TVSquad

Earlier this week, I was watching the CBS Evening News while I was at the keyboard. That means I wasn't really watching the TV screen; I was listening to the tube while working on the Mac. Therefore, I didn't even notice that Katie Couric had a new haircut. Then, from the other room, my husband called to me and asked what I thought. "Thought about what?" I answered.

That was how I heard the "big" news that CBS anchor Katie Couric has a new look. Really, what does it matter? Why should it matter? She's presenting the news, not selling hair gel or mousse, right?

Well, no sooner had my spouse told me that it would be the big story in the papers the next day then it came to pass. Do a Google search and you'll find lots of stories about Katie's hair. It's the biggest news Katie has stirred up since her interview with Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. That interview, straight and clean and not filled with any "gotchas," exposed the Governor as ill-prepared for the position she was seeking. I'm not the only person who believed that.

But back to Katie, is it right that a change of hairstyle should warrant such attention? Does that make us a superficial public? And is it sexist to make a big deal about her hair just because she's a woman?

The answers are no; no; and no.

First, anytime somebody in the public eye -- a TV star -- makes a change in the appearance, we notice. Nothing wrong with that. If Charlie Gibson let his hair grow and sported a Prince Valiant 'do, it would make news.

Second, the public should be attentive. We're not disaffected out here in TV land; we're engaged. New appearances, new stars with different looks that catch our eyes doesn't mean we're superficial.

Third, sexist? I think not. Like I said, if Charlie Gibson stopped visiting the barber, or Brian Williams opted for a buzz cut, we'd be talking about them, too. Gender has nothing to do with our reaction.