NBC's "Today" show and now going through hard times as anchor for an evening newscast last in the ratings. Couric's high-profile assignment on CBS'"60 Minutes" Sunday suddenly turned into a referendum on her.

In questioning Edwards' decision to continue his presidential campaign despite the recurrence of his wife's cancer, Couric pointed out that some people believe that's a courageous stance, while others think it's callous, a case of insatiable ambition. What did they think?

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20070327/D8O4O89O0.html

[WI_DEM]

1. The question is why is it bad for the Edwards to go forth in a presidential race when she didn't

give up the TODAY show when her husband was ill with cancer (and eventually died)? It isn't that she asked some tough questions, imo, but the hypocrisy.

[bpeale]

2. and her sometimes nasty tone when interviewing someone

she's a hack

[frazzledmom]

5. Yeah the tone was what did it, not the questions

She just seemed nasty. Not to mention the horribly lame straw man questions, "Some people say" :eyes: Some people being Rush Limbaugh

[sasha031]

14. yes she love her repukes, even Rush

when it comes to Dem's she despicable, the morning show was so delighted when she left, they are still celebrating.

[Clark2008]

17. Not the same thing at all.

Edwards is SEEKING this position (which is more demanding than a Today show host). He doesn't already HAVE the position. It's not as though he's trying to maintain something he has.

There were problems with her interview, but that wasn't hypocrisy. Besides, her personal life, nor that of any reporters, should not be an issue for anyone.

Do I like Couric? No. I think she's a poor excuse of a reporter, but, as a former reporter, I don't buy this "hypocricy" argument in the least.

[saltpoint]

3. If Les phones me up on this, I'm telling him to put Schieffer back

at the anchor desk and let Couric do celebrity interviews, not political interviews.

She's not a journalist and didn't frame her questions very well to the Edwardeses. I've heard her on several other occasions try to interview politicians, including President Carter, and she just doesn't get the job done.

If she's your lead-off hitter and she's hitting .128, that's not good.

[itsrobert]

6. Actually 1.28 is a great batting average

but impossible. That would mean she gets a hit every time at bat and than some. You must of meant .128?

[Cha]

9. Shows you what I know

about baseball.

[saltpoint]

23. I did. I'll switch it if the time hasn't expired. Thanks.

[Cha]

7. Yeah! Les struckout when

he shelled out the big bucks for nbc's katie couric.

And he thought he had such a coup. :+

[saltpoint]

24. Agree, zidzi. I've seen Schieffer dissed on these boards, but I saw no

reason to replace him.

I thought he was getting the job done.

[Gabi Hayes]

29. yep...it sure is DAMN hard work reading off a teleprompter.

who watches that garbage anyway?

if you think Schieffer is so swell, look him up at media matters.

he's a serious tool, despite his IMAGE

[saltpoint]

33. We disagree.

[Cha]

31. Bob Schieffer is miles

above couric in reporting and interviewing ability.

[saltpoint]

34. Yes. Schieffer came up through the ranks from Fort Worth and

made it on gumption and skill.

He's a very good interviewer.

[papau]

38. and also right wing biased n/t

n/t

[Cha]

42. From what I've read of his comments

on DU, Bob Schieffer has some zinging comments at the end of his Face The Nation that were not sucking up to the gopers.

They were statements in fact. I know his rep for gop bias but he was careening off that track.

[papau]

50. true - I saw that and noted it was out of character and would cause his Bush appointed relative

problems.

Schieffer is the older brother of Tom Schieffer, a friend and former business partner of President George W. Bush, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Australia 2001-2005 by President Bush and as of November, 2005 is currently the U.S. Ambassador to Japan.

[saltpoint]

43. Schieffer's commentaries are plainly not in the Bush administration's

best interests.

I think he's a very fair reporter and analyst.

[papau]

51. I wish that were true in the past - perhaps now and in the future it will be - but

a few weeks will not change a career - at least not for me.

I think he is a an ethical person with a sense of right and wrong that has concluded Bush is wrong.

He has in the past concluded Dems were "wrong" on nearly no evidence other than GOP handouts - I doubt that has changed.

Schieffer is the older brother of Tom Schieffer, a friend and former business partner of President George W. Bush, who was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Australia 2001-2005 by President Bush and as of November, 2005 is currently the U.S. Ambassador to Japan.

[saltpoint]

52. I'm familiar with Schieffer's kinfolk's appointments.

I reassert my respect for Schieffer's abilities and training as a journalist, and I find his commentaries informative and, frankly, liberal.

[Cha]

4. HELLO! GOOD MORNING!

couric is sweet as fucking pie to repukians but to DEMS she finds her inner kate byrne.

Disingenous Question..Next.

[EST]

8. It's not about her being tough.

When she was being considered for her job, it was about being serious and knowledgeable and being able to think.

With her Edwards interview it was about her being shabby, hypocritical, shallow and clueless.
Tasteless and tough don't have to go together.

[Cha]

35. Spot fookin' On! How "tough" do ya

have to be to interview someone who just found out their cancer has come back? Well, of course, they're Dems so get your freak on.

Anyway, couric went past "tough" into HARDASS.

[w4rma]

10. "some people say" (nt)

[LaPera]

46. Yes, Katie like so many has become a rich well paid media whore.

[Mind_your_head]

11. Couric doesn't ask tough questions to the people who TRULY DESERVE

to be asked the tough questions. AND she's a hypocrite to boot (as someone upthread already pointed out).

Katie Couric = icky person, in my view

[Clark2008]

18. Again, her PERSONAL life SHOULD NOT be an issue.

I think we shouldn't know jack about reporters' personal lives unless they're committing a crime. They are a conduit for information and that alone. It's too bad we treat any of them as stars deserving of interest in their personal lives.

That's different with presidential candidates. The Edwards put this info out there.

Now, I do agree that she doesn't ask tough questions of Republicans and should, but we shouldn't demand that her personal life become our business. Nor that of ANY reporter.

[Mind_your_head]

22. uhm, well......she put herself on the cover of several magazines about

a year after her husband lost his battle with cancer, IIRC.

"Reporters" such as Couric don't 'report' ~ they 'spin' as they're instructed.

I guess people like *me* expect that people like Couric (b/c of their own experience) would have some understanding/sympathy of what it all feels like to go through such an experience as terminal cancer.

And I wil disagree with your last sentence:

we shouldn't demand that her personal life become our business. Nor that of ANY reporter.

I would expect Couric to be 'human' and be decent. One would THINK that her own experience would lend her to being so.....however, apparently it does not. She has proven herself to be a corporate, soulless whore.

[Clark2008]

25. I agree that she shouldn't be on the cover of magazines.

But, it's still not hypocritical to ask that question of the Edwards. She wasn't seeking the most powerful position in the world when she was a talk show host on morning TV. First, she was already employeed as said talk show host, not seeking a new, more powerful position. Secondly, being said talk show host is not in any way, shape or form as demanding as being the president.

It's not quite the same thing at all.

And, I, for one, don't care if she's human or not. She should just ask the damn questions and leave it at that. No interjection of one's personal life is necessary. Just the facts, ma'am.

[Mind_your_head]

27. Yes......a Couric apologist you are....

And, I, for one, don't care if she's human or not. :rofl:



I would guess that your stocks are performing well, so you don't *give a care* about humanity, right?

[LSK]

12. why dont she question the Iraq war for starters!??!?!?!?!?

:grr:

[Cha]

48. That would be a real good start

..she was so miss nosy on the Edwards' decision to choose life ..but can't get up enough curiosity :boring: to ask the repukes :wtf: is going on with Iraq and what about those lies that bush told to get this quaqmire goin' on? :boring:

[Warren DeMontague]

13. How about if she rediscovers the meaning of adversarial journalism for the people who are

ACTUALLY IN THE GOVERNMENT NOW?

Then, maybe, we'll talk.

[calico1]

15. Katie should stick with doing mindless, fluff

pieces and leave the news to real journalists. Her attempt at being tough came across as rude and an attack on the Edwards. She of all people should have shown a little sensitivity. She is clueless. Doing a serious news program is way over her head.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

16. It's not about soft/tough, it's about competent/incompetent.

She's shown now she can be incompetent in a variety of ways.

[SoCalDem]

19. Some people say she's a lightweight.."others" say she's useless, "Critics" KNOW she's overpaid and

underqualified :)

but Hey! she thinks that Navy Seals RAWWWK!,,

[youngdem]

20. It's not about toughness, it is about fairness, professionalism, news without an agenda and depth

ALL of which, she lacks.

[elfin]

21. The fact that CBS chose HER to do this interview shows

that the honchos know she is in real and very big trouble. Other correspondents on 60 Minutes could have done the interview instead.

She blew it - she could have elicited the same information without the lame "some say" approach - which was sheer laziness on her part.

[spanone]

26. I don't think so. Without a serious background in journalism many entertainers fail in 'news'.

[MoonRiver]

28. She can't ever "win" because she's a rightwing ditz.

Definitely NOT ready for prime time.

[jackstraw45]

30. Once again...media reporting that it's ALL ABOUT THE MEDIA

Media lives are worth 10 times the coverage of soldier and civilian lives in any military conflict, if you watch how the corporate media reacts when one of their own is injured/killed.

It's about Katie Couric getting attacked and not the Edwards.

The Corporate Media is high-larious.

[Colobo]

32. I'll say what I said on Sunday

Couric did a good job, in my view. I would've asked them the same questions. The link above even says Elizabeth thanked Couric by phone and John though the questions were fair.

She did a good job. In fact, much better than expected.

[Mind_your_head]

36. Just because the Edward's were gracious in thanking Ms Couric

for the interview, doesn't mean that Ms. Couric was gracious in her interview/questioning.

Geez .... how blind to not see that! :eyes:

[Colobo]

39. I saw the interview

and I didn't find anything wrong with it, and Edwards is my 2nd choice... someone I like very much. I think, if anything, that the interview made him look great.

[Cha]

47. There were plenty of intelligent people

who did see something quite wrong with the couric interview..so we weren't imagining what we saw.

Nora Ephron gave a wonderfully scathing review of missy crueladecouric..

snips~
"Some people" are saying that Katie Couric went too far on 60 Minutes. I don't actually know who those people are, because I haven't done any reporting on it. Why bother? "Some people" must be saying it. "Some people" will say anything. And there's no real need to mention their names, because I can just say that "some people" are saying it and get away with it.

Last night on 60 Minutes, Katie Couric kept referring to "Some people." She said that "some" were saying the Edwardses were courageous, and "others" were saying they were callous and ambitious. She said that some people were wondering how someone could be president if he was "distracted" by his wife's health. (This question, in a year when there are two presidential candidates who are themselves cancer survivors, seemed particularly disingenuous.) (And never mind that it was being asked by someone who managed to keep working while dealing with her own husband's terminal illness.)


I don't know what some people think, but I myself think it's weird to question the Edwardses as if there's some right way to deal with cancer. There's no real way to know how one is going to deal with such things until they happen, and even then, there's no way to apply the way one person chooses to deal with mortal illness to another. And I disagree with Elizabeth Edwards when she says that there are only two choices -- to go on living, or begin dying. What I believe instead is that at a certain point in life, whether or not you've been diagnosed with illness, you enter into a conscious, ongoing, unending, eternal, puzzling, confusing negotiation between the two. Some days one of them wins, and some days the other. This negotiation often includes decisions as trivial as whether to eat a second piece of pie, and as important as whether to have medical treatment that may or may not prolong your life.

Last night on 60 Minutes, Katie Couric quoted John Edwards' remark earlier in the week -- that he was in the race "for the duration," and asked him, "How can you say that, Senator Edwards, with such certainty? If, God forbid, Elizabeth doesn't respond to whatever treatment is recommended, if her health deteriorates, would you really say that?" Thank you, Katie. Thank you for asking that question. The world could not have survived had you not asked it. Of course, "Some people" were undoubtedly thinking it. And it would have been a tragedy not to have given voice to that thought, wouldn't it? Or would it?"

Go to huffington/ nora ephron for the link and the rest..cause it's not posting for me :)

[gatorboy]

37. Interview gets 126,000 hits on Youtube but only "dozens" complain to CBS?

Me thinks someone's numbers are a bit off...And it ain't Youtube.

[WinkyDink]

40. Why can't we just not like her? I don't! Never did.

[Marr]

41. Another way of posing this question would be, "why do corporate media excecutives feel compelled to

inject Katie Couric into our news programming, when viewers seem to hate her work?"

Could it possibly be because she's a media clown with a right-wing slant, and right-wing government makes big money for corporate America?

[Cha]

49. NOT POssible!

:sarcasm: blood of the victims in Iraq :sarcasm:

[zbdent]

44. She's soft, when she's kissing the asses of Repukes

and hard when interviewing Dems ...

How is that a good thing, except for the Reich?

[GreenTea]

45. Why didn't Couric quit the Today show when her husband was diagnosed with cancer? Katie,

"Some people say" you should of quit immediately if you really cared!

Couric using that same manipulating Fox news bullshit, "some people say" shit!

Did she just want or expect Edwards to quit or simply try and shame him...no one shamed her when her husband was dying of cancer...

Old whore Katie's banging boyfriend is a big time right-wing neocon and a huge Bush supporter...

Big bucks Couric now does what the conservatives tell her to do, as all big buck "journalist" do...It's a planned corporate media attack & control pay them well and control them!

[npincus]

53. Edwards interview criticism was well-deserved

poor journalism is poor journalism... some people say.

[philosophie_en_rose]

54. Could Katie Couric Ever Not Suck?

The question isn't whether she is "tough" or "easy."

It's whether she's abrasive and rude or fawning and sycophantic.

She could have asked different questions or even the same questions in a different manner to reach the same answers.

For instance, "Senator Edwards. Can you discuss any circumstances where you would leave this campaign?" or "How do you explain this to your donors?"

Rather than "Some people judge your personal choices, so shouldn't you stay barefoot at home and cry all day?" or "Mrs. Edwards, some people say you got this cancer as a political ploy. Isn't that true?"


:eyes:


Katie is of the Fox News 'skool' of 'journalism.' That's not just an issue of the content of her questions, but of her style and integrity.