And Now For Katie Couric - Gender Bias Is Alive And Well in the US!
26 08 2006In England solo women news readers are as common a sight as their male counterparts. But reading about Katie Couric the anchor woman who will fill America’s most prestigious journalism seat as solo anchor, the words “Poison” and “Chalice” floated into my mind. Because CBS’s ratings for its evening news show have been heading southwards for several years now. 16 million in the 1980’s to around 6 million today.
CBS is hoping Katie Couric will help reverse ratings. She’s going to need plenty of help if her critics have their way. I was astounded to read that Ms Couric will be only the first solo woman anchor of an American weekday evening news show. She will also be the highest paid news anchor of any gender, her salary being $15 million. Yet even as this news is announced the gender bias in its reporting is apparent in the extreme. Men still dominate news reading in America, and so many are saying that Ms Couric is a “bit of a lightweight” for the prestigious role. How, they wonder, could this woman be suitable to hold a position once held by Walter Cronkite – a newsman. Or her other predecessors (all men)?
Some are even saying that Ms Couric’s appointment is the end of the entire news anchor tradition. Is there something wrong with this picture? Are we in 2006 or 1806? Are women not supposed to be treated on an equal footing with their male counter parts? It seems not. The bias is alive and doing very well.
The report I was reading made sure to mention that Katie Couric was 49 and single (oh, her husband died of cancer just in case you were thinking she was a Singleton – never married). Why not say she was a widow? And of all the quotes she made, the one that was printed was one where she mentioned that as a single mother with two children she wouldn’t be going to Iraq. She said she was quoted out of context, but now it’s out there. It was reported as an “own goal by Ms Couric”.
Had this been a man being appointed the focus would be on his track record and or accomplishments rather than his personal life. But when a woman is appointed to a role in one of the apparently last bastions of male dominance, the questions as always, are slanted differently. If she’d been still married they’d have made sure they mentioned she had a nanny. Lucky for her she has a couple of kids, otherwise she’d probably have faced even more disapproval.
And it gets worse. A poll released in the Pew Research Centre revealed that the qualities many Americans were using to describe Ms Couric were “fluffy”, “cute” and “perky”. No surprise that none of these words were ever used to describe her male rivals Brian Williams of NBC and Charles Gibson (ABC). Even her fellow reporters have been scoffing, telling The Times, among other things that “things might lighten up a little too much.” and that “[…CBS News ]is a dying institution, let’s hope she can do a strong job and boost ratings.” Some confidence in her reporting talent might have been a better show of support. But of course, they aren’t really supportive are they?
And it’s bordering on the ridiculous on USA Today where the focus of recent stories on Katie Couric have been on how she’ll wear her makeup, her hair colour, her toned legs, the merits of her “over-bubbly personality” and whether she’ll be wearing stillettos. Not a word about her accomplishments as a reporter. However old, handsome or balding her male counterparts are, I hardly think this would be the focus had one of them been appointed.
She will have to not only perform, but outperform her predecessors. If ratings at CBS News don’t increase, we know who’s getting the blame. You wait, it’ll all be the fault of her hair. Or the fact that she’s beautiful.
Good luck Katie Couric. Looks like you’re going to need it in buckets since your myopic peers still seem to believe your ability to do your job is wholly dependent on your hair, your legs, and your personal life.
Pat yourself on the back American journalism. Give yourselves a High Five. Wonderful to see your “progressiveness” in action.
Wonderful blog, Britgirl.
Bitch Magazine featured a short article on this topic (women as news anchors) and mentioned one female (and pregnant) anchor woman was often given the “fluffy” new pieces including, of course, bits on family, motherhood and pregnancy. Let’s hope Katie isn’t subjected to covering crap topics like that in her new position.
I remember all the nonsense that surrounded Barbara Walters as she elevated in the news field. I was sitting in a college classroom where a male professor asked, “Would any of the men want to sleep with Barbara Walters?” It’s similar to the mentality in Hollywood where male executives will cast a woman based on whether men will fantasize about bedding her as if that is her only worth.
@Carisa - thank you! Oddly enough she may get tough assignments some will be waiting to see her fail. Let’s hope she turns them to her advantage. It’ll be ratings, ratings, ratings…
@Hillari - and the sad thing is - it was probably a serious question!
Hi britgirl,
Great post and a very interesting issue. Here in the UK it is very common to see solo newsreaders, and our highest paid newsreader over here is a women. However, we are not faultless in the disciminatory department. I just watched this evening a documentary presented by Selina Scott who was looking at the demise of modern television broadcasting. She looked at many aspects, but one area of focus was the way in which breakfast television over here is still presented with a male anchor, supported by a female. This wouldn’t be so bad, but the female is still viewed as the ‘attractive bit of fluff’ on the arm of the male, rather than an equal partner in the job they are doing.
I believe the situation has improved over recent decades, but true equality is still a long way off. I just wonder if this will ever truely be achieved when women will continue to be seen as the ones that have to have the children, which in my opinion, is seen by many as less worthy when compared to having a career. If people are taking this view, then can true equality ever be achieved as there is no alternative to women giving birth?
@BBD - thanks. It’s an interesting observation you make. When a woman decides not to have children she is criticised on all sides (but mainly by other women) for not joining the hyped bandwagon of childrearing. Many people will tell her that having a child is the most important job in the world. “Come on in, the water’s lovely!”
But if she does decide to have children - too late she then discovers that there is actually very little support and the struggle begins.Often playing second fiddle in her career because, due to childrearing issues she can’t take on the plum assignments that lead to the top job. And all those who were saying “it’s worth it,” “it’s the best.” etc, etc are nowhere to be seen. But what do they know?
[...] to an article in Like It Is, the author agrees that women are judged more on their looks than on their intellect. She has [...]