Comments on: Katie: A Woman At The Table
Add a Comment
- maybe if you, and women like you, would act like you belonged in your position you might be taken more seriously no one "deserves" a place at that table they earn it if this article is indicative of your journalistic ability then it's obvious that you are just a token you were at the White House due to the fact that they could "not invite" the CBS anchor you were lucky enough to be that person CBS needs to be reminded that it's the news...not the newsperson
- Reply to this comment
- "no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office. " What is that supposed to mean?
- Reply to this comment
- Well... now you know how a black man feels. At least they let you in the room
- Reply to this comment
- Who's fault is THAT, Katie? The media seems to hold itself up as the holier-than-thou pure-as-the-wind-driven-snow watching-the-watchers type that never does anything wrong. But in this case, who, exactly is Couric lashing at and not realizing it??? Her boss and the boss of everyone else in that room.
That's right, she's complaining about the people at the head of the very industry that employs her.
So much for the media being ahead of the times, huh? - Reply to this comment
- I'm no big fan of Katie Couric, but Katie is taking some heat on a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/01/17/couricandco/entry2366267.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/01/17/couricandco/entry2366267.shtml" her blog /a for her comments and I'm in agreement with Katie. p She says 51% of the U.S. is female yet only 16% of Congress is female. I think it's great that she isn't jaded about meetings in the White House and I think any one of us would notice if we were the only one of our *** or race in a meeting. This is not a case for Affirmative Action for women. It is a hope that rational mankind will turn to its other half for answers, intelligence and advice.
- Reply to this comment
- afelias
Please understand. Most of these anti-Katie comments are saying that the issue should be the job, informing the public about the news, not the fact that there weren't enough skirts in the room. READ Katie's comments. If you are a woman, you should be insulted. I don't deny that a woman deserves to be in her spot, but one who can carry the water. I would take Barbara Walters and Connie Chung over Katie any day of gthe week. It's about doing a good job, not whining about feminism and definitely not about bashing the President. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, including Clinton. - Reply to this comment
- The teaser to you story indicates that you noticed something "unusual". I assume that by "unusual" it is meant out of the ordinary. If we accept your premise that women are not allowed in the power elite then it was your presence that was unusual as it should have been all men. Therefore the male of the species is no longer able to keep women excluded and your premise falters. You, madam, are the proof that women can make it. Indeed you may also be the proof that women can make because thay are women and not inspite of it.
Did you also notice that in addition to being men they were also White men? English speakers?, Well educated? Well paid? Probably arrived by limo? Middle Aged? If the lines are to be drawn by genetics and not ability or competency next time I demand the White House invite non-white, non- English speaking, poor, uneducated, young people of dubius gender who walk to the meeting. The news gleaned from them about the meeting might be a far sight more interesting than what you apparently learned. - Reply to this comment
- One may "deserve" a seat at one's kitchen table, but last time I looked one must EARN a place at any particular business/political table.
By the look of Katie's "news show" ratings, one may argue CBS gave her a place - as opposed to actually earning it.
How can Katie lead CBS news with this perspective of reality? With the view that overtly states people should be gifted high positions simply due to a random mathematical ratio of completely non-relevant indicators such as: ***, skin color, height, weight, sexual orientations, etc. - rather than on earning positions based on excelling in the independently measurable criteria required for holding the positions?
This especially irks me as the MLK holiday was not 3 days ago (he was the man who dreamed that one day his children would live in a nation where they would be measured by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin)!
Grow up! Merit, not quotas - character, not bigotry - ability, not desire -- are what equality is all about!
Equal ability to achieve position is the goal - not equal numbers regardless of ability. - Reply to this comment
- Sorry, don't agree with you Katie. It's not time to put women in these positions unless and until they earn it. It's not about being a woman and therefore you get the position because there are too many men in that job. That's the last reason a woman should be there. It should be notable to you that the NPR team covering the war in Iraq just won one of the most prestigious journalism awards -- that team is dominated by female journalists working in the most dangerous part of the world. That's real journalism; they're in it and they *** sure earned it.
- Reply to this comment
- Dear Ms. Couric,
Thanks for your astute observations about the state of women in government and lack of representation thereof.
By any chance...did you see the recent exchange between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Secretary Rice?
If so, I'd love to hear your comments on that bit of feminism bashing.
Thank you from your fan,
The Flash - Reply to this comment
