HAS THE ANCHOR POSITION SUNK?

Why Katie Couric Has Just Another Desk Job

Am I the only one who thinks that Katie curious air-brushed photos that appear on seemingly every other New York bus, train platform and billboard with mean eyes and toothy grin look ridiculous? Isn't CBS' attempt to get her to fill Cronkite's shoes with her spike heels so transparent that people around her must be giggling behind her back? And aren't Matt, Al and Ann ("Today" show survivors) all secretly high-fiving as they watch Katie move along like a kid on roller skates for the first time?

In her opus performance, Tuesday night, Katie was clearly afraid to take her training wheels off. She so clearly looked like she was seeking approval from viewers, that I wanted to drop a coin into her cup. You know, help the kid's team get new uniforms. This so different from the in-your-face," smile at you now slap you later," persona that she honed so well in her day job as co-host of the "Today" show.

This Katie looked as if she was embarrassed that the boss promoted her after a beloved VP had died with so many other qualified candidates available. And at the show's end -- after so much ado about an absolutely nothing part of the show as the sign-off -- Katie (stumped for five months on this one) asked viewers to write-in give her an appropriate ending.

My prediction: That will fall flatter on its face than Lincoln is on a penny. Either only no one will respond, or no one will respond with a good idea. Where will that leave Katie and CBS "News"? Is that what she meant by making the news "more accessible?"

The "free speech" segment would be OK, but only if it applied to regular folk --not to Rush Linbaugh who has plenty of his own TV and radio time, or former Pres. Bill Clinton, who gets as much media attention as he wants. Why not make it a "TV Blog" instead?

Someone at CBS didn't think this through.

Wednesday's show, which I saw only portions of, had Katie back in her element with a strong interview with Pres. Bush, much more her style and comfort zone. But one interview does not a week of anchoring make.

But the underlying fact is this -- who cares? This is simply not a big deal anymore. Most Americans by now, who are not comatose, have figured out that there would be a female network evening news anchor eventually. By the way, doesn't cable already have plenty?

Anchoring the network evening news is like being centerfielder for the New York Yankees -- its a nice position to have, but not nearly as good as it used to be in the 50s, and 60s era of DiMaggio and Mantle. Or put another way, has it really mattered who held the heavyweight championship title after Ali?

Time was when Americans gathered around the dinner table, or the living room after dinner, to watch the evening news. It was delivered by white males, middle-aged or older, in dark suits with severe, heavy voices honed by radio news experience. ABC News with Charles "Charlie" Gibson, and NBC News with Brian (I have my own blog!) Williams have held close to that standard. But realistically that era ended with the resignations of Dan Rather (CBS) and Tom Brokaw (NBC) and death of Peter Jennings (ABC).

The networks have held out placing a woman in the anchor spot alone (forget about the Barbara Walters experiment -- it was just that) like the Yankees held out on getting Black players. It has been said that the Yankees could have had an outfield of: Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, had it not been for owner Dan Topping's racism. I somehow doubt that he loses any sleep in his grave over this.

American life styles have changed dramatically. We do not all get home for work in time for the evening news. We work longer hours -- not harder work as the blue collar and farm folks used to -- but longer hours. After work its often off to the gym (sorry health club) the bar, club, theater, museum opening, restaurant (who cooks during the week anymore?) whatever. And thanks to cell phones, BlackBerrys, etc., we often do work from home.

We also have a generation or two, of folks for whom "network evening news anchor" means nothing. They grew up with CNN, MSNBC, etc. They are of the Internet generation, they want their information 24/7, fast, on-the-go, short and sweet. They will not sit and stare at a talking head for 22 minutes. They might for Jon Stewart because he's funny and irreverent. Studies have shown that many college-age people (tomorrow's leaders) get much or most of their "news" from Stewart. A good guess is that many do not differentiate between him and say Brian Williams except that Brian is not as funny.

I spoke with a group of five Public Relations students at NYU this week and none saw Katie's first CBS broadcast. Only one thought it "moderately significant." None read newspapers regularly -- except one who said she buys the Sunday Times and "takes all week to read all the features." One admitted to checking a web site for news headlines "most days, if I see something interesting I read the whole article." I asked them if they followed the news more closely when the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 happened. Only one said yes, because, "it was on all the time, it was the only thing on."

I don't what will happen to ratings (that's really what's at stake here) after the initial first week flurry over Katie. The first night they were predictably off the chain, thrashing the network competition. But will even hard core Katie lovers stay loyal at the 6:30 hour? I think in most red states, rural and small townish America, where the lifestyle is more likely to be 9-5, perhaps. But the red-staters are not her main audience. Katie's is strictly middle of the road, to pro-choice Republican, to hard core liberal. Red state America may stick to the white guys in blue suits.

Next time you go for a drink after work, or to pump iron at the gym, or go see a play, look at who is around you. If they look middle-of-the-road or liberal: Good night, Katie.