Well, I tried to watch Katie Couric Last Nite But Just Couldn't

[leftyladyfrommo]

Was it just me or was that program just awful? It seemed more like Entertainment Tonite than an evening news program.

And when I sat down to watch I was really trying to give it a fair shake - but I had to turn the channel after that wierd "free speech" monologue. That was more like a David Letterman kind of thing.

Am I just an old foggy?

[philosophie_en_rose]

1. No. Couric is just that bad.

She is not a skilled or insightful journalist.

[leftyladyfrommo]

2. That interview with Friedman was awful.

And he usually is pretty good - but he was just way over friendly on that one.

I thought that whole program was just awful. So I turned over to Charlie Gibson and then I was all right again.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. I have to say I liked it...

I'm REALLY not looking forward to Rush being on Thursday, however, I thought the reporting was fair as it could be, without being some kind of Democratic or Republican forum...

...but I DID pick up the following on the interview in the failing situation in Afghanistan. First off, the report showed things going BAD. It wasn't troops painting schools, etc. I mean, what do you want?

But to set up my take on this report, about a month ago, during some Senate hearing, McCain asked some general about the situation in Iraq and McCain asked a BRILLIANT question (Al Franken brought this to my attention).

He asked, (paraphrase) "Did you anticipate these (bad) things happening"... And after a VERY long pause, he said, "No".

The beauty of this question is that it's either yes or no. Yes, they did anticipate the problem (but either they're lieing or didn't do anything to stop it) or No, they didn't have the foresight to see it happening (and aren't doing their job either).

Well, the reporter in Afghanistan asked basically the same question, but THIS time the general was prepared, COMPLETELY FOGGING the question with some comment about having to stay 'ever-vigilent' blaw, blaw, blaw.

My point is that they did NOT ask a softball question. It was a good question.

As for the "under construction" elements of the show - I think it shows that, even under the high-ticket circumstances, they're willing to play with things and experiment, and for that, I give them props.

I just don't think that newscasters should be making the money that entertainers do, and I do agree that we need more "working class" reporters and fewer "stars".

on edit: I always find little things to change.

[MrCoffee]

4. I watched her intro...couldn't handle the smirk, turned it off.

[LibertyLover]

5. It was pretty bad

in my view. There was no real news, just a couple of interviews and opinion pieces strung together without any connection to each other, although I did think the piece on Afganistan interesting. We turned on BBC News afterwards and the contrast was night and day. Even the crawl on BBC News is interesting.

[peekaloo]

6. Good to see Morgan Spurlock on network news, even briefly.

but honestly, Tom Screwsloose kid's pic is NOT national news, imho.

I can't remember if the Steve Hartman's piece was on the broadcast or just used on the overnight(s), but he's a good human interest story person.

Infotainment, *sigh*