babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Katie Couric vs. Amy Goodman

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Katie Couric vs. Amy Goodman
1ndiemuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10536

posted 20 April 2006 03:04 PM      Profile for 1ndiemuse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I stumbled upon this the other day and I thought I would bring it here for discussion.

quote:
We haven't done the poll, but our guess is that most Americans recognize the name Katie Couric.

And they wouldn't know Amy Goodman from a hole in the wall.

NBC Today Show co-anchor Katie Couric said this morning that she is leaving the show to become the anchor for the CBS Evening News.

Amy Goodman is the anchor of the award winning one-hour television and radio news program, Democracy Now.

Couric gets more ink than Goodman in the mainstream press.

That's because Couric plays by the rules of the game.

Goodman doesn't.


While I think it's great that a woman is finaly anchoring a evening news cast solo, I just have to wonder, is it the right woman?


From: Everybody knows this is nowhere . . . | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fear-ah
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6476

posted 20 April 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for Fear-ah        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by indiemuse:

While I think it's great that a woman is finaly anchoring a evening news cast solo, I just have to wonder, is it the right woman?

Who cares...you actually watch that shit?
and care?

Pentagon spewed corportist propaganda is really NO different if it is spewed by a woman--in fact aren't woman used frequently as spokespeople because the public thinks they are more honest or I am suppose to discount the last 20 years of PR management studies...?

I read that article originally and the one big flaw is the thesis itself; it never challenges it own premise, if you notice.

Basically. Amy Goodman IS a journalist, whereas Couric never was a journalist in any real sense and at best she is an interviewer and a news personality...it's an unfair comparison and especially unfair to one of the finest journalists in the US today.
Goodman's work ethic and tenaciousness as an interviewer would keep her from getting any anchor job with the MSM--gender plays no part in this.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
1ndiemuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10536

posted 20 April 2006 03:33 PM      Profile for 1ndiemuse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fear-ah:

Who cares...you actually watch that shit?
and care?


No I suppose I don't watch it (no cable), I rely on John Stewart to tell me what's happening in American media. But I do think that what happens in American media effects the rest of the world esp. Canada, so yes, I care.

quote:
Originally posted by Fear-ah:

Pentagon spewed corportist propaganda is really NO different if it is spewed by a woman--in fact aren't woman used frequently as spokespeople because the public thinks they are more honest or I am suppose to discount the last 20 years of PR management studies...?


Too true.

quote:
Originally posted by Fear-ah:

Basically. Amy Goodman IS a journalist, whereas Couric never was a journalist in any real sense and at best she is an interviewer and a news personality

Goodman's work ethic and tenaciousness as an interviewer would keep her from getting any anchor job with the MSM--gender plays no part in this.


I took that to be the exact point of the authors of the article.


From: Everybody knows this is nowhere . . . | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
1ndiemuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10536

posted 20 April 2006 03:33 PM      Profile for 1ndiemuse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
deleted b/c aparently I double posted. Not sure how.

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: indiemuse ]


From: Everybody knows this is nowhere . . . | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 20 April 2006 03:40 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My evil twin does that too.
From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 20 April 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Goodman's a peach.

I've been downloading the podcasts from Democracy Now! for the last couple of weeks (including the Chomsky interview mentioned in the commondreams piece), and find them very informative.

The article's mention of trends in news broadcasting reminded me of a recent lecture I heard by David Halton, who said during the talk that he was concerned more and more people were drifting towards news sources that, to paraphrase him, confirmed what they already knew or thought.

I get an increasing amount of my daily information from the internet (rabble, Znet, podcasts, blogs, etc.), so I may be the sort of person Halton was thinking of. At the same time, when he made this rather critical observation, it struck me that much of the fault lay with the mainstream corporate media itself, which is so obviously biased, obsessed with trivia, etc.

One of the reasons I'd pick Goodman (and what she represents) over Couric (and what she represents) is that I so often read, in the news and opinion available in the Globe, Post, CBC, etc., information I know to be false, propagandistic, misleading, compromised by serious omissions, etc. Goodman and her co-host Juan Valdez have literally spent hours recently talking about immigration and possible reforms (actual reforms, not the House and Senate resolutions) in detail that it would be hard to locate elsewhere.

Practically any story or editorial these days on Afghanistan or Iran will serve to demonstrate the point.

Halton sounded a bit pessimistic, but I'm actually optimistic that the growing influence of 'alternative' media sources will allow people at least a chance to become better informed than the CBC, the Globe, the Post and others are interested in making them.

More Amy Goodman, less Katie Couric, say I.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
1ndiemuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10536

posted 20 April 2006 03:53 PM      Profile for 1ndiemuse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks CM

I was originally going to come back to this and say that I though this issue reflected how women are viewed in North American society. But Fear-ah may have persuaded me that this is not a gender issue. If you were to walk up to any Joe/Jane on the street and ask them who their favorite actor/singer male/female was chances are they could give you a long list of names. But ask them who their favorite journalist was and they would either name of the most recognizable name or give you a blank stare.

So the issue may not be what kind of women are recognized in North America but what kind of people are.


From: Everybody knows this is nowhere . . . | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 20 April 2006 04:12 PM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I just discovered podcasts and also downloaded a few of her Democracy Now shows.

At first, I was fearing what I remembered from college or alternative radio days from years ago. Interviews only with people she agrees with, a very narrow political focus, enough political phraseology to last a lifetime,...

I found her to be an amazing interviewer who is direct, not verbose, wel documented, calm, and her guests have come from many different points of view. It's interesting to see (sorry, hear, my bad evil twin made me mistype again) how a professional progressive news show can work.

I unfortunately have no idea who Kourie is.


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fear-ah
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6476

posted 20 April 2006 04:37 PM      Profile for Fear-ah        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by indiemuse:


No I suppose I don't watch it (no cable), I rely on John Stewart to tell me what's happening in American media. But I do think that what happens in American media effects the rest of the world esp. Canada, so yes, I care.

Well let's not turn this into a contest of who watches less TV. I think we both get the bulk of our news from the Internet anyhow.
I don't think John Stewart (while funny as hell sometimes) is the best barometer on media--his Iranian bashing is unpalatable and he is positioning himself for a network gig, so the edge is missing.

Correction--the rest of the world is oblivious to American domestic news and it IS in fact the US administration and it's people that are ulitmately responsible for their actions.

Let's face it--you didn't need to be with Blix's team to KNOW that Powell was lying through his ass at the UN and watching endless hours of CNN propaganda wouldn't have changed the optics on what IS a barbaric genocidal invasion with numerous war crimes not even supported by any stretch of the term 'security'


I took that to be the exact point of the authors of the article.

...and the point I made was that since it's an apples and oranges comparison, why drag Amy Goodman into it?

Slate did this a few weeks ago:

Funny and unfortunately deadly accurate...this is the World of the Katie Courics.
TV's Aryan Sisterhood

The article, other than a great summation of how good Goodman really is, is rather pointless.

More interesting is this point:

"...It's likely most reporters, editors and producers realize that and try to dress up their coverage, presenting Couric's NBC farewell as a key business story because Today is so vital to the network, turning an annual profit of $250 million. Point taken, but in the grand scheme of corporate America, is $250 million in earnings so hugely important? For instance, Exxon turned a $250 million profit every ten days last year, but you didn't read and hear endless reports about the company's personnel machinations.

...Ironically, the stage-managed Couric tale did come with a ready-made angle attached, but one that reporters politely declined to focus on--the fact that Couric is going to be paid $15 million a year to read the news at CBS on week nights. (It comes out to be about $3,000 per-minute.) The figure, which is line with other high-profile network news stars, is, of course, obscene. That newscasters have become among the highest paid people in America raises all sorts of disturbing questions about journalism, including corporate use of resources, as well as the ability of the economically super-elite to be effective journalists. Journalists who, some say, are called upon to occasionally afflict the comfortable. But questions about runaway pay have for years been quietly downplayed by obedient reporters...

Boehlert's column at Huffington Post

This observation is a good starting point for Daniel Gross's great article

Are Journalists Underpaid?

"...It's ironic that much of the expanded coverage of both the (NY)Times (Thursday Styles, House & Home, Real Estate) and the (WS)Journal (the Friday weekend section, the Saturday edition) is dedicated to the sort of high-end consumption that reporters can't really afford. As a result, there's a nose-pressed-to-the-glass quality to much of the coverage..."

Just like a friend of mine that sorta works for one of those commuter papers--they advertise cel phones packages he can't even afford or promote cable programs and celebrities and he can't afford the cable to watch them.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
1ndiemuse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10536

posted 20 April 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for 1ndiemuse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fear-ah:

Well let's not turn this into a contest of who watches less TV. I think we both get the bulk of our news from the Internet anyhow..[/QB]


I wasn't trying to turn this into any kind of contest. I, like the friend you refer to at the end of your post can't afford cable.

quote:
I don't think John Stewart (while funny as hell sometimes) is the best barometer on media--his Iranian bashing is unpalatable and he is positioning himself for a network gig, so the edge is missing.[/QB]

Maybe not the best, but he does keep track of what's going on in American Media and he calls attention to it. It goes back to me not having cable. I can't follow CNN/Fox/CBS and it's not that I would go to those sources to get my news, but I think it's important to see what the majority of Americans and, in fact, Canadians are being told about what is happening in the world.


quote:
Originally posted by Fear-ah:
Let's face it--you didn't need to be with Blix's team to KNOW that Powell was lying through his ass at the UN and watching endless hours of CNN propaganda wouldn't have changed the optics on what IS a barbaric genocidal invasion with numerous war crimes not even supported by any stretch of the term 'security'[/QB]

You and I, no. The masses, yes. This is why watching is important: Know thy enemy

quote:
Originally posted by Fear-ah:...and the point I made was that since it's an apples and oranges comparison, why drag Amy Goodman into it? [/QB]

To show the comparison of what kind of women/people are valued in North American society.

Thanks for all the links, I will make use of them.


From: Everybody knows this is nowhere . . . | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
FabFabian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7496

posted 21 April 2006 12:20 AM      Profile for FabFabian        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again, with the North American culture BS.
From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 21 April 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FabFabian:
Again, with the North American culture BS.

WTF?


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10908

posted 21 April 2006 10:43 AM      Profile for Critical Mass2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think Stewart is hilarious with his "Iran bashing", his "Bush bashing", his fundamentalist bashing, his Republican bashing, his bigot bashing, his Cheney bashing, it is wonderfully refreshing. No holds barred.

He is using a weapon of satire to try to regain some minimal feeling of sanity in a world driven insane by ruthless people who feel their "God" (Jesus?, Allah?, money?, etc.) gives them absolution for hurting others.

I trust Stewart more than network anchors.

[ 21 April 2006: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]


From: AKA Critical Mass or Critical Mass3 - Undecided in Ottawa/Montreal | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 28 April 2006 02:14 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Funny and unfortunately deadly accurate...this is the World of the Katie Courics.
TV's Aryan Sisterhood

Whoah, that link was really really creepy. Those blond TV anchors look grotesque.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
frandroid_atreides
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2569

posted 28 April 2006 03:37 AM      Profile for frandroid_atreides   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fear-ah:
I don't think John Stewart (while funny as hell sometimes) is the best barometer on media--his Iranian bashing is unpalatable and he is positioning himself for a network gig, so the edge is missing.

Stewart is a comedian. There's no way he would do a serious network host gig. I mean look at him when a guest is going serious on him. He's completely bored. He only comes alive when he's able to slip in an absurd joke and move from there to more hijinx.

The reason Stewart was seen by some as some sort of news anchor potential is because the TDS' 2004 election coverage, and before that their war coverage, contained a certain degree of obvious truthfulness that the real news organizations wouldn't touch. So people took on this truth stuff as some sort of desire to be better journalism (demonstrated by TDS winning a peabody award for their election coverage). But the truth of the matter is, you can only make jokes with what's true. You can't really joke about what's not true. If you mask it, it's not funny anymore...


From: Toronto, Arrakis | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca