I have a question. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, will she end up like Katie Couric?
Katie Couric was selected by CBS to anchor the Evening News after Rather retired, but she has been a disaster for CBS, which has fallen to third place among the networks for the news hour.
Let's compare below the fold.
For many years, Katie Couric was beloved on the Today Show. Americans loved her style, her smile, and her pep. They tuned in religiously to see her ham it up with Matt Lauer. She was a sure-thing ratings wise for NBC.
When CBS went looking for an anchor to replace the venerable, yet damaged, Dan Rather, they looked for someone new, fresh, and someone outside the all-white, all-male club. A deal was struck, and Katie Couric was selected. We do not know who she was up against or what the determing factors were, but among the many exceptional female journalists America has to offer, Couric was their pick.
Fine. I mean, she had a very positive reputation in the country propelled by her success on the Today Show, seemed like ratings gold, except that she wasn't.
Did anyone watch Katie Couric's first broadcast? I did. She ended her program with the following, loosely paraphrased: "Every anchor has a sign off line, something they become known for. I don't have one, and I don't have any ideas. Please send in your ideas, and we here at CBS might just pick yours as my sign-off line. For now, I hope to see you back here tomorrow night."
Now, everything you need to know about Katie Couric taking over the evening news is right there in that telling little snippet.
- Katie doesn't know who she is in this new role. She's asking others to define her by sending in their ideas about how to end each evening broadcast. Successful news anchors know who they are. They don't ask others to define them.
- By inviting her audience to write in with their ideas, she was pulling out a schtick appropriate for morning television, not the nightly news. It was fluffy.
- She showed her weakness by saying "I hope I see you back here tomorrow night." A more confident line would have been, "I'll see you here tomorrow night," or "Until tomorrow's broadcast, I'm Katie Couric. Good Night." You get the point. The "I hope" was pleading, not commanding, and didn't translate well.
Those who follow media news know precisely what happened when Couric took the anchor's chair at CBS: the show tanked. There are two memes out there as to why this is happening. Either A) America doesn't want a woman, particularly one who is usually so perky and bubbly, to feed them their nightly news. The second is that B) Couric is just not good at the job, that she lacks the critical analysis (or "smarts") and tough demeanor required for the nightly news. In a nutshell, both memes suggest that while she was perfectly suited for the Today Show and America loved her bubbly effervescence in the morning, those qualities simply didn't translate to the very different animal that is the evening news.
So, where does that leave Couric and CBS? They, of course, state publicly that they are happy with her and she will remain. This is likely not true. Television lives and dies by the Nielson ratings, and ratings dogs get pulled eventually. They have to find the right exit strategy, sure, but I'm betting we will see her leave the Evening News sooner rather than later.
Where did CBS go wrong? They hired the wrong person for the job, period, regardless of gender, and while they get kudos from me for taking the risk at hiring a female anchor, I heartily wish they had chosen one more well-suited for the gig, like Diane Sawyer, for example.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton is nominated to run in '08 whether the Dems will be making the same mistake as CBS. According to polls, her strength is largely due to women's support. They like that a woman has a viable shot at the presidency. In addition, Hillary is much beloved in NY, and she enjoys huge support there. Whether she is as good at her job in the Senate as Katie Couric was at the Today Show is debateable, but the comparison--that Clinton is popular as a Senator and Couric was popular as host of the Today Show--remains.
Will the Dems be heralded as daring risk-takers by nominating the first woman to run for POTUS only to have it backfire when we find out she's not suited for the position, despite her popularity in NY and in many Dem circles?
It's not so much a question of demeanor or looking/acting presidential. Anyone can feign these characteristics; it's about being the right person for the right job at the right time. The timing may well be ripe for a non-traditional candidate to run for President, but the candidate still has to be good at the job; the candidate still has to survive the "interview" that is the General Election, and this is wha worries me. I'm not convinced that Hillary Clinton is the right person for the job. She's a good candidate, no doubt, but this country needs someone very specific to be our country's next president, someone who will begin to undo the damage of the Bush/Cheney years, someone who will boldly and unapologetically lead the way.
America needs someone who will
- Withdrawal troops from Iraq, restoring sane foreign policy.
- Restore the constitution, join international treaties, and generally work on being who we say we are as Americans.
- Put people before politics, limiting corporate influence on policy.
- Confront Global Warming through bold initiatives reminiscent of the New Deal.
- able to withstand Republican attack, both on the campaign trail as well as in the WH.
There's more, but you get the gist. Bold, decisive leadership is not only wanted but required at this moment in history for the preservation of our country. Half measures will not suffice.
Breaking barriers is great; CBS did this with Couric, though not to any success. The Dems may break barriers by nominating Clinton, but can we afford what may turn out to be merely a symbolic gesture?
Dems who oppose Clinton say that they would vote for her if she's nominated. I suppose I understand the sentiment, and I'll likely do the same; afterall, I voted for both Gore and Kerry despite reservations.
But this isn't the General, it's the primary. So tell me why she is or isn't the right person at the right time for the job.
p.s. I don't have a favorite candidate.
p.p.s. I'm not a troll, so don't go there.