[katyseagull]

[ QUOTE ]


Did you feel at ease with the way they would devote so much time to the idiots outside the studio shrieking and squealing and waving banners about whatever backwater burg they were on temporary furlough from whenever the camera came on them? And then pretend to be so incredibly delighted by it, every time, day after day for years? I didn't. It gave me the willies. Felt super honest, and sure put me at ease. I've now been psychologically bullet-proofed for the coming zombie invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought she seemed at ease and not as big a phony as say Kathy Lee Gifford, nor as edgy or provocative as Rosie O'Donnell. She was fine doing celebrity interviews, cooking segments and women's health issues. She was really good at that stuff. She started to become more phony to me the last couple years on the Today Show when I noticed that she suddenly started dressing and acting a little different, you know, less "down to earth" (can you be a billionaire and still be down to earth?) and more high fashion rich socialite.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think CBS saw her as having mass appeal that would automatically translate to the evening crowd.


[/ QUOTE ]

That strikes me as such a bizarre notion. Could you see Peter Jennings or Walter Cronkite basing their career on being tirelessly vapidly bubbly? WTF.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I thought it was a dumb move myself. If they had asked me I would have told them it was pretty dumb. It's not even that she's vapidly bubbly. It's that she doesn't have the right tone and demeanor and she has too much celebrity coming into it. The American evening news audience doesn't want warm and congenial. It wants serious and business-like. She hadn't sat behind a news desk in years and none of us were going to buy it. The format was wrong. It was WRONG WRONG WRONG. There were any number of potential news anchors out there to go with, they just went with a ridiculous choice.