Wall-To-Wall Anna

By: Mark Knoller
Topics: News History

(AP Graphics Bank)

I still don't get it. Why the frenzied, breathless, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it news coverage of the death of Anna Nicole Smith?

Two days after I questioned the inexplicable, disproportionate magnitude of coverage of the arrested astronaut, came the overblown wall-to-wall treatment of Anna Nicole's death.

Did she cure cancer when I wasn't looking?

Had she negotiated peace in the Middle East?

Tell me what about her death warranted the coverage given her on the so-called all-news cable channels?

Did the death of Mother Teresa get this treatment? I don't think so.

I say I don't get it, but of course, I do. It's show biz. It's pandering for an audience.

But it has less to do with journalism than with drawing a crowd. And that's a decision made by the executives who run those news channels. They scrubbed all other stories, cancelled commercial breaks, and ordered non-stop coverage of Anna Nicole.

I'll stipulate that she was a celebrity – of sorts. And her life has been a soap opera on high heels. And her death is news – of sorts. And part of the news audience would be interested to learn about it. And it should be reported.

But the level of coverage accorded her death was – to say the least – over-the-top.

Of course I understand what's going on. But I know I'm not alone in deeming it an embarassment and in stating it does not reflect the reasons many of us got into the news business.

Mark Knoller
Mark Knoller is a CBS News White House correspondent.
Follow on Twitter »

7 Comments +

Add a Comment


by feelfree1 February 10, 2007 1:43 AM EST: Mark Knoller,

Re: "Two days after I questioned the inexplicable, disproportionate magnitude of coverage of the arrested astronaut, came the overblown wall-to-wall treatment of Anna Nicole%u2019s death."

Do the CBS editors ever listen to you on this issue? Many of us really wish that they would.; Reply to this comment


by mgpm-2009 February 9, 2007 8:11 PM EST: You know, I don't usually have the time of day for these types. Britney and Paris leave me cold...etc. But I caught a bit of Anna Nicole's show once...only once (I didn't care to watch again)...and I did see a spark of something, some kind of charisma. Whatever "it" is, she had some of it. Not to the extent some have it, but still, there was a spark of it there. When the Supreme Court upheld her right to go for the mega bucks, I was secretly happy about that. I didn't follow her closely, but noted when things happened to her. When her son died died I genuinely felt sorry for her loss. Now I feel very sorry that she met this untimely end. She was no Mother Teresa, no...so few of us are. But she was a person with flaws and feelings. Perhaps she doesn't deserve all this hoopla. But I'll miss her. RIP Anna.; Reply to this comment


by juliemd February 9, 2007 6:50 PM EST: Cool it gals, Katie didn't write this.
It grosses me out when women on these blogs diss Katie...but anyway, I agree with this article's author.
We're more interested in the rich, famous, and beautiful that way we don't have to engage our minds/brains about real, pertinent issues in our country & world. For instance, does anyone care that the Scooter Libby trial is exposing some of the most corrupt, despicable exectuive branch practices since Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan's administrations?; Reply to this comment


by mcsemel February 9, 2007 5:09 PM EST: Yesterday morning, the CDC released a report that announced that a study they completed determined that the rates of autism are much higher than they previously thought. Now, they estimate that 1 in 150 children born each year will be diagnosed with autism. With previous estimates of 1 in 166, the number equated to 27000 children diagnosed each year. The View on ABC recently did a show on autism and they reported that the estimate to care for an autistic child over their lifetime would be $1.2 million. In 10 years, that 27000 children become 270000 children and will cost $324 BILLION to care for over their lifetime. The report shows that their estimate was actually too low and the numbers are even higher.

Insurance doesn't cover autism therapies. Most families can't afford early intervention services that would help to lower this lifetime cost to care for these children. We're looking at a national crisis here.

But news about Anna Nicole Smith is far more important so news of these findings become small print on virtually every news website available.

Is anyone else disturbed about this?; Reply to this comment


by jcorbin1958 February 9, 2007 3:52 PM EST: Anna Nicole was certainly no role model for any young girl, but I am sorry to hear she died. Her life was very sad, and tragic. Her family has my sympathy. I especially feel sorry for her baby daughter.; Reply to this comment


by tanterbon February 9, 2007 2:46 PM EST: It's the spunk. The punk and character she exuded from her mere presence. She was not ashamed of who she was or what she did. She was proud of being herself. It's something we all should strive for, and a few of us envy that ability. Whether she annoyed you...or you were a fan, your life, and how people view steortypes has changed because of Anna.; Reply to this comment


by dtatwork February 9, 2007 1:58 PM EST: Dear Mr. Knoller,
I agree with you 100%. But I can't help but wonder if this type of media coverage (and I do not have cable--it's Ms. Katie for me)is an escape from the bad news we see each day--
i.e---slowing economy--huge debt--and of course
the Iraq war.I would suggest that some prefer
to talk about celebrities than face serious problems.

As for Susan T posted 10:17am--Dear Ms. Susan-- Ms. Katie did not post this report.

Have a good weekend--see you Mr. Knoller on the radio!!; Reply to this comment