Are Katie Couric's poor ratings a result of sexism?

Question

What do you think?

"Leslie Moonves, CBS chief executive, on Tuesday suggested that sexist attitudes were partly to blame "for the faltering performance of Katie Couric, the news anchor he recruited to the network with a $15m annual pay package.

“I’m sort of surprised by the vitriol against her. The number of people who don’t want news from a woman was startling,” Mr Moonves said of the audience’s reaction to Ms Couric, who this month brought ratings for the CBS Evening News to a 20-year low.

He reiterated, however, that he was committed to Ms Couric and that he believed her programme would succeed in spite of its last place standing behind rivals ABC and NBC."

cont'd

"In the absence of specific research, some analysts took issue with that argument. “People get news from women all the time – on local news, on morning shows. I’m sceptical of his discovery of sexism,” said Andrew Tyndall, whose Tyndall Report monitors newscasts. He and others have criticised the style of Ms Couric’s newscast.

Answer 1

There are many possible reasons to explain Couric’s failure, but CBS has chosen to reject many complicated arguments for simple sexism.

First, there is an argument to be made that people are turning more and more to the internet for their news. (This does not turn Couric’s failure into a success because she is still in last place standing behind ABC and NBC.) But this can be partially relied upon to explain the low numbers.

Second, viewers have permanently left CBS because of Rathergate and the station’s leftwing bias.

Third, Couric herself is not cut out for an evening news program. Couric was successful on a morning television program, but the evening news and morning news are like day and night. Success in one arena does not automatically translate into success in another arena. Would Matt Lauer, Al Roker or Regis Philbin be taken seriously as an evening newscaster? No. They are better fit for the morning shows.

Fourth, Couric is a victim of blatant sexism. Which argument did CBS choose? CBS picked the last argument. Leslie Moonves, CBS chief executive, said Tuesday, “I’m sort of surprised by the vitriol against her. The number of people who don’t want news from a woman was startling.” Not surprising, CBS does not blame Couric’s failure on different viewer habits or Couric herself, but instead attributes her failure to institutional societal sexism.

But this is only one side of the coin. The other side is that Couric has benefited more than anyone because of her gender. CBS specifically made Couric’s gender an issue and sought Couric in part because she is a woman, which it thought would draw in more female viewers and in turn, help the program. While CBS will be unlikely to admit that Couric would not have the job if she was not a woman in the first place, this is a fair assumption. CBS implicitly acknowledges this. The Financial Times reported on Tuesday that CBS was hoping to draw younger, female viewers and that Couric has received a 2 percent increase in women age 18 to 49.

Furthermore, CBS spent huge sums of money conducting a large-scale public relations campaign to sell the public on Couric. Why? CBS hoped that a female anchor could push CBS to the front of the pack. There are always risks involved in switching news anchors and the structure of the program. The extensive public relations campaign CBS conducted shows that CBS was aware of these risks. CBS should recognize that the program failed and change something—the format, the anchor or the type of news it covers.

If women want the same opportunity to succeed, they should have the same opportunity to fail.

Couric more than benefited from her gender by getting the CBS news anchor job and CBS gave it to her expecting to benefit as well. CBS shouldn’t expect to receive bonus points on the Nielsen’s ratings just because it hired a female anchor. Rather than claim sexism, CBS should take responsibility for the failure of the CBS Evening News.

Answer 2

No, nothing in the whole world is a result of sexism. People are crazy when they talk about it. It's just impossible that people have absorbed sexist stereotypes and ideologies from birth that appear subconsciously without their knowledge because they have no idea how to think critically or self-reflect, sort of like this former university chairman: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19791485/?GT1=10150 . But they're pretty good at suppressing it.

You're right. It's simply impossible that part of the reason people can't take Couric seriously as a news anchor, or can't give any better reason for not liking her than "she stinks" or "because she's Katie Couric" (remind anyone of Hillary Clinton?), is because they've internalized sexist stereotypes insisting that women in general cannot be taken seriously for serious tasks like the evening news, or because there has never even *been* a female evening news anchor.
___________

It's also interesting that Katie started her career as the replacement of a replacement of a more "serious" and highly rated newscaster, Jane Pauley. "The networks took a string of 'aging' women anchors and put them out to pasture, replacing them with either much older men or much younger - and much less well paid - women. In 1989, at the ripe old age of thirty-nine, the popular Jane Pauley was pushed out of her co-anchor slot on the _Today_ show, in a very public and humiliating campaign, and replaced by the younger and blonder Deborah Norville (who was later bumped for another youthful model, Katie Couric, at half her salary). This wasn't a decision made with viewers in mind: Pauley's ratings were much higher than those of her male co-host, Bryant Gumbel, and her expulsion caused the show to torpedo to the very bottom of the morning ratings, even below the cartoons. At CBS, Kathleen Sullivan was yanked from the morning news show to make way for the younger and blonder Paula Zahn, whom the network's male brass deemed both a more comely and upstanding model of true womanhood than the divorced Sullivan" (Susan Faludi, _Backlash_).

"Few questioned Tom Brokaw's seriousness when he switched from a "Today" host in the 1970s to become NBC's longtime top anchor. At ABC, Charles Gibson frequently did the morning and evening newscasts on the same day this past year during Peter Jennings' illness and death" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12171970/ ).

Naw. Not a hint of sexism anywhere.

Answer 3

Not at all. Katie Couric is not a serious journalist. Remember, CBS was in the toilet before Katie arrived. She's turned the format of the CBS evening news into a Today Show Lite. Nice legs are fine in the morning with a feature-driven format of the Today Show, but evening news needs a little more savvy. Besides, the relevance of network broadcast news is pretty marginal.

Answer 4

I think she is such a strong contrast from her predecessor. CBS built up a strong audience with one personality and they assumed that either a) people would just keep watching because it is CBS or b) the people who watched her in the morning would love to watch her at night. Both assumptions are dead wrong. She can be good on television but this is not her best fit. Plus I think some people see right through their intentions. I find it hard to believe that they had the best interest of the viewers in mind when they put her on the evening news. Most people see it as an attempt to boost rating rather than do a good job. I agree that most people who watch the evening news tend to be a bit more savy. Lastly, keep in mind the current state of the media. People can get the news 24/7 from a variety of sources and from any perspective they choose. Networks are struggling to deal with the instant news, tivo, internet, and the blog-o-sphere. She is just not a good fit for this period.

Answer 5

No, it's not sexists attitudes against her. There have been other women anchors before her, Barbara Walters for example. Katie is NOT a hard sell as a hard news journalist. Remember the cute, girlish, morning person Katie Couric? She will NOT out live that image. That side of her on the Today show, was prob her being her natural self. She sold her self out for the $$$$$$$. She is too ashamed to admit it.

Answer 6

I honestly don't think so. I think her perky image on an entertainment show is what people are reacting to. That's not the image people want in a newscaster (or what they are familiar with). Worth noting is that the ratings for Couric's newscast aren't any worse than before. I think another female newscaster who has been a serious reporter on the national news would be better accepted.

Answer 7

I think Katie Couric was a poor choice. Christiane Amanpour would be an awesome newscaster. Too bad Katty Kay's British, because she'd also do a good job. Katie is simply in over her head.

Answer 8

I don't like Katie Couric and can not take her seriously as a news anchor. She looks like she should still be on the Today show. I would not watch the news not because she is female but because of her. It was a mistake to put her on the CBS Evening News show.

Answer 9

Katie Couric's poor ratings are, IMO, a result of people perceiving her to not have real journalistic credibility. I think a lot of people perceive her as, at best, "journalism lite" because her background isn't that of a journalist who has developed credibility covering real hard news.

I don't think that the ratings she's getting are reflective of sexism. If I'd been Moonves, I'd have gone after CNN's Christiane Amanpour, who has real journalism credibility. Compare Amanpour's bio with Katie's:

Amanpour: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/amanpour.christiane.html

Couric: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/06/eveningnews/bios/main1781520.shtml

FWIW, Couric in her career prior to her promotion tended to cover softer news and to make her reputation on celebrity interviews where she lobbed creampuffs, rather than hard questions, at her guests. Amanpour has covered war zones and gone to do the tough, ugly and dangerous stuff. Amanpour is perceived as a real journalist; Couric is perceived as a talking head.

Answer 10

No Katie Courics poor rating are from the fact she sucks, she doesn't give people the news she tries to entertain them. I don't care who the anchor is what matters is the content, and the content of hernews show SUCKS.