According to Edward Klein, the real Katie Couric is aggressive, dominant, manipulative, charming, calculating, obsessed with money, vindictive, egotistical, narcissistic, and fiercely competitive. A review of Katie: The Real Story.
That women are oppressed is one of our nation’s greatest, and most cherished, beliefs. It also happens to be a myth. In contemporary America, to be a female is to live like a Spartan among helots. Edward Klein’s new biography, Katie: The Real Story, elucidates the nature of CBS’s grand dame of journalism, Katie Couric, while also documenting the way in which being a woman in our society opens widely the door of privilege.
Of course, the text itself tells only half the story. The media’s bizarre reaction to this work is the other half, and provides compelling proof of our culture’s bias in favor of the fairer sex. In light of the heated journalistic response, the first thing that struck me about this work was the sobriety of Mr. Klein’s narrative. The author’s interjections and opinions are seldom heard. The biographer allows, for the most part, those who know Ms. Couric to describe her and to reveal her psychology . . . which is how it should be.
In fact, the narrator impressed this reviewer as being apolitical. He outlined his subject’s well-known leftist inclinations, but never once refuted her assumptions. Mr. Klein was previously employed by Newsweek and the New York Times, which suggests that he may well share Ms. Couric’s leftward perspective; but that no partisan viewpoint was discernible in these pages is a testament to his fairness and objectivity.
It is baffling why so many commentators were offended by Mr. Klein’s depiction of Ms. Couric. Do we actually expect celebrities to be a mirror image of their PR polished personas?
I grant that the Katie we meet in The Real Story is not an admirable person, yet Klein’s portrayal of her is logically sound. Ms. Couric displays personality traits which accurately correlate with the course of her development. A former colleague noted that she was “one of the most ambitious women I’ve ever met.” In the context of her history, the assessment seems indisputable.
Destiny paired Ms. Couric’s first-rate ambitions with second-rate talent. That is not so uncommon, but, despite marginal looks and an unserious mind, she managed to reach the top of journalism’s status hierarchy. Without a reckless drive to succeed such an ascent would have been impossible.
Unfortunately, victorious outcomes do not mean the end of anxiety for insecure individuals. Their sense of inadequacy heightens when they get what they want. The famous anchor has hid her insecurities within a princess-like shell of entitlement. That too is not so uncommon. Ms. Couric’s flaws are evident in the personality characteristics she showcases. The true Katie is aggressive, dominant, manipulative, charming, calculating, obsessed with money, vindictive, egotistical, narcissistic, and fiercely competitive.
Out of these attributes the ones which have served her best are charm and empathy, but, in all likelihood, they are but a facade. The events of her life belie their existence. As her husband lay dying of cancer — and during the same month in which he passed away — Ms. Couric left for the Bahamas to go on a — girlfriends only — celebration of her fortieth birthday. When she returned she had Judy Collins sing Battle Hymn of the Republic at his funeral; even though her departed husband was a Virginian devoted to the Confederacy.1 A week after his death she had already removed his ring and began wearing it round her neck.
While on The Today Show she duped millions of American women into thinking she was just like them, even though her displays of perkiness and empathy were probably just an act. In one sense, however, Ms. Couric is just like them as her life was imbued with privileges known to few men. She termed her early position as a desk assistant at ABC as “the most humiliating job I ever had.” The reason? She had to answer phones, make coffee, and create ham sandwiches. The horror! Only the word privilege can describe a person who regards the performance of mundane tasks as being acts of oppression.
On another occasion, she felt debased after a network executive made comments about her breasts. What is left unsaid in the account is whether she intentionally displayed them on that day. Her reaction to his statement is far from unique, as being a woman in America means that you can wear whatever you want but maintain the right to become offended should a male make mention of your bared body parts.
During her first few Today Show episodes she tossed “zingers” at co-host Bryant Gumbel. The aggression was unanticipated and without cause. When Gumbel returned fire by saying something about her appearance, she cried foul and said, “I don’t want too much attention paid to my looks — it’s sexist.”
Is it sexist to make fun of someone’s physical features? Of course not. Everyone has an appearance, and if one is sensitive about the way they look then they should refrain from verbally aggressing against others. Ms. Couric’s condition is a classic condition of dishing it out but not being able to take it. Political correctness, along with the elevation of women in our society, results in their being able to get away with this unjust posturing . . . forever.
Ironically, Ms. Couric appears to be obsessed with her appearance. She dresses many years younger than her age, has contracted the services of a personal trainer named “High Voltage” to sculpt her body, wears clothes that are a size too small, reportedly had Botox treatments, and allegedly had collagen injected into her lips. She changes her hairstyles constantly and attributes it to boredom rather than what it probably is — a reflection of psychological instability.
She also wears skirts with a high hemline, but when the media reported this fact she dubbed them (you guessed it) sexist. It is unknown whether the stage hands on The Tonight Show saw sexism in Ms. Couric’s request to cut away the front of Jay Leno’s desk so that the audience could better see her legs. The uber-sensitive Ms. Couric, perhaps in an attempt to prove that every negative word written about her was true, then addressed the crowd by telling them her breasts were “actually real” and that she intentionally wore an outfit “a littler sexier” for the occasion.
Should the reader doubt my statements about female privilege they would be wise to ask themselves what comments about men are deemed “sexist” by our society. Can’t think of any? Neither can I. Sexism is a one-way street in our country. It’s verboten to call a woman certain names like a “b” or a “c” or an “h,”2 but there are no forbidden words when it comes to describing men. The inequities between the sexes have never been greater than they are today.
The real misogynist in our story may well be Ms. Couric. At this point in her reign at CBS, female reporters are estimated to receive “40 percent fewer assignments” than they did when Bob Schieffer was in charge. While at NBC, it was said that “she sends assistants running to the ladies room in tears.” This is to be expected as a 50-year-old diva cannot stay a diva for long if they fail to purge superior specimens from the landscape.
That Ms. Couric puts the “v” in vile is a given, but not in the eyes of the mainstream media. They embrace every tenet of political correctness and regard women as being more in need of celebration than factual depiction.
Salon described Mr. Klein’s biography as being consistent with his oeuvre because he paints celebrities “matching shades of b**ch.” Well, one reason for this may be the figures he chooses to write about. His last book concerned Hillary Rodham Clinton, and no work could do our future president’s personality justice if it did not at least imply the b word. Also apt is the term’s use in reference to Ms. Couric. The network anchor brings innumerable conflicts to work with her and they cannot all be stored neatly into an overpriced Louis Vuitton bag.
There has been little positive in the media’s response to The Real Katie. The Washington Post’s Louis Bayard wondered if a similar book would be written about a man, but there is no reason to wonder about that, as one is currently out. Marvin Kitman’s The Man Who Would Not Shut Up: The Rise of Bill O'Reilly3 was unauthorized and reveals all sorts of things about which the Irish blowhard cannot be pleased. Of course, O’Reilly does not have the luxury of hiding behind PC non-sequiturs as a means to dispel criticism; so, without a link to an ism The Post felt safe to disregard Kitman’s account.
Mr. Bayard also argued, “Klein has made a second career of leaving knuckle prints on famous women.” So what? What’s vital when it comes to reporting is whether or not one has told the truth. The genitals of the people involved should be superfluous to the process. One can see from the positions put forth by The Post that merely depicting a woman in a negative light has become a crime in itself.
When all else fails, as it did with Mr. Bayard’s weak review, leftists personalize their objections. After all, no political movement built solely upon precepts so empty and vacuous that they fit neatly onto protest placards could last for long. The Post concludes that, “Maybe it's time, too, for Edward Klein to find an ambitious woman he likes.” Maybe it’s time for the mainstream media to embrace substance over style, meaning over minutia, and discover the inherent joys of simply telling the truth. Any book that does that is one to be championed.
Let justice be done though the heavens (and PC relics) fall. The Real Story rankles because it depicts . . . the real Katie.
>Katie: The Real Story is available on Amazon.com.
Endnotes
1. That’s not to imply that he was in favor of slavery as he clearly was not.
2. An “h” is what they call it where I live but I think it should really be a “w.”
3. For the record, I read Kitman’s book and thought it was fair . . . and balanced.
veritaseducation@gmail.com
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22chapin%27s+inferno%22&search_type=
Read more articles by Bernard Chapin
Couric - Liberalism Incarnate
Couric's persona, as explained both in The Real Story and in Chapin's review, is quintessentially liberal. And despite what you may think, it has nothing to do with politics, righteous indignation, causes worth championing, or any other virtue carrie…
Trackback by It's Our Wits That Make Us Men | October 1, 2007
I am not a fan or defender of Ms. Couric.
But, I chuckle when I read a claim, that the biography of Ms. Couric shows "the way in which being a woman in our society opens widely the door of privilege." Her experience is in no way typical of American female workers.
This one is especially amusing, because it is true in a way the author probably did not intend: "The inequities between the sexes have never been greater than they are today."
I agree that choosing to flaunt physical characteristics by wearing tight or revealing clothing in a work environment, leaves one vulnerable to comment. Sadly, however, no matter how modest the clothing women wear to work, there are men who will still comment inappropriately and treat women as if they had lesser ability and worth. Women's pay for equal work and opportunities for advancement are still less than men's, especially in certain traditionally male-dominated industries. The facts are obscured by non-objective personnel evaluations, and women taking leave, sometimes for multiple years, from work to have children.
I also chuckled at this one: "She had to answer phones, make coffee, and create ham sandwiches. The horror!"
How do you think a college-educated man would react to the same requests? Especially if his co-workers were not asked to do the same duties?
Comment by gz9gjg | October 1, 2007
Actually, women are not paid less for the same work. Or at least it's not a definitive fact backed up by objective research. The studies done on the subject lump job "categories" together - not exact professions. That means that a female bookkeeper and a male accountant have the "same job". Women also generally work fewer hours than their male counterparts, which contributes to differences in their total income. That women have to take time off from work to have children is not the result of male sexism. You'll have to blame evolution or God, depending on your preference, for that particular inequity. Solution: keep your legs together or try some of the fine contraceptive products available at your local drug store. If you desire children, then I'm afraid you're stuck actually having to gestate a fetus. And when it comes out, it's better done at a hospital facility than a board room. And unlike the proud father, you get paid leave so you can spend a couple of quality weeks with your new child before you toss it into a daycare facility until it goes to school and the state can nanny it for 8 hours a day. It's rough, but what can you say, biology's a bitch (and Isay that in a completely gender-neutral context). Also, in regards to Couric's sandwich making career: I don't know how you got access to her job description from 30 years ago, or how you know that her co-workers were not under the exact same obligations as she was, but in answer to your question, I'd say that if a college-educated man were in the same situation, he either would have turned down the job when it was described as including receptionist duties, or would have sought employment elsewhere where the job was more suited to his skills. Since Couric's college education is specialized in English and History, there may just have been better-qualified candidates for the executive level positions in journalism. Like people whose degree was in, you know, journalism?
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 2, 2007
Since she is so silly, why are you focussing on the topic, and taking the time to write about her? Why not write about something that matters?
Comment by felix | October 2, 2007
I can't help but point to a single quote to show how little of a point G has…
"This one is especially amusing, because it is true in a way the author probably did not intend: “The inequities between the sexes have never been greater than they are today.”"
Right, women are less equal today than before they could vote? That's quite a leap of non-logic.
Comment by WolvenBear | October 2, 2007
Objectively, without accounting for time at work per week or the issue of women taking time off to raise children, women are paid less than men, generally less than 70% of men's pay. Go look up the data.
Some studies claim that even when factoring for child-rearing time off, which presumably accounts for lesser seniority, womens's pay is around 80% of men's.
The pay disparity is somewhat hidden by claiming job descriptions are different, or that that the disparity is due to alleged individual performance differences, but the trends are clear. Look at the top management ranks of American companies: the percentage of women in upper management and board of director positions is far lower than 50%.
WolvenBear apparently thinks the only equality that matters is the right to vote.
The author of the article claimed “The inequities between the sexes have never been greater than they are today", with the gist of the rest of the article that the author thinks women are more privileged than men, based on the example of Ms. Couric.
I find that claim to be ridiculous, considering documented disparities between men's and women's in pay and opportunities for advancement in many industries.
It is right and necessary that women have equal political rights; and I submit women should have equal economic rights also.
Let's examine a hypothetical situation: Say a women is working at the same job as a man, performs it as well the man, and gets paid 80% of his pay, due to just having re-entered the workforce after taking several years off to tend to young children.
Do you think she is offered prices for car insurance, health care, rent, or mortgage rates that are only 80% of what the man is offered? No - she pays the same costs the man does. As a result, she has less ability to save for retirement, her children's college expenses, etc. than the man does.
Comment by gz9gjg | October 3, 2007
Look, you used his quote to make the absurd claim that "inequity is higher than it's ever been." Given that women are allowed to vote, and they didn't use to, among numerous other things that they now are more equal on, this claim is nonsensical. Where they are now more equal than they used to be, which you have to admit…the inequities by definition, CAN'T be worse than ever. And you sound foolish for saying it.
And the claim about economic equality falls flat too. Maternity time alone makes the differences obscure. Add to that that women tend to work less hours, spend more time with children, take other benefits over raises (such as a more flexible schedule), won't take dangerous jobs (that pay more) as often as men, dislike heavy travel schedules, among various other factors, and the "pay difference" doesn't exist. It's really that simple.
Katie Couric is the poster child for mocking this "gap". She is the least qualified anchor out of the big three, runs the least interesting news show with the most amount of puff pieces, and gets the least viewers. Yet she gets the most pay. Hmmmmm.
And when given a basic gopher job (which tend to involve getting coffee and doing menial work), she complained that she was doing…menial work.
We look at firefighting, police and military jobs, and see similar things. A firefighter should be able to carry a person down the stairs. This physical requirement is relaxed for women. Policewomen are not bound by the physical conditions their male counterparts are, despite being in a job where physical restraint of a belligerant is often necessary. Etc.
Look also at sexual harassment laws, which no longer even require a complaintant to show harm done (firing), but just that she's uncomfortable. That a woman can overhear a dirty joke and cry "sexual harassment" is a huge disadvantage to men.
Comment by WolvenBear | October 3, 2007
"Economic equality" does not exist. Unless you live in a command economy, in which case everyone is equally impoverished. Guess what? Men aren't all paid the same amount of money for the same work. Some male executives, who've risen to that position above countless women who deserved the job more, aren't paid the same amount as their co-workers. Two doctors with the exact same degrees are not guaranteed to make the same amount of money, and usually don't. Even those big, nasty, good ol' boy CEO's have pay disparities. People working the same job don't necessarily get paid the same amount. People with the same qualifications don't necessarily get the same jobs. That's the brakes. The only difference is that men don't get the privilege of blaming society for it.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | October 3, 2007
Thanks for reading everybody. Let me answer this in the order they came.
1. I think Mrs. Couric is representative of the way in which women are privileged in America. In the workplace, common tasks such as making coffee or food have been deemed as "oppressive" by feminist ideologues. They are anything but that. When you are paid you labor, and paid time is not about what "you want to do."
2. If women leave for multiple years to have children they should be paid less as they are less reliable employees.
3. I await a PC incorrect study of workplaces which will reveal the disportionate use of sick days by women in relation to men. That has been my experience, women generally take more time off than do men. Has that not been yours as well? This is a factor that should be considered when comparing gender performance.
4. The inequities have never been greater. Women in America have been infantilized by the government and think that hearing offending speech is a cause to recruit the authorities. It is not. If you hear something you don't like you should tell the person you don't like it but its never an excuse to quit working or sue your employer.
5. See the I. Thomas case from this week. 11.6 million in exchange for (supposedly) being insulted. A court would never rule in such a fashion for a man. It's ludicrous.
6. Most men, nowadays, know to say nothing to a woman at work.
7. Regardless of a woman's attractiveness, if she wears baggy clothes few comments would be made about her body parts. Try it and see.
8. Why would you chuckle? I'm a grad school educated man. I make coffee for people all the time. I work lunch duty and pick up the used lunch trays of kids all the time. Doing such things is part of being a worker. It's not demeaning. My fulfillment comes in the form of a check.
Comment by Bernard Chapin | October 4, 2007
9. I don't care what my coworkers are asked to do. I get paid regardless. That's why men work…to survive. We have no one to leech off of and no other means of making it. That's life. Women have been bestowed with privilege in America and don't have to think of such things.
10. I don't think KC is serious at all and neither does CBS who recognize her influence by paying her 15 million a year. She may be a lightweight but she's an influential lightweight. One Katie Couric is more powerful than 1000 Bernard Chapin's.
11. Women work less, are less likely to accept more hazardous work, and less likely to move for their jobs than are men. That's a major factor in any pay differential. More men are in "at need" professions while fixed salary positions such as those in education are dominated by women. If they want more money select more lucrative careers should be the answer.
12. The more socialized the US becomes the less talent and skill matter in the workplace. Let's all hope for more capitalism so talent can shine through.
Comment by Bernard Chapin | October 4, 2007
13. What about the alternative hypothesis for any disparity? That women don't work as hard as men. PC means we can never consider this but if we cared about the truth they we would…and should. It's possible but not probable.
14. Another alternative hypothesis, who spends more time gossiping and talking at work, the man or the woman? Let's explore it and see. Let's do studies and find out. ARe women more likely to see work as a social outlet? If so, they'd make worse employees. Let's fight PC and explore the matter.
Comment by Bernard Chapin | October 4, 2007
Have fun with your studies, Bernard. I'm sure you can make the data show whatever you want, much like the claims of Al Gore and his ilk that "all scientists" agree that humans are causing global warming.
Comment by gz9gjg | October 12, 2007
Whenever confronted with truth, it is always the last sanctuary of the liberal to claim their opponent is biased…or evil.
So, G, you started with an assinine statement…were quickly proved wrong, and now are sulking by calling everyone who argued you down liars.
Classy.
Comment by WolvenBear | October 12, 2007
What an outstanding review Bernard. It is so refreshing to find people who see female privilege as a blatant disregard of reality. It is so obvious in today's world that women seem to believe that employers and others in life exists to serve their every fanciful whim. While women may be "driven" they are never under the threat that man is. Throughout history that imbalance was perfected because men risked alot for women. Now men risk a lot for nothing. But no woman is as privileged, obnoxious, rude, and egotistical as the modern American woman. Meanwhile boys in public schools are being left in the dust whilst girls are being given every possible educational advantage. Women commit horrible wrongs to society and we give them self-esteem training while we send men to hard core prisons. Girl's outlandish behavior, caused by pampering at a familial as well as a societal level, is being dismissed or accepted. When women place themselves in compromising situations the problem that arises is never due to any part they played at all (that is sexism don't you know) but rather due to evil men who prowl dark alleys. Women teachers that molest boys in schools write books and talk about how their dads didn't buy them a fararri when they were 16. It is coming to a head with the privilege bestowed upon the princesses of our modern age. Women expect every advantage without ever feeling as if they are accountable to anyone. It is sad. Finally, when G makes her comments about how "making sandwiches and pouring coffee is something a man would never do" tells one all they need to know about the absurd beliefs that women are taught. It should go without even saying that most all of us (men) who have had a college job or a job right out of college did mundane tasks all the time while making a buck. Note to women: not everybody in life is entitled to be a billionaire CEO who stars in movies and wears high end fashion while walking around New York with bug eyeglasses on and an attitude to match. Get over your selves. Nice work Bernard! It is so refreshing to see a man finally speak the flippin truth. Granted, all of us men put up with this to some extent because we have moms and sisters. But most of you my age (26) and older should be realizing that most women these days aren't like our moms. We also put up with going to prison and paying million dollar tort judgments for hurting woman's self-esteem because we like having sex with women. But it is important to stand up to these women who think that life owes them everything. Watch TV and see the messages that women get; they are destined to have everything whether it be money, cars, houses, movie star boyfriends and birth control. I am in law school and every single sad day I see all the women's laptops up (these are 3rd year law students) with images of celebrities on them. Almost without fail most women are obsessed with glamor and fame and celebritydom. But unlike women of yesteryear today's woman wants none of the burden of being a wife and mom but all of the advantages of being a glorified hooker. In fact that's what most celebrity women are, glorified hookers. Enough said.
Comment by whit1981 | October 17, 2007