Someone please explain to me why it is necessary to comment about what Ms. Couric was wearing? Tom Shales, had this to say - "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." Please, Tom, stick to writing your column and leave fashion to, well, anyone who has purchased new eyewear since 1986. The Associated Press was a little more restrained, but still felt it necessary to include this comment, "As the end credits rolled, Couric, wearing a white jacket over a black shirt and skirt, was leaning against the edge of her desk, showing her famous legs."
Again, why is this necessary? Yes, she's a woman. Get over it! I can't recall anyone ever even mentioning Dan Rather's legs - at least not in connection with his broadcast. I don't remember any comments about Bob Schieffer's red tie making him look fat either. Why is this somehow relevant when a woman takes over the anchor desk? It certainly says a lot about how our society really views women, doesn't it? Katie Couric may be a highly accomplished interviewer and now one of the most powerful women in the broadcast news industry, but, according to the critics, at the end of the day she's still a chick in a skirt with great legs and a jacket that makes her look fat.