What's wrong with a news anchor making millions of $$$?

[kid a]

I know its about viewership, following, popularity, and ratings.

Are they journalists, entertainers, propagandists, royalty, stars?

[mtnester]

1. I would have no problem with it if the anchor was ANY DAMN GOOD AT THEIR

JOB....I DO have a problem with a Bush fan spewing WH propaganda and calling it NEWS pretending to be a news anchor getting this much dough.

Katie Couric - I give her one year...then buh bye

[Warpy]

7. I second that but realize those big bucks are to compensate him for the

loss of his private life.

Think about it, these guys attract lunatic stalkers and twits who just don't like the news and who would want to hurt them. Some of that compensation goes for a secure living situation for themselves and their families.

Competence for the money would be nice, though. I'm sure the corporations who order them to lie by omission are pleased with what they're getting for that money.

[Blue Belle]

11. I second that... Connie Chung has more credibility than Katie Couric...

Try as she might, no one buys it when she tries to pull off "serious" "News" stories. When she tries to be serious, her face turns into that of a pitbull with none of the intelligence - it's not the cutesie Katie that America loves. She has a niche and News Anchor isn't it. It's like Jim Carrey trying to do serious drama - despite whatever ambition he may have, America isn't buying him in that role. I think it's a bad move on the part of CBS - they must have a better talent pool that they can draw from. I think this is all going to end badly for both parties.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. Nothing. And they don't have it as good as CEOs.

For one thing, if they (and therefore their ratings and advertising revenue) are mediocre, they have a much higher probability of being unceremoniously dumped.

IF (a big if) a person's contribution REALLY causes ridiculously huge amounts of money to flow into their employers' coffers, I see no problem with their getting filthy rich.

[Armstead]

5. No -- that's what's wrong with America trhese days

The idea that a few "stars" (executives, athletes, professionals) are so much more valuable than everyone else in an organization is the core of the problem.

It creates incredible disparities and polarization.

EO's used to make an average of about eight times the salary of the average worker in their company. That was a lot of money, but they earned it....But today the ratio is something like 400 times. That's obscene.

Same thing with "stars." No one begrudges the most prominent "names" a chance to make moe money. But if they blee a business dry, and cause average folks to earn LESS, then there is a problem.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. I'm not sure why you didn't get an argument

and I did (see below), but I couldn't agree with you more.

[Journeyman]

3. Instead of 1 babbling head with "cute legs" for $20 million . . .

they could hire 20 journalists and have money left to support their work. So what do you want: Reporters in many places and better coverage of the news, or a bubbly personality with great gams. I can find the latter at the local t&a bar for a fistful of dollars. I can't find the former on any of the major news networks.

[reichstag911]

4. The fact that those millions...

...would be better spent on actual investigative journalists, rather than the TelePrompter-reading infotainment peddlers that constitute the majority of what passes for MSM "news"-casters. They are entertainers; they are supposed to be journalists. That is why they have been given the public airwaves: to serve their necessary function of informing the electorate, the only way real democracy can survive.

Without accurate news, the people start to believe it when all the media are telling them that 2+2=5. ;-)

[sam sarrha]

6. how much of that is tax money for shamelessly spewing Fascist Progagandw

[Tyler Durden]

8. NOBODY is worth a SALARY of $15 Mill a year.

That's Couric's latest quote.

I don't care who they are, or what they do...you make it off an investment, then I can't do anything but tax you, but if some COMPANY pays you $15 Million a year...Time for a new board of directors, kiddies.

NOBODY is worth that much.

[leesa]

9. For one thing, they aren't reporting the news. They are spewing propaganda

which is destroying our country. Other than that, they are just spokesmodels for cripes sake...what special talent do they have?? I'm not saying I could do it, but I'm sure their are many thousands out there who could do it as well or better in their sleep.

[AngryAmish]

10. The way I would run my TV news operation

1. Hire cheap but extremely good looking anchors. Anchors add nothing so they might as well be good looking.

2. Spend money saved on expensive anchor on real journalism.

[gkhouston]

13. nah, I'll take one who may be less pleasing to the eye but can actually

understand the words on the teleprompter. Better yet, one who's actually writing some of the material.

[AngryAmish]

15. Why?

I really do not care about the sausage-making aspect of the news. I do not care if the person reading the news is intelligent as long as they read the words in the correct order and with proper emphasis. I get no emotional satisfaction from the fact that the person reading the news may have had a hand in writing the news. All these things can be done by non-attractive people behind the scene.

IF I am getting my news on TV (which I hardly ever do except for sports) the facts come first. It does not matter who creates the facts. Plus since the news must be read it might as well be read by someone who is staggeringly attractive.

[gkhouston]

18. I don't need eye candy

and if they understand what they're reading and have the ability to have created the material, they're more likely to be able to ask appropriate questions and followups when they do interviews or think on their feet during "special event" broadcasts when they don't know what's coming next. I suppose if the newscast is somehow structured in a way that the anchor never does interviews or any sort of live coverage, it wouldn't matter.

[Vidar]

12. Short answer: where the money's coming from vs objectivity.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. The same thing that's wrong with

entertainers, sports figures, CEOs and well-connected politicians making millions of dollars. They're not worth it.

[mondo joe]

16. How should their financial worth be measured?

Thanks.

[Blue_In_AK]

19. I wish I knew...

I just have a hard time coming to grips with the reality that apparently one person's life is worth millions of dollars a month while another person is starving. Is Katie Couris really all that much "better" than her housekeeper, for instance? In my ideal world, a person's salary would be capped at maybe $300,000 a year, certainly no more than $500,000. If you can't live on that much money, you've got a problem. I guess I'm a commie.

[mondo joe]

20. I would respectfully suggest that salary is not a measure of the

worth of a person's life.

[Blue_In_AK]

21. I think you are misinterpreting my meaning...

...but I don't have the energy to argue.

Peace.

[JStuart]

17. I noticed...

that on the local news 20 years ago the weather guy was a dorky nerdy guy with thick glasses who was an actual METEROLOGIST who would say things like;

"the high pressure zone will bring unstable air and cause a convection....

Nowadays it is a slim blonde in a short skirt and blouse saying;

"and expect a great weekend with highs of 73F and lots of sun, see you at 11!"

[Vinca]

23. It's hard to stomach a news reader making that much money

when teachers are struggling and soldiers' families are often eligible for food stamps.