Jane Genova writes the 6,000 word New York magazine article on Katie Couric, "clearly demonstrates is that Katie is jinxed, at least in the media, and probably by the media":

Case in point: From the article, it seems that Katie perceives the backstage backbiting and leaking as something the old guard at CBS shouldn't be doing and should be above even considering. On this Katie sounds downright shoolgirlish. She's been in the world world for years. Moreover, she's been in the ultra cut-throat world of TV. In addition, that world has become a dying medium and in such environments, expect people to be on their very worst behavior. Katie would have come across as more credible and less stupid if she said, "Of course in TV you expect undercutting, blaming, even sabotage. But this turned out, at least as I saw it, as over-the-top."

But maybe that's it: Maybe Katie is stupid. Or maybe that's part of the jinx: It rendered her stupid. Any reasonably bright person would have to know that this interview would be over-the-top harsh. Or, put another way, any person not jinxed would have laughed at Hagan for even asking as she said NO.

But as I wrote a few years ago, there's a reason why Tom Wolfe, who toiled for decades as a non-fiction journalist (including a stint at the now-defunct New York Herald Tribune, from which New York magazine was spun off) before focusing primarily on doorstop-thick novels, speaks almost entirely in pre-fab sound bites when interviewed. And it's largely the fear of revealing a detail or two he'd like to keep closer to his custom-tailored white double-breasted doeskin vest.

However, like Katie, most other journalists seem surprised when someone in their own industry pulls a drive-by hit on one of their own.