I think she (and any celebrity for that matter) is to be commended for turning their celebrity into something good for a good cause.
But it makes me sick to my stomach that she is the face a news organization like CBS. Then again, I get zero news from CBS, so I guess it's a wash.
Perhaps invert the question: Where does the line of altruism intersect opportunity?
One could argue that the deeds of Couric (or Bono, Buffet, Gates, etc.) are self-serving, no matter what amount of personal experience she brings to the issue. So while we're at it, how can McDonald's help families facing pediatric crisis while sustaining public scrutiny for supersizing Americans? Because Couric and McDonald's can bring real action, attention and resources to those who desperately need it.
It's likely that celebrities and entities will always be met with the jaundiced eye of a public that has indulged itself to such a point of unhappiness that it cannot muster praise for those who are actually trying to make a difference for those who really need the help.
I prefer a half-full point of view: They are doing tremendous work.
If public interest and personal gain are achived by a single task, wouldn't it be the most desirable route? Perhaps there are lessons for public relations professionals like us.
I give Katie about 18 months before CBS admits this was a manifestly unwise move and shuffles her off to oblivion. Only CBS would take an anchor who was increasing viewership for the first time in many years and dump him for a mike stand (a grouchy old journalist term for a well-coiffed TV personality who steps in after all the hard reporting work is done to do the live shot).
Commenting by HaloScan
