Comments on: Katie Couric and celebrity that is bundled not blended

By: cameron

cameron — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 20:47:32 +0000

I Was crying that katie Couric go in nbc and switched to cbs. i dont really like kathy that much take the post of this is not all true!

By: E. Lewis

E. Lewis — Tue, 29 May 2007 19:40:32 +0000

I use to watch katie on her morning show. She was devine! But,when she became anchor of the evening news, NBC changed her whole personality. They even started photographing her in this gray type background (her make-up was changed to a dull satin). She was no longer Katie. She didn’t have to appear “presidential” to get the public to listen to the news. It is always best to be oneself!! I recently saw Katie on the evening news again. She looked and acted like Katie!! Great, Great, Great. I watche it until the end.

By: Monty

Monty — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 22:55:44 +0000

Please accept my apologies for chiming in on the Katie Couric commentary at this late moment. Still, Couric – by default – inherits a huge national audience every evening and it’s worth my time to say a few words about her presence as anchor on a national U.S. television network which eventually impacts most Americans.

After a few months of periodically viewing Katie Couric at the bridge of CBS News, it’s clear to me that the Peter Principle has manifested itself. Couric is now “out of her league”. She clearly lacks confidence in front of evening viewers – my guess is that this is, at least in part, a result of receiving a lot of negative feedback thru the CBS web site and other channels. Of course, the “rules of engagement” make it clear that it’s CBS’s web site and they quite obviously manage all associated content. This is entirely fair. What is unfair, to me, is that we have Katie to view if we choose to tune in to CBS News in the evening, which I elect to do as infrequently as possible.

By: Steve Portigal

Steve Portigal — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:36:03 +0000

The question as to why some identities or persona lend themselves to reinvention whereas others don’t is an interesting aspect of authenticity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/media/30carr.html?ex=1319864400&en=f692b974f7f2d1bd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (sorry for the long URL but it’s one that won’t expire and that doesn’t require registration, AFAIK) is today’s NYT column about the Chevy ads that use 911 and Rosa Parks images to equate Chevy to America, and more. But they mention Mellencamp and his Ain’t That America 2006 ditty, while mentioning that he rebranded when dropped the “Cougar” – but that must have been 20 years ago, and they are still calling him on that one? I think the reversal of position they cite (anti-corporate to corporate whore) is a valid criticism, but the name is a Red Herring.

In her heyday and beyond, Madonna was expected to reinvent, chrysalis after chrysalis. Somehow she had a brand that encompassed that reinvention, even promised it.

I wonder if Katie had gone Kinnear, and left news for entertainment, if she would have been harshed on as strongly. We can tolerate more variability in content than in vessels of information, who must be stable and unmoving?