I agree. I've always enjoyed Katie Couric on the Today Show, but the last thing we need is "cute" news. Hopefully she will able to deliver the serious news that we expect.

i would think that one would have to ALREADY be a serious journalist - and be recognized as one - in order to get the seat as an anchor, and not aspire to be one as a result of getting this job.

the fact that couric is not recognized as a serious journalist - whether she is one or not - tells you all that you need to know with regards to what the networks are looking to accomplish.

allen, Katie is very attractive and likeable, but I have a difficult time picturing her doing the news seriously (she has that annoying perky thing going). What about a "real" newsperson who has cut her teeth in the field? Many women put themselves out there and work for years and get no recognition.

My vote would have been for Christiane Amanpour to be selected. Now THAT would have shown a decision to get real news from a gutsy newsperson.

I have seen Couric anchor the NBC evening news as a fill-in for Brokaw on numerous occasions. She did fine and was very serious. Whether she is up to serving as the managing editor is another matter, but I seriously doubt that CBS would have chosen her if it didn't believe she was capable of doing the job. Whatever she is recognized as being, what she is is what counts and how she performs in this new job will prove to us what she is. It is perfectly possible to be talented at more than one variation of the same thing.

I don't think it matters. While I agree with much of this article, the question of her demeanor seems to be a cave-in. Even the matter of who sits in the anchor's chair isn't really an indicator of the quality of the broadcast.

The trio of Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather dominated the airwaves throughout the decline of network news. Are they responsible for it? Only in that their presence exemplified the lack of network innovation. (OK, they do bear some responsibility for their networks' decline. But different faces wouldn't have helped much.)

The consumer gets increasingly sophisticated, seeking news and opinion from many sources, able to tell the difference between news and opinion. There's no better symbol of the impersonal news consumption than the tickertape headlines running along the bottom of the broadcast, while anchors pose above it. I don't watch the anchors when the news is on. The networks reveal their ignorance of the news consumer when they focus on the news reader.

It's easy to envision a day when the only ones watching network news are the reporters vying for the anchor chair.

I believe that before Today, Couric was a "real" reporter, covering the Washington beat. She has the journalistic chops, but it seems they're more like dentures that she takes out for long stretches of time.

Who cares? Why is this a story? Only media types should care, because I don't watch national evening news.

I do watch Today sometimes, and I don't want Meredith Viera coming over. Why? I want someone young, hot, and is willing to wear plenty of short skirts. Unfortunately the target demographic for Today (Women) doesn't care about that. So we get Viera.

I would have much rather liked Campbell Brown, because she's sexy in news kind of way, but NBC just wanted to go with the biggest "name."

If you watch the news for 'hot' and 'sexy' I can understand why you do not care about this as a story. I think most adults, however, do care about the content of their news.

I remember that once upon a time, you turned on the Columbia Broadcast System and got news. Now you get trash. The same is true for all the major networks in your country - with Israeli TV imitating yours, only with nastier and meaner and far less objective folks "reporting" the news.

Enjoy your memories of real news broadcasts, Allendrury. Until you provide your own out of America's heartland, they are all you will have.

I watched Glenn Iffel interview "Condie".

I always try to watch Meet The Press with Tim Russert.

Could not understand a few things until learning that Condie and Glenn were friends. This explained the weak interview that went without teeth.


Now I can see that Tim Russert has the same look on his face that Dick Cheney does. They are friends. Explains alot to me. Am I alone on this?

Jane,

The name is GWEN, not Glenn.

The fact is that many reporters know their subjects and vice-versa. That is not bad, of course. I think any objective viewer knows that professional interviews are not 'thrown' for friendship as a rule. The viewer/reader knows that they also bring a set of biases with them and need to understand the tint of the glasses they wear when getting news.