Diane Sawyer, In A Word: Smooth

video

by Rachel Sklar | 12:53 pm, December 22nd, 2009

» 7 comments

Screen shot 2009-12-21 at 10.27.56 PM I’ve said this before, but Diane Sawyer is smooth. Her voice is smooth. Her hair is smooth. Her segues are smooth. She’s even smoother than a smoothie, because those often have seeds, and seeds would never dare sully the smoothness that is Diane Sawyer.

So I am not at all surprised that last night’s transition to new ABC World News-anchordom went so smoothly. It’s not like she hasn’t done it before, she has — all of it, actually. She’s done the hard-hitting interviews (hello, Mahmoud!) and the chatting with correspondents and the personal — but completely professional — nod at the end, with a compeltely appropriate smile, easily transitioned into her anchorly sign-off.

There were new graphics, of course, marking the (once) sea-change of the handoff from anchor to anchor — yes this is ABC World News with Diane Sawyer — but it was so less jarring than it has ever been. Perhaps because it seems like Diane has always been there (in some capacity, she almost has) and perhaps, as Twitter snobs may say, who takes that chair (or that chair) no longer matters (as much)…or perhaps it’s because Diane Sawyer is such a pro, and is so damn smooth. Whatever it was, last night’s transition went off, well, smoothly.

Here’s the video of her opening and closing, with a little chat with her GMA replacement George Stephanopoulos in between.

Also, there was something else important about Diane Sawyer’s taking over the anchor chair last night…let’s see, what was it again…oh yes, I remember:

Man Anchors

Haaaaaaa. Hat tip: Danny Shea at HuffPo, in a front page for the ages.

ABC News, ABC World News, Charles Gibson, Charlie Gibson, Diane Sawyer, Diane Sawyer ABC, Diane Sawyer Anchor, Diane Sawyer Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer Charlie Gibson, Diane Sawyer female anchor, Diane Sawyer Katie Couric

am_underground

Huffpo and all of the other liberal bloggers and media outlets won’t say it but I can assure you neither ABC nor CBS will out pull NBC in the rating. Why? Women anchors. Simply too many women in the newsrooms of today. From the late 60’s I saw it coming and unless they’re drop dead gorgeous, they won’t pull the numbers. When men were the dominate force, most were butt ugly, but who was the most trusted person in the country, Cronkite a male news anchors.

Today, you have women anchors, producer, assignment editor, reporter, women everywhere. Just look at how news is slanted, everything is about women and they’ve become nothing more than Mary Hart clones, tabloid journalism.
LNSmithee

Just look at how news is slanted, everything is about women and they’ve become nothing more than Mary Hart clones, tabloid journalism.

The only reason I would watch either Couric or Sawyer anchor the news is if they did it from behind Mary Hart’s glass desk, designed to highlight her million-dollar legs.
Winghunter

“Smooth”?? Hardly. Biased? Most definitely;

New ABC World News Anchor Diane Sawyer: A Profile in Bias
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/09/02/new-abc-world-news-anchor-diane-sawyer-profile-bias
http://www.uselessbeauty.com Vidiot

Today, you have women anchors, producer, assignment editor, reporter, women everywhere. Just look at how news is slanted, everything is about women and they’ve become nothing more than Mary Hart clones, tabloid journalism.

The only reason I would watch either Couric or Sawyer anchor the news is if they did it from behind Mary Hart’s glass desk, designed to highlight her million-dollar legs.

Sexist much?
TfT

I recall that when Katie debuted she kicked butt and won the time slot; I think her numbers were up over 9M. I wonder if Dianne did the same.
Jim R

Agreed, Diane is very smooth and will do a great job for ABC.
LNSmithee

Oh, so it’s sexist to say that Diane Sawyer and Katie Couric each have great legs (endlessly displayed while they were on the morning shows) , but that there’s no reason to watch them do hard news if you can’t at least have a gander at their gams?

OK, then. I’m “sexist” — by your definition.