As IF Times

link Sideshow: Wholl take Courics CBS anchor chair? | Philadelphia Inquirer | 04/05/2011.

What, are there no hand puppets available?  In this day of computer generated graphics, isn’t it possible to synthesize a cartoon character to read the news?  Although the job probably pays a pittance of only 10 million dollars a year, can’t they find some aspiring model or journalism student to fill the space?  Wouldn’t it be just as effective to have the weather girl on channel 7 read the news?  To be clear, the person is not expected to make the news, only read it aloud on the teleprompter.  Any dummy can do that as we know. Someone has to enlighten us rubes outside of New York city as to why replacing Couric should be that difficult.

In days gone by, a personality like Walter Cronkite was determined to have credibility when he read the news.  He was a familiar face and and even more familiar voice that brought the news of the world to Americans during the all important dinner hour.  Back then, with only 3 major television networks broadcasting, the delivery of what was news was filtered by ABC, NBC and of course CBS.  The veracity of their versions of events were beyond question.   Of course, in those days, The New York Times was a legitimate newspaper.

This grip on information by the major networks has long become a relic of a quainter time.  As the access to information has opened up to all who are willing to look, the importance and even relevance of the major news networks’ version of events have diminished greatly.  Gradually, people could see and think for themselves (well mostly) what was truly happening in the world and opinions often formed which differed from the offerings of the networks.  If CBS had lost Walter Cronkite during the late ’60’s, it would have been a devastating blow since America hung on to uncle Walt’s every word as gospel.  It can be argued that much of how America viewed major issues of the day was shaped by the utterances of uncle Walter.  To his credit, Cronkite seldom betrayed any personal judgement in delivering the news.  It was apparent that he told it, ‘just the way it was’ as his trademark signoff claimed.

When Couric took over the anchor chair, to great fanfare at the time, her background was that of daytime talk show host on another network.   In that role, she often was in the news herself as a personality and celebrity of the New York media scene.  Couric had to transform herself from perky interviewer to somber newscaster.  She never did seem to be able to bring the gravitas and objectivity of news to the public as did her predecessors.  This of course excludes his nutness, Dan Rather, who began the whole demise of the credibility franchise at CBS. But that’s another story.   During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, she was widely lauded by the left for her apparently revealing question to Sarah Palin about what she read.  The implication was of course, not what she read, but if she read.   While the mainstream media credited Couric with brilliant reportage, it begs the question of whether that same question would be asked of any male candidate.

From that point on, her fate was sealed.  Most of America saw this somewhat condescending event as confirmation of her lightweight talk show background.  Any pretensions to being a genuine news broadcaster was shattered.  Viewers left in droves from the CBS evening news broadcast.  To be fair, the other national broadcasters also suffered the same collapse in viewership, but not as dramatically as at CBS.   Couric had to go.

Getting back to the original point then, how hard could it be to find someone to read the news?  Once the insular types at the networks peer out of their towers in manhattan, they may figure out that the U.S. extends beyond mid town New York.  But it may be all moot because the franchise on being the gatekeeper for the public’s news consumption is long gone.  It’s now true that some of the most significant stories broken today are not by the big news networks, but by cable or internet based operations.   It’s also true that broadcasters do not offer the balanced analysis offered by other information concerns.  To add insult, The National Enquirer, known to many as a gossip rag, has broken some of the biggest news stories of the day.   It’s as if Charlie Sheen became Walter Cronkite.  Come to think of it, Charlie may be looking for a job….

link Poll: Six in 10 say Sarah Palin would be ineffective as president – On Politics: Covering the US Congress, Governors, and the 2010 Election – USATODAY.com.

Not that this is surprising given the source of the poll.  CBS and Vanity Fair are not normally known for their unbiased reportage.  Nevertheless, let’s take the poll at face value.  Let’s accept that 60% do not think that Palin would be an effective President.  We don’t know exactly what the qualifier of ‘effective’ means. 

Does the measure of effectiveness mean the ability to communicate with the people?  If so, this flies in the face of observed events since Palin commands large boisterous crowds wherever she speaks.  She still dominates headlines whenever she makes a policy statement and she’s not even holding elected office.  Her messages are widely popular as manifest by the election of candidates that she endorses.  More importantly, she connects with the people at an emotional level with her simple, unconfused messages about values which resonate with Americans.  Her messages are consistent and do not contradict each other depending on her audience.  In addition, she does this without the famous teleprompter of another famous politician so renowned for eloquence.

Does effective mean the ability to run and administer a government?  She actually HAS done that and by all accounts, very successfully.  While the affairs of a single state do not equate with the affairs of an entire country, there at least is a track record of success and experience. 

Does effective mean the ability to negotiate the U.S.’s position on the international stage?  This issue may be a leap of faith, but given the rhetoric offered by Palin over the past 2 years on the national stage, it’s a fair guess that she would not be as accommodating to nations that are openly hostile to American interests.  It’s a safe bet that the interests of Americans would take priority over the wants and bleatings of some belligerent nation states.   It’s unlikely that there would be equivocation on the position of America on major issues involving its security.

Does effective mean the ability to restore America’s employment picture and to revive old industries and stimulate new ones?  That’s iffy, but in fairness, that unknown is faced by every President.  From the perspective of how jobs are created and what has made the U.S. the dominant economy for the past 80 or 90 years however, Palin’s capitalist views are more likely to nurture confidence  than the socialist, redistributive policies pushed by the present incumbent. 

Does effective mean the ability to rally Americans and restore the pride and confidence of a nation rather than cowering in regret and apology?  Again, a leap of faith, but judging by the present circumstances however, the bar there is set pretty low. 

Finally, according to the left leaning Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/29/AR2010082903848.html  the President’s approval rating hovers somewhere between 34 and 40 percent, about the same or less than those that approve Palin.  So therefore, as many people think Palin is as qualified as the President!  This is after showing the goods for 2 years.  I’d say the poll should read, “Palin equally qualified as the President”.