Talk:Katie Couric/Archive 1

Archive 1

Non-Neutral Writing

Under the "CBS Evening News" headline, the author listed "CBS News was evidently willing to gamble with its flagship broadcast to prop up Couric's career." WTF is that? I edited the line out, but how is that line not unbiased, neutral or anywhere near encyclopedic? I don't watch KC, or know much about the lady, but that line and any others like it are obviously biased in nature and do not meet Wikipdia writing/quality standards.

It seems to me there is another example of non-neutral writing in the last sentence of the section on her controversial columns:

"In doing this Couric or her staff replaced a controversial statement for which there was some evidence (the Tribune article reports "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said."[28]) with an error (the Tribune article says merely "Zulfan Adi, a former neighborhood playmate of Obama's who has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro, told the Tribune he was not certain about that..." which doesn't actually contradict what he had said earlier)."

This is tendentious. The claim that the Tribune article does not contradict the LA Times article is opinion, not fact, and pretty tenuous opinion at that. The passage sounds like it was written by someone hell bent on spreading the suspicious that Obama is Muslim. IMHO it should be deleted.--Kempt Head (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stan Hooper

The article says that she was hired by "Stan Hooper" I cannot find this person anywhere online, or in other references. Isn't he a fictional character from that show "A Minute with Stan Hooper?" Rellman 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ciriticism section

Yes, I would like to state that by adding a section regarding her alledged "pseudo-journalism" would be a great addition to the article. --131.247.22.90 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Why do her parents' religions matter? 69.86.121.251 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Because its a small biographic data. Thats what biographies do. ---Mailrobot

NPOV

This looks so gushing. Does anyone care to try an NPOV touch on why Katie Couric is considered to be a bad journalist? Mike H 01:02, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Who considers her to be a bad journalist? If so, then we could find and include the ones who consider her a good journalist. Just pointing out why she is considered a bad journalist would go against NPOV rules. Antonio Sunshine Phoenix Martin

ps: Yes Im one of the Phoenix siblings..lol Hollywood awaits!

I'm not saying that the people who consider her a bad journalist are the law, but Television Without Pity is quite vocal in their dislike of Katie Couric. It should at least be NOTED that her style is not favored in some circles. It's doing a disservice to readers to make her sound like flippin' Walter Cronkite. Mike H 08:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Infotainer

Folks, Katie Couric in an infotainer. That's all she is. To call her a journalist is to make yourself sound dumb, and it does a disservice to the word. She is perky, not too bright-sounding, and is downright annoying. She can't even talk right. Check out how she drops the letter G from the ends of words. "Good morning" becomes "good morneen" the way that she says it. This hack is downright annoyeen!  :) And not very professional.

She is a telejournalist. Don't get me wrong; I think she's annoying as hell, too, and at present, this article needs a thorough rewrite to accomodate criticisms (because they ARE there). But your edits smack of POV (namely that she sucks; it needs to be sourced, particularly by television critics and such...I imagine it can't be THAT hard to find) and I think you need to be acquainted with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Talking about your edits these last two months would have helped, too. Mike H 02:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

11/09/2004: This is a terribly written article. It would be my suggestion that someone rewrite it and also include some of the dissenting views listed above.

Olympic Cermony Hosting

Couric has NOT always hosted the Olympic Opening Cermonies since 1992 alongside Bob Costas. For instance, Dick Enberg hosted with Bob Costas from Atlanta in 1996 as evidenced in this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5DF2dmhtQ

Just wanted to get the facts straight! (Itsdannyg 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)).

---

I have made an edit to the page to reflect this fact. Changed 1992 to 2000. Itsdannyg 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism from 168.253 range

I've reported the IP range on WP:VIP, and protected the page since the only people editing the article in the last three weeks have been that IP, and then various users reverting him/her. Mike H 16:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The professional title of journalist is inappropriate. Infotainer (within the broad news trade) is correct. -SV|t|add 02:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

She doesn't just do Today, though. She also does Dateline. Would you call Jane Pauley an infotainer? Mike H 02:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well the real question is, are media personalities journalists? The answer to your question about [insert media personality here] being an infotainer is yes: Anyone who substantially crosses the distinction in their career from Journalism to personality-based "news" can't really be categorized as "real journalist" ie. an associate of people like Sy Hersh or Robert Fisk.

Consider that just as there is a real difference between hard news and soft news, so too there is a difference between a journalist and an infotainer; it's really that simple. Yes, one can be somewhere at the low end of journalism / high end of infotainment, but there needs to be some reasonable appreciation of the vast difference between the ends of that spectrum between purely true and purely false reporting, where by "false" we can mean that propaganda and gossip news are essentially of equivalent value. SV|t|add 08:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember Cronkite spending 45 seconds doing news on an important foreign policy issue then 5 minutes making a salad with some loser, then 10 minutes presenting a impromptu fashion show, then who is 100. Kind of bad when five dead troops get 8 seconds and what's Jennifer Anniston or TomKat doing gets 10 minutes. All about ratings and very little soft journalism. As for what do you call Dateline and Jane Pauley? Same thing, fake, could care less and usually about to fall asleep like the rest of them. Running Mid-sizes cars into a wall for the hundredth time isn't news. They don't do that so you and your family can get a safe mini-van. They do it cause the footage is near free (cost of a camera and sound man and stone already works for them so voices over is free) It's just bad and a lack of journalism to record someone else running Suvs, minivans, mid-size cars, luxury cars, compacts, full size trucks and small trucks into a wall. They do everyone of those every year. That is what happens when you are cheap, have too much time to fill and do not know much about journalism.

And yeah she got into Bush Sr.'s grill and Matt blasted Tom Crusie but Leno was all on McCain and Letterman is no softballer. So are they Journalist?

Chris Botti

Why are people removing the Chris Botti sentence entirely? This has been cited in many sources, and I'll re-add it with the sources. Mike H 15:46, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Journalist

I believe that people like Couric are presenters (as in the U.K. English and French usage), not journalists. One may like or dislike Couric and her ilk, but what she does is not truly journalism. This is not a value judgement, not any more than is saying that an auto mechanic is not an engineer. She is either a television personality or a presenter -- the mere fact that she interviews people does not make her a journalist. Is Conan O'Brian a journalist, since he interviews guests every night? I think not. I welcome user input before making any changes to the article. -- Zantastik talk 10:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't use the term "presenter" in the United States, so if you want to change it to anything, I'd probably agree more on "television personality." Mike H 14:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mike H, "presenter" isn't common enough in the United States to use it in an article about an American, though it is a more accurate description. Television personality, or something like it, works for me. - Jersyko talk 22:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

How about "Television News Anchorwoman"? All I know is she is not a journalist. TheSun 04:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Parents' religions

Why are her parents' religions included in this article? I don't feel that they are relevant. And even if they are relevant, they shouldn't be so conspicuous. The parentheses give to much prominence to such minutia and make for an awkward read. Any thoughts? --132.192.72.96 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also have never heard anywhere that Katie's mother is Jewish (not that this means it's not true). I was just curious where that came from. There are lots of sites out there (i.e. jewhoo.com) that extensively list even celebreties with one Jewish parent and I've never seen her name on any of them. While I do find it interesting (she would be the first solo network anchor to even have partial Jewish ancestry, Barbara Walters was always with a co-anchor), I do have to agree that Wikipedia articles too often make a big note of the religion of a famous person's bio (or that of his/her parents). --hairymon 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Katie Couric the granddaughter of M.F.K. Fisher? I have heard that, but I can't verity it. I wish K. Couric the best. She is talented and attractive. Molly 18:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that one is an urban legend (the MFK Fisher bit), I have never seen a legitimate source on that one. I'm not sure what that has to do with "Parents' religions" anyway. However, I did a little searching and the "Jewish mother" bit is apparently true. Interestingly, Jewhoo and all those sites never turned this one up (nor, fortunately, all those neo-Nazi hate sites, it appears both them and the "ethnic pride" sites seem to go after this kind of subject with equal vigor), but she mentioned it in an interview on Fox News Channel back in March of 2004. She said she was brought up in her father's religion though. --hairymon 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added short sentence indicating that Couric was raised Episcopalian, which is noted in the same source used to document that her mother was Jewish (note that this is something of a ridiculous source, as it appears to be nothing but an item in a gossip column). Gogh 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Legend to Legend

Changed the reference to her special, "Legend to Legend Night: A Celebrity Cavalcade," to reflect the correct title. I am ultimately hollowing myself out using an awl made of ocd by spending my time worrying about the semipermanent historical record of a ingratiating celebrity. This is a cry for help. 205.246.203.230 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Drew

Liberal Bias

Couric is a grossly biased reporter. I will never forgive her for her slanted interview of John McCain tonight.

65.101.228.185 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

How come there is no mention of her liberal bias when reporting the news. I think it is important and should be noted.

That's a taboo topic on Wikipedia...you won't find an ounce of liberalism mentioned on the Sierra Club page either, for instance. Even this comment is probably too racy. But I distinctly remember watching 'Today' during the Clinton/Bush election and being shocked at how blatantly she campaigned for Clinton. She essentially told America that if you voted for Bush, you were an idiot. I stopped watching Today shortly thereafter. I wish I had enough access and time to go through some archives and post some examples. Mr walsh 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For every conservative that believes a media figure has a liberal bias, there is a lefty who believes they have a right-wing bias. For example, Media Matters for America has documented some of Couric's conservative bias: [1]

This is why this is a "taboo" topic. Tzepish 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is one example of why Wikipedia will never be able to be trusted as an authoritative source for information. Misguided "fans" will always swoop in and remove any facts that do not support their gushing, and frankly, the "fans" of Couric are also the types who have a lot of free time on their hands.

Katie's track record of liberal bias is pervasive and well established; it far outweighs the trivialities that MMFA has drummed up. This is clearly a biased article. Any fair-minded observer knows that Katie is an avowed liberal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D323P (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Please feel free to provide sources and to work the information into the article. Tzepish 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Couric to start CBS Evening News on the 5th?

This was added by an anon to the intro. I added {{fact}}, but that was removed by another anon without sourcing. If anyone can cite a source that would be wonderful. Morgan Wick 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Likeability

Currently the "likeability" section is solely devoted to the topic of Couric's legs, rather than her personality traits. While undoubtedly her attractiveness is an important part of her likeability, I believe that it is misleading to focus on this. For example, consider this study, which found her often described as "perky", "energetic" along with "informed", "smart", and "fair". Also, it is indicated that she evokes more negative reactions than the other two major anchors, e.g. she is seen as too liberal by some. I don't have much time to edit, so I would appreciate if people could incorporate this (and other relevant material) into the article. --C S (Talk) 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I reverted further than I should have (and reintroduced material that had been deleted for POV reasons). It was a mistake -- I don't have an opinion on the matter. shotwell 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Looking Back

If the evening news gig fails, she always go back to mornings and be a co-host on The View.

Attractiveness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.200.230 (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

"She assumed the anchor position on the CBS Evening News on September 5, 2006, becoming the first female solo anchor of a major television network weekday evening newscast in the United States." This sentence could use some work, too much info. I can't think any way to fix it myself right now or I would have. Aaron Bowen 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to break it into two sentences but it still comes off clunky. It's obviously extremely important and needs to stay, but it's a mess right now. Aaron Bowen 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I took another try at it, by breaking it into two pieces, with the first piece alluding to the informal visibility of this increasingly ambiguous honor:

She assumed the anchor position on the CBS Evening News on September 5 2006, becoming the first woman to enter the ranks of the "Big Three" — solo weekday evening news anchor on one of the three traditional U.S. broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC).

Perhaps this will be easier to digest? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's slightly better, but this is a tough one. It doesn't amend itself well to two sentences, and one would probably be hard for the newcomer to comprehend without reading at least twice. Aaron Bowen 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked it might be worse might be better, have a look feel free to change. Aaron Bowen 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason I split it into two parts, with the "Big Three" bit in the first part, is that all the other variations I've seen fail to make clear to anyone who doesn't already know this why the "solo-anchor" position on "the weekday evening news on one of the three traditional U.S. broadcast networks" is even important. To non-U.S.-newswatchers, this cumbersome string of qualifications has the sound of "fastest thirty-something Italian-American woman from New Jersey in the 100-meter race". "Big Three", in two words, makes clear that Couric is now one of the three most prominent people in U.S. TV news, by this traditional measurement. But obviously it's hard to be both clear and succinct on this point, especially given the 24x7, 500-channel-cable, Internet-permeated modern news landscape. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's clear now, right? If you want to change it in any way go ahead. Aaron Bowen 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

the leas would have to be expanded if you were going to go for any kind of GA status or such. Also I could do without the caption under the pic. Aaron Bowen 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Leas"? What do you mean? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I bet you were going for "lead" (as in lead section) and missed the "d". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was going for leas... I mean leasd.. eh fuck it you know what I mean. :) Aaron Bowen 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources

I have started converting bare external links in this article, and unnamed citations that merely include external links, into full, proper citations. There are two major reasons we use full citations, including authors, dates, works, access dates, etc.:

1. Bare links frequently cease to work. When this happens, editors will try to find other sources for the same information. This is much easier to do if specific information, like article titles and dates, are provided, instead of often-cryptic URLs.
2. Providing these citation details in the References (or equivalent) section not only follows standard publishing practice, but has an extra import for Wikipedia. We do not have an editorial board to oversee our article content. We are the editorial board. Readers should be able to see at a glance the source of the information in the article, to enable them to weigh its merit for themselves. Hiding such information behind bare links reduces this opportunity and makes bias easier to incorporate in articles.

I hope that regular editors of this article will help with this effort to restructure the citations to provide this clarity. See Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Citation templates for more information on how to accomplish this. I welcome any questions on my talk page, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I personally hate the templates but since you're the first major contributor to the article in this regard, I'll follow whatever style you set. I was thinking of working on the article, and expanding it anyways. Do you have any other commentsaas to your plans? Aaron Bowen 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dan Rather

I removed gratuitous and polemical references to Dan Rather in the introduction, and replaced it with shorter and more neutral material. Couric is a hard enough subject for NPOV for many people, without adding Rather, who is catnip for many. If anyone thinks that the kinds of comments made about Rather are NPOV and genuinely encyclopedic, I suggest that the include the material on the Rather page and try to make the case there. That material is not relevant on the Couric page. Gogh 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sputum Story

Someone summarized the item that Couric had slapped one of her editors for using the word "sputum" in a story, and then cited the source as the Drudge Report. Actually Drudge was just summarizing a very small part of a much longer story printed in the New York Magazine. I changed the source to the original, and tried to give a little more of a balanced sense of the larger story. I kept the slapping story, through I think this is really less important than other things in the story that are not mentioned. Gogh 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that added what seemed to me to be gratuitous and unnecessary material on this sputum topic (asking why she doesn’t like the word, and drawing inferences about her journalistic ability from her dislike of the word). As I noted above I am not even sure that the sputum slapping incident is significant enough to be included here; I am sure that extended speculation and opining about it is not appropriate. I don't think that an encyclopedia is the place to just take pot shots at Couric.Gogh 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not going to make this edit, as I feel those that have been writing it should, but I just heard on CNN that the reason she didn't actually 'like' the word was because she mispronounced it on the air since she didn't know it. There isn't an irrational hatred for it or anything. Apparently, it wasn't in the earlier script she had, then it was there when she was live, and she mispronounced an unfamiliar word. It can cause some understandable aggravation. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2007/07/09/moos.couric.slap.affl is the link to the video I was watching on CNN that talks about it. -Kraw Night 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the information from the Moos piece supplied by Kraw Night, since other editors were adding comments to the text that there was no reasonable explanation for why Couric responded as she did. I don't think I gave the citation in propoer wiki fashion - my intent was to make the link easily available, because it is not just support for the information provided, but gives a visual illustration of what the "slapping" looked like. If anyone wants to fix this please feel free to do so. Gogh 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has reverted the link to the Jeanne Moos videotaped segment that documents that claim that Couric was aggravated abou the word sputum because it was inserted at the last minute and led her to mispronounce it on air. The reason given for the reversion was that they could not make the video run on their version of FireFox. I was able to make it work easily today on the latest version of Firefox, so I re-reverted. Also, I provide here the link to the written transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/09/sitroom.03.html (scroll down to the end). I also provide some of the key text below:

"Couric got angry with news editor Jerry Cipriano for using a word she detested - 'sputum' - and the staff got tense when she began slapping him over and over and over again on the arm." Couric's spokesman disputes the over and over part. Tackled one blog, Katie Couric doesn't like "sputum." UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All it is is throat garbage. MOOS: It was a story about that tuberculosis patient. Katie's spokesman said she read the script beforehand but the word sputum was inserted afterwards and she mispronounced it sputum on the air, which explains why she was annoyed at the writer. "I sort of slapped him around. I got mad at him and said, you can't do this to me. You have to tell me when you're going to use a word like that. I was aggravated, there's no question about that."

Gogh 03:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cotton Business Broker?

Why can't we call the slavery business what it is? Capone 07:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

This article seems to be censored. There was no reference to being fired from CNN. She was terminated from doing on-air work. And the network's president said that he never wanted to see her on TV again. This is important to mention. A person's failures as well as the success define a person. A biography should include this story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.56.83 (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

True, however I find this a fairly constant trend on wikipedia. If this is general policy for the site as a whole, it should be plainly stated. Otherwise, such censorship is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wils4581 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

News Reports CBS is Considering Firing Couric

I just removed th following sentence: "In the July 22, 2007 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports are saying that CBS News is thinking about replacing Katie Couric after the 2008 Presidential Elections. However CBS has denied these reports." This seems to be non-encyclopedic on its face, even in a section labeled "controversies". I don't think you want to start listing every rumor about her that has been published in the newspapers. Obviously, if she is fired it would be noted here, or if anyone at CBS goes on the record saying they are thinking about. Unless and until, I would leave it out. Gogh 02:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement was attributed to a major media source. This is more than a rumor. Many references in Wikipedia are to articles in major news sources. 67.155.64.130 16:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that major newspapers can be appropriate sources for claims made here. The problem is that, in the current case, the newspaper does not document the claim, it simply reports the rumor (subsequently denies by authorities at CBS). Couric has had a very rocky year one at CBS, and that should be reflected here; but I do not see a reliable basis for the claim that CBS News is now planning on getting rid of her after next year. Gogh 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

south park

In a recent south park episode, a unit of measurement for excrement was named after her. Does this deserve a mention? I know it's silly, but south park is a very popular and influential show...--160.5.225.172 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be very appropriate on the South Park page, but unless it somehow influenced Katie Couric, it wouldn't be appropriate on this page. Arthurrh 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

righto--160.5.225.172 10:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What about a Couric (Unit of Measure) page specifically for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.175.218 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

no, not notable enough. if you would do that, and still be consistent with notability standards, you would end up with hundreds of pages for individual south park jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote for removal too. This says nothing about Ms Couric. It is just a random joke. Do people watch each episode so they can post the jokes on WP? Redddogg (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was only a random joke until it actually started being used in the American vernacular! Look at the urban dictionary definitions. I hear the word wherever I go--whether at university or not. The word came from her name, therefore deserves to have mention in this article. Should the artificial heart not be mentioned in Robert Jarvik's page? I'm leaving it in until someone proves that the term couric is not used to measure feces.Mexicomida (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source. And, seriously? You hear people talking about the size of their feces everywhere? Seriously? It's a funny episode, but give me a break. AniMate 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The burdon of proof is on you to show that it has actually been used (by someone notable) as a measure of feces. I'd personally use plain old kilos if I were ever to measure feces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.170 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that an In popular culture section be constructed for the Couric page. Granted not everyone refers to the size of their fecal matter in Courics, but I believe it would be a shame to not include insites on how she is depicted in popular culture. Infotainers like Bob Costas have sections in their wiki pages that mention how they are referred to in popular culture. Why not Couric? SmedPull 13:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Paid Wikipedia Editors

In reference to the section just above this one, there is plenty of indirect evidence that the News Networks pay wikipedia editors to 'watchdog' articles about news anchors in order to manage their public images, since their images bear directly on ratings and profits. That is why there is often such rapid re-editing on wikipedia of anything critical of these personalities. Not every wikipedia editor works for free.

205.240.0.40 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Meet the Press

There is speculation that she will replace Timothy Russert as Meet the Press moderator, anchor, and editor. I believe that if it is getting such attention, it merits a mention. (There is no news piece anywhere that says she's in line to replace Jerry Springer, who's not even dead.) Isn't it speculation that she'll bow out after we pick a new chief executive this November? And yet, it merrits a mention. Hawk08210 (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Palin Interview

Just removed subtle POV innuendo implying that Couric had an underlying political agenda (Democratic) to undermine Palin. I'll visit the page to make sure that political ops leave it alone. I carry no brief for Couric. Tapered (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the text from "According to campaign manager Rick Davis, Palin thought the questions would be softer because she was being interviewed by a woman" to "According to campaign manager Rick Davis, Palin thought the questions would be softer than they were" because the quote which follows does not support the implied sexist foundation. Yes, the source linked makes the same assumption and uses the same quote from Davis as evidence. Thus, the evidence given only supports that Palin thought the questions would be easier than they were. To infer that this is because of sexism introduces the same non-NPOV reflected in the linked story. If someone has a quote from Davis that actually supports the assertion that Couric's gender had anything to do with the Palin campaign's assumptions, please insert it and remove my changes. Biasedbulldog (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

2nd img listed at COPYRIGHT Q's

• I believe that the 2nd Image (Image:CBSEveningNewsKatie.jpg) used in this article may not meet Fair Use guidelines, it has been listed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for more opinions. -- GateKeeperX (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Couric's legs

Is the part about her legs really needed? Alinkinthefuture (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Katie Couric's Notebook" - libraries

From this section - "... On April 12, 2007, CBS admitted that her most recent column was indeed plagiarized from a Zaslow article without her knowledge, and that the unidentified producer who provided the material had been fired. Couric continues to maintain that she wrote the article.".
That doesn't make much sense, does it? Maybe it's a plagiat, maybe she wrote it. Both statements can't be true. Maybe more references are needed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sullenberger interview

I've removed the reference to the Sullenberger interview here. I'm not sure the interview was some great notable piece by her and just seems like a minor spat between her and Today (especially since it was weeks apart). The Palin one got national press, but the Sullenberger stuff just seems excessive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Katie Couric's Notebook controversies section

I have removed all but one of the references from this section, either because the links no longer worked, they are blogs, or they do not meet the WP:RS standards for a biography. It seems to me that this section is being given too much weight as well. If nobody says something within the next week or so, I'll remove it as WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. MichaelLNorth (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Brothers

Surely it's worth mentioning that Couric's been featured in almost every instalment of Auto-Tune the News?--Nick??? 09:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

College

She went to college at University of Virginia. She went in 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.207.9 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source for that, we can use it. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Palin YouTube Video

I added a paragraph in the Palin Interview section about the just released video of Couric poking fun at Palin and her family (a search for "Couric Palin" should produce the video as the first result) but didn't link or site anything, someone should do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.231.218 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC) — 97.103.231.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see WP:BLP and WP:RS. Youtube is not a valid WP:RS as copyrighted material can be illegally posted there. In addition, even I could edit any video to have anyone say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morenooso (talk • contribs) 10:24, August 4, 2010

Here is the story from a reliable source. Arzel (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the mainstream press makes something of it, you might have something. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And, once the video has been certified as complete and not editted, then, inclusion will be considered. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no "certified" because who would "certify" it? This is Wikipedia. We don't make judgements of the sort we would need for that. We report what independent reliable sources say. Right now, we have a blog saying something about Couric, with a video segment they claim supports what they are saying. Until independent reliable sources have something to say about it, we have nothing to report. Imagine if every blog claim about Barack Obama (or George W. Bush) were included. We would have articles that were several thousands of pages long full of claims that the subject is a Muslim terrorist (or an alien lizardman). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Who would certify it? Duh, the reliable press and in particular CBS News who owns the copyrighted video. The blogs have multiplied fourfold from yesterday's unsourced edit. Just like the woman fired prematurely for an editted version of her speech, the alleged Couric video is making the rounds and it is just a matter of time before quote the reliable press unquote picks up the story and reports on it. Editors could then find say an AP or you name it reliable press story and try to include it. Nope, Wikipedia is editted based upon WP:V especially on a WP:BLP issue. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

When I hear "certify", I think of an independent agency measuring something against a standard. There is no such agency to verify that a video is unaltered and complete, in this case. If independent reliable sources say something substantial about the video, we will have something to report. Those sources will not, of course, say that Couric "pok(ed) fun at Palin and her family". Instead, it would likely be more along the lines of "critics contend... Couric replied...". - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are companies that will certify videos and sound clips. Some have taken fancy names like forensic video and sound etc. It's quite easy to see when a video or sound clip has been editted but pundits are getting better at "masking" editted videos.

In a BLP article there is no room for what could be speculation until CBS and or Couric admit the video is real. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether this goes in or not is up to coverage by RS not by whether CBS and/or Couric admit the video is real. By this faulty logic nothing is reliable unless those that have been viewed doing something admit that they are the people actually doing that thing, or by extension nothing anyone says is verfiable unless the person that it said admits that they said it. Thousands of articles would be currently in violation of this requirement. IF anything, the fact that CBS and Couric have thus far refused to comment on this would imply that it is true. Arzel (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Read WP:BLP and the headers on this talkpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing two issues, read up on wp:v

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

Arzel (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Additional sources. These are just a few of the many, I included a few of those that would appear to be the most reliable. I think it would be an appropriate followup to the Couric/Palin interview since most Palin fans feel that interview was unfair and this is would appear to back up their argument (from their point of view). It has been covered by several reliable sources and is directly related to the Palin interview which occured a few weeks after this incident. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Arzel (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No confusion and you probably didn't read all my post as I have cited WP:V. WP:BLP supercedes that as it states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The blogsphere and even reliable press can speculate all they want about the issue. Until it is proven true which is the ultimate WP:V, it is contentious. If you have doubts, take a look a look at Al Gore's talkpage. The reliable press can cover an allegation all they like but it doesn't get added to a WP:BLP until proven true. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because Al Gore has a troop of people defending his page doesn't justify misinterpretation of WP policies. At this point there is nothing that would suggest it is not true, and if Main Stream Sources are reporting on this story then you have little recourse for not including it on verfiability or BLP concerns. I find it slightly ironic that you would highlight that phrase when it serves you no good. This material is niether unsourced or poorly sourced which is the basis for that arguement from WP:BLP Arzel (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Total non-event. Doesn't belong even if verified, we don't include every item of trivia in biographies. Fences&Windows 17:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Arzel is a Statistician and Industrial Engineer, and as such feels that too much statistical weight is given to minor random controversy and criticism within Wikipedia." Ironic, much? Fences&Windows 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You are an Admin, act like one. Did I add the information? No. This was a discussion relating to WP policies. Next time comment on the contribution and not the commentor. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As soon as the mainstream press makes something of it, you might have something. Morenooso, you were clinging to WP:RS with your teeth until the reliable sources started arriving. The difference between an actual reason and an excuse is that while a reason will stay solid, excuses will change the minute one of them is no longer relevant. This type of behavior is fairly common among veteran Wikipedians who feel that they must guard their favorite articles at any cost, and who are willing to do anything to exclude any information that is not to their taste. As for the "non-event" claim – pure POV. You don't exclude something just because it doesn't shed a positive light on the subject matter that happens to be favorable to you. If you want to make this a Katie Couric fan site, Wikipedia is definitely not the place for it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of the material in question. The editor readding it claims, "A single sentence is not putting undue weight, any way you look at it. Whether you like it or not, she did it and a reliable source exposed the deed. Not mentioning this fact at all would be a direct violation of WP:NPOV." We do not have a reliable source discussing this alleged event. We have a youtube video posted by... someone. Additionally, we have an explanation of what it might show by... someone. Pick your favorite/least favorite political figure, actor, athelete or other famous person. Now go to youtube and see howmany videos you can find involving that person. Does their article have a sentence about each? Certainly not. The articles on each of the current and last president would each be several hundred pages of meaningless links to videos of unknown origin with "explanations" by... someone. Each one would be a BLP concern and giving undue weight to some random something in that person's life. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "someone" is the Los Angeles Times and they published the video because they deem it reliable. If they did, so can Wikipedia. Maybe you should re-read the WP:BLP policy: there is no questioning of reliable secondary sources, which is precisely what is introduced here. It's not up to us to "wait for a better proof" because neither of us invented the rules. You still have zero grounds for the removal. I am reinstating the sentence because otherwise would be highly unfair.

FYI, the issue has been reported to the NPOV board. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The sole source of this video presented gives it 40 words of coverage. Your summary of what the reliable sources have to say is 44 words. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta agree with SummerPhD here, one source reporting this means having it in the article is undue mark nutley (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

}

This issue has been discussed thoroughly here and at the BLP board. There is no consensus for addition of video just because it gets reported on. Sources are not the problem; it's a WP:UNDUE issue in a WP:BLP article. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, this issue has been reported about a week ago at the BLP noticeboard as per the header above this talkpage. Consensus there is for no addition. ----moreno oso (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

To quote Marknutley: "one source reporting this means having it in the article is undue." Now that there are seven, this is no longer the issue, is it? Besides, why won't you quote the policy that states that having only one WP:RS violates anything. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I did quote a policy wp:undue and i still think it` undue to put this in here, this is not a tabloid after all. There appears to me to be a clear consensus to not add this content, please abide by it and stop edit warring, thanks mark nutley (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, this is not a tabloid and neither are the seven sources I referenced. As I mentioned on the NPOV board, your excuses keep changing only to exclude the information at any cost, just because all the editors reaching the "consensus" are Couric fans. You are edit warring together against me, which doesn't make it any less of an edit war on your end. Grow up. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not editors. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I will remind all editors about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Let's stick to the topic and what this talkpage is about - article improvement. WP:CONSENSUS is also another core policy. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique I am going to let that slide this time, but please remain civil from now on. I am no fan of couric and had never heard of her until this was brought up on the blpn boards. mark nutley (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this sentence still being stuck into this page? All journalists go through pre-air preparations before all of their televised productions so why is this one special. Doesnt look like a notable part of her life, and really! looks like a weak attempt to just make her look bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolanz (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is something that she said as part of her professional work and is sourced out the wazoo. Inclusion depends on mentions in reliable sources, not whether you are offended by inclusion about someone you may like. Drrll (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion depends on more than a reliable source. Just because you like her you don't need to include every irrelevant infobit. The sentence on that page only informs me about one thing, and that is about the editors inserting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolanz (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a completely worthless addition and all those citations, they are all exactly reporting the same thing, off camera she said, these children's names are difficult to say and her mum and dad are out hunting carabu, so what, in this persons life story it is worthless, totally valueless crap. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This bit tagged on the end - The video is not dated but the incident occurred on the day that John McCain announced Palin as his running mate. - is totally leading and asserts that there is some connection which there is no evidence for at all, you could just as well add at the end, the video was recorded on a monday. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Drrll: Looking at the above discussion, and the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard here, I see that you and Hearfour are the only people arguing to include that content, when the overwhelming number of editors are against it for good reasons. I still do not see why. After removing the text and seeing it replaced, I even tried to expand the content to make it significant enough to include in this BLP, but apparently we'll have none of that, right? Put in what the footage really shows, and a reader will clearly see what a non-issue this really is.

@Hearfour: I've moved that sentence out of the "Palin Interview" section because it had nothing to do with the Palin Interviews -- that footage is from months before Couric even met Palin. Just because you found a source that mentions that footage and her later interviews with Palin in the same article, that does not mean the two events are related. Please show me a reliable source that says the two are related. Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, I didn't have a problem with your changes to the content, nor did I have a problem with your moving the material away from the Palin interview section, since as you said the video occurred months before the Palin interview. I obviously do agree with Hearfour on inclusion of the material, though. Drrll (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, that last part was originally there, I assume, just to provide an approximate date of the video. An editor tagged the sentence with a tag, so I fixed it with the date that another source provided. There was no intent to make any connection. Drrll (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Rio-rob has it right, even with Drrlls changes it still doesnt look anything like encyclopedic information. Reading it tells me nothing about the Journalist, and looking at those sources doesn't inform me any better. Whole lots of implied meanings being tried, I think. Geo Lanz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geolanz (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A mob can't overthrow reason. Xeno, "kudos" for your politicking, e.g. choosing selective wording to make it look less significant. Geo, "smearing" involves lies... 'nuff said. This article looks like a fan club, there is not a single sentence (apart from what I am trying to establish) that doesn't praise her work and personality. I am not saying anything negative or positive about her, I am not trying to smear or praise anyone. All I ever wanted was to balance out this article just a little bit. Just like the adding editor must prove their assertion (which I have done more than plenty, and thank you Drrll for that last source), the contesting editor must do the same. Repeating phrases like "non-event" or "smearing" is nothing but senseless witch hunt. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see the disputed content has been reinserted. I've removed it one final time. My next response to its reinsertion will be to file a request at ANI to put an end to the tendentious editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

...and not unexpectedly, you have reinserted the disputed content against consensus once again, so I have filed a request at ANI here. Perhaps you could put your edit warring on hold, and work to resolve the issue instead. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• - I thought this was sorted, the addition is crap and there is consensus that it is crap. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've only looked at the most recent version that was removed, and I agree with it's removal per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV (in general), WP:UNDUE (in addition to general NPOV problems), and SYN. BLP is very clear that , "Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following comment to one of the last Admin notices [9] about this, re-posting here since I don't see the issue raised before: @Hear: Yes, the pro-Palin, anti-Couric sentiment ("extensive smear campaign") appears to originate from right-wing blogs which are not reliable (especially for BLP). You say you're working for balance in the Couric article -- what other criticisms have you discussed on the talkpage and/or added to the article? Surely there is more substantial (and objective) press coverage of her journalistic credentials, for instance, when she took over the news anchor position. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected this article so you can spend some more time discussing the inclusion of that text. You may want to consider dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

name and dob

I had a look but I couldn't see , where is here full name and date of birth cited to? Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This past year's edition (2010) of The World Almanac, p.175, gives her date of birth as 1/7/57 in Arlington, Virginia. They follow the U.S. convention, so that would be January 7th. It doesn't give her full birth name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a New York Times column[10] from a few years back that not only asserts her birth name, but also that on the Today show she initially called herself "Katherine" rather than "Katie". I would suppose the switch to "Katie" was to suggest a less formal image. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The international unit for fecal measurement

The 2007 South Park episode "More Crap" introduces the couric, a fictional unit of measurement for (human?) excrement, explicitly named after Katie Couric. This should be mentioned in the present article at least, and if possible also with some discussion of this ignominious reference. __meco (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:IPC. "In popular culture" references are trivial unless discussed in independent reliable sources. Otherwise, articles like, say, God, Barack Obama, Chicken, whatever would be little more than extensive lists of songs, TV shows, movies, books and such. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This particular item was debated and flushed some time ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Brooks Perlin?

I am somewhat surprized that the Personal Life section contains no reference to Brooks Perlin, who has been with her (the press calls them a "couple") for four years and counting. Very publicly so, e.g. White House State Dinners. SteveO1951 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Departure

I don't think we are getting the whole scoop of her departure from CBS yet. What I mean is that I don't think she left under her own power, I think CBS fired her, but we'll never know. (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Katie Couric/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lead needs expansion among other things. Aaron Bowen 13:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove reliableresources.org cites

This domain no longer has the originally cited material (mainly Walter Cronkite award refs). I will clean them off this article and related in a week or two so if no objections. Magicianeer (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Father and brother names

Why are Katie Couric's father and brother both listed on the page as being John M. Couric Jr.? Actually, it states that her father is John Martin Couric, Jr. and her brother is John M. Couric Jr. Even if her brother were named for another relative with a middle name that begins with "M", say, John Michael Couric, wouldn't he then be John M. Couric II? Normally "junior" is applied only where the son's name follows the father's name exactly, leading me to suspect an erroneous fact in one paragraph or another. BBAJDMBA (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Katie Couric's annual salary

I find it very difficult to believe that Katie Couric's annual salary is $40,000,000. I did a Google search on this issue and located a couple of sites that listed her salary as $15,000,000. Who said talk is cheap?

I continued reading the article and noticed that Couric did sign a $40,000,000 contract in 2011. It is absolutely mind boggling that a network would pay a news person that kind of money in an annual contract.

Anthony22 (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source we use mentions nothing about the amount, so I'll remove the number as OR. There are some current sources that mention that amount, but they likely get their info from Wikipedia. Sources at the time mention $20 million,[11][12][13] but they are uncertain because they were reporting about negotiations. We need a good source from ABC which reveals the final amount. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

TV contracts are usually spread out over multiple years. They dont usually do "annual contracts." The word annual would imply one year, and that is not the custom. Its most probably $40,000,000 over a multi year period. Can somebody please correct this idiotic error. She does not get $40,000,000 per year. Usually only latenight talkshow hosts get that kind of money. Marc S. Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

This article is too cute for words. Did Couric write it herself? There should be a section title criticism or liberal bias or charges of liberal bias. Case in point: the Palin interview. --68.118.188.188 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Couric admitting liberal bias

I think that once and for all this proves we can label Couric as the hard left liberal that she is. She is a disgrace to journalism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaLmv5aTlGo 71.188.65.245 (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This video also claimed that she was making a fool of herself when she did that interview. You probably should not say that she is not a good role model for journalism. IPadPerson (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Katie Couric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120104143313/http://www.virginia.edu:80/100yearslawn/html/lawn.html to http://www.virginia.edu/100yearslawn/html/lawn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100822125723/http://www.mediabistro.com:80/tvnewser/evening_news_ratings/ to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/evening_news_ratings/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060710064743/http://www.cbsnews.com:80/stories/2006/07/06/eveningnews/bios/main1781520.shtml to http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/06/eveningnews/bios/main1781520.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131205161936/http://katiecouric.com/2013/12/04/the-hpv-vaccine-controversy-rosie-perez/ to http://katiecouric.com/2013/12/04/the-hpv-vaccine-controversy-rosie-perez/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Katie Couric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110821064825/http://www.bostonherald.com:80/entertainment/television/general/view/20091221sawyer_has_talent_but_do_viewers_care_about_network_news_these_days/srvc=home&position=7 to http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/television/general/view/20091221sawyer_has_talent_but_do_viewers_care_about_network_news_these_days/srvc=home&position=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130830021657/http://www.rmc.edu:80/current-students/commencement/keynote-address.aspx to http://www.rmc.edu/current-students/commencement/keynote-address.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"Under the Gun" documentary

I didn't wish to get into an edit war, but the individuals that are performing the editing, merely delete documented and factual evidence that has been evolving the past few days. As much as Katie Couric may or may not be a whipping post for the political right, it is newsworthy from a large number of left leaning media sources. I also cannot contact others, as they do not possess a talk page. My belief is that they will not allow any such information to be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbusch8899 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The information that was added to the Couric article was not supported by the cited sources (for example, saying Couric hadn't commented, when she clearly had). The content was added non-neutrally (for example, given its own header and section, which is a violation of our WP:DUE policy). The information is misplaced, as it is information about a film, and not Couric (who wasn't responsible for the editing). The addition contained bare URL links in the body of the text, which is against policy; and the addition cited sources which do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. The problematic content was also introduced and re-introduced repeatedly, without addressing the cited concerns; that is against our editing policy. The edits were also made by apparent sockpuppets, which is against our policies. The editing was wrong on so many levels. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

1. To the best of my knowledge, I was the only one that was editing the information to be inclusive of the controversy. 2. Couric had not, in fact, specifically responded to the accusations. However, a general statement by the film director and Epix was made public. 3. Couric was the Executive Producer, as well as the Creative Executive/Narrator of the Film. She might have not have physically done the editing, but she certainly had control over the editing. 4. What cited concerns? I wasn't able to locate why the information was being deleted. 5. If I made technical mistakes, why could they have not been communicated for me to correct? 6. The information now on the page, cites the film as a documentary. Clearly that classification is in dispute, by dozens of independent media sources. If such is allowed to stand, without mentioning the controversy surrounding such, then I would argue that such violates policy as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbusch8899 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Based on previous article edits in common, these appear to be the same editor: Mike2A-MD (talk · contribs) → Jbusch8899 (talk · contribs) → 70.161.253.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) → 70.106.236.19 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Each of these accounts have added or edited the problematic content.

Couric had not, in fact, specifically responded...

Yeah, she had. In fact, you cited a 'Free Beacon' website which noted that Couric had given a "statement" to a news source.

She might have not have physically done the editing, but she certainly had control over the editing.

Sorry, no. I do not see that in any reliable sources. To the contrary, reliable sources say "Soechtig indicated that she, not Couric, had editorial control. In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Soechtig explained the edit this way ..." Perhaps you should be editing the Soechtig article.

What cited concerns?

Please read the edit summaries. You were adding bare URLs to the body of the text, which is not allowed. You were citing non-reliable sources for assertions of fact, which is not allowed. You were also creating separate, redundant sections with their own headers in the article, which is against policy. You'll find a more detailed list of concerns just above.

cites the film as a documentary. Clearly that classification is in dispute...

What an odd thing to say. Every cited source refers to the documentary as a documentary. If you think there's a dispute there, you'll need to produce the reliable sources which say so. But this isn't the proper article at which to do that; this is a biographical article about Katie Couric, not an article about a documentary. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: FYI ~ Rob^Talk 15:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh well. Terrorism is now workplace violence, gender is now a choice, and an opinion piece (or hit piece if you will) is now a documentary. If you want to spin it this way, then Wikipedia is an opinion piece as well. I won't bother with contributions anymore. Have a nice life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbusch8899 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If you say so. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a reliable sources which explains that Couric said she's OK with the edit: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435919/katie-couric-under-gun-documentary-lie-yahoo-fire-her 71.182.237.120 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that's an opinion piece, which is not a reliable source for the assertion of fact. And even in that opinion piece, she didn't say anything about an edit. She agreed with a statement. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, Couric is the executive producer and narrator. Even if she did not make the edit herself, it is still her project, and she is ultimately responsible for it. 71.182.237.120 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Our article already states that she narrated the film, and was one of the executive producers. Is she "ultimately responsible for it"? Not according to reliable sources. Perhaps you should be voicing your concerns at the Wikipedia article about the film, or the editor/director. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are some more sources:

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/26/479655743/manipulative-editing-reflects-poorly-on-couric-and-her-gun-documentary

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business/media/audio-of-couric-interview-shows-editing-slant-in-documentary-site-claims.html?_r=0

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/25/media/katie-couric-guns-stephanie-soechtig/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/katie-couric-under-the-gun_us_5747245de4b0dacf7ad42f59

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/under-the-gun-criticism-editing-katie-couric-epix-1201783885/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/katie-couric-under-gun-filmmaker-897507 71.182.247.139 (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those are indeed more sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 May 2016

Please remove Category:Television Hall of Fame inductees as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_21#Category:Television_Hall_of_Fame_inductees. I'd appreciate a ping when this is done. ~ Rob^Talk 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: this is  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 18:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Katie Couric entry - "Under the Gun"

She later issued an official statement apologizing for what she referred to as an instance of "misleading" editing in Under the Gun. "As Executive Producer of Under the Gun, a documentary film that explores the epidemic of gun violence, I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL)"; Couric said that the moment in question was a lengthy pause following a question to the group regarding "the ability of convicted felons and those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun." The "beat," as Couric called it, was added for "dramatic effect" by Under the Gun's director Stephanie Soechtig. Couric wrote that although she questioned the pause, she allowed it to be included in the film's final cut – something she regrets.

http://www.people.com/article/katie­couric­apologizes­misleading­editing­under­the­gun­documentary Sl piazza (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done @Sl piazza: This page is no longer protected and can be edited directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've read through stuff and FWIW, I agree that the controversy over these editing issues probably fits here. There's been a second reported incident: http://freebeacon.com/culture/katie-couric-accused-deceptive-editing-second-documentary/

Granted, it seems that right-leaning new media seem to be picking up on this more, but nonetheless it's documented secondary sources. StoneProphet11 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would editing issues with documentaries go here? Couric isn't the editor. If there is actual encyclopedic content to be had from such sources, add it to the article about the documentary. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Couric is the one actually taking the brunt of the criticism in the media. Worth noting as well: there are now reports of similar deceptive editing on the Couric/Soechtig Fed Up as well [14] [15]. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Why would editing issues with documentaries go here? Couric isn't the editor. If there is actual encyclopedic content to be had from such sources, add it to the article about the documentary. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The "editing issues" would go here because the article subject, Katie Couric, is taking the heat for the problems with those documentaries. That's in the sources, and the article should follow the sources, not explain them away. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We must be looking at different sources. The ones I've read don't show Couric "taking the heat" at all, but certainly not for lack of effort by certain partisan websites. From what I've read, Couric doesn't handle the editing of these documentaries; she is just one of several "executive producers" involved with them, and if behind-the-scenes sources are any indication, the creators of the documentaries are actually quietly enjoying the tabloid mini-"controversy". Criticisms about the documentaries should be handled at the articles for those documentaries. What encyclopedic, non-tabloid content, conveyed by the required high-quality reliable sources, were you proposing to convey to our readers about Katie Couric here? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Katie Couric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090723073346/http://www.reliableresources.org/winners09.html to http://www.reliableresources.org/winners09.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119041004/http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270069766/page/1175295284582/JRNSimplePage2.htm to http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270069766/page/1175295284582/JRNSimplePage2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Katie Couric. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140620183858/http://www.powertolearn.com/ask_the_expert/expert_archive/katie_couric.shtml to http://www.powertolearn.com/ask_the_expert/expert_archive/katie_couric.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversies?

It seems noteworthy that there was significant controversy surrounding her editing of her interview with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in which she cut out Ginsburg’s negative statements towards NFL players kneeling during the US national anthem. The controversy was addressed in national news and talk media (not only conservative, but mainstream news and talk shows to include The View).

Credibility issues (or the perception of credibility issues) are material when discussing journalists.

I would be happy to draft the section, but wanted to run it by everyone through talk first. 96.241.74.222 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)