Conservative TV host pokes fun at Couric's tragedy

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/access/1123266911.html?dids=1123266911:1123266911&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+6%2C+2006&author=Andrea+Peyser&pub=New+York+Post&edition=&startpage=009&desc=SHE+LOOKED+LIKE+A+LITTLE+GIRL+WHO+HAD+TO+GO+POTTY

I think Couric getting an *on-air colonoscopy* is kind of ridiculous... Katie Couric goes to what is, in my opinion, a ridiculous extreme to promote herself in light of her husband's death...

Yes, I'm sure the act of having a camera shoved in her ass on national television is what landed her the gig at CBS and was in no way an attempt to keep people from suffering the fate of her husband because pride keeps them from undergoing such an intrusive and often humiliating medical procedure.

"Yes, I'm sure the act of having a camera shoved in her ass on national television is what landed her the gig at CBS and was in no way an attempt to keep people from suffering the fate of her husband because pride keeps them from undergoing such an intrusive and often humiliating medical procedure."

That makes a whole lot of sense. Honestly it does. Becuase having a camera shoved up her ass on TV was not only the only sensible way to promote ... whatever the hell it is that promotes ... it was also in no way an effort to bring attention to herself. How is doing it on camera more effective than simply saying "I got a colonoscopy?" Forgive me for doubting her sincerity there. I wish I were as blindly trusting of her as you apparently are. Wait ... no, I don't.

And care to tell me what *did* land her the CBS gig, since you obviously were so close to that hiring process? I don't know, but what I do know is that I never suggested the words you put in my mouth. I guess it was her humility and journalistic integrity. Maybe I'd have a shred of respect for her if she, at any point during this hoopla about her taking over at CBS, tried to deflect some of the attention and turn it towards the people and world she is supposed to be covering. But that's not going to land her picture on People magazine, I guess.

And Ryan, you absolutely have the right to make fun of Steve Irwin's death. You can say pretty much whatever you damn well please. That doesn't mean you aren't an @!$%# if you say it, but if you really think it's a laughable situation than why should you care if anyone disagrees? And if your motivation is let people know who "Ryan Meehan" is, you'd probably reach a greater level of success in that regard by saying "Steve Irwin deserved to die," than by saying "Steve Irwin's death is sad."

Beck and Gray weren't making fun of Couric's husband's death rather they were making fun of Couric's "on-air" response. It would be kind of like Irwins wife going on air and doing something absolutely rediculous to warn about the dangers of stingrays.

Make all the fun you want about Ms. Couric's on-air colonoscopy, which was one part of a week-long series on the dangers of colo-rectal cancer, and how a lack of early detection was partially responsible for the death of her husband and the father of her two young children. For informing the public about the importance of screenings, despite their discomfort and potential for embarrassment, the series not only won for her and her team the Peabody Award -- the top honor in broadcast journalism -- but it was also the subject of a peer-reviewed research study published in the American Medical Association's journal, Archives of Internal Medicine. The study, published in July 2003 reported:

Background Public participation in many preventive health programs is suboptimal. While various interventions to increase participation have been studied, the impact of a celebrity spokesperson on cancer screening has not been rigorously examined. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of Katie Couric's March 2000 Today Show colorectal cancer awareness campaign on colonoscopy rates...

... Conclusions Katie Couric's televised colon cancer awareness campaign was temporally associated with an increase in colonoscopy use in 2 different data sets. These findings suggest that a celebrity spokesperson can have a substantial impact on public participation in preventive care programs.

That's the difference between a broadcast journalist like Couric and the moronic frat-boys and brain damaged bimbos who make up most of the on-air punditocracy: they can't do anything but spew @!$%# from their mouths, while Couric can even pull valuable, award-winning public-service journalism out of her ass.

Make all the fun you want about Ms. Couric's on-air colonoscopy, which was one part of a week-long series on the dangers of colo-rectal cancer, and how a lack of early detection was partially responsible for the death of her husband and the father of her two young children. For informing the public about the importance of screenings, despite their discomfort and potential for embarrassment, the series not only won for her and her team the Peabody Award -- the top honor in broadcast journalism -- but it was also the subject of a peer-reviewed research study published in the American Medical Association's journal, Archives of Internal Medicine. The study, published in July 2003 reported:

Background Public participation in many preventive health programs is suboptimal. While various interventions to increase participation have been studied, the impact of a celebrity spokesperson on cancer screening has not been rigorously examined. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of Katie Couric's March 2000 Today Show colorectal cancer awareness campaign on colonoscopy rates...

... Conclusions Katie Couric's televised colon cancer awareness campaign was temporally associated with an increase in colonoscopy use in 2 different data sets. These findings suggest that a celebrity spokesperson can have a substantial impact on public participation in preventive care programs.

That's the difference between a broadcast journalist like Couric and the moronic frat-boys and brain damaged bimbos who make up most of the on-air punditocracy: they can't do anything but spew @!$%# from their mouths, while Couric can even pull valuable, award-winning public-service journalism out of her ass.

Sorry, I didn't see this until today, but ... you are right. Couric, after reading more about her and by her after seeing your comment, deserves more credit as a journalist than I gave her. I was wrong.

I still think going on camera to get a colonoscopy is ridiculous, though.

Ryan anyone that holds these people as "Gods" is not only not worth your time, but you're also not going to get a logical, reasonable argument in their defense. I think it's not only unfair for you to paint this broad picture of the right using these guys as examples, it's also pretty ignorant and stupid. It's akin to me asking you, "How can you vote Democrat when Michael Moore is such an attention-whoring idiot?" I wouldn't take seriously a person who asked that, and I can't see your question in any different light.

And I won't waste my time writing on these clowns because 1) they're already, in this little conversation, getting more of my time and thought than they're worth and 2) the problems with television reporters is well documented, and you of all people don't need me to explain it. There are people much more experienced, knowledgable and credible on the field than you or I that I'm sure you can track down if you really want to.

Are you kidding? Michael Moore appeals to people ethically? You think his ambuch style of interviews, than implying that because someone didn't respond to his ambush or wasn't prepared means they are hiding something, is ethical? And responsible? Roger and Me I thought was effective, but that's because it was before Moore was a "celebrity" and before he thought it was his duty to show up at the Republican national convention and causing a scene just to remind people he exists. In Roger and Me, it genuinely seemed to be an effort to fight for the people of Flint. It was emotional. Farenheit 9/11 didn't have that quailty. The movie was more about promoting Moore than his message, especially the fight put up by Disney.

Michael Moore is a hack just like Beck and Gray, and just as extreme. But he's the opposite extreme, the extreme you identify more with, so he gets a pass from you. Michael Moore is not a credible source of information. At the very least, like I already said, he's no more indicative of American liberals than these guys are of American conservatives. Extremes are dangerous on either side, if you ask me.

As soon as you point me to where I compared Moore's reporting to that of Beck and Gray. I simply said taking the idiots of any ideology as the flagbearers is foolish. Read the sentence where I fist mention Moore again:

It's akin to me asking you, "How can you vote Democrat when Michael Moore is such an attention-whoring idiot?" I wouldn't take seriously a person who asked that, and I can't see your question in any different light.

You're wanting to believe that I said something I didn't say here.

Also, shouldn't you be teaching?

And as for what makes Moore an idiot on these guys' levels, look no further than the aforementioned 2004 Republican National Convention. Why was he there? What valuable message did he spread? Who was he hoping to reach? Is stirring @!$%# up just for the hell of it comendable all of a sudden? Was it funny?

If Moore really wants make a difference, why doesn't he run for office himself? I've seen bits and pieces of a documentary on Moore (called "Why Michael Moore Hates America" or something equally stupid along those lines), that would seem to indicate Moore ducking some of these questions. But I admittedly have not seen the whole film (and probably won't), so I can't vouch for the context of these questions. They seemed comparable to Moore showing up at the doorstep of the head of the NRA with a camera and no notice and expecting a credible, informative interview, though.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't answer a damn thing. I know Moore wrote for USA Today, thanks, doesn't validate him anymore than working for CNN validates Beck. My point is, what business does Moore have even covering the thing? And playing for the cameras? Aren't his movies enough of the spotlight for him? Like Couric's on-air ass exam, it's him taking an important message and turning it around to make it about HIM and all the good HE thinks he does for the world. Nobody the next day was talking about, when Moore came up in discussion, his thoughts on the convention. They instead were talking about his damn movie or his presence period at the convention. Don't think he couldn't have anticipated this.

But enough about that, I'm not trying to attack Moore's integrity, that's not really the issue here, right now. Can you address my point (namely, what makes you think Beck speaks for anything remotely close to the average conservative voice)? Is it because CNN told you he does? I've never seen his show, so if there's some grand petition out there from conservatives saying "please let Glenn Beck be our undying, be-all, end-all voice of unity," I wouldn't know and would like you to bring it to my attention.

Again, and I must be sounding like a broken record here, how can you think one person in any capacity, with the possible exception of elected government officials, speaks for any significant branch of the population? You sound like an ignorant @!$%# using Beck's stupid remarks as an excuse to wag your finger and say "oh, you silly Republicans." Find me someone who defends Beck's comments (like this guy that commented here, but, you know, credible), THEN you can talk about Beck's voice being dangerous or whatever your point is. In the meantime, you're making some wild assumptions that I just don't understand.

I won't even attack their journalism skills, tit for tat warrants the observation that Pat Gray looks as if something died on top of his head, and what is that on his chin ... oh *laugh* it looks as if he is trying to grow a beard. Maybe a little Photoshop could help him out.

If they make personal attacks, they should be attacked in the same manner. Nothing to do with journalism, just looks.

haha. it looks like he's trying to use the stubble to hide a double chin and it's not working very well.

Mike, there's nothing off-the-cuff or funny about the comments these men made. I'm no Couric fan myself, but the things they said about her were sexist and demeaning. They tear down her achievement by calling her work a "chick broadcast" and they demoralize her by making cheap fat jokes--and Couric is far from fat.

If the person who took over the CBS Evening News were a man, I seriously doubt they would have expended any chuckles over calling his debut broadcast a "sausage fest." And neither, I'm betting, would you.

If the person who took over the CBS Evening News were a man, I seriously doubt they would have expended any chuckles over calling his debut broadcast a "sausage fest." And neither, I'm betting, would you.

I would guess that would depend on if the leadup to it involved all the media attention about how a man finally broke into some position. The stage was set beforehand by others. If feminists wanted it to be uncommented on then they should have left it uncommented on otherwise it will attract both kinds of comments.

If feminists hadn't commented, it never would have happened in the first place.

Stolte-sawa, demeaning and sexist, yeah right. If you actually watched the yesterday's show and looked at the context of what Glenn and Pat were saying. Glenn called it a chick broadcast because of the stories during the broadcast, does suri cruise come to mind, and the format katty presented. He said that she was going for the same women who watch Oprah. That's all. Glenn's happens to be married and has two girls, one of which has cerebral palsy. I highly doubt Glenn was being sexist he was just playing around and joking like he always does.

I am saying that by making a big deal out of her job feminist commenters have opened the discussion gates so to speak which invites both serious commentary and non-serious commentary. The fact she is a woman anchor instead of an anchor that's a women is the reason it's fair game.

Personally I think it would have been better to treat her promotion as a gender-neutral event. By hyping the fact she is a women now everything she does is viewed through that lens and erodes the credibility she needs to perform her new duties as well as doing what other commenters above noted, that is she is making news not reporting it.

ScooterDMan, who cares if pat called her chunky, I'm sure a lot worse things have been said about Katie before and it was just a joke, lighten up. Glenn Beck constantly calls himself a fat former drunk does that mean he is attacking himself?

The simple fact is this incident has nothing to do with what other conservative talk show host do or say on their shows. And if you think that aggressively responding to your political opponents is a new thing, then you may want to look again.

Mike. I'm not sure where to begin, so I'll begin with this: nobody said or suggested that this incident has anything to do with what other conservative talk show hosts do or say on their shows. We are discussing this particular show and this particular set of comments.

In all honesty, as a woman, I feel these comments, made in jest though they may have been, were sexist. If I were awarded a grant and gave a talk on the impact of children on Hollywood mothers, and two of my well-known peers responded by calling it a "chick report" and speculated on other thinner, more attractive "chicks" who could have done the same job but looked better doing it, I would consider it sexist, and I don't think my administration would disagree.

You also said: "By hyping the fact she is a women now everything she does is viewed through that lens and erodes the credibility she needs to perform her new duties as well as doing what other commenters above noted, that is she is making news not reporting it."

Excuse me? Being a woman erodes her credibility?

Centuries of patriarchy make "gender neutrality" an impossibility in this case. Couric is breaking the mold by becoming a television news anchor. Not only has she assumed a position that has traditionally been handed off between men, but she is necessarily put on the spot. She's on national TV! Of course she is getting attention--there was no way around it, and it is in no way her own fault. She is responsible for doing her job well, and as far as I can see she's doing fine. She's the news anchor for CBS.

Scooter: in responding to Kyle's comment, what I meant to say was that feminists made it possible for women to rise to positions of power and importance that traditionally have been dominated by men. Without feminists, Couric wouldn't be where she is today. I feel that Kyle has set up feminism as a scapegoat in order to excuse men like Beck and Gray from making sexist comments.

Being a woman doesn't erode her credibility being a feminist even if by association does. Feminists are by definition a political movement so news told by a feminist would carry the credibility taint that maybe it isn't a true event or is biased to reflect her political agenda. Dan Rather lost popularity and credibility because he became associated with a political agenda and he eventually lost his job even though he had a great history.

I have not done any research to see if she has a bias, and since I don't want CBS evening news it doesn't really matter to me. What I'm saying is that presenting her as a champion of feminists will lead to a reduction of credibility among non-feminists. I assumed CBS was targeting everybody however it's possible they are only targeting a sub-set of the population in which case that perceived bias is a bonus not a negative.

Centuries of patriarchy make "gender neutrality" an impossibility in this case.

Somebody else doing what's wrong never forces you to do what's wrong. The right thing is for everybody man or woman to be evaluated on a gender neutral basis. Propping up anybody because of their gender is wrong, it doesn't matter the circumstances. To suggest she deserves the job because she is a woman demeans her real skills and the message to other women isn't that they are equal, it's that they need special help to make it. That furthers the divide that allows real misogynists to stay influential.

Kyle, ain't nobody else talking around here, so I'll assume you're talkin' to me.

Nobody, least of all myself, suggested that Couric deserved the job because she is a woman. This is not what feminism is about. I certainly never presented her as a "champion of feminists." You are putting words in my mouth.

Being a woman doesn't erode her credibility being a feminist even if by association does.

I think you have a loaded and stereotypical notion of feminism. Not every feminist is a man-hating, bra-burning dyke with a short crop and long underarm hair.

Somebody else doing what's wrong never forces you to do what's wrong.

This "wrong" is what you do when you participate in the hegemonic stigmatization and stereotypification of feminists. This is what Gray and Beck do when they stereotypically respond to Couric's appointment by reducing her to gender alone.

There is much more that influences the opinions we hold and the decisions we make than mere free will. You are disregarding the hold of culture and history on the way we think and act, excusing the ignorance of some while condemning the ignorance of others.

My contention is this: in a day and age where feminists have made possible and unavoidable the critique of patriarchal and misogynyst attitudes in our culture, there is no excuse for the type of ignorance and insensitivity of the comments flippantly imparted by these professional men to the public and, most importantly, to their peer, who happens to be a woman, who has earned her position as a person of power and influence in America through hardwork and perseverence, and not through affirmative action.

Yes I was talking to you though you referred to my comments as Mike :)

I didn't intend to put words in your mouth I believed I was being clear in saying that outspoken feminists should not champion Ms. Courics new job or it will reduce her credibility.

I don't think we are arguing end-results here just tactics. I want a world that is gender-neutral. Many feminists have told me that their goal is the same. I don't consider myself a feminist because the term has become abusive and shelters people that do not deserve it. Plus the concept itself will never lead to true gender equality you can't fix a problem from one side alone no matter how hard you try. Equal genders will require stereotypes of both genders to die away not just female stereotypes.

Not all feminists are the same, just like every other sub-group of humans upon the Earth. I was personally accosted by a woman while in college that was a feminisnst of the worst kind. Her harassment would have easily landed me in prison were the roles reversed and yet I was told to 'take it like a man' when I simply complained and did not even ask for her to be arrested. What stereotype should I take away from that life experience?

This "wrong" is what you do when you participate in the hegemonic stigmatization and stereotypification of feminists.

Stereotyping feminists is not wrong anymore than stereotyping Republicans or stereotype any other political group. I do not stereotype women, that like stereotyping men is what's wrong. Mixing up feminist with women is it's own stereotype.

Grey and Beck are part of a process. Rules become norms, then rules are overturned, and norms fade away into humor then into history and myth. The fact they said it as jokes instead of being serious is the only important part. You can cry all day about people's hearts being unfair but in the end you can't change them against their will, do what you can to support positive images and it will get better. Rile against it and they will harden in their position and set the whole thing back, which brings me to my entire point in this debate. Let it slide as a joke and don't laugh. Tomorrow will be a better day.

exactly. the colon comment was less offensive than the "chick broadcast" comment.

And they mentioned a woman's weight... big boo-boo. They would've had their tongues ripped out if she had been there.

Hey, if you talk @!$%#, you get what you deserve.

If she's like most women, that is.

Funny, most women I've met aren't like that. Maybe it's just the women you meet. Or maybe it's because you insist on being juvenile and stereotyping 50% of the human race.

Woops, sorry Noah. I'm a nice guy in person, really!

The guy is hilarious in my opinion. I believe he was not making fun of Couric's husband. He was making fun of Couric, who in my opinion deserves to be made fun of as much as possible. If this was some guy on comedy central making fun of some conservative then he would be praised for his irreverent sense of humor. If anyone criticized we would be told that we just didn't get it. So, back at ya.

If this was some guy on comedy central making fun of some conservative...

If it were Comedy Central, I would've expected it. That's what comedians do. All of the time.
But this is CNN, not Comedy Central. I watch the news networks for responsible journalism (which is lacking across the board), not comedy. There are plenty of other networks and shows that do the comedy bit, and with more deftness.

Glenn Beck has a regular segment on his show called moron trivia. He calls service station attendants in cities were NFL teams are going to be playing each other. He asks the questions and we all laugh at the incredibly stupid answers he gets in return. For example: Q: How many day are in a leap year? A: 47? Glenn's response: Oh, you were so close, it's 48. Sound like hard-hitting news to you. Glenn is foremostly a comedian. He is not a reporter any more than Mo Rocca.

I am suggesting that this sort of logic is more typical of coservative talk show hosts and pundits.

I think "this sort of behavior" is better than "this sort of logic." There's certainly nothing logical about going on national television and making sexist jokes.