Katie Couric

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone really surprised? You don't get a position like she did by being sweet and friendly and nice.

+1 I was surprised by just how nasty her mean streak seems to be, but she's not wrong that one of those young women would have been groomed to replace her. Women are completely disposable in that business, above all as they have the audacity to age.

THIS, the bold. You don't get ahead or even survive in that business without being tough and ruthless on at least some level. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that DCUM thinks a woman cannot possibly be both a kind and nice person in most circumstances, and with "normal" people, and also tough as nails about aspects of their career and colleagues. DCUM is not into any subtleties or contradictions like real humans have. You must be either a perfect paragon of ideal, radiant sweetness or you're a horrible, irredeemable b!$ch and there is zero tolerance here for anyone who dares to be human. Or fallible. Or who ages.

Her book is trashy, it’s what trashy people do, has nothing to do with being tough or ruthless in one’s career.

Also, she gained absolutely nothing by destroying her up and coming colleague’s career, she was set out to pasture anyways as was bound to happen in her line of business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/abovethelaw.com/2021/10/if-katie-couric-wanted-to-protect-ruth-bader-ginsburg-she-did-a-really-bad-job/%3famp=1

This commentary from Above the Law reminds us what was left in the actual interview was damning and cringeworthy—and perhaps a red flag that she should have stepped down back then and spared us the SC situation we now have.

Kind of what I was thinking.

Interesting thought experiment: if Katie had released the full content of RBG's quotes back then would the blowback and subsequent push for her resignation have been appreciably stronger? And, even with that, would it have hastened her actual resignation? I kind of get the impression that she was hellbent on staying and leaving on her own terms no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone really surprised? You don't get a position like she did by being sweet and friendly and nice.

+1 I was surprised by just how nasty her mean streak seems to be, but she's not wrong that one of those young women would have been groomed to replace her. Women are completely disposable in that business, above all as they have the audacity to age.

THIS, the bold. You don't get ahead or even survive in that business without being tough and ruthless on at least some level. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that DCUM thinks a woman cannot possibly be both a kind and nice person in most circumstances, and with "normal" people, and also tough as nails about aspects of their career and colleagues. DCUM is not into any subtleties or contradictions like real humans have. You must be either a perfect paragon of ideal, radiant sweetness or you're a horrible, irredeemable b!$ch and there is zero tolerance here for anyone who dares to be human. Or fallible. Or who ages.

Her book is trashy, it’s what trashy people do, has nothing to do with being tough or ruthless in one’s career.

Also, she gained absolutely nothing by destroying her up and coming colleague’s career, she was set out to pasture anyways as was bound to happen in her line of business.

The people who are making excuses for her are weak. No one expects women in the field to be having pj parties and braiding one another's hair but what she did, repeatedly btw, is ewwww gross Katie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone really surprised? You don't get a position like she did by being sweet and friendly and nice.

+1 I was surprised by just how nasty her mean streak seems to be, but she's not wrong that one of those young women would have been groomed to replace her. Women are completely disposable in that business, above all as they have the audacity to age.

THIS, the bold. You don't get ahead or even survive in that business without being tough and ruthless on at least some level. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised that DCUM thinks a woman cannot possibly be both a kind and nice person in most circumstances, and with "normal" people, and also tough as nails about aspects of their career and colleagues. DCUM is not into any subtleties or contradictions like real humans have. You must be either a perfect paragon of ideal, radiant sweetness or you're a horrible, irredeemable b!$ch and there is zero tolerance here for anyone who dares to be human. Or fallible. Or who ages.

Her book is trashy, it’s what trashy people do, has nothing to do with being tough or ruthless in one’s career.

Also, she gained absolutely nothing by destroying her up and coming colleague’s career, she was set out to pasture anyways as was bound to happen in her line of business.

The people who are making excuses for her are weak. No one expects women in the field to be having pj parties and braiding one another's hair but what she did, repeatedly btw, is ewwww gross Katie.

There are explanations for this behavior as well though. Some studies have suggested that women who work in male dominated fields or companies are more likely to act like mean girls and bully other women in the workplace because of tokenism and the fear that only a few slots for certain demographics are available. Whereas, women in workplaces with more women in senior leadership positions act nicer and more collaboratively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now we learn that she protected RBG.

I think it's insulting that she thought RBG needed protecting.

Really?

Had RBG’s comments aired, she would have likely been labeled a paternalistic racist.

Imagine if any white person said those exact words today. They would surely be canceled.

If any rational person looked at RBG and her career I don't know how anyone would of thought of her as a racist. Couric also has no right to edit someone like that, it's disingenuous as a journalist.

+1,

[Anonymous]

And there is no great demand to hear her dish at The Anthem, tons of seats left to fill.

[Anonymous]

RBG was one of the most overrated women in American history. The way some liberal white women engaged in her personality cult , you'd think her signature was on the Civil rights act or something.

For goodness sake , she was a judge not a lawmaker or an activist—the two groups most responsible for changing society for the better. As a minority , her comments on kneeling athletes did not surprise one bit. Some white-jews aren't noticeably better than what we might expect them to be,despite a history that should've made them less stupid than RBG . Would she have considered a German taking a knee to protest rampant anti Semitism in Europe as dumb ? Probably not .There you have it .

As for Couric, she seems to have an excessively inflated view of what Ginsburg meant to the typical American, hint: nothing. I'm not sure what she thinks she's protecting, what landmark ruling(s)did Ginsburg provide the majority for ? Seriously, why was she a thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RBG was one of the most overrated women in American history. The way some liberal white women engaged in her personality cult , you'd think her signature was on the Civil rights act or something.

For goodness sake , she was a judge not a lawmaker or an activist—the two groups most responsible for changing society for the better. As a minority , her comments on kneeling athletes did not surprise one bit. Some white-jews aren't noticeably better than what we might expect them to be,despite a history that should've made them less stupid than RBG . Would she have considered a German taking a knee to protest rampant anti Semitism in Europe as dumb ? Probably not .There you have it .

As for Couric, she seems to have an excessively inflated view of what Ginsburg meant to the typical American, hint: nothing. I'm not sure what she thinks she's protecting, what landmark ruling(s)did Ginsburg provide the majority for ? Seriously, why was she a thing?

Do you consider current racial tensions in the U.S. to be equivalent to the Holocaust?

[Anonymous]

No one is TV news is nice, anyone who thought otherwise about Katie was a sucker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RBG was one of the most overrated women in American history. The way some liberal white women engaged in her personality cult , you'd think her signature was on the Civil rights act or something.

For goodness sake , she was a judge not a lawmaker or an activist—the two groups most responsible for changing society for the better. As a minority , her comments on kneeling athletes did not surprise one bit. Some white-jews aren't noticeably better than what we might expect them to be,despite a history that should've made them less stupid than RBG . Would she have considered a German taking a knee to protest rampant anti Semitism in Europe as dumb ? Probably not .There you have it .

As for Couric, she seems to have an excessively inflated view of what Ginsburg meant to the typical American, hint: nothing. I'm not sure what she thinks she's protecting, what landmark ruling(s)did Ginsburg provide the majority for ? Seriously, why was she a thing?

Do you consider current racial tensions in the U.S. to be equivalent to the Holocaust?

Anti semitism did not start and end with the holocaust . Go pick a history book and read .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lost any respect I had. Editing RBGs opinions while claiming to be a fan is so disingenuous and ridiculous. Couric is a loser.

You do realize that literally every journalist edits interviews, right?

Do you think they just sit down for exactly the amount of time you ultimately see on air?

Journalists edit the Obamas, the President, world leaders, great thinkers, etc.

I can understand being upset with Katie for telling the world what RBG said after she died and can’t respond. That’s pretty obnoxious imho. But don’t be upset for editing.

Yes, these so called journalists do edit what we hear in their efforts to influence the reputations of those they admire and those whom they dislike.

[Anonymous]

This memoir is a complete dumpster fire. Why would she destroy the tatters of her career by admitting to freezing out female colleagues and censoring RBG? Now she'll have the reputation for unethical journalism following her for the rest of her life. The producers of Jeopardy dodged a bullet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This memoir is a complete dumpster fire. Why would she destroy the tatters of her career by admitting to freezing out female colleagues and censoring RBG? Now she'll have the reputation for unethical journalism following her for the rest of her life. The producers of Jeopardy dodged a bullet!

I saw some commenters elsewhere suggest that perhaps she is a narcissist. Narcissists do not think they are wrong, ever, and would happily share their stories to prove how strong and amazing they were (even when the rest of us are appalled).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/abovethelaw.com/2021/10/if-katie-couric-wanted-to-protect-ruth-bader-ginsburg-she-did-a-really-bad-job/%3famp=1

This commentary from Above the Law reminds us what was left in the actual interview was damning and cringeworthy—and perhaps a red flag that she should have stepped down back then and spared us the SC situation we now have.

Kind of what I was thinking.

Interesting thought experiment: if Katie had released the full content of RBG's quotes back then would the blowback and subsequent push for her resignation have been appreciably stronger? And, even with that, would it have hastened her actual resignation? I kind of get the impression that she was hellbent on staying and leaving on her own terms no matter what.

You never know which comments get pulled up into the zeitgeist and have an outsized impact. One has to wonder if this is the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This memoir is a complete dumpster fire. Why would she destroy the tatters of her career by admitting to freezing out female colleagues and censoring RBG? Now she'll have the reputation for unethical journalism following her for the rest of her life. The producers of Jeopardy dodged a bullet!

I saw some commenters elsewhere suggest that perhaps she is a narcissist. Narcissists do not think they are wrong, ever, and would happily share their stories to prove how strong and amazing they were (even when the rest of us are appalled).

Yes, this makes sense. Trying to stay relevant but not realizing she's trashing her reputation instead of going quietly.