I was once a morning show junkie. Before the morning programs began to air segments online, I would TiVo the shows and watch them in the evening.  I even tried to get a former boss to pay for my purchase of TiVo, claiming that its main purpose was to record The Today Show, Good Morning America and The Early Show.  My borderline addiction was comparable to soap opera fanatics – I couldn’t go a day without seeing what happened during my favorite daytime program. 

While I’m still aware of what’s going on with the programs, I don’t tune in with the same excitement as I once did.  To come clean, I’ve not watched much of TODAY since Katie Couric left the program in 2006.  Having met her (okay, I said “hello” to her as she passed the green room back in the late 90s while accompanying a former client to a segment), I’ve always been in awe of her.  Like me, she is petite, but her personality is larger than life.  She has that rare combination of wit and wisdom and is someone I’ve always admired. 

I have to say I was elated last week when rumors started to emerge that Couric was entertaining the idea of hosting her own talk show.  Her interview with Andrew Goldman in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine confirmed that Couric is considering hosting a syndicated show with her former boss from TODAY, Jeff Zucker. 

Will daily conversations with Couric work in a talk show format?  I definitely think so.  When Couric appeared on TODAY, people tuned in as much for the entertainment value as news value.  Sure, she delivered the news headlines in a manner that only a serious broadcast journalist could, but then she could be seen on the Plaza rocking her four-inch heels and joking around with Matt, Ann and Al.    Her laugh and perkiness became quite the draw. 

In my opinion, a talk show might have been a more natural progression for Couric post-TODAY than an attempt to reshape the evening news – which was much like forcing a square peg in a round hole. I don’t need to rehash the challenges she faced trying to reconfigure the evening news format, enough media outlets have already done that. 

I’m anxiously awaiting Couric’s next move.  A talk show with the seasoned broadcast journalist will definitely have a place in my TiVO lineup. 

I hope I’ll soon be adding Katie back onto my list of “must-sees,” along with my daily dose of Ellen.  Who’s with me?  

A recent article in The Daily News calls the select journalists who attended Tiger Woods’ apology “stooges.” The reporter suggests their agreeing to attend a press briefing during which they’d be allowed to ask zero questions should have earned them “T-shirts reading: ‘2-19-10. I attended Tiger Woods’ Bootlicker’s Ball.’”

The article goes on to say, “There was a time when reporters would not genuflect, not bow down, not adhere to rules set by some celebrity-punk looking to control them. Nor would they listen to some shifty PR flacks or enabling agents, like the ones who look the other way as their married clients morph into womanizing, cheating creeps.”

In the spirit of full disclosure, I know personally one of the three reporters who agreed to attend the “Bootlicker’s Ball.” All journalists are in the business of breaking news. My colleague, who works at Bloomberg News, was the first to write about the apology with this article that scooped his biggest competitors.

Not only was he first with the story, but the piece led to his being interviewed by dozens of other media outlets, including CNN Headline News and Good Morning America. The coverage was great exposure for him and his employer. Plus, he didn’t simply publish Tiger’s statement. He found other people to fill in the gaps for the story he wrote after he attended the event. A stooge? Hardly.

Is the idea that someone in power put restrictions on the media really new? Sure, there are circumstances where reporters won’t acquiesce to the demands of their sources (e.g. they can get the info elsewhere or they know the source needs them more than they need the source). It’s impressive that the Golf Writers Association of America boycotted the event. But, in the era of citizen journalism, Tiger Woods would have found a way to get his story out even if the others had followed suit.

I appreciate the idealistic notion that media should be able to report a story the way they see fit. But I don’t subscribe to the idea that journalists are more easily influenced by people in power today than in the past.