As I recall, the issue with Katie Couric wasn't so much her gender, but, rather, the fact that she was a non-journalist who was moving from a showbiz format, in which "cute and perky" was an essential attribute, to a network news format, in which an anchor's essential attribute is (or should be) credibility, a measure of "gravitas" in the Murrow/Cronkite model, and the commanding presence of a traffic cop orchestrating the various elements of a newscast. The distinction has been blurred somewhat with the advent of "Happy Talk" news, and, because today's anchors are supported by an extensive staff of broadcast news professionals, no one really expects an anchor to be as involved in the gathering, writing, and organizing of news content as in years past. The problem arises when a correspondent or commentator is reporting on a complex issue that is, or seems to be, over the head of the anchor. So, while we don't really have to believe the anchor to believe the news, we'd like to believe that the anchor believes and understands what he or she is reporting, and not just reading copy. An anchor also holds our interest and leads us into each story by directing our attention through tone of voice, subtle facial expressions, the use of visuals, and proper segues.
I remember, a number of years ago, hearing a radio newsreader segue into a report on a Nicaraguan earthquake saying, "Well, it's a ho, ho, ho, Merry Christmas all over the world, but not in Managua, Nicaragua, where thousands lay dead or dying..." I know it's harder to go serious on radio where people can't see one's change in facial expression, but this gaffe should get the Tex Antoine/Jimmy the Greek Award for Inappropriate Ad-libbing.
As for female political talk show hosts, most of the ones I listen to, at least on WABC, can surely hold their own. Laura Ingraham's towell-snapping "one-of-the-guys" deportment leaves no one in doubt as to who's in charge, and, while Monica Crowley comes off a little softer than Laura, she's also direct, assertive, and authoritative. But some formats do require a host to mellow for ratings. When Dr. Judith Kuriansky did psychology commentaries for one of the news stations many years ago, she had all the credibility of a credentialed expert. Then another station gave her that call-in sex show and paired her with a male sidekick who could do little more than make jokes and help keep things light. "Dr. Judy" became more giggly as well, perhaps to compete with Dr. Ruth's groundbreaking demystification of what was once an on-air taboo. Sure, she got calls, and ratings, and the show helped a lot of shy young people who might not have called in to a less accessible host. But "Dr. Judith Kuriansky" had to become "Dr. Judy" to pull it off. And while we're on the subject of "Judys", it would be interesting to compare the on-air and real courtroom personae of "Judge Judy," who no doubt hams it up for the cameras, but is probably just as intense on the bench.
It is sad, though, that women are expected to act like men in order to have credibility, and then are criticised for it when they do. Her politics aside, Hillary Clinton's Achilles heel is her "shrillness." Would people be as critical of her passionate style if her voice were an octave lower? It's interesting how female politicians have to be tough as nails to get noticed, and then have to talk about cookies and grandchildren to get elected. But, while some of the most successful hosts in daytime television are women, and while local news anchors like Roz Abrams have raised both the bar and the ceiling for female newscasters, we still have a perceived "gender gap" at the very top. And, if you think that's bad, wait until Katie gets older in a field where male anchors stay well into their seventies, and even eighties, but where post-menopausal newswomen, despite the "gravitas" of age and experience, are put to pasture at the first sign of matronliness.
Maybe Katie is a bit too perky, but, considering the foreboding nature of much of the world's news these days, perhaps "perky" is what we need.
