Just so you know Katie wasn't on the job during the run up to the war. Yes all people have opinions in the correct setting like the National Press Club it is correct to give those opinions, but why do the rest of the Networks all biases to exist? Just report the news and let me decide what it means, but then would be too simple.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

Anchors are supposed to be non-boased. Commentators are not. That's the difference, stupid. What you are also doing - which again is stuid - is trying to equate that 2 wrongs make a right. Well, if you can name me just one "Faux" News anchor who gives her/his opinion then let me know. I'd be interested in hearing that.

'Nazi' is a fucking moron. Obviously the link was written because of what Couric said which is irresponsible and wrong for an anchor (not a commentator) to do. But then again, I guess her decision making skills aren't that great considering her ratings.

You may be just as shocked to learn what the job definition of a news anchor is supposed to be. Anchors - if they are any good - have more of an influence than just reading the teleprompter. Ask Dan Rather. oops, maybe you shouldn't!

Then on the same note, CNN and MSNBC doesn't attract conservatives because of their bent. Why is one right and the other wrong being you are telling me that the other networks have a liberal bias?

Then shut the fuck up, bitch!

Is that a clock I hear? Cuckoo---cuckoo---cuckoo.

I wouldn't pay to hear Katie Couric speak but, apparently, a lot of members of the Press Club would. Then again, it's always been hard for me to listen to Yale cheerleaders opine.

Katie’s World
Peter Wehner - 9.26.2007 - 5:25PM
At her National Press Club event yesterday, we heard this from CBS News anchor Katie Couric:

The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying “we” when referring to the United States and, even the “shock and awe” of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the “Today” show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, “Will anybody put the brakes on this?” And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.

There is a lot to unpack in these few sentences. For one thing, Couric’s aversion to using the word “we” when referring to her own country is both weird and revealing. After all, she is part of the United States, a citizen of America, and so she is part of “we.” Hers is an example of a certain journalistic sensibility that feels as if members of the media are compromising their objectivity by referring to their country as if they were a part of it. And I suppose in The World According To Katie, it would be a gross violation of journalistic ethics to hope for America to prevail in a war to depose Saddam Hussein and bring liberty to his broken land. Hence, I suppose, her discomfort with how well the initial stages of the Iraq war went.

This point is worth pausing over. After all, during his reign, Saddam Hussein routinely executed political opponents and political prisoners. Children and young people were tortured to force their parents and relatives to confess to alleged political offenses. Schoolchildren were summarily shot in public—and families of executed children were made to pay for the bullets and coffins used. Human Rights Watch concluded that the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide against Iraqi Kurds—and estimates are that more than 300,000 Iraqis were executed during Saddam Hussein’s reign. He was also responsible for invading two nations at a cost of more than a million lives. Imagine hoping that the United States would defeat such a regime quickly, easily, and with a minimum loss of life and damage. The audacity!

As for the “inevitable” march toward war and her “kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’”: First, the “march” to war was not inevitable—one person on this planet could easily have put the brakes on it. His name was Saddam Hussein. He could have stopped the war at any time, if only he had met the commitments to which he had agreed. It was Saddam Hussein who was in material breach of Security Council Resolution 1441. It was he who had amassed a record of defiance for more than a decade. But for Katie Couric, the responsibility for war rests not with the former dictator of Iraq, but with the President of the United States.

And then there is tossing out the standard talking points that those who questioned the administration were “considered unpatriotic” and “it was a very difficult position to be in.” By whom, in Couric’s imaginary history, were critics of the administration considered “unpatriotic”? This notion is a flimsy urban legend—and yet Katie claims to have been put in a “very difficult position” based on a scenario that never even occurred. What a tower of strength she is.

The virtue of such statements, I suppose, is that it rips away the pretense of objectivity—as if that was even necessary at this stage. It appears as if Katie Couric is a worthy successor to Dan Rather—and her comments, in some ways so utterly typical, also remind us why CBS’s ratings are in the toilet, and deserve to be.