Katie Couric asked John McCain a great question the other day on CBS: You claim you know how to win wars? Which wars have you won?

Watch it here:




I asked the press to put this very question to John McCain about ten days ago, albeit in a little bit more colorful language. You can watch that here. There is no good answer for this because John McCain is taking credit for many things he had no part in or was only minimally involved with. He is way overplaying his so-called national security credentials.

Some might think I'm going a bit too far in pointing this out, but we should also remember John McCain crashed five different planes in his time in the service. He also finished 894th in his Annapolis class of 899. God bless him for serving anyway, but it's hard to take that record and brag about how you have won all these wars.

John McCain has a service record he can be proud of, that anyone could be proud of. His resistance at the POW camps was down right heroic. But when you put yourself out there as the man who knows military strategy and winning wars, we have to look at your record and see what's really in there.

And when you look, there is not some secret stash of wars that John McCain led troops into and won because of his national security know-how. There just isn't and when he pretends there is, it looks like forced braggadocio. If he sticks with his actual service record, he would have something everyone could agree was a big asset for him. He served with tremendous courage and honor. He doesn't also have to claim to be Dwight D. Eisenhower. Leave well enough alone.

Young Turks on You Tube

Here's a quote of the week contender, reported in the Daily News: "I always wanted to be a reporter - maybe some TV. Who knows? Some serious news - but some modeling, too . . . I just don't want to end up like Katie Couric. I want people to take me seriously." -- Miss USA, Rachel Smith

You know things are bad when Miss USA considers you a cautionary tale.

Dan Rather's comments about the demise of hard news on television--and some critical but not personal remarks about the Todayification of news as represented by Katie Couric--are being blown out of proportion, spun, and spun back again, all in ways that pretty much prove his point -- that news is more concerned with feuds between rich people or rhetorical brushfires than with actual issues. Here's a link to a piece I wrote on another media site (the latticework of links and crosslinks is exhausting) that tries to expose the preposterousness of how this so-called feud is being covered -- but which will, I'm sure, be read as critical of Rather or Couric.

AOL News invited Dan Rather to respond to the controversy following his remarks about the state of television news.

Let me put one thing to rest right away: CBS Corp. Chief Executive Les Moonves' charge that my "dumbing it down, tarting it up" comments about the CBS Evening News were "sexist," presumably because of my use of the "T word" in describing a newscast anchored by a woman. Nice try at misdirection from the issue at hand -- the parlous state of news, particularly television news -- but no cigar; I've used that phrase dozens of times in the past (such as documented here, here, and here) to describe the disturbing trend in news toward shallow, celebrity-obsessed coverage, in contexts where it clearly had nothing to do with gender.

Now that we've settled that, how about we have a real conversation in this country about the real issue: Our nation and our world face enormous challenges, many being of the life-or-death variety. Nuclear proliferation. Climate change. The health-care crisis. The growing gap between rich and poor. The ways that the war on terrorism has changed how we understand and interpret our Constitution and our bedrock values as a free and democratic society. There are debates about these and other pressing issues before us but, for the most part, they have been limited to our political elites, and these folks tend to already have a dog in the fight.

In fewer than nine months, the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations will likely be locked up. In less than a year-and-a-half, we will be going to the polls to choose a new president. Yet the rank-and-file American voter is not being drawn into the central debates of our time. And the information he or she gets about the presidential campaign is largely limited to the political horse race.

Why? One of the big reasons is the absurdly disproportionate coverage that news organizations give to celebrity "news" and other tales of scandal and prurience. They hope for a short-term ratings and demographics fix, while the long-term, important problems -- the ones that actually have a bearing on our lives -- get pushed out of broadcasts and the ever-shrinking "news hole" in print publications.

We can talk about that, we can debate whether this is good for our country and what we should do about it -- or we can turn this into another celebrity story involving two anchors and a network CEO.

I'm sure Dan Rather is fuming at CBS chief Les Moonves' allegation that he is "sexist." Rather's feeling may be summed up this way: What, me sexist? It cannot be, since I am a liberal!

Actually, Rather's remarks were not sexist. First, Rather's direct criticism was not aimed at Katie Couric but at CBS decision-makers like Moonves. He accused them of dumbing down and tarting up the news. Second, Rather's argument wasn't that Couric is female but rather that she is not the brightest card in the female deck, and that she prefers coquettish smiles and "light" fare over serious news. This may be true or untrue, but it doesn't make Rather anti-woman. I don't think he'd be making the same charges if Christiane Amanpour were sitting in Couric's seat.

Moonves' rapid unleashing of the "sexist" allegation tells me that the man is feeling defensive about the network's choice of Couric for CBS anchor. Rather has fired back at Moonves, accusing him of not being a serious news guy. Essentially Rather is saying that Moonves is the male equivalent of Couric, a producer of fluff.

CBS says Couric needs more time. But ultimately in the news business, time is money. When Dan talks, CBS listens, but when money talks, CBS takes action.

Katie Couric's ratings continue to plummet to Bush-level unpopularity. Now even Couric's predecessor Dan Rather has added his voice to the critics. Rather did not criticize Couric directly but he did fault the CBS management for "dumbing down" the show and "tarting up" the eligibility requirements. And since there are no other candidates for this dumbing down and tarting up, we have to infer that Rather was speaking about none other than Katie.

Couric contines to maintain her trademark chirpiness, which I guess is why CBS is paying her the big bucks. But all this must be starting to weigh on her. She must feel somewhat like Caesar did when Brutus drew his knife. "Et tu, Brutus?" But Brutus did have a point, and so does Rather.

Rather's point is that as a result of the bad judgment of the CBS management, Katie is simply in the wrong job. She was successful on "Today" and she'd do fine on "The View" or Oprah or any number of other girltalk shows on TV. But she lacks the gravitas that Cronkite had in full measure and even Rather conveyed through his grim and serious look. Perhaps it's time for Katie to start looking in her garage for that golden parachute.

From today's New York Observer:

It's the free agent's curse: No matter what else may be wrong with the franchise, the new arrival's talent is supposed to overcome it. That's why they put you in the heart of the lineup, or on those bus billboards. If there are problems that still need fixing, that means the savior is a failure. An ongoing set of adjustments means that the savior is an ongoing failure.

So each new strategy that CBS or the Yankees might try, hoping to win more viewers or more games, gets evaluated as an act of publicity long before the results come in. Ms. Couric and the CBS Evening News are going through the kind of scrutiny usually presented on WFAN: Are they sunk? Are they crazy? What were they thinking in the first place? And how long can they keep making excuses for that overpriced bum?

Currently, the Yankees are looking up in the standings at a team, the Red Sox, who are playing the Yankees' game better than the Yankees-i.e., winning ballgames with the finest team money can buy. CBS, having hired the most celebrated anchor in the modern history of morning television, now finds itself looking up in the ratings at a news team helmed by former morning-news anchor Charles Gibson.

These two mega-watt media personalities bare the burden -- and reap the benefits -- of working in New York. I have to think the same "curse" can be applied to the business world as well -- bringing in a hot shot CEO to be a savior only to see the stock tank. Anyone out there have any suggestions?

You can read the rest of the Observer article here.

I wonder why my show's a bomb

When I carry myself with such aplomb

I always think I'm such a hoot

And besides, who can deny I'm cute?

The public just can't take a gal

Those sexist jerks can go to hell

, I find it quite a bore

But girlfriend chats, hey give me more!

Leaning left is my firm rule

In politics, that shows I'm cool

Will CBS tell me "That's it"

On the flimsy grounds that I'm a twit?

Hey twits have rights as well you see

We help promote diversity!

--Katie

With all the talk about Katie Couric's aggressive interview of John and Elizabeth Edwards--particularly the way she bulldogged the Edwards on their decision to stay in the presidential race -- Couric's own personal history with cancer has returned to her in an interesting, if not exactly ironic, way.

Couric's husband, of course, was Jay Monahan, who died of colon cancer at the age of 42 in 1998, prompting Couric to become an active spokesperson for colon cancer awareness (she famously underwent an on-air colonoscopy in 2000) and then, later, other cancers. She used her highly visible career as a platform. She spoke openly about the challenges of balancing career and family illness. One thing she did not do was leave her job (though she did take breaks). When people have criticized her for her demeanor in the Edwards interview, they have accused her of hypocrisy.

Is it possible that it's not hypocrisy, but something a little more psychologically straightforward -- that she was, in speaking to John and Elizabeth Edwards, returned to the site of her own personal stresses regarding the decision? Sometimes personal crises, or feelings regarding crises, go into remission, only to recur later in unexpected ways. News reporters are supposed to be objective, but they can't help being human.

Couric interviewed the John and Elizabeth Edwards for 60 Minutes. Some are taking issue with her questions. Watch the video and sound off in the comments. Read more about Edwards here. (Also, note: the video is edited... not by me... with just Katie speaking. You can watch CBS' official version here. They've disabled the ability to embed the video, or I'd have posted that.)

From Slate.com

Television news anchor and president of the United States aren't such different jobs, after all, and not just because until now they've been the exclusive province of old white men. These are the people who tell us what's happening in the world, what it means, and what we're going to do about it. They must be calm, personable, and handsome under lights. Diplomacy, intelligence, and genuine leadership abilities a plus.

It's not simply that both jobs are traditionally male. It's that both demand a certain stage presence-an intangible sense of authority, divorced from direct, measurable accomplishment.

- Read the rest of the article

- Latest: Couric's producer at CBS is out

What do you think? Sound off in the comments.

Earlier: Hillary As You've Never Seen Her Before