The News Sorority: Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Christiane... et plus d'un million d'autres livres sont disponibles pour le Kindle d'Amazon. En savoir plus
  • Tous les prix incluent la TVA.
En stock.
Expédié et vendu par Amazon.
Emballage cadeau disponible.
Quantité :1
The News Sorority: Diane ... a été ajouté à votre Panier
+ EUR 2,99 (livraison)
D'occasion: Bon | Détails
Vendu par Deal FR
État: D'occasion: Bon
Commentaire: Ce livre a été lu mais il est toujours en bon état. 100% garanti.
Vous l'avez déjà ?
Repliez vers l'arrière Repliez vers l'avant
Ecoutez Lecture en cours... Interrompu   Vous écoutez un extrait de l'édition audio Audible
En savoir plus
Voir cette image

The News Sorority: Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Christiane Amanpour-and the (Ongoing, Imperfect, Complicated) Triumph of Women in TV News (Anglais) Relié – 30 septembre 2014


Voir les 4 formats et éditions Masquer les autres formats et éditions
Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Format Kindle
"Veuillez réessayer"
Relié
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 29,81
EUR 18,56 EUR 19,28
Broché
"Veuillez réessayer"
EUR 17,69

Descriptions du produit

Extrait

***This excerpt is from an advance uncorrected proof***

 Copyright © 2014 Shelia Weller

INTRODUCTION

The News You Give Begins with

the News You’ve Lived

Diane, Christiane, Katie: 1969, 1997, 2000






I. Pushing Past Grief: Diane, 1969


Twenty-three-year-old Diane Sawyer (she used her real first name, Lila, ironically, only in affectionate letters) was working as the first ever full-time female news reporter in her hometown of Louisville, Kentucky— on WLKY, Channel 32—in mid-September 1969. She had been on the job for two years, and she—a Wellesley graduate and former beauty queen— was itching to leave for a bigger opportunity, in the nation’s capital. Still, Diane’s years at WLKY had not been uneventful.

Louisville in the late 1960s had a roiling temper. Some of its residents were hell-bent on overturning the recent federally mandated civil rights advances. When black demonstrators peacefully marched through the streets to protest the stubbornly still segregated neighborhoods, angry whites rushed them, bearing swastikas, hurling bottles. On top of that, the country had just passed through a nightmare of a year, and Diane Sawyer of WLKY had reported on all of it.

Diane and her colleague Bob Winlock—who rejected being “the black reporter” as much as she disliked being “the female reporter”—witnessed painful backlash against advances they had both been a part of. Diane was kept off the riot-scene beat by her gallant bosses—at least one frontline reporter had gotten beaten—but the city’s racial anguish was on clear display everywhere, including during the emotionally fraught press conferences she covered for the station.

Violence became commonplace. Early in her tenure at WLKY, Martin Luther King Jr. had been spat upon by a little white girl who couldn’t have been more than seven. During another visit, the civil rights leader’s skull had barely evaded a rock hurled through his car window (he later held the rock high and pronounced it a “foundation” of his struggle there). Then, of course, came Dr. King’s murder—close by, in Memphis—and that of Bobby Kennedy, in Los Angeles, during that surreally violent patch of spring to summer 1968. “Diane was disconsolate” at both assassinations, the station’s general manager, Ed Shadburne, says. Still, she dutifully went out to get person-on-the-street responses. That was being a reporter: Tuck in the pain and do your job. You were a witness.

But that was the ironic thing. Diane had already been a witness— indeed, a participant—in some amazing ground-level integration gains almost a full decade earlier. Her junior high and high school, Seneca, had integrated startlingly early, in 1957, well before the city’s neighborhoods, restaurants, restrooms, and theaters had stopped barring blacks or roping them off in dingy “Coloreds” quarters. By a fluke of the school’s newness and geography, the 1957–1963 Seneca kids (“a third white, a third Jewish, a third black,” the alums today like to proudly exaggerate) and their teachers were on their own, improvising a racial amity.

In 1958, when Diane was in the eighth grade (four years before James Meredith’s federally assisted singular integration of the University of Mississippi), white boys in ducktails and low-slung jeans had written GO HOME, NIGGER! on the walls when the first black students bravely but nervously entered, and some of the kids were beaten. But by the time her class reached eleventh grade, in 1961, the students were protesting restaurant segregation together. When the boys’ basketball team traveled to racist Kentucky towns for away games, the white players refused to go into the coffee shops that didn’t allow their black teammates; they all ate in their bus. Now, in 1969, the still resonating killings of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy seemed like a Molotov cocktail hurled against those fragile, cherished Seneca High advances.


. . .


Diane’s family was her stable haven during a period of violence, regression, and sadness. Even as a working reporter four months shy of twenty-four, she was still living at home with her parents.

The elder Sawyers had come to their security and respectability the hard way. Erbon Powers Sawyer and Jean Dunagan Sawyer had grown up during the Depression in dire poverty in the Appalachian Mountains of Kentucky, just north of the Tennessee border. Diane’s father was one of nine siblings. Diane’s mother, whose parents had the folksy names of Foxie and Norma Belle, was one of four daughters. The Dunagan children teetered on the brink of starvation. “There were sometimes only pennies and a few potatoes in winter—there were bruises, real bruises in that life” of theirs, Diane has said. Erbon and Jean had limited themselves to two children. Diane’s two-year-older sister, Linda, was the vivacious, prettier girl; Diane was the adoring little sister—circumspect, awkwardly tall, her poor eyesight requiring thick glasses.

The Sawyer family was comfortable but not seriously prosperous. The bar was very high in Louisville, a city of century-old debutante balls and Kentucky Derby Winners’ Circle families of six generations of gentry who patronized the exclusive fox-hunting clubs in Lexington. Diane’s father had made it up from a tiny junior college all the way through law school, and by 1969 he had long been the Jefferson County judge—Judge “Tom” Sawyer his jaunty sobriquet. Jean Sawyer—“Mrs. Sawyer” to decades of students—officiated at the blackboard at Hite Elementary. She was known as the best third-grade teacher in the city.

The Sawyer family was deeply Methodist. Diane had attended Methodist Youth Association camp, and, as busy as she now was as a reporter, she still made it to practice two evenings a week to blend her gifted soprano, on classic hymns, with a mélange of other voices in the St. David’s Church–based choir called the Motet Singers. When Diane was growing up, the Sawyers had hosted home Bible meetings on Sunday and sometimes Wednesday nights at their home, while their family church, St. Mark’s, was under construction. “Purpose” was a word heard in many sermons. The ideal—to live a life “of purpose”—was also fortified by Judge Sawyer.

“Diane’s father was the one who really put the idea of ‘purpose’ in her life; he was her moral compass,” says her close friend ABC producer Mark Robertson, on the basis of what she has told him. “She always says, ‘Those are real lives at stake!’” of her responsibility to the people whose stories she is telling on television. “That came from her father.”

Judge Sawyer was a serious man—a thoughtful intellectual. Diane’s love of D. H. Lawrence and e. e. cummings seems to have derived from his respect for literature. Diane was very close to him, a closeness amplified by the serendipitous fact that she was the spitting image of his sister Lila, after whom she’d been named. She’d even tried law school for one semester, mainly, friends say, because law was what he did.

Judge Sawyer was paternal in an old-fashioned way. Just after Diane had been hired at WLKY, he had pointedly dropped in one day, unannounced, on the station’s general manager to make good and sure that this man who’d hired his daughter did not have any designs on her. He was a fierce Republican—Diane’s eventual, abiding loyalty to Richard Nixon, incomprehensible to so many, owes much to his strong party affiliation. Yet the judge was not stern; he had a palpable sense of compassion. The judge’s “love for his family, intellectual curiosity, and evenhandedness were as perfect as a person’s could be,” says Diane’s high school English teacher and confidante, Alice Chumbley Lora. Finally, Judge Sawyer had given Diane the yardstick by which she chose her profession. “Answer three questions,” he said one day. “One: What are you passionate about? Two: What can you have adventure doing? Three: What can you do to make a difference?” Four decades later she would recount those unforgettably impactful words to a young ABC News female protégée.

Diane’s mother was perhaps an even greater influence. Jean Sawyer was not an intellectual (“I never saw Mrs. Sawyer reading a book,” one friend says), but she was a seizer of life, an ambitious perfectionist—and Diane was awed by this. “Growing up, I didn’t have distant idols, I had proximate ones,” Diane once made clear.

Jean Sawyer had a tremendous hold on her daughters. “Diane’s mother was a very, very aggressive woman. She was a force of nature,” says Greg Haynes, a Louisville friend whom Diane dated in college. “She pushed her daughters into all these beauty contests.” And lessons: Diane took piano, ballet, tap, voice, classical guitar, and fencing, sacrificing her social life for the palette of activities her mother lined up. “Mrs. Sawyer was a 1950s version of the Tiger Mom,” says one who knew the family: pushing her daughters, using criticism to make sure they did their best. Every opportunity Jean Sawyer hadn’t had, she made sure her daughters did have. “Mrs. Sawyer was very ambitious for her daughters,” Haynes says. “She was extremely devoted to their achievement.” Sometimes it seemed that was all she cared about. It was as if so much insecurity had suffused Jean’s and Erbon’s youths, the opposite would now be fiercely willed. A pristine security, unmarred by lack of opportunity—and certainly unmarred by tragedy—would be obtained for the Sawyer girls, come hell or high water.

And then, on September 23, 1969, that plan—that dream—fell apart in an instant.

Diane’s father had risen early that morning and gotten into his car to drive to work. The route was familiar enough to be rote; he had driven it innumerable times. Somehow, this morning, something went very wrong very fast. Minutes from his home, while ascending an overpass above the interstate highway, his car suddenly veered and shot off the unshielded bridge abutment, over the overpass. Did the judge fall asleep at the wheel? Did a tire blow out? Whatever the cause, rumors would circulate, all unconfirmed, that the fatal plunge was a suicide.

Louisville in 1969 was a small town when tragedies happened, so it was not surprising that the first newsperson who heard of the accident happened to be a member of Diane’s Motet Singers: Bob McDonald, a reporter at radio station WKLO. He was announcing the morning news when the bulletin came in that the judge’s car had plummeted and he’d been taken to General Hospital, where Diane and Jean were now rushing. Judge Sawyer’s death was announced on WKLO; then Jim Smith, Diane’s WLKY assignment editor, assumed the grim task of filming the removal of his junior colleague’s father’s destroyed vehicle for airing on the very newscast, that evening, to which Diane normally would have contributed.

WLKY’s news director, Ken Rowland, rushed to the Sawyer house to pay a condolence call. The women were “in shock more than anything,” he recalls, like “any other family who’s just lost someone in a tragic accident that there’s no real explanation for.” Diane’s friend Greg Haynes hurried to the funeral home. “Diane was very distraught,” he says. “She was devastated.”

At Judge Sawyer’s funeral service the Motet Singers performed one of his favorite songs, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” The judge had been a navy officer in World War II and he was a border-Southern post-war Republican—which meant: anti-Dixiecrat. He’d stood up for some ideals that were regionally unpopular. Choir member Celia McDonald re- members, “The family”—Jean, Linda, Diane—“was just crushed” as they sat in their pews through the service.

For Jean Sawyer and her daughters, this grievous loss was also perhaps a grim reminder: For all the effort taken in thwarting them, storms of awful luck, like Depression winter winds, could still destructively whoosh out of nowhere in a heartbeat. Diane’s good friend ABC executive Phyllis McGrady views this moment as a turning point: “They lost their husband and father, these three real Southern women: charming, delightful, perfect manners yet unbelievably determined.” From this point on, Jean taught her daughters “they didn’t have to find a man to lead them through this world,” Mark Robertson says Diane told him. This was not your typical midcentury Southern mother-to-daughter lesson—proper young women in the region at the time were supposed to marry upon graduation from college—and it was one that Diane took to heart, with good result. She would become enormously successful as a single woman and would not marry until she was forty-two. In the wake of her father’s death, Diane’s determination leapt into overdrive. She surprised everyone by returning to the WLKY newsroom sooner than expected. Jim Smith recalls, “She was not out that long. She was determined to go on and do her job and we respected her for that.” Work emerged as an ennobling, distracting, consoling—and healing—device.

Dogged dedication would become Diane’s defining characteristic, at once a key to her remarkable success and a challenge for her colleagues. Even now, long past the years of earning her due, Diane barely sleeps, is known to e-mail staffers in the middle of the night, and works (says a male producer whom she fired) “harder than ten people.” That dedication would guide her journey—and an eventful journey, artfully navigated, it would be.

When this high-achieving Louisville girl had gone on to Wellesley College, she’d encountered Northeastern elitism (a little discomfiting at first) but had absorbed its useful value system, and had won distinction as a singing star. Then she utilized her instinctive ownership of the brand-new ideas about women and ambition during her two years at WLKY. Next—after her father’s death—she would blend personal independence with a political conservatism unshared by most of the emerging journalists of her generation, and she would work loyally, for eight years, for the most disgraced president in recent history. In that crucible—playing defense against an aggressive and triumphant press corps—she would sharpen her intellectual fighting skills. After that, she would meld her daunting work ethic with a deft humility in the service of proving herself to highly skeptical colleagues at her first major national news job. From then on she would soar, becoming, over the decades, a star in every TV news format, minting a compelling persona that was at once glamorous and serious—and winding up in the pinnacle position as a 6:30 anchor.

Throughout, she has been impelled by that Methodist-sermon word— her father’s word, purpose. It’s a simple word, employed by a complex woman. Nicknamed the Golden Sphinx, Diane incites awe for being an unsurpassable player of the chess game of career machinations. But while her seductive charm and elegant indirectness are legendary, so is her generosity. Not everyone who has worked with Diane trusts her, though nearly all of them respect her.

She witnessed fickle loss in her family and fickle cruelty in her community: mysteries that make a person seek answers to troubling questions. She was “never not sophisticated,” even as a poodle-skirt-wearing small-city girl, says her hometown friend Greg Haynes, and she married one of America’s most sophisticated men. Her curiosity, both about the painful mesh of agency and fate and about the world’s wide swath of arts and politics, is, she has said, why she keeps working. “Diane is the most curious person I’ve ever worked with,” Jon Banner, her original executive producer at World News, declares. And it is becoming more and more a curiosity of “purpose.” Her parents’ vanquished early hardship, her father’s death, the racial strife in Louisville: Those imprints would impel her to investigate social injustice and the deprivation—and stamina—of vulnerable children, resulting in award-winning specials that would become her mature career’s proudest achievements. The more years that passed from her days in Kentucky churches, the more notches carved on her belt of urbanity and accomplishment, the more she circled home.

Not too many years ago, a friend of Diane’s heard that a close relative of his had died in a car crash like the one in which Erbon Sawyer perished. The friend was distraught. Diane was tough with him, but it was a hopeful toughness. “Look at me!” she ordered. “You can turn your pain into purpose!” She even repeated the exhortation, word for word. The friend, who didn’t know about Diane’s own swift return to work after she’d been devastated by her father’s 1969 death, was so struck by her mysterious adamance—and her passionate use of that folksy homily—that he muses now, “I don’t know where she got that. . . .”



II. Pushing Past Danger


It was September 27, 1997, and Christiane Amanpour was walking toward a building in Kabul, Afghanistan, that was supposed to be a women’s hospital. She was led there by the Red Cross and the European Union, whose members were increasingly concerned that the aid they were giving to support Afghani women was in fact being siphoned off for nefarious purposes. Afghanistan’s new Islamist government—the group that was now in control of the lower two-thirds of the country—had a sonorous name barely known to most Americans at the time: the Taliban.

But if American viewers didn’t know the Taliban, they did know thirty-nine-year-old Christiane Amanpour, particularly through her reporting several years earlier, from the grievously embattled little country of Bosnia. She’d cut a distinctive image on CNN for half a dozen years now. In a TV landscape of neatly coiffed and perfectly made-up, often blond, suit-jacketed stateside female CNN anchors and only male war reporters, there she was, in “that ratty old parka that she wore three winters in a row,” as her friend and Bosnia colleague Emma Daly affectionately recalls it. Her thick black hair was as mussed as one would expect for someone standing not far from exploding mortar shells; her black eyes were intense; her approachably attractive face was bare. “Most men on TV wore more makeup than she did,” says a man who worked with her. American audiences were used to that deep, emphatic, English-accented voice of hers. It was an arresting voice—“posh and exotic” as her early CNN friend Sparkle Hayter describes it; “a voice,” her confidant and colleague Pierre Bairin says, “that could command an army.” She had reported the intentional rapes of women and the targeted killing of children, the constant shelling, the unique awfulness of a war launched against civilians in the middle of a European city, Sarajevo. She had reported the ethnic cleansing of eight thousand Muslim Bozniak boys and men during what came to be known as the Srebrenica Massacre, and she had pushed and pushed CNN into staying on the story and on subsequent stories she’d reported on atrocities, mostly with child victims, in Rwanda, Ghana, and Uganda.

Her impassioned reportage had implicitly exhorted American viewers to attend to global strife, during a time when celebrity crime came to dominate the news. This was the 1990s, the era of the Tonya Harding case, the O. J. Simpson case, and the JonBenét Ramsey case. For Christiane, global news was personal. Her family had been forced out of Iran with the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and with an exile’s perspective she made it her mission to find stories of injustice and tell them in a way that would make Americans care.

The Pentagon had started tracking her country-hopping on a map; she anticipated hot spots for them. A jaunty rhyme had been bandied about: “Where there’s a war, there’s Amanpour.” And a concept had been coined: the Amanpour Factor, meaning if she was there, the international community had better respond with humanitarian aid or else they’d be embarrassed. The formula, she found, did not always work. In Rwanda, the genocide coverage had failed to inflame the American public with the sympathy and foreign aid it deserved. She was determined to not see another atrocity neglected, as Rwanda had been, and it was this she had in mind as she covered this new story: Afghanistan’s Taliban.

Walking to the building along with Christiane were a dozen or so European Union and Red Cross officials and two of her CNN colleagues, cameraman Mark Phillips and producer Nic Robertson. Nic had been Christiane’s reporting partner when she went into Iraq toward the end of the first Gulf War. She had met Mark in 1993, while covering Bosnia.

Christiane was never incautious or impetuous; she was the opposite of the thrill seeker that war reporters are stereotyped to be. Still, despite her realism about danger, she was unusually calm and steady when danger did strike. Mark had worked with her a lot in Bosnia and he had never seen her genuinely frightened. “She had no overbearing emotion—everything she did was measured,” he says. Did this come from being the responsible— even venerated—oldest of four sisters? Or was it a result of her unusual upbringing? Amanpour had been raised in stable, affluent Iran before her world came crashing down. After the Revolution, she had scrambled to relocate, living first in England with her family and then in the United States at college, where, among a glamorous and privileged clique, she managed to display an enviable aplomb. Her traumatic, globe-trotting years would instill an unusual resilience, which came in handy while she battled her way on air as a young, foreign reporter, and proved critical once she entered the high-stakes field of war reporting. It was in Bosnia that Christiane became valued for her on-air coverage. Bosnia had made Christiane a cruasader and a member of the conflict-reportage community that she would come to consider a real family. Bosnia had given her her calling, and now she was continuing with it, as she approached the Kabul hospital for women.

Except: This was not a hospital.

Once they walked past the facade, they realized that “the building was a half-constructed shell,” Mark Phillips says. He and Christiane and Nic “saw no women in distress.” In fact, they didn’t see a single woman, in distress or otherwise. Three so-called security guards boxed them in—blocked Mark, Christiane, and Nic from moving farther and from retreating—and one of them shouted to a farther-off sentry, “The foreigners are here!” Christiane, Nic, Mark, and the EU and Red Cross personnel who accompanied them were surrounded. In five or ten minutes Taliban militiamen careened through the streets to the site, jostling up and down in the open backs of their flatbed trucks. They stormed the building shell, shouting wildly, pumping aloft their Kalashnikov automatic rifles—AK-47s. One of the men, sighting Mark’s running camera, grabbed it from him, then struck Mark on the head with his rifle—once, then a second time. Christiane stood to the side, watching silently. “Christiane and I had been in these situations before. If you got involved you were going to get whacked,” Mark says.

Fear now rippled wordlessly through the group of Westerners: All of this furious machismo was hip-shot; there was no order or logic to any of it. It was one thing when fundamentalist or fascist regimes had rules; they were at least consistent, and you were forewarned. But here, as Emma Bonino, the European commissioner for humanitarian affairs, who was one of the besieged, recalled, “No one was in charge.” This was “a situation of random terror.” Christiane and the others were now loudly declared “under arrest.” The official charge was photography, which was now apparently illegal (especially photographs of women, though there were none in the hospital). More realistically, the militiamen were protecting themselves from being exposed for extorting the Red Cross funds.

Christiane, Mark, and Nic were pushed by the Taliban into the Red Cross van that had delivered them there. The Red Cross workers tried to stop them. The Taliban threatened to shoot the Red Cross workers.

The van driver, rifle to his back, was ordered to drive the detainees to a large field, where they were herded out by the Taliban and forced to sit in formation in the sun.

One of the armed men walked up to Christiane and stared at her and spat out the words—in Dhahri, a language close enough to her native Farsi for her to know it—“You’re Iranian!” It wasn’t her celebrity that made him ascertain this. “Christiane has a certain look—they just knew,” Mark believes.

As an Iranian and a foreign woman, Christiane was a double target for the Afghan Arab members of the Taliban, who were particularly vehement and who, as a result of complex recent history in the Muslim world, hated Iranians. The man looked at her, ran his finger across his own neck, gesturing I am going to kill you. He walked slowly around the group, staring at her, circling while Christiane averted his gaze. She stayed astonishingly cool, but he did not relent. “I’d been with Christiane for years, and I had never seen her nervous,” Mark says. “Now she was. She was very nervous.”

The fear of losing her life was particularly pointed at this moment. For years—all through her twenties and thirties—Christiane had concentrated on her work. She believed she might never marry or have children and she was pretty okay with that. To be sure, she’d had lots of romances during these years—with journalists, photographers, dashing men, heroic men, single men, and, if rumors are to be believed, at least one married man. She’d been the subject of a roman à clef in which she’d been a droll, swaggering femme fatale. Then she met Jamie Rubin, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s spokesman. They immediately clicked. Considered one of Washington’s most handsome bachelors, he was besotted right away. Though Christiane and Jamie were often in different parts of the globe between their patches of time together, the intensity of the romance was such that, when they were together, even their cynical journalist friends were moved to render over-the-top appraisals. “If you walk between them, you could get burned,” said Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen. “It’s a zoning violation.”

And now, two months after falling in love, here she was: being threatened with death in a field in Kabul.

The Afghan Arab’s threats escalated from gestures to words. He walked around her and said, “Iranian! I’m gonna kill you! I’m gonna slit your throat!”

Mark and Nic both felt very afraid for her—and helpless. In the past, they had defended her, even if she didn’t need it. What could they do now?

Two of the detainees managed, sometime over the next few hours, to call the Taliban foreign ministry. When that agency declined to help, someone in the group placed a stealthy SOS call to EU headquarters. Two and a half hours into their ordeal, three male wire service reporters from the AP and Reuters strode into the compound. The Taliban came to understand that holding a group of EU and Red Cross workers hostage would get them unwanted media coverage and would promptly end their funding. After their hours of bravado, the Taliban caved on a dime. The captives were released. Mark was given back his camera—miraculously, almost hilariously, it was still running! The militiaman who’d confiscated it had never thought to turn it off.

Back at the UN safe house, “Christiane was relieved that the long ordeal was over and her antagonist was gone. But she was very calm,” says Mark. Once she realized she was safe, it was back to the job. They had gotten footage! Mark had observed this kind of recovery from Christiane before.

“Nothing fazed her,” he says. “She does not have a roller-coaster personality. It was just Christiane.” Once again, she had survived a near-death experience and kept her wits about her.



For the next ten years, Christiane—soon married to Jamie and soon after that a mother—would report from a staggering number of conflict zones around the world, probably more than any other war reporter in history and almost certainly more than any other woman with a young child, a conundrum that she, a devoted parent, continually tried to reconcile. She worked outside the day-to-day in-house TV news establishment and was a singular, sometimes intimidating, presence—“a combination of bullishness, charm, manners, and a strong moral code,” as her friend the English novelist Bella Pollen puts it.

She also dared fly in the face of the assumption that a female professional had to be self-effacing. “I have spent ten years in just about every war zone there was,” she said, accepting the Edward R. Murrow Award in September 2000. “I have made my living bearing witness to some of the most horrific events of the end of our century. . . . I’m so identified with war and disaster that wherever I go, people say, jokingly, that they shudder when they see me. U.S. soldiers . . . joke that they track my movements in order to know where they will be employed next. I calculated that I have spent more time at the front than most military units.”

It was when, in 2009, she took a job inside the system that she struggled. After seventeen years in the field, she had more than earned the right to an anchor post, and to a relief from the dangers and the family stress of nonstop travel. Like ex–war reporters before her—Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Peter Jennings among them—she was ready for a prestigious desk job. But Christiane would find that years of experience and momentous accomplishments didn’t make it less hard for foreign-accented women—and assertive, no-nonsense women—to succeed in traditional high-status posts.

Every bit as ironic as being threatened with death right after you’ve just fallen in love is the fact that you can excel at the most dangerous, public policy affecting investigatives and yet fail at the safe and the chatty. Her response to challenge, however, carries echoes of Diane Sawyer’s earnest exhortation to “Turn your pain into purpose!” Christiane knew struggle, and she had never run from it before—not as a young exile, or as a scrappy minor-beat reporter, or as the world’s leading conflict journalist. “Never be afraid of failure or loss,” she has counseled firmly. Instead, “Use it.” Just like she did.



III: Pushing Past Tragedy


It was around ten p.m. on a weekday night in the spring of 2000, and Katie Couric was sitting in the greenroom of The Tonight Show, a plastic bib encircling her neck, her light brown hair about to be hot-combed, a makeup artist doing a touch-up. She would be going on Jay Leno’s show as a guest in a half hour. Improvised humor was one of the strong suits of the Today show host who, now at forty-three, had been the undisputed queen of what the TV industry simply calls “Morning” for nine years. She’d virtually grabbed that title the minute she ascended the seat as a chipmunk- cheeked, pregnant thirty-four-year-old from out of nowhere in 1991.

Morning—seven to nine a.m. on the three networks—is one of the most surprisingly hard to expertly master genres of television. The host is required to be an emotional quick-change artist, segueing from serious news to cooking segments to human interest pieces to celebrity interviews and back again in crisp, tiny, majority-live time parcels. The tone is intimate yet professional, funny but never tasteless; the image projected must be relatable to the diverse viewership that becomes possessive of the morning stars and sees them as presumed family members.

Morning is also the networks’ cash cow; and while, right now, Katie was actually beginning to tire of the format, she was never more in her glory, never more in her prime. Her Today position had fed her love of attention, had gratified the tremendous ambition she’d had to be a TV news star—an ambition she’d nurtured since childhood. It had made her a famous, wealthy woman, and, perhaps most important now, it had served as her bully pulpit to launch an audacious public health campaign in honor of her late husband, Jay Monahan. She had recently done something that would have been unthinkable from anyone but her—she’d had a colonoscopy on live TV, to acquaint viewers with the little-understood, much- avoided procedure that might have saved her forty-two-year-old husband’s life and could so easily save others.

Hanging out with Katie in the greenroom was her good friend and colleague Lisa Paulsen. Tall, blond, and, like Katie, high-spirited, Lisa was the president and CEO of the Entertainment Industry Foundation, a major philanthropy. Lisa and Katie were laughing and joking while Katie was getting her makeup done. As much as the two enjoyed gossiping and talking shoes-to-die-for (Katie was an almost in-your-face “girlfriend girl”; she had a posse of friends, many from college, with whom she regularly lunched), Katie and Lisa had become close through a serious mission a year ago: raising money for cancer awareness, prevention, treatment, and research.

It was good that Katie was in an easy mood tonight, Lisa thought. All of Katie’s friends were protective of her; they knew that Jay’s death two years earlier had not stopped hurting. Katie and Jay had been having marital problems just before his out-of-the-blue diagnosis, and though the instant perspective that came with his direly advanced illness had swept those problems away, Katie was still almost certainly racked with the regret and guilt that had intensified her grief. Would we have fought if we’ d known this was coming? the healthy survivor in such a situation often thinks.

It was an inconceivable loss. Jay, despite their period of conflict, had been the love of her life and her steady complement and reality test (sometimes her disapproving, behavior-correcting reality test) when fame became disorienting. What’s more, she was now the single parent to two daughters, ages six and two at the time of his death. This was no small thing. Katie had had an uncommonly normal childhood. She was raised in surburan Virginia, the youngest of four children in a happy nuclear family—working dad, stay-at-home mom—that was rare even during the decade, the 1960s, that represented the last moment that template was the norm. She’d always had a smart aleck’s provoking wit, and over the years it could be ascribed to different sources: initially to youngest-kid-in-the-family indulgence and attention lust. Then as she came to understand challenge, first as the only sister not accepted into an elite university, her humor acquired an edge. This sharpened when she began her career in news and found herself in the role of the perennially underestimated striver at one television station after another. Fantastically ambitious—and wily—Katie alone believed in the depths of her seriousness and talent. Her drive and pluck became her way of proving herself, and it carried her to Today, where she would defy all expectations.

When Jay died, everything changed. His death meant that “my first four decades of life”—those ridiculously lucky years!—“seemed to be getting some kind of psychic payback” from the redistributive hand of fate.

Now Katie’s irony—the sting in her appraisals, the woundedness under those barbed jokes—had a deeper resonance. People could call her “perky” all they wanted—she knew she was substantial. She had gone through more tragedy than her sunny persona suggested. In a sense, Katie had a secret self: Let them think her breezy and trivial; the more she went through, the less the clueless stereotypers could touch her.

Not that Katie had time—or cause—for bitterness in the spring of
2000. She was too busy being a single mother; an aggressive, consummate professional on her seven to nine a.m. show; and a passionate cancer activist. And she knew that her lot as a widow with children was enormously eased by the outsized resources she commanded.

Not only did Katie have money and public respect to help her through this period, she had family—close family. During the months of Jay’s deepening illness, a particular source of help was her ten-year-older sister, Emily. Katie had always felt about Emily the way any youngest, irrepressible, mischievous sister feels about her oldest, most sensible, and empathic one: She idolized Emily, measured herself against Emily (sometimes insecurely), and she relied on her.

Emily’s and Katie’s paths had developed increasingly satisfying symmetries. While Emily became a journalist specializing in legal issues, Katie was a University of Virginia student in the midseventies, trying out that same profession by writing for the college newspaper. When Emily published her first book, The Trial Lawyers, in 1988, Katie was doing her own breakthrough investigative story at a Miami TV station: sleeping on the street as a homeless woman. Then, the same year—1991—that Katie started at Today, Emily was elected to the Virginia state senate. Oldest and youngest sister were mutually proud of each other, and the legislation Emily sponsored—she was a fierce advocate for heightened educational standards and for specialized medical research and treatment—addressed issues that Katie was passionate about in her coverage. Whenever Emily got up to New York, Katie and Emily could be seen strolling around Katie’s neighborhood, arm in arm, with “smiles on their faces, listening intently to each other,” as Katie’s NBC colleague Barbara Harrison observed.

But it was when Jay got sick—so rapidly and suddenly—that Katie leaned on Emily the hardest. Not only did Katie call Emily and Emily’s second husband, cardiologist George Beller, frequently for medical advice, comfort, and support, but Emily wasted no time introducing and pushing through legislation making Virginia the first state in the nation to require insurance carriers to cover screening for colorectal cancer.

The most exciting family news had come half a year ago: Emily called to tell Katie that the Virginia Democratic Party had tapped her to be their nominee for lieutenant governor. Katie was ecstatic. There was even talk that Emily Couric could, after her probable term of lieutenant governor was over, run to become the state’s first female governor.

Just as the makeup artist was finishing Katie’s touch-up in The Tonight Show greenroom, Katie’s cell phone sounded.

Lisa looked at the number displayed and saw that it was Katie’s sister Emily.

Katie put the phone to her ear. It was clear pretty quickly that this was no ordinary call. “Katie stood up,” Lisa recalls. “She was silent, as if her breath was taken away. She started shaking her head.” She looked grave and incredulous.

After Katie snapped closed her cell phone, Lisa asked, “What happened?”

Katie took a breath and said, “Emily was just diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.”

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most insidious forms of the disease. Two years after Jay, it was almost too much to believe this could be happening, again, to a person she loved.

Katie said, “I can’t believe this.” She and Lisa were both stunned.

Katie gathered what were surely her careening thoughts—shock, heartsickness, disbelief, anger—as the countdown to her appearance on The Tonight Show stage began. Then, about ten minutes after hearing the news from Emily, she walked onto the stage. That night and in the ensuing months and years—during which Emily died and Katie’s brother Johnny’s wife died and both of Lisa’s parents died, one by one by one by one—“Katie and I cried a lot. We cry a lot about all the cancers,” Lisa says.

These traumas would not merely deepen her as an interviewer, espesteeling her from the intense criticism that would come not long afterward when, in September 2006, she became the first solo female anchor of a six thirty p.m. network newscast. Her appointment had been an experiment on the part of CBS, part of a large-scale reimagining of the evening news and what it could be. Although marked by highs such as the presidential game-changing interview with Sarah Palin, the experience of anchoring the CBS Evening News, from 2006 to 2011, was an infelicitous whirlwind for Katie, and it ended in what has been called a “mutual decision” for her to leave CBS. Katie was sensitive to the criticism she elicited. “I feel like a human piñata, but . . . no candy is going to spill out,” she quipped, while the media had a field day over her plummeting, then recovering, then static approval index. “This may not be a lot of fun, but it goes with the territory, unfortunately, of being successful and female,” she said. Having lost the anchorship, she skipped gamely over to a new format—Daytime—and another highly compensated and anticipated new show. The result, in 2013: another failure.

Katie is nothing if not resilient, and her weatheredness shows in her interview style: probing and compassionate, but also vigilant, dukes up, ever wry. She has warned people, “Before you gag at the absolute adorableness of it all”—her happy family-of-origin story—they should know: There was payback. She has said: “To paraphrase that L’Oreal commercial, ‘Don’t hate me because I’m happy.’ Trust me. I’ve been to the other side.”

She has transformed her heartbreak into activism. Katie Couric’s work on the front lines of the colon cancer war is virtually unmatched by any other public figure. Just as there was an Amanpour Factor, there was a Couric Effect, a scientifically quantified rise in lifesaving colonoscopies because of her campaign to acquaint viewers with and demystify the procedure. And through her intensive work through five organizations and fund-raising and research projects that she established or joined and energized and remains closely involved in, she has made a $320 million impact. “This”—cancer fighting—“is the most important thing she does,” says Kathleen Lobb, her old UVA friend and now the senior vice president of Stand Up to Cancer, which Katie and Lisa Paulsen launched as an Entertainment Industry Foundation initiative. “Even if you’re not thick-skinned, when you’ve been through experiences like she has, you have a pretty good ability to see through to what’s really important.” On a recent anniversary of Jay’s death, at a fund-raiser, Katie said words to the effect of, “When my obituary is written—and I hope it won’t be for a very long time—I would want it to be said that I helped in the fight against cancer.” Kathleen remembers, “She always says that, outside of raising her daughters, fighting cancer is her most important accomplishment.”

Katie Couric is the ultimate trooper. You don’t become the master of live, upbeat TV and not know how to deliver, even under duress, even under shock, even under sadness. Toward the end of her tenure at Today, the crew used to marvel, half admiringly, half with annoyance, at how late—how dangerously near seven a.m.—she would stride into the studio and still make it onto the couch with none of the viewers having any idea how close she’d cut it. She was that good at the form of live and upbeat, enough so that she could be cheeky and take shortcuts.

But as well as being that good at the form of it, she was also that good at the responsibility of it, and this involved discipline. No matter what personal news was thrown in your face moments before a slotted, unchangeable appearance on a major live broadcast, you could not not show up and you could not be off-tone. After Katie got that call from Emily that night in the Tonight Show greenroom, she pulled herself together, and none of Jay Leno’s viewers had any idea of the profoundly worrisome news she’d just heard from her sister.

It was after she left the stage that she broke down. And after she broke down, she got to work to help Emily, just as she had helped Jay. Her energy—her need to prove herself, her desire to get ahead—had seemed disconcerting, and even excessive, to some who had watched Katie’s climb to the top. But now those traits were useful and helpful and a marker of resilience: the same kind of resilience that had made Katie Couric, against dismissive predictions, a major TV news star.



Diane Sawyer, Christiane Amanpour, and Katie Couric have succeeded as television news broadcasters as no other women have. They have each brought a unique persona to their broadcasts—Sawyer: circumspection, elegance, and personal restraint; Amanpour: an outsider’s muckraking zeal, a fearlessness, and a passionate commitment to help America understand international pain; Couric: an everywoman’s touch, a sly wit, an appealing relish for besting those who would dismiss her, and a willingness to experiment and throw out old models. They have each wielded a fierce—and necessary—ambition and a faith in herself that was able to conquer adversity and defy expectations. In the wake of tragedy, Diane would transform herself from a mannered daughter of the South into a hard-nosed, singularly driven newswoman, her forty-five-year-long career spanning every form of TV news, from beat reporting, to groundbreaking TV newsmagazine work at Primetime and 60 Minutes, to high-stakes Morning, to her current position as the sole female anchor in the prized six-thirty evening news chair. As for Christiane, she felled the conventional wisdom that her appearance, accent, affect, and national origin would keep her from getting on American television, and she persevered to bravely bring heart and soul to the world’s most devastating crises, becoming her era’s best-known and most respected TV foreign correspondent. Katie used her disarming girl-next-door relatability and her ferocious single-mindedness to reach unequalled success (and achieve new gender parity) in Morning, only to exit her cushiony position to become the seemingly odd choice as the first major-network solo female news anchor—and the one who also dared to try to change that format’s ossified paradigm.

The three women are united by their strength of character, which they honed during these respective episodes: a father’s shocking death, a threat to one’s own life, a second loved one’s serious cancer. Their resilience—and their practiced comprehension of the limits of safety— resonated when they became the News Sorority: the rare women, in a field that is overwhelmingly male, who would tell the world’s stories.

Collectively, these women have been our guides and our proxy witnesses to just about every tragedy, scandal, war, controversial personality of good or ill, election, crisis, major social or cultural trend, titillating celebrity dustup, headline-generating act of everyday heroism, or egregious practice of inequity and oppression that has transpired over the last three or more decades. Because they have entered our lives so consistently, for so many years and so intimately—looking us in the eye through screens in our living rooms, kitchens, and bedrooms, sometimes during times of national pain and terror, when we are most vulnerably in need of information—we feel that we know them. But do we? Do we know what it took for them to climb, against a pushback that prevails to this day, to that peculiarly thin perch as a narrator of our world who also happens to be female?

Diane, Katie, and Christiane have shed great light on many other people’s stories.

Here are their own stories, from the beginning.

Revue de presse

Kera Bolonik, The New York Times Book Review:
“… it’s hard to come away from The News Sorority feeling anything less than admiration, if not reverence, for Couric, Sawyer and Amanpour, and sympathy for all the women… who had to wrangle with ratings, network politics and defiantly sexist executives, while managing the delicate egos of their male counterparts. And that is, in the words of the old CBS slogan, ‘very good news.’”

Los Angeles Times:
“…a well-reported and refreshingly fair-minded biography of these gutsy and influential newswomen. Given the complexity of the subject matter, the remarkable thing is that Weller has produced a book that manages to be both compelling and resolutely evenhanded. Even when the catnip of rivalry raises its hoary head, Weller chooses balance. There are lots of controversies, but they usually come along with opposing opinions from different observers and in a broader context.”

The Washington Post:
“It’s worth reading The News Sorority as both a handbook of cutthroat office politics and a cautionary tale. These women brought ego, ambition and a willingness to play just as rough as the boys to the newsrooms—and made history because of that.”

Chicago Tribune (Liz Smith)
"[D]aring, dashing... Sheila Weller has written "the" book of the year on TV broadcasting, a thing that may be a dying, rapidly changing art form, but it's definitely still going to need voices and faces and intelligence giving out the news no matter how much our socially gadget-manipulated changing world changes. There will always be stars and TV has had them in spades... This is a terrific book. I marked mine so many times, it is virtually unreadable. Believe me, if you like history and gossip and believe, like I do, that gossip IS history -- you will love reading about the big three."

Vanity Fair:
Weller rivetingly recounts these gutsy ladies' time on the front lines of domestic and international war zones, political battlefields, and live morning television; the prejudices they've faced; the personal sacrifices made and losses suffered, as well as the backlashes that followed their every gain, fueling their ambition and building their resilience. Weller's portrait of how these extraordinary women, in the words of Sawyer, turn "pain into purpose" is an inspiration for future generations of journalists.”

New York Daily News
“This immensely readable book made headlines before publication for its irresistible gossip. It is dishy, but it’s also a close up and very personal examination of three women who broke all the barriers in TV news in terms of what it took, where it got them and the price they paid.”

Houston Chronicle:
"Weller is brave to write biographies with more than one primary person at the center. Professional biographers know that such a decision complicates research and writing exponentially. In a previous book, Weller… tackled three female vocalists. That book… deeply touched the emotions of many readers I know, female and male. I suspect The News Sorority will, too. [It’s] a book that makes age-old gender battles seem fresh.”

NYCityWoman.com
"[T]his book is not just the story of the fight against sexism waged by three plucky but different dames. The News Sorority is also a tale about the bygone heyday of network news…  Yet it is filled with important truthsVanity Fair style—about feminism in the news workplace… Weller is terrific in citing genuine and unique strengths: Amanpour’s relentless reporting on the horrors suffered by civilians during the war in Bosnia and the plight of Darfur; Couric’s campaign against the colon cancer that killed her first husband, complete with her on-air colonoscopy; Sawyer’s instinct for inspirational pieces about people like the Chilean miners and her humane yet probing interview with Whitney Houston."

Bloomberg Businessweek:
“Weller’s book is sure to be catnip to TV obsessives and people in the news business.”

Buffalo News:
“This is an important book.”

Kirkus Reviews:
“As she did in her fluid multitiered biography Girls Like Us: Carole King, Joni Mitchell and Carly Simon—and the Journey of Generation, Weller takes apart feminist icons of her generation—those who came of age in the 1960s and '70s—to see how they work and how they made it to prime time. Inspiring bios of today's professional heroines.”

Booklist:
“Best-selling author Weller draws on interviews with their friends and colleagues to offer portraits of the will and ambition each mustered to achieve iconic status. Weller details the personal tragedies they’ve dealt with… [and] also explores the unique personalities of these women and the set expectations among broadcast executives and viewers that they have had to overcome.”


Détails sur le produit

Commentaires en ligne

Il n'y a pas encore de commentaires clients sur Amazon.fr
5 étoiles
4 étoiles
3 étoiles
2 étoiles
1 étoiles

Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 100 commentaires
29 internautes sur 32 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Later: an invaluable media text. Now: an invaluable media text with plenty of revealing, insider dish (popcorn not included) 30 septembre 2014
Par Jesse Kornbluth - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié
If you want to pay me $15 million a year, I promise never to say a bad word about you. I will work until I drop. I will be a saint to my staff. And if our project fails, I will take all the blame.

That’s not how it works in television news, which is why there’s enough backbiting, envy and ambition in “The News Sorority: Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, Christiane Amanpour — and the (Ongoing, Imperfect, Complicated) Triumph of Women in TV News” to fill almost 500 pages.

On one level, “The News Sorority” is a serious book, a valuable history of a transitional era in media that will be read and taught long after no one can remember why “anchor” doesn’t just apply to boats.

For now, though, it won’t be read that way, for “The News Sorority” is a dish fest — if you care what Katie and Diane and Christiane are really like, for God’s sake do not start reading on a Friday night, because you’ll miss Bill Maher and may just be finishing when John Oliver comes on.

How dishy? Like this:

When Diane scored an interview that Katie wanted, Katie asked, loudly: “I wonder who she blew this time.”

Diane, on wardrobe choices for women in broadcasting: “Always wear clothes in fabrics that men like to touch.”

Katie once told an executive she’d been fired — she hadn’t been — so could get a promotion to a job she wanted.

Diane’s such a slick politician that “she thinks she doesn’t leave fingerprints — but she leaves cat paw prints on people’s foreheads.”

Katie gave a Christmas party for her entourage that could be seen by lesser staffers at the lesser party.

Diane once had her then boyfriend Richard Holbrooke call a production assistant and reduce her to tears.

And Christiane? Where’s that dish? Scarce. Very scarce. She never said she went to Brown — although she was a housemate of John Kennedy Jr., she graduated from the University of Rhode Island — but if that was your misimpression, she wasn’t always quick to correct it. In the early days of CNN, she sometimes cleaned the foreign desk with Fantastik. And, much later, she wasn’t above saying, “Do you know I’m the world’s best known foreign correspondent?”

There’s not much dish on Amanpour because she’s the real deal, an old-fashioned correspondent who runs toward trouble and doesn’t neuter her reporting with the bulls*** false equivalency of too many of her colleagues. Her reporting in Bosnia is probably the single biggest reason Bill Clinton and Tony Blair intervened in that humanitarian crisis. And her dispatches from the Middle East could be tough on Israel.

Because most readers will probably skip or skim the chapters about Amanpour, this book is, for practical purposes, about Katie and Diane and their footrace to be the first female anchor of the evening news. That gives the book the feel of instant nostalgia. As Weller writes, “The venerable six-thirty news broadcast has been a classy feature of American conversation almost since the beginning of television, but it was also a relic of another era: before 24-hour cable and the Internet, which gave the news in real time; before the complicated, constantly in flux schedules of modern life.” Translation: The 6:30 PM network news is as dead as disco. And that makes Katie and Diane’s careers seem like a fool’s errand, a waste of time and talent. Yes, they broke the glass ceiling, but no women will stand on their shoulders. They were the first — and the last.

I loved Weller’s last book, "Girls Like Us: Carole King, Joni Mitchell, Carly Simon — and the Journey of a Generation" for its authoritative reporting and deep understanding. Like that book, “The News Sorority” is exhaustively reported. And unauthorized, which is a good thing — can you imagine if Katie and Diane and their handlers had final approval of the manuscript? This would have been the story of the Bobbsey Twins and their bookish friend Christy. And I wouldn’t have lost a weekend and you wouldn’t have read this.
19 internautes sur 22 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
If the anonymous passages were red, it would look like a bloody battlefield 25 septembre 2014
Par Gentleheart - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié Commentaire client Vine pour produit gratuit ( De quoi s'agit-il? )
There is no doubt that Sheila Weller has a following from her successful book Girls Like Us in which she profiled three important singer-songwriters, Carly Simon, Carole King, and Joni Mitchell. She uses much the same structure in The News Sorority about Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, and Christiane Amanpour. This time, she is less successful for two important reasons. First, she clearly lacks the deep, abiding affection for this trio of newswomen that she felt for the three musicians. Second, she has relied entirely too much upon anonymous sources to get enough salacious material to give her book the zip and zing she needs so it will sell well.

Suffice it to say that if the passages provided by unnamed, unidentified individuals were colored red, the book would look as if someone bled to death in its pages. And in a way they do. The real question: is it the author or her subjects?

Based upon mere numbers, you would conclude that all three subjects fare well under Weller’s microscope. Over one hundred named individuals and hundreds of hours of videotaped and other media sources attest to their extraordinary accomplishments. Weller repeatedly points out the women’s ingenuity and resourcefulness in overcoming barriers to their success. She details their endless workdays, tireless work ethic, and enormous contributions. She also attempts to show her own feminist sensitivities by focusing upon the sexist attitudes and actions of men in the news industry. Although she characterizes each woman a bit differently, she expresses admiration for all. She ends her narrative with a lofty tribute, “And we also got from them what is underneath the news, what is underneath all news: We got humanity.” So, from this description you would conclude that the impression left about the three subjects is positive. And you would be wrong.

The impression, when all is said and done, is negative. The flavor of the book is reflected in the nasty review that appeared in The Daily Beast on August 27, 2014 (“Katie Couric on Diane Sawyer: 'I Wonder Who She Blew This Time'” by Lloyd Grove). Grove lets Weller’s book speak for itself, quoting verbatim from paragraphs sprinkled throughout the text. Of Sawyer: Holbrooke did her “dirty work”; she benefits from men’s “shiksa disease”; “she undermined a colleague when he was suffering from cancer; she was “determined to kill” Barbara Walters; Ben Sherwood “wormed his way in” to her inner circle just to be let go because she “lost faith in him,” saying he “is just so weak”; husband Nichols threatened to “cut off all social contact” if friends appeared on Couric’s Today show. Of Couric: she tastelessly wondered aloud who Sawyer “blew this time” to get an interview; wooed Cronkite but lost him with her “soft-news style”; rubbed in her own success as others were being let go due to budget cuts; flaunted her $15 million a year salary. Of Amanpour: she defied an exec’s command to “skew stories more favorably to Israel” by wielding her power to push; she was angry and offended over Fareed Zakaria’s success, which she interpreted to be at her own expense.

Every bit of the “information” above was obtained by Weller from anonymous sources. Attribution is to “a female producer,” “a CBS staffer,” “a prominent CBS producer,” “an ABC News source,” “an ABC News staffer,” “an insider,” “an unnamed source to whom Sawyer spoke “privately”, “a Sherwood pal,” a “wooed eminence,” “a person who heard the comment,” “a CNN insider” and another “CNN insider.” There is no mention of even a single one of these cruel, gossipy reports being corroborated by a second informant.

But, Weller may protest, this book is a tell-all, an exposé, a revealing look at three powerful women whose public relations machines would destroy any naysayers if they outed themselves. Sources had to be kept unnamed to spare their own careers. Really? Or were these jealous backbiters who lack the courage of their own convictions? Doesn’t the fifth and last part of the book, “Cancellation,” indicate that the enormous power once wielded by this trio has waned? Can’t their critics identify themselves without fear of ruin? And was the gossip they provided so unreliable that no one – except Weller -- wanted to be associated with it? As The Society of Professional Journalists warns, “Before journalists allow themselves to be used by an anonymous source they should be sure to question whether the news value warrants whatever the source hopes to accomplish.” Was Weller used to get back at three successful women? It seems she was.

In Girls Like Us, to the author’s credit, she relied upon a mere handful of anonymous sources and clearly articulated that anonymity was “an accommodation I agreed to only after feeling confident of the respectability of the source’s motive for the request.” However, to her and her readers’ detriment, she gives no such assurance here. Instead, she liberally spices her narrative with unattributed invective.

In addition to the fatal flaw of relying too much upon unreliable sources, the book is marred by slipshod writing and an almost complete lack of significant analysis. Some of the sloppy writing will be remedied by a good editor before the book goes to final print, but the sloppy thinking will not. The impression is that Weller was carried along by too many Google searches, too many hours of viewing video, and failed to stop and reflect upon the real meaning of her subjects’ lives and careers, even though her work on the book spanned almost half a decade. There is a frenetic quality that becomes extremely tiresome over the course of its almost 500 pages.

As excited as I was by the idea of the book, by the time I was half way through it, I no longer cared, although I did finish it in hopes that Weller would redeem herself. She did not and that is a real shame because her subjects still have a great deal to offer the public. It would be good to have a fuller understanding of their careers and lives; one that is not marred by petty trivialities and brazen gossip. And as to the salacious material that fuels too much of the interest in the book, who cares? What, for instance, is the news value in the possibility that Katie Couric once asked who Diane “blew” in order to get a certain interview? Zero, zip, zilch, nada. At the point in the book where it appears (about page 292 in the uncorrected proof) we already know that Katie is a tough-talking iconoclast who blends charming girlishness and surprising brashness to keep friends and opponents both challenged and engaged. She is a master of her craft. So what if she threw off an unladylike and insulting remark about her competitor? Who cares?

The Society of Professional Journalists advises “Reporters and editors must weigh the cost of relying on anonymous sources.” In this book, the cost has been the credibility of the author and the relevance of the book itself. To lose both is to lose everything in an unauthorized biography. The News Sorority, which promised to be exciting and enlightening, turns out to be tiresome, titillating, and tawdry. All in all, I cannot recommend it.
18 internautes sur 23 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Clawing Their Way To The Top, Meoow 23 août 2014
Par G.I Gurdjieff - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié Commentaire client Vine pour produit gratuit ( De quoi s'agit-il? )
I just finished this book and may return to flesh out my reactions to this book later. I liked this book and thought it told the story of three network champs who managed to break the glass ceiling in regard to their careers.with accuracy. There were some similarities between the three. They were all extremely bright and obviously driven. They didn't take garbage from men or women and were willing to take chances to move up in pecking order despite barriers. They could be chameleons when the situation called for it; whatever appeared on the surface wasn't necessarily true. In the brutal environment of broadcast journalism, they might be considered manipulative/tough/conniving. However that actually seems more like the norm for network stars in general as I progressed through this book. My take on this is women have to be tough skinned, think smarter, and react quicker to survive in a crazy alter universe.
This book was not written with assistance from the trio. All is based on supposed reputable sources. I see this as a highly credible story and one that is fairly consistent with what I know about the industry as a whole. Had these ladies cooperated fully or even partially with this project I suspect this might have been a different and flawed book for obvious reasons. Journalists control the news and always control the story presented. As it stands, an awful lot of what is reported is corroborated by multiple sources. Authorized biographies based on my reading experiences are usually flat and celebrate people that are so perfect they can't exist in reality.
Author Sheila Weller has done extensive research in telling this story which comes off successfully as a three pronged unauthorized biography of the news mavens. I read her book Girls Like Us (GLU) and loved it. I also read a couple of her earlier books which has made me a fan. This book is filled with the standard factual information, but it is the anecdotal information and gossip that provides a more candid view into lives lived in front of and behind the camera. Weller's ability to organize and let the story tell itself is striking. As the story flips between the women there is a seamless transition. The narrative works. Accounts of diva behavior are both funny and numerous. Insecurity, competition, and even the mantle of 'first solo female new anchor' are in play here. Oddly enough, I found Sawyer and Couric irritating and manipulative at times, but still fascinating. Amanpour seemed less surprising, but that is just my take. I also got a kick out of all the internal fighting at the networks. Face it, we can all go to Wiki to get officially sanctioned facts, but it is the gritty stories as well as the audacious ones that make readers stay the course and read from cover to cover. Spending six hours glued to this book is testimony that it worked for me and that I did not find it even remotely boring.
This is a well written book that has an almost 'you are there' feel to it. The stories can border on strange, but nothing seems fabricated. I didn't like it quite as much as GLU, but that was mostly a case of what I am sure is based on my personal preferences.
Go for this book if you want to get the skinny on these ladies and a sense of what it takes to get ahead in a mostly male dominated environment where women are usually relegated to mid level reporting jobs at best or production jobs.
Update: I had difficulty sleeping after reading this book. I rescind my initial reaction that this book wasn't quite as good as GLU. Fact is, it is better. She did a great job parsing her information and rendering a complete and fair bio. This book may keep you up because it is so fully developed.
7 internautes sur 9 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
An epic and intense account of three game-changing journalists 3 septembre 2014
Par Nathan Webster - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié Commentaire client Vine pour produit gratuit ( De quoi s'agit-il? )
This is a pretty amazing chronicle of these three women (with lots of others brought in at various times - Barbara Walters, especially) and shows that determination, grit, backstabbing and scheming are human traits, not gender-based. But you don't get to the top of any career field if you sit around and wait for things to happen.

In fact, one line really annoyed me - one of Weller's sources is talking about how much Katie Couric depended on her husband and he says snidely, "these successful women still need a man to keep them organized," as if the situation isn't reversed, just in different ways. Walter Cronkite didn't become who he is, all on his own. His wife might not have supported him in the same way that Katie's husband, Jay, did, but it's certainly the same idea. So even though many aspects of sexism have been defeated, it still clearly exists in comments like that (physical/insulting sexism in the 1970s sounds appalling. I can't understand why it would have been fun for the men - it sounds like the behavior of clinically-depressed alcoholics). Some of it's simply big egos at that level, not sexism - I once tried to have a conversation with a higher-up ABC news producer about reporting from Iraq, and while he held court on his own experience, he couldn't have been less interested in mine. I could have been a kindergartner he was so deliberately condescending. By the 2000s, the sexism is more petty and pathetic - in a way, I respect the brazen, booze-fueled '70s because at least they were up front about their feelings. In the 2000s, it's snide little remarks and pettiness.

The book does not use any of the three main 'characters' as direct sources, and that's a good thing. Weller has brought in plenty of their quotes from previous interviews, but what's clearest is how self-justifying they are. Even if Weller had interviewed them at length, I don't think she would have gotten much insight - these women know all the tricks, after all. It's much better to rely on the public record, or from interviews with people who know them.

Much has been made of the "catfight" nature of some of the rivalry - but those fights make sense. In the '80s-'90s, they were competing for the same role - there wasn't yet "room" for dozens of top women journalists, so it's no surprise that they would battle for preeminence within their niche. Yeah, it's "fun" to call it a catfight - but Weller does a fine job of reminding the reader when some of the male journalists had the same backroom brawls - but because they are men, it's not as fun.

And, frankly, even talking about it in the 'catfight' sense is sexism too. These are powerful people in a billion-dollar industry - oooh, Katie made a salacious comment about Diane. Oooh. Has anybody ever worked with men? It's so tame as to be laughable, but because Katie said it, now it's a story? But Weller doesn't really dwell on it - this isn't gossip, but a comprehensive chronicle. It's to the media's discredit that it's been in a focus in the pre-release book discussion. Weller's narrative is much, much more than that (but as a reader, I am entertained by less-dignified stories - these three women worked hard, and they played hard, and they broke a lot of hearts).

These three women came through a crucible - sexism at a grotesque level (although it never seemed physical with these three), being disregarded or not taken seriously, and having to constantly prove themselves at every turn. While Cronkite, Reasoner and others had World War II, Amonpour especially reported from many harrowing war zones. When you come out the other side of any experience like that, you won't be the same as when you went in - everything is magnified - so their ambition and energy are focused and multiplied by a factors most of us can't relate to. That driven personality comes across all the time in Weller's narrative (and comes across most poignantly when Couric loses her first husband to cancer). Amonpour probably comes out the best - it's hard to miss that she is involved in reporting and gathering news, while Couric and Sawyer are much more on the presentation side of it - both of them do hard-hitting, powerful reviews of course, but it's different than the worldwide, on-the-ground reporting that Amonpour's career was built on (to me, anyway).

Weller does a good job of providing additional context, with her opinion subtly coming through - so when people make extreme claims, Weller will step in with further evidence that supports the claim, or shows why it might have been exaggerated. So it's not a transcript of her source's statements, but Weller's analysis of how it all adds up.

It's an epic - maybe a bit dry at times, and sometimes cramming a lot of facts into inelegant paragraphs - but it covers a vast scope of three game-changing journalists. They are all sort of declining into the sunset now, but that's how it goes - even Cronkite was forced out well before his time.
5 internautes sur 6 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
was disappointed to find that none of the three women had ... 16 septembre 2014
Par D. Vance - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Relié Commentaire client Vine pour produit gratuit ( De quoi s'agit-il? )
The News Sorority chronicles the lives of three of America's prominent newscasters: Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric, and Christiane Amanpour. I was very interested in reading this book as I remember Katie as the new cub reporter who was deemed "too cute" to be taken seriously.
It was interesting to read their backgrounds, each as different as the women themselves. The pace is quick and the writing moves along well.
I, however, was disappointed to find that none of the three women had been interviewed for the research of the book, Ms. Weller's sources are documented, unless they wanted to remain anonymous. These things combine to give a vaguely gossip column feel to what could have been a serious look at women who broke through to become voices of influence.
For this reason,sadly, I am only giving it 3 stars.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ? Dites-le-nous


Commentaires

Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?