I write a monthly commentary for The Enterprise Report, a southern California-based website published by Eric Longabardi—an award-winning investigative reporter. He and I crossed paths at CNN many years ago. My column is titled, CAMP JOURNALISM 101. With a few edits, the following is my most recent rant:   

CBS News says Katie Couric can rest assured that her $14-million annual salary will continue. What a relief! More calming for Katie, perhaps, than the benefits promised by a deluge of pharmaceutical commercials that  interrupt the flow of the evening newscasts of all three broadcast networks.

“Ask your doctor if this is right for you?” Even without the advice of a physician, I’m certain that Katie, Dianne Sawyer and Brian Williams agree that eight-figure salaries are right for them. Depending on which estimate you believe, the three prime anchors are paid between $12-million and $14-million for reading about eighteen minutes of news. If that seems high, consider that each evening they are required to endure make-up artists, hair stylists and others on a mission to make them visually appealing.

In fairness, network anchors are exposed to risks when reporting from war zones and disaster areas. By and large, though, there is very little heavy lifting. Are they worth the big bucks? The question can only be answered in terms of rating points. CBS Evening News still trails the other networks. But Katie has narrowed the gap, which is no easy task. 

Television viewers are creatures of habit, especially the older demographic. Syndicated shows before and after newscasts—Oprah, Let’s Make a Deal, Jeopardy, etc.—greatly influence viewing habits. Sometimes, it’s just too painful to reach for the remote. Hence, a commercial or two about arthritis medications and other pain relievers are interspersed between news stories. If nature summons viewers away from the television set, they are encouraged by ads to purchase medications that control incontinence and other bodily functions. As silly as this seems, it explains why pharmaceutical companies pay such a large share of the salaries of Katie, Dianne and Brian.

Cable news and entertainment, internet, and general apathy have taken a toll on network news—especially among the most desirable 18-35 year old demographics. As a result, most advertisers shun the evening news, forcing networks to invest huge sums of money in anchors they believe will retain the audiences that remain. But at what cost to quality? 

The “Big Three” networks have drastically reduced staffs, leaving only limited resources when compared to the heyday of broadcast news—an era of Walter Cronkite. And yes, even Dan Rather. Downstream from the anchor perch, news minions grumble that a sharp reduction in the salaries of Katie, Diane and Brian could pay the wages of a lot of correspondents, producers and technical staff, as well as re-opening bureaus.

I don’t know what the going rate is today. My final contract as CNN’s Senior Investigative Correspondent amounted to a “measly” $200,000 a year— including perks. I put measly in quotations because it’s more than I ever expected to make, and nearly as much as my daddy earned in his lifetime. I would have settled for less.

But like everybody else in the self-important business of television news, I figured if they were foolish enough to give me the money, I was smart enough to take it. I’m reasonably certain that Katie, Diane and Brian feel the same way.

If by some stretch of the imagination, they would accept smaller salaries for moving their lips while reading from a teleprompter, network executives should take massive doses of Flomax in order to stop pissing away money that could be directed to more meaningful newsgathering.