Is there really a difference between Gibson and Couric?
In this Slate story about the "real" reasons behind the departure of Elizabeth Vargas from ABC's World News Tonight - you can debate the whole "is she being let go because she's pregnant?" question, because I think it's a shaky argument to delve into and is sort of an insult to Vargas and her pregnancy - there's a quote from a journalism professor about Charlie Gibson (taking over for Vargas) and Katie Couric (taking over for Bob Schieffer):"Gibson is an excellent choice, and having him start three months before Katie Couric is probably a good strategy. Gibson is a solid newsman, old school, nothing frilly or fancy. The contrast with Couric will be stunningly obvious."
Now wait a second. Isn't Gibson coming from Good Morning America, a morning talk show just like The Today Show? I've seen him talk about American Idol and interview movie stars and help with the cooking segments, so how is that different from Couric (regardless of the years that Gibson has over Couric)? Has anyone who has seen Couric handle serious news - from 9/11 to Columbine to Katrina - really think she can't be a serious prescence on the evening news? It's not like they're bringing in Bozo The Clown or Martha Stewart to do the news, she's been a newsperson for a while. Hell, even Mike Wallace did morning shows and cheesy commercials.
I don't know, the quote seems out of touch.

12 Comments