‘Prince’ Q&A with Katie Couric

“CBS Evening News” anchor and managing editor Katie Couric sat down with The Daily Princetonian’s Jack Ackerman on Monday morning before her Class Day address to answer questions about her move from NBC to CBS, how much she pays attention to ratings and the growing importance of the internet for the media.

Ackerman: Why did you agree to speak at Princeton?

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Couric: Well, I was very honored to be asked, and it’s such a fine university, and the cast of characters who have preceded me was very impressive, although a bit daunting and intimidating. My nephew graduated from Princeton. His wife Sally worked at the admissions office. I have friends whose children are at Princeton, and it was geographically desirable. Well, that’s really why I think and I think graduations are such an exciting time, and I feel I always feel very, very honored to be able to talk to young people at this really critical juncture in their lives, and I’ve never done anything like this because it’s much more lighthearted. I’ve given graduation addresses, and I’ve tried to be amusing in them, but this was particularly challenging because it really is just sort of a fun event versus you know giving people earnest advice.

Ackerman: How does it feel to be the first woman journalist to serve as sole anchor for a major network’s evening news program?

Couric: You know, I thought it was really important symbolically to have this happen because I think the only way to break down barriers that still exist is to take away the novelty of something. And I thought, no matter what happened, that it was important for viewers of all genders to understand that a woman was as capable as a man in handling this very high-profile position and powerful position in American culture. So it hasn’t been easy. I think that women are scrutinized and criticized a lot more for superficial things than men are. And I think the old expression — Ginger Rogers had to do everything Fred Astaire did but she had to do it backward and in high heels — there’s some truth to that, that we are held to different standards. But you know, I’m really glad I made this move, and it’s been a real learning experience for me.

Ackerman: What have been the most challenging aspects of your move from the “Today” show to “CBS Evening News?”

Couric: I think one of the most challenging things has been just the time that we get for an evening newscast, and there’s so much to fill in. I mean, the things that we plan for and then don’t make it to air are always frustrating. The fact that I can’t necessarily do extensive interviews on a regular basis is hard for me because I think that’s my strong suit, so that’s been really challenging. So I would say that’s been the most challenging thing. And I think initially we tried to experiment thinking that viewers would be forgiving, and I think viewers are forgiving, but I don’t think critics are as forgiving as viewers. So I think some of the things that we tried to do initially, I think I didn’t realize what a traditional conservative — not politically but conservative — audience that the evening news viewer was.

Ackerman: How much do you pay attention to the ratings of your show and the ratings of your competitors?

Couric: I really don’t. Maybe I should pay more attention, but I first of all viewing habits change at a glacial pace. There are many, many factors that contribute to sort of ratings at any particular network which are completely out of my control. So I really have always, whether you know when we were No. 1 at the “Today” show or No. 3 at CBS, I always focus on the content and the quality of the work and what I can contribute to the finished product. I always felt some of our strongest shows when I was at the “Today” show were when we were No. 2 because we took more risks and tried more things and went out on a limb more than when you kind of get into the safe spot of being the No. 1 broadcast. So, you know, obviously ratings are important, but I think I’m always when I think about that I’m very proud of the fact that about seven million, give or take, are watching the broadcast every night. And given the fragmented media landscape, that’s a very impressive number, especially when you look at the numbers of cable which pale in comparison, but because they often create a lot of noise people forget that. But clearly it’s important for anyone going into journalism to stay on top of what’s happening on the internet because it’s completely changed the way people consume information, and I think what’s really challenging is the financial paradigm hasn’t caught up with the editorial construct of the internet, and to support professional journalists, which I think are critically important in our society and in a democracy, they have to come up with some kind of business model that will compensate financially for their work, because I think if you rely totally on bloggers — not that some aren’t completely respectable — but you know it is often opinion passing as fact. There are no editors. Oftentimes they don’t have the experience and background that a writer for The New York Times may have.

Ackerman: It seems you’re talking about an internet focus in the future?

Couric: I think that the two worlds are going to blur even more, and the content that you get on the internet, I think, it will be pretty seamless — that you’re going to be able to get things on the computer and use your computer as a television. And so I think the internet is definitely the place to go in my opinion, but again content hopefully will still be critical, and you can do extraordinary content at a television network today. I’m just not sure how it’s all going to shake out. I think everyone is trying to figure it out.

It is exciting in some ways, but I think with any massive cultural and technological change, it also takes some time to understand it and sort of settle in, and I think we’re still going through a very transformative time, and I think it’ll be interesting to see what happens. As long as quality and integrity and journalistic standards don’t suffer, I’m all for it.

Ackerman: What would you have done differently earlier in your career?

Couric: You know I always wished I had a stronger financial background and understood sort of the world economy a little better and had focused more on that in college or even after college. I think even if you’re a generalist as most journalists are, to have a specific area of expertise is really invaluable. I always say I’m sort of five miles wide and an inch deep, so I think that I would suggest you develop your area of expertise, whether it’s in medical reporting, financial reporting, international relations, cultural trends, technology. It doesn’t mean you necessarily have to be restricted to that particular area of expertise, but it really is nice, especially, I think, in the niche programming that exists today to have an area that you feel really comfortable in and that you can stay abreast of as you pursue you career … Given the economic climate, to be able to be proficient in a wide variety of things also — to be able to shoot and edit and understand the technology — I think that is probably the wave of the future for better or worse.