The incredible Katie Couric has been the co-anchor of the Today show (with Matt Lauer) since April 5, 1991. She joined the program in June 1990 as its first national correspondent. Katie then served as substitute co-anchor from February 1991 until becoming permanent co-anchor. She is also an important contributing anchor for Dateline NBC.
Katie Couric announced on Wednesday that she is leaving NBC’s “Today” show to join rival CBS and become the first woman sole anchor of a major U.S. network evening newscast. Bravo!
Katie, 49, has agreed to replace veteran CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer in the CBS Evening News anchor chair. Schieffer assumed the position on a temporary basis in March last year after the legendary Dan Rather stepped down.
Katie is one of the most highly paid figures in U.S. television, signing a 4 1/2-year renewal deal with NBC in December 2001 that sources said was worth about $60 million. Her new deal is worth much more than that.
Katie has shown that she can succeed in a Men’s World of news broadcasting. She demonstrated that women can attract a big audience, even bigger than her male counterpart.
I also believe this to be true in chess. The average person on the street or folks in the media cannot tell the difference between the games of 2700-2800 players from 2400-2500 players. But some women in chess can draw much bigger crowds. Some women in chess can make headline news in our sport.
My exhibition events offen draw much bigger crowds than major International Chess events and even the latest World Chess Championship in San Luis with 8 top players in the world. My lectures and chess events often fill the hall. My chess activities are often printed worldwide. My books and DVDs outsell 99.9% of male chess authors.
So why are women paid 1/10 of their male counterpart in chess? Women in tennis have been paid the same as men in Grand Slam events. Women’s tennis matches have higher ratings. They command just as much if not more in endorsements. Isn’t time for a big change for women in chess?
I fully agree with you Susan. You’re more valuable to our chess community than any male player. Cheers! Sal
So the pay needs to change from merit-based (get a high rating, win a strong tournament) to incentive based (draw big crowds) in order to equalize money for females? The problem is Katie Couric is paid 15 million a year (15mil!?!?!) because presumably the additional viewers she draws patronize the advertisers who sponsor her show. So therefore for this idea to work in chess you need a) corporate sponsorship and b) large groups of non chess-playing people to patronize those sponsors. Until that happens I don’t see a viable alternative to just giving the biggest money to those with the biggest ratings, ie men (excepting your sister).
Posted by Marcus Lemmond
I believe when it comes to money, market forces come into play. Womens tennis is popular because it’s audience is more diverse. Female figure skating and womens gymnastics far outdraw their male counterparts.
I believe that once chess is “mainstreamed” that the real money will follow whoever develops their market best. If the women develop theirs best and FIRST, then the men will be left in the lurch.
Susan has demonstrated women can compete and win against men in the world of chess. In the future market forces may make parity more of an issue for the men to be concerned with.
That’s weird, why did it triple my post and call me anonymous?
Maybe it likes what you said? 🙂 I have no idea. I will delete 2 extra ones. If you want to repost with your name, I can delete all three.
Thanks for your input!
Wimbledon still pays the men more
that will eventually change
But not by much. The discrepancy in chess is shocking!
There are much better examples of successful women than the propagandist Couric.
The main reason is seeing the girl. People watch womens tennis to see a girl in a tiny outfit jump around and get sweaty. People only want to see good games though. The same is true with books. Which will sell more, a book with a girl on the cover or a book with pieces on the cover written by a great player? Go ahead everyone and say how this is disgusting and not true. I just call them like I see them.
Matt Lauer would make more but he refuses to sit on the couch in a mini skirt crossing and uncrossing his legs all day. Gee I wonder why she makes so much… hmmmmm….
oink, oink … Male chauvinist pigs?
I would agree that Katie Couric is an attractive woman, but the notion that a major network would put that much on the line just as a result of her looks is preposterous. She is an accomplished journalist – period.
You have excellent points on women in high profile positions. The top organization globally that studies the discrepancy between men and women in high profile and leadership positions is Catalyst. They study and research the trends, the perceptions and reasons including pay discrepancy and stereotyping issues.
There is a very interested research piece on Gender-based stereotypes that finds many individuals in our society, even in higher up levels, do not believe women to be good decision makers compared to men. This is something that you, Susan, are proving people wrong on!
That particular study can be found at:
There are tremendous parallels between chess and what women are trying to accomplish in the high end corporate world.
Thank you for the information! Very interesting!
Katie is a fantastic journalist. The men just can’t handle her success. The same people can’t stand Susan’s success either.
I much rather watch Susan play chess than Kramnik or Ponamariov.
I like Katie Kouric and if a Presendential election were held today I would probably vote for Hillary Clinton. I have nothing against women. I love women. It’s just I can’t stand feminists who feel they have been minimalized by society that they have to shout triumph over another womans succes like its an us against them mentality. Susan I know you are bitter about what the male dominated Hungarian government did to your chess career, but this is America! Us against them is devisive and creates un-needed tension among the sexes. Like racism it makes the problem worse.
Good day, Dr. Henry Jekyll
Isn’t time for a big change for women in chess? What a question to post to your readers! What do you expect them to do? For the most part you have more to do with any changes for women in chess than any of them. To be blunt, this is just whinning. Whether you can do anything about it or not, don’t whine; it is unbecoming. I think what you need to do is take some time and ask yourself exactly what it is that you want. Is what you want simply for you to have more money or fame; is that why you chose as your example Katie Couric? In fact for me , (I am not your judge and have no dog in the fight)your posting of this blurb about Katie now brings into question your motives for the things you do. Because if you are wanting more money or fame for women in general, why choose Katie? I imagine she is doing what she does for herself, not for some altruistic purpose like the advancement of other women.
First of all, I no longer play competitively. Therefore, how would bigger prize funds benefit me? It would only benefit the younger players.
How am I whining? I simply stated the facts of life. If it is up to men, women would still not be allowed to play in some tournaments.
You said do something about it? I did. When I became the first woman who qualified for the men’s world championship in 1986, I was not allowed to play because the name was Men’s World Championship. My loss benefited my sisters and other women later on.
Things cannot be changed over night because of some men cannot handle it. At one time, it was unthinkable for women to earn the same money as men in tennis. Now they can. Same with some other sports. It used to be unthinkable for women to be doctors and lawyers too.