Why No Debate for CBS Star Katie?

MORE
NYTV
On Feb. 5, during MSNBC’s Super Tuesday political coverage, anchor Keith Olbermann joked that during this long primary season, it sometimes seemed like everyone in the business had already anchored a debate. “I think most people at home have now moderated one as well,” said Mr. Olbermann.
If Katie Couric was watching at home, chances are she wasn’t laughing. Eight months and more than 20 debates into podium season, Ms. Couric has yet to get anywhere near the big stage.
How did the highest-paid anchor on evening television get upstaged by Brian Williams, Brit Hume, Charles Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos, Campbell Brown, Chris Wallace, Natalie Morales and on and on?
The official explanation from CBS: Ms. Couric was the victim of circumstance.
“I wish we had been able to work it out,” said Sean McManus, the president of CBS News. “I think [Ms. Couric] would have been really good at it. I think it would have been a good showcase for CBS News. But it just wasn’t to be this cycle.”
But recent conversations with competitors, current and former CBS News employees, and experts in the TV-debate business raised the question whether CBS News, facing a perpetually shrinking budget and having already committed to a reported $15 million a year to Ms. Couric, has enough resources—emotional and financial—to deliver big for their biggest star.
Throwing a debate is a budget-busting expenditure for a news division because of both the cost of setting up a staging facility and because of the advertising revenue lost due to the limited commercial inventory during such news events—but what networks gain is a voice in the election cycle, for the network and for the network’s rising and established stars.
In the past, CBS has not been reluctant to shell out money to maximize on the Katie Couric phenomenon.
“You think about how much they wasted early on in billboards and other crap, wouldn’t it be smarter to invest in substance now?” said one source, with knowledge of CBS’s aborted debate plans. “Either the network is fundamentally dedicated to spending the money, or they’re not. If you’re really dedicated to bumping your news to another level, you host a debate. But there’s either no interest or no follow-through.”
Mr. McManus said that CBS News remains committed to all things political, including hosting primary debates.
“It wasn’t a financial decision,” said Mr. McManus, of this season’s shutout. “It’s a programming decision and finding an appropriate time to put it in prime time. It does cost a fair amount of money in preemption costs to put them in prime time. But that wasn’t the primary reason it didn’t happen.”
The story began back on May, 16, when the Democratic National Committee announced the dates, locations and media sponsors of six DNC debates. CBS would host one in Los Angeles on Dec. 10. It was a choice assignment because of (a) the timing (it would be the final debate before the Iowa caucus) and (b) the location. As CNN would later prove at the Kodak Theater on Jan. 31, a debate in L.A. is bound to attract stars—Jason Alexander!—and eyeballs.
Shortly thereafter, during the summer of 2007, CBS News informed the DNC that they wanted to hold the debate inside a studio at the CBS Television City in Los Angeles and—notably—without a live audience.
According to several sources, that idea didn’t sit well with the DNC. Holding the debate in a closed studio rather than in front of a live audience is seen by those in the business as a classic cost-saving gambit—and one (collateral damage!) that would deny Democratic diehards and donors the opportunity to show up and get crazy for their candidates. The plan was also at odds with the terms already hammered out with the Democratic candidates. Negotiations sputtered. According to sources, at several points over the summer, the debate appeared on the brink of death.
At the same time, CBS News executives were grappling with the absence of political director, Molly Levinson, who had gone on maternity leave in July. Barbara Fedida, a CBS News executive charged in part with recruiting talent, began looking for somebody who could fill in and help Ms. Couric prepare for the debate. According to sources, CBS eventually reached out to a number of individuals, including former NBC political director Elizabeth Wilner; and—more surprisingly—to Michael Feldman, a former senior adviser to the Clinton-Gore administration and a founding partner of the Glover Park Group.
In some quarters, word of the latter meeting raised eyebrows.
“Networks use political consultants as outside contributors to do commentary all the time,” explained one source with extensive knowledge of TV debate logistics. “But you should not have one in charge of your debate preparation. The debate is a news event. They should know better.” Next Page >
















Having Katie Couric moderate a debate would be like have Rachel Ray host "Firing Line," or any show on C-Span.
Why not have Britney Spears moderate; it'd be just as good?
Katie's softball interview of Hillary Clinton recently isn't indicative of the kind of moderation needed at this moment in history. Stars interviewing stars isn't journalism. Interesting in a gangbuster year of campaign dollars flowing to the media...CBS couldn't invest a bit in hosting a debate. So much for DEREGULATION and promises made.
Freedom of the Press should be re-evaluated.
Oh no you didn't, "Diane"!
That was brilliant!
Katie and I should tag team! Katie's last interview was so brilliant. Hillary, how do you do it??
And did you see 60 Minutes on Sunday? Do you believe Obama is a Muslim?
And we wonder why the public is ill-informed. Iraq is getting better?! Do you know how many people died last month? You'll have to do a search. Katie and company are too busy talking about Obama's missing flag lapel pin.
Now about that interview?
Why do you think making fun of Katie Couric is acceptable? Is it funny to ridicule Hillary? What sarcastic comments do you want us to make about your mother -- she's a woman, right?
Shame on you!
What's it to you if fun is made of public figures like them? Most people's mothers,while they are women,are not in public life so any sarcasm would be wasted since nobody would know them.
There's is no shame in mocking Katie, Hillary or any other public figure. If they can't stand the heat then they should get out of the kitchen.
I agree with the above comment. First of all, as mentioned they are public figures. Secondly, the fact that they are women should not make any difference whether or not they are more or less mockable.
I am fairly indifferent to Katie as a person. What I DO want to see out of Katie the newslady is real investigative reporting that merits being given a stage with the likes of Tim Russert (or any other harder news anchor).
It's pathetic that CBS is paying so much money to have gotten Katie to come over there and to let her languish because they still want to have an infotainment-skewed news program. The least they could do is back her up and put her out there.
I agree with the above comment. First of all, as mentioned they are public figures. Secondly, the fact that they are women should not make any difference whether or not they are more or less mockable.
I am fairly indifferent to Katie as a person. What I DO want to see out of Katie the news lady is real investigative reporting that merits being given a stage with the likes of Tim Russert (or any other harder news anchor).
It's pathetic that CBS is paying so much money to have gotten Katie to come over there and to let her languish because they still want to have an infotainment-skewed news program. The least they could do is back her up and put her out there.
Why is it so acceptable to ridicule someone in the public eye? I understand the adage "if you can't take the heat, get out of the fire," but honestly, when did this society become some consumed with criticizing and degrading those who venture out into public domain? I would hate to think if it were you out there, you might want to be treated the same way, having to deal with disrespectful remarks and constant chatter about your credentials. I think it's one thing if you know the person personally, in that situation you're given a little more room to make critiques, because your familiar with the person on more than just an "I see them on TV every night, they're in the public eye, so let me say whatever the hell I want to about them" attitude. It's another thing when you know nothing about the person other than what you see on television, what you read in the papers, and what the denizen of pundits have to say. I'm not saying you shouldn't speak your mind, I am in full support of the First Amendment. I am saying, though, that she is a human being, just like me and you. Just like those you care about, whomever they may be, and with that designation as such, should come a level of mutual respect and understanding. Am I the only person alive who was taught if they didn't have something nice to say, not to say anything at all?
KC, the reason why people "pick on poor Katie" is because, though she is seems to be a nice person, she had no business being given the position as lead anchor for the CBS Evening News! We had Dan Rather who was a legit. news anchor being replaced by Barbara Walters-lite. It's an insult to CBS who used to have a reputation of being fairly "serious" when it came to real journalism, and it's an insult to the viewers who watch the show. Did CBS honestly think that the viewers wanted puffy, watered-down news after having Dan's straight forward approach for all those years? PLEASE!
As for being "taught to be nice", nice has a time and place. Commenting on the fact that Katie is WAY too overpaid for her fluff called news is quite simply stating the truth! We, as Americans, have been fed this line of crap far too long. When the news constantly reports on what Britney Spears is doing rather then the fact that New Orleans is still a complete mess, our soldiers are still being killed and maimed on a daily basis, American jobs are going overseas, the middle class is shrinking while the poor and wealthy are increasing, we have a MAJOR health insurance crisis, our own government is lying as well as spying on it's own citizens ILLEGALLY, after years of having a nuclear arms treaty other countries (thanks to our govenment)are gearing up to start the nuclear arms race all over again, our environment is going to pot, gas prices are going sky-high.... we have a right to be angry at those individuls such as Katie who are paid a hell of a lot of money to INFORM the public but aren't doing their jobs. That may not sound nice to you, but it's not nice when the media has failed so utterly in their role to society either.
Respect needs to be earned, it's never a given. As far as Katie being a woman, she is, but that is not a very exclusive club. The standards do not and should not change dependent on gender. Ms. Couric is sadly out of her depth in her position as anchor. She is, and always has been little more than a personality and entertainment reporter. Now of course I did "Person to Person", perhaps the earliest televised celebrity interview show, but that did not qualify me as a hard news reporter or anchor. It's sad that CBS News has sunken to such depths, but as I survey the landscape, the "Fourth Estate" has failed in it's charge to the American people wherever one looks.
Time for me to roll over.
As far as Katie being a woman, she is...
And, oh, oh, oh what a gal! I wish my wife could shimmy like her sister Katie! Then again, maybe she can. I'll have to ask.
ȫ
wow goldר
Thanks a lot for this article.