Katie: A Woman At The Table
One week ago, Katie sat down for a briefing at the White House, and noticed something unusual.
Last Wednesday, President Bush gave his address to the country about “the new way forward” for Iraq, and lots of journalists—including me, of course—were in Washington to cover it. But before the Big Speech, there was the little-known Big Meeting.
The White House invited all the network anchors, and some cable anchors, along with the Sunday political show hosts to a meeting with unnamed VERY senior administration officials. (Obviously I know their names, but the agreement was that in order to attend the meeting, we couldn’t reveal the people who spoke to us.)
And even though I’ve been in this business for more years than I’d like to admit, and interviewed countless Presidents and world leaders, it’s still thrilling—and even a little awe-inspiring—to get “briefed” at the White House, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.
And yet, the meeting was a little disconcerting as well. As I was looking at my colleagues around the room—Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, and Brit Hume—I couldn’t help but notice, despite how far we’ve come, that I was still the only woman there. Well, there was some female support staff near the door. But of the people at the table, the “principals” in the meeting, I was the only one wearing a skirt. Everyone was gracious, though the jocular atmosphere was palpable.
The feminist movement that began in the 1970’s helped women make tremendous strides—but there still haven’t been enough great leaps for womankind. Fifty-one percent of America is female, but women make up only about sixteen percent of Congress—which, as the Washington Monthly recently pointed out, is better than it’s ever been...but still not as good as parliaments in Rwanda (forty-nine percent women) or Sweden (forty-seven percent women). Only nine Fortune 500 companies have women as CEO’s.
That meeting was a reality check for me—and not just about Iraq. It was a reminder that all of us still have an obligation to ask: Don’t more women deserve a place at the table too?
(CBS)
The White House invited all the network anchors, and some cable anchors, along with the Sunday political show hosts to a meeting with unnamed VERY senior administration officials. (Obviously I know their names, but the agreement was that in order to attend the meeting, we couldn’t reveal the people who spoke to us.)
And even though I’ve been in this business for more years than I’d like to admit, and interviewed countless Presidents and world leaders, it’s still thrilling—and even a little awe-inspiring—to get “briefed” at the White House, no matter who is sitting in the Oval Office.
And yet, the meeting was a little disconcerting as well. As I was looking at my colleagues around the room—Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulos, Brian Williams, Tim Russert, Bob Schieffer, Wolf Blitzer, and Brit Hume—I couldn’t help but notice, despite how far we’ve come, that I was still the only woman there. Well, there was some female support staff near the door. But of the people at the table, the “principals” in the meeting, I was the only one wearing a skirt. Everyone was gracious, though the jocular atmosphere was palpable.
The feminist movement that began in the 1970’s helped women make tremendous strides—but there still haven’t been enough great leaps for womankind. Fifty-one percent of America is female, but women make up only about sixteen percent of Congress—which, as the Washington Monthly recently pointed out, is better than it’s ever been...but still not as good as parliaments in Rwanda (forty-nine percent women) or Sweden (forty-seven percent women). Only nine Fortune 500 companies have women as CEO’s.
That meeting was a reality check for me—and not just about Iraq. It was a reminder that all of us still have an obligation to ask: Don’t more women deserve a place at the table too?
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 72 Commentsi think its still in the socialization of women. look at images on the t.v., in magazines especially the ones that target youth. they glamorise body image not the intellect, play not work, getting attention and having attitude not aptitude.
Why the demeaning post? Katie is THE smartest television journalist on the air currently. She has the uncanny ability to hone in on the heart of a matter, and she's got the courage to ask relevant questions of leaders that other journalists kowtow to. My only concern with her new position is that this skill may go to waste; that an anchor position is beneath her.
And just where do you come off advising someone of her talent and stature that she should "pay more attention to how [she is] processing the information [she gets] in those ears and eyes and how [she gets] the stories created, and ultimately aired." How arrogant and patronizing!! You gave no examples of how, in your estimation, she has failed to perform these vague and ill-defined metrics. You arbitrarily spouted off unsubstantiated opinion. I bet you're in management and utilize this tactic when it comes time to conduct performance appraisals with your female staff members. One day they'll grow up and say, after a half-hour put-down session: "Hey, wait a minute! He didn't really SAY anything!!!"
And, according to the principle of divine reciprocity, you'll one day be working for a woman who will tag you for the fool that you are.
Good luck, Poster; you'll need it.
Katie: you're fantastic; keep up the excellent work!!
ANY woman who does want that type of lifestyle now have every right to get out there and fight for it. The issue now is, which women will step up to the task? It seems to me that there are many fewer women out there who choose to do what it takes to get those positions. It's a personal choice at this point, not a manditory right for women to be represented there.
As for you, congratulations. You've made it a long way. I don't agree with many of your stances, but you've become very accomplished.
When feminists worry equally about conservative and liberal women, then maybe we can get back to the business of ensuring equal opportunity. Until then, it's become just more snake oil--like civil rights and other formerly honorable endeavors--the left has hijacked to further a political agenda.
I am not a liberal and I do not feel backed into a corner or that I am losing any argument. I do feel, however, horrified that there are so many male chauvinists still allowed to exist.
And I am horrified that so many shrills exist that spout words like "neanderthal" and "chauvinists" all day long. So, I cancel you out.
I'm sorry that my vocabulary was to advanced for you. Also, I guess in your lingo woman = shrill. Interesting and so enlightened...
Laters.
With due respect, your premise is flawed. You're implying that The Glass Ceiling is keeping "women from the table", yet I see plenty of women on air at stations around the country, in addition to the national cable channels.
Women (and men) can choose any profession they want. Can you name a single profession that is unisex these days? (And please hold comments about spermn donors and wet nurses...)
In addition to the obvious (that anyone can choose any profession that they want), yours is a profession for which proficiency is only part of the equation. If America preferred watching women reporting the news there would be more women doing so. If America preferred watching women compete in sports, the WNBA and women's figure skating would crush the NFL in the ratings.
You weren't in that room because you were a woman, and there wasn't an absence of women because of any kind of sexism. You (and Charlie, Britt, and Wolf, et al) were there because you're good at what you do.
Shouldn't our entire society be able to function on the basis of performance? Y'know, The Best One For The Job, rather than with some kind of artificial race/*** based quota criteria?
Furthermore, it's sad that we are such a "ratings" obsessed culture that a journalist's commentaries are viewed unworthy because she is not #1 in the proper consumer-oriented demographic.
Which one of the esteemed men at the table would you replace and with which women?
I think every person at the table earned their position, you included. That's not disconcerting, as you stated, it's the way things work in a free country. Do we need "affirmative anchor action" to place people into positions they have not earned? A bit of advice- lead by example and not by whining.
By the way the anti-Bush comment was out of line for an anchor, male or female. I couldn't hear Tim Russert saying such a thing.
Honestly Katie, our congress is elected by popular vote and women vote. How many women run? Nobody is stopping women from getting into elected office. Of course women deserve a place at the table but they have to get elected first. As for you being the only women around the table, how many women vs men do you know in the industry? How many of them have been at it as long as you have? How many of them were willing to give up what you did to get where you are? How many had an audience like you did?
Look at the quick and severe treatment of people like Margaret Thatcher (Iron Maiden) and Condi Rice (her sexual preferences and "blackness" are called into question.) These women's gender does not save them from harsh treatment. Nor should it. (An aside: when politics calls for it, our elected representatives like Nancy Pelosi will play the grandma gender card with unembarrassed enthusiasm.) This reduction of gender-think is as it should be. So I highly doubt that significant sexism exists in the hiring practices of today%u2019s TV anchors which is what I think Ms. Couric is alleging. Does anybody doubt network execs would put Pamela Anderson and Rosie O'Donnell side-by-side at the CBS anchor desk if they thought it would bring ratings and revenue. Katie was bemoaning old-style man's world backsliding when I think evidence is overwhelming that w/some rare exceptions, we've long since learned those lessons.
Im glad you are on the news!!! You have inspired many people including myself. You have taught me that you should never give up just because someone tells you you can't do it. Thank You so very much! I am super glad happy excited about the Cancer deaths going down but we need to get them down 100%. See you at 6:30!
This rare opportunity was apparently sqandered on Ms Couric. Rather than use her column to get behind the news in meanigful way and share her insights of what is happening behind the scenes on the world stage she inartfully spouts feminist platitudes.
One can only picture her dismissively sitting in the Bush White House like a Bobble head doll, looking at the other invitees while some of the most powerful people on the planet attempt to hand her the story behind the story on a silver platter.
If you insist on wondering aloud about how far you%u2019ve come (or not) why not find a job at a feminist magazine? You will have the audience that is truly interested in your musings about the wonder of your gender. Many of us don%u2019t care about your skirt. We do care about what the state of the world is and why things are proceeding as they are and what is the likelihood things will get better or worse.
Declarative sentences are preferable to your innuendo--no matter who sits across the table from you, they deserve better than a catty tone. Get over yourself.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
WOW! Imagine how many women would be in congress if women could vote!
Wait... They can, yet they only put 16% women, so who's to blame?
Besides, I'd like to see what percentage of races in the last election actually had a woman running.
btw im a minority, and watchuing minorities and affrimitive action is an insult to my intelligence
Since politics is the only inherently criminal profession, according to Mark Twain, your story leads me to believe that most women are not corrupt and, therefore, that is the real reason their numbers are limited in Congress and the upper echelons of that field.
Your displeasure is misplaced as women have made great strides in businesses and the military where corruptibility is not a prerequisite for the job.
I believe politics is just too distasteful for the gentler ***.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 72 Comments