By Larry Elder, Jan. 25, 2007
CBS news anchor Katie Couric,
invited to a briefing at the White House, complained about being the only
journalist in attendance "wearing a skirt." Her colleagues included
ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos; NBC's Brian Williams and Tim
Russert; CBS's Bob Schieffer; CNN's Wolf Blitzer; and FOX's Brit Hume.
Presumably, Couric's complaint
concerned her status as the lone female in that room, rather than the
restrictive dress code. Few viewers, I suspect, wish to see Tim Russert in a
tutu or Brit Hume sporting a bra.
So let's deal with Couric's
complaint. Couric, on her CBS "Couric & Co." blog, thought it
astonishing that, in the post-1970s women's liberation era, she found herself
the only female news anchor in the room. In her blog entry, called,
"Katie: A Woman at the Table," she wrote that women "only"
comprise 16 percent of Congress but account for 51 percent of the population.
In Rwanda, notes Couric, 49 percent of the parliament is female. (Nothing said
about the genocide in Rwanda that produced approximately 800,000 deaths.) And,
says Couric, in Sweden, 47 percent of the parliament are women. (Nothing
written about Sweden's tax rate of 60 percent.) Couric also wrote that of the
Fortune 500 companies, only in nine instances do employees refer to their CEO
as "Ms." or "Mrs." Bring on affirmative action!
But other "imbalances" in
the White House briefing room failed to bother Couric. All the journalists, for
example, came from television. Several clearly held liberal points of view.
NBC's Tim Russert, for example, once worked for the liberal former senator from
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. And ABC's George Stephanopoulos? He worked
as a campaign aide to help elect Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Bob
Schieffer's closing commentary at the end of CBS News' "Face the
Nation" makes him sound at least as leftist as "60 Minutes'"
Andy Rooney.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer, during
Hurricane Katrina, subtly accused the White House of racism when he labeled
those suffering as "so poor . . . so black." The conservative
watchdog Media Research Center says Charlie Gibson's journalistic approach
exposes him as "favoring gun control and campaign finance reform,
portraying tax cuts as costly, and once even boasting about a sign in his house
proclaiming, 'War is not good for children and other living things.'" Only
FOX's Brit Hume seems to consistently represent the "conservative
side," often offering stories that the liberal "mainscream
media" avoids. And even he once served for years as ABC's White House
correspondent. But none of this bothered Ms. Couric.
Nor did Couric seem concerned that
only whites attended the meeting. Even though over 30 percent of the country
consists of minorities, the all-white nature of the "major
journalists" gave Couric no case of heartburn. But the shortage of
skirt-wearing colleagues did frustrate her.
For what it's worth, of all the
local news anchor chairs in the country, women hold 57 percent of those jobs.
While men still dominate the position of news director, women account for 55
percent of executive producer positions.
There was, however, a huge issue of
"unfairness" in the room. Although Couric sits in last place in the
ratings of the Big Three, she earns a reported $15 million a year. Gibson, in
second place, clocks in at a reported $7 million. NBC's Williams, who sits atop
the ratings, reportedly makes $4 million per year.
Do the math. For the week of Jan.
15, Williams attracted 10.25 million viewers, which comes out to a salary of
$.39 per set of eyeballs. Gibson, in second place with 9.5 million viewers that
week, earns $.74 per viewer. And Ms. Couric, who had a whopping 2.45 million
fewer viewers than the first-place Williams? At her $15 million per year
salary, with her 7.8 million viewers, CBS pays her $1.92 per viewer! This means
the third-place Couric gets five times the amount of money per viewer than does
the first-place Williams. (Memo to Brian: Fire your agent.)
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.,
criticized the severance package of Home Depot's ex-CEO as an example of
"income inequality." The National Organization for Women claims that
women earn $.75 on the dollar for the exact same work as men. But in the case of
the networks, each of the Big Three runs a half-hour nightly newscast, which,
minus commercials, comes out to approximately 22 minutes. Assuming the anchors
spend about the same amount of off-air time in preparing the newscast, their
time spent at work comes out the same. So, for putting in the same time, for
the same work, Gibson and Williams get shafted.
We can remedy this
"inequality" in one of three ways. First, make the male colleagues
wear skirts to provide company for Couric. Second, give the men raises. Or third,
given her "exorbitant" salary, fire Couric.
Now we understand the lack of top
female journalists -- they are just too darned expensive.
Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"LIke" Larry Elder on Facebook












No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment Policy:
The author of this blog will attempt to engage in conversation via the comments section whenever possible and recognize the 24/7 nature of the internet. Moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular operational hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible, however admins and/or the author is unable to commit to replying to every comment posted.
This is a moderated blog. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, it is expected that participants will treat each other, as well as the author and admin, with respect. Comments that contain vulgar or abusive language; personal attacks of any kind will not be posted. Comments that are spam or that promote services or products will not be posted. It is requested that all comments remain on topic.
The Elder Statement blog does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this blog is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. The Elder Statement blog may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. The Elder Statement blog does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those Web sites that may be reached through links on our Web site.
To protect individual privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include phone numbers, addresses or email details in the body of a comment. Such information will result in removal of a comment.
Thank you for your attention.
The Elder Statement