Katie Isn't Thin Enough

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

MrsSpringsteen

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
29,290
Location
Edge's beanie closet
Where are the doctored photos of Charles Gibson to make him look thinner? Anyone?

First solo female anchor of a network newscast (I believe that's the case), and it's still about her weight. Not to mention her looks and outfits.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/couric_watch/katies_extreme_makeover_42842.asp

The left photo is the official first-pic-of-Katie released by CBS at this year's upfront. (TVNewser posted it in May.) The right photo is an edited version of the same photo, from the September issue of Watch magazine, which is owned by CBS.

couricaug29.jpg
 
I hate this crap. Let women be women. It's so stupid.

I feel sorry for women. There's women's magazines telling them how to look for guys, then we have men's magazines telling us men what women should look like.

They're both lying. Don't get me wrong, there are things we can all do to look better, but we should do it because we want to, not because some crap magazine with doctored photos sets the standard.

There, I'm done ranting.
 
I have a good friend that has a high profile job in advertising.

Just about all magazine photos are altered these days


Drudge serves it up
and it can become a talking point on all the AM radio shows
or not

this is such a non story

anyone that tunes in to her newscast will
see her in real time?
 
I didn't find it on Drudge, and I think it is a story that even a woman who has achieved what Katie Couric has achieved is subjected to this by the very company she works for. Where are the doctored, slimmed down photos of male anchors?

This was a CBS magazine, not Cosmo or Glamour

NEW YORK (AP) -- No, Katie Couric didn't suddenly lose 20 pounds.

The incoming "CBS Evening News" anchor appears significantly thinner in a network promotional magazine photo thanks to digital airbrushing.

The touched-up photo of Couric dressed in a striped business suit appears on the inside of the September issue of Watch! which is distributed at CBS stations and on American Airlines flights.

CBS News President Sean McManus said he was "obviously surprised and disappointed when I heard about it."

The original picture was snapped in May and was widely circulated to the media as an official photo of Couric.

Couric, 49, said she hadn't known about the digitally reworked version until she saw the issue. The former NBC "Today" show host told the Daily News, "I liked the first picture better because there's more of me to love."

Gil Schwartz, executive vice president of communications for CBS Corp., said Wednesday in a phone interview the photo alteration was done by someone in the CBS photo department who "got a little zealous."

But he dismissed any notion of heads rolling over the matter.

"I talked to my photo department, we had a discussion about it," Schwartz said. "I think photo understands this is not something we'd do in the future."

He said the photo department "services tens of thousands of photographs every year" for all parts of the company and that it "does a fantastic job."

"The article that accompanies the picture is very responsible, very interesting," he added.

Schwartz said the magazine has a circulation of over 400,000.

While expressing regret, McManus tried to make light of the matter.

"I've asked that three inches in height be added to my official CBS photo," he quipped to the News.
 
Some years ago I was watching the local news on TV with my mom and my grandma. They started criticizing the anchorwoman's hair and outfit, and I told them, "This is exactly why I went into print journalism rather than broadcast journalism."
 
It's not PC to say it, but I've often thought that part of the problem is the the influence of gay men on the fashion industry.
 
financeguy said:
It's not PC to say it, but I've often thought that part of the problem is the the influence of gay men on the fashion industry.

I think you'd really have to stretch to prove this theory...:huh:

If anything it's women, then straight men, and THEN gay men who I would think have influence in this type of thinking.
 
financeguy said:
It's not PC to say it, but I've often thought that part of the problem is the the influence of gay men on the fashion industry.

Are gay men in charge at CBS?

Must have been a gay man who got overzealous with the Photoshop..

Yes women place pressure on themselves to be thin, but who is reducing them to their thinness and their looks when they are in positions of power? Men who are threatened? Who is writing the majority of articles about Katie's hair, legs, and wardrobe choices? Women? Gay men?

It's a sad state of affairs in 2006 that is reflected in this case. It's more than merely one person being overzealous with the Photoshop. The bigger picture is being overlooked.
 
I think many women (myself included at times) impose their own double-standard. We rag about how the media "enhances" photos like this, yet we're always saying how we "feel ugly today" or jokingly comment that we could stand to lose a few pounds.

Personally, I wonder if the photo was edited because they actually had a problem with her looks, or if it was edited simply because they had the ability to do so. What I mean is this - I take senior yearbook photos and I always do "touch-ups", not because I think people are ugly, but simply because if I have the software to do it, why wouldn't I? With my brother's, I smoothed out his face so you couldn't see his acne. With my sister's, I enhanced the lighting, changed her skin tone a bit, and added more sparkle to her eyes. Am I pressuring them to have clear skin or a different complexion?
 
financeguy said:
It's not PC to say it, but I've often thought that part of the problem is the the influence of gay men on the fashion industry.



how so?

and gay men have been in charge of the fashion industry ever since there was a fashion industry, what's different now?
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:

Personally, I wonder if the photo was edited because they actually had a problem with her looks, or if it was edited simply because they had the ability to do so. What I mean is this - I take senior yearbook photos and I always do "touch-ups", not because I think people are ugly, but simply because if I have the software to do it, why wouldn't I? With my brother's, I smoothed out his face so you couldn't see his acne. With my sister's, I enhanced the lighting, changed her skin tone a bit, and added more sparkle to her eyes. Am I pressuring them to have clear skin or a different complexion?

I think that's a bit different than altering a pic to affect how much it appears a person weighs though. Changing the lighting to make it more flattering or covering up a pesky zit th is different than dropping dress sizes.
 
Bonochick said:


I think that's a bit different than altering a pic to affect how much it appears a person weighs though. Changing the lighting to make it more flattering or covering up a pesky zit th is different than dropping dress sizes.

I agree, and yearbook photos have nothing to do with an employer or a career. No offense Lies, I see what you're saying - but Katie is not posing in Vogue. A magazine put out by her employer is sending the message that it's still all about her weight and appearance. Did they ever do that to Dan Rather? They had other problems with him, but I never heard about his weight being any issue whatsoever.

The double standard reigns supreme.
 
From what I have read she had no knowledge they were doing that to the photo- it was without her knowledge or permission. She said in the article that the first photo had more of her to love. I guess the best she can do is laugh it off, but somehow it might be discouraging for her in some way. It would be for me, that's just my outoook on it. Discouraging, disappointing, and humiliating.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I guess the best she can do is laugh it off, but somehow it might be discouraging for her in some way.

I agree. Although she's been in the business long enough she probably has a thicker skin than someone who was fairly new.

Here's a question for some of you, do you think Katie has fed this issue somewhat? I used to watch the Today show quite a bit as I was getting ready for work in the mornings, and saw many segements on how to wear clothes to make you look slimmer, how working women can workout, how to lose that 10 pounds for bikini season, etc...
 
Well all those infotainment shows do segments about losing weight and women looking slimmer, etc. Katie lost weight, changed her hair, wore short skirts, and all that. But now she's anchoring the network news, which is allegedly more serious and her looks and weight should have nothing to do with it-yet all these columns have been written about what she will wear and how she will look. And CBS is taking 20 lbs off of her. It's almost as if some people are so threatened by the first solo female anchor that they have to put her in her place somehow.

I saw last night that ABC slimmed Rosie O'Donnell down in some promo photo for The View. That's ridiculous- everyone knows she's a heavier woman, so what is the point?
 
It's pathetic that there is so much emphasis and focus on how people look and how thin or heavy they are. It has nothing to do with their talent. I would have been offended if I were Katie also, but as was stated in an earlier post, she has been in this business for a long time now and her skin is thicker than someone newer.
 
Physical attraction in a very odd thing sometimes. I think we are all guilty of putting too much emphasis on it to some point.

Interesting sidenote, and I hope I don't derail this thread with this thought, but I was talking to a dear friend of mine who works with the seeing impaired and we were talking about this very same subject.

I made the comment that, "it must be nice to work with people who don't judge people based on looks". She said, "are you kidding?, You would be shocked at how judgemental the legally blind can be." And I was. She told me they still hold "looks" to be very important. Now the difference is, on screen they can't tell so this paticular issue would be moot, but in everyday interactions, physical attraction plays just as much a part as the seeing. She said in fact it's almost worse, because a seeing person may discount a little extra wait or bad complextion if the person has real pretty eyes, but a seeing impaired person won't make that distinction.
 
Off this topic, but on the general topic of Katie's CBS News

According to Drudge..

Plans for the opening week of CBS EVENING NEWS WITH KATIE COURIC have surpassed network executives' wildest dream: Presidents Bush and Clinton, radio king Rush Limbaugh and broadcast legend Walter Cronkite have all agreed to appear, a CBS insider reveals!

A top network source says scheduling of "guest editorials" are still in flux.

But the addition of Rush Limbaugh to the CBS EVENING NEWS is bound to generate maximum commotion and tune-in hits.

"It was Katie's idea to bring Limbaugh in," a top CBS source said on Sunday. "She is very excited he has agreed to appear."

Rudy Giuliani and Bill Maher have also signed on for early editions of Couric.

CBS will issue a press release on Monday confirming details of the EVENING NEWS all-star line-up.


Uh, Limbaugh? Bill Maher? And since when is the newscast like the Today Show? Anything for ratings I guess.
 
Did anyone watch it last night?

Yet ANOTHER comment by a man on her clothes and looks-chubby? :eyebrow:

No News Not the Best News For Katie Couric's Debut

By Tom Shales
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; C01

A title change would seem to be in order. Maybe "The CBS Evening No-News." Or "The CBS Evening Magazine." Or "30 Minutes."

Whatever it was, Katie Couric did a brisk, engaging job of getting the strange new show off the ground last night as, at long last -- and after one of the most relentless hype hurricanes in history -- she debuted as the first woman to be solo anchor of a major network newscast. K-Day had come at last!

Couric occupied a chair that once belonged to Walter Cronkite and, later, Dan Rather, both of whom did newscasts that were much, much newsier. Yesterday, though, was apparently a no-news day in the opinion of Executive Producer Rome Hartman, the staff and Couric herself, since the half-hour began with a "60 Minutes"-style piece on the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The real purpose of this report was to show off Lara Logan, the intensely telegenic reporter who serves as foreign correspondent. She went undercover in Afghanistan, much as Rather had done many many years ago. But as a woman, Logan said, her Taliban hosts "insisted I cover everything but my eyes."

The story was in fact largely about her -- about how dangerous it was to do the story, about what a big, "unprecedented" exclusive it was (Brian Ross seemed to have much the same story on ABC's "World News Tonight" with Charles Gibson) and how she had to tippy-toe away from the camp through a minefield, led by a guide.

Couric, who began the newscast standing up and promoting what was to come, oddly wore a white blazer over a black top and skirt, the blazer buttoned in such a way as to make her look chubby, bursting at the button, which we know she isn't. It was a poor choice , but the lavish newsroom set built as Couric's display case was handsome indeed, gleaming and shiny, with Couric seated eventually at a huge semicircular desk and looking comfortably at home.

From that perch, it appeared, she could cover the world. And when she really does start covering the world, it will be easier to judge her fitness as an anchor. Anchors prove their mettle when guiding viewers through marathon coverage of a crisis, and it is grimly safe to say that time will come. Then Couric will either justify her selection as anchor or make a mockery of it.

Last night, the show simply played to her strengths, chiefly her ability as an interviewer. She had a taped sit-down with liberal columnist Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, who seemed to be trying too hard to "come across" on television, as if he'd just completed TV training.

Suddenly, with no hint at a transition, Couric was talking about executive changes at the Ford Motor Co. and then about the late Steve Irwin, the crocodile expert who died over the weekend when he was attacked underwater by a stingray. These little mini-stories were rammed together with no indication from Couric that she was changing topics. She needs work, and help, at reading off the prompting device and making it clear when the focus is about to shift.

The premiere was too jammed with "new features," as if the producers feared people would give Couric only one night's chance before they ran away to some other option. A segment called "Eye on Your Money" was simply a report by Anthony Mason that proved largely an apologia for big oil. Mason did concede that for all the tribulations the companies have suffered -- hurricane damage and such -- Shell Oil showed a $25 billion profit last year. No tears for them.

Couric was standing again to introduce "something new," which turned out to be the oldest idea in television: Have some well-known or obscure blowhard pop up and do a rant into the camera.

On the first show, it was the overexposed and tiresome bore Morgan Spurlock, who became famous by making a movie in which he ate at McDonald's every day for a month.

How's that for credentials? He carried on about how there is too much arguing and not enough civilized discourse in America, but there was nothing civilized about his piece, which included footage of pro wrestlers battling in the ring.

Spurlock really seemed to be doing a variation on Richard Nixon's unfortunate "Silent Majority" tirade of many long years ago. Couric said that another stale face, that of Rush Limbaugh, would appear in the "free speech" segment Thursday. Oh goody! Set the TiVo now!

Then the show reached its lowest point with an item that Couric had coyly promoted earlier in the day on the CBS Web site: a photograph of Suri Cruise, the previously hidden baby of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. The portrait will be on the cover of Vanity Fair, out today -- so the segment was a shameless plug as well as celebrity trash, the kind of thing better saved for "Entertainment Tonight" and its ilk.

A so-so human-interest piece by Steve Hartman, the schmaltz king, closed the show. Or almost closed it. Gettin' real folksy with viewers, Couric asked them to send in suggestions on how she should sign off the newscast. There was a montage of sign-offs from the past -- including Edward R. Murrow's immortal "Good night, and good luck," even though Murrow never anchored the evening news.

Some people will say that including the image of Murrow on such a frothy, funsy broadcast as the Couric premiere was sacrilege, and that Murrow is spinning in his grave. In fact, if Murrow were going to spin in his grave, he would have started long ago, when "infotainment" first appeared on the TV horizon and newscasters became pop personalities akin to movie stars and actors appearing in sitcoms. Murrow must be all spun out by now. It's been downhill for a long time.

Couric's broadcast did not seem to hasten the decline and fall of TV news, but it didn't offer anything really new, either -- and on its first outing, it didn't offer anything news. A stranger from another planet tuning in the show would have to assume nothing happened in America or the world yesterday except that a photo of Tom Cruise's baby materialized.

Viewers hoping to hate Couric during the long, long countdown to Katie Day had to be disappointed, but so would those expecting a revelation. Coming weeks will tell both how Couric wears in the new assignment, and whether she'll lure younger viewers to a broadcast that has mainly appealed to men who get up to use the bathroom too often at night.

One wants to wish her well on the basis of her tremendous charm, but opening night left acres and acres of room for improvement
 
Back
Top Bottom