« 'Airlines Prepare For Cellphone Calling' | Home | Why bloggers should not read blogs »

March 16, 2006

What's different about Katie Couric?


Me, I never see her on TV so when I saw her photo in today's USA Today (above) I did a double–take: that's not the Katie I once knew.


Looks like she had some serious plastic surgery on her face — by the same surgeon who did Mary–Louise Parker.


Just goes to show you how out of it I am: when I had the crack research team look into this they informed me that Couric's operation occurred in early 2004.

We're slow here but, like the proverbial tortoise, we eventually do arrive.


Both Couric (above, since her cosmetic work) and Parker now have that same generic All–American girl "pretty" look without the individuality that made them who they were.

Time passes, doesn't it?

Below, Couric before she went under the knife


and way before:


Hard to believe that in less than a year she'll be 50.

FunFact: Every plastic surgeon has a signature look such that a connoisseur of the art can instantly identify who performed the work at a passing glance.

Plastic surgeons bristle at this statement but in their hearts they know I'm right.

March 16, 2006 at 03:01 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What's different about Katie Couric?:


She just did some kind of interview where her eyes looked all whacked out. The Left one is now smaller than the right one.

Posted by: spence | Sep 5, 2006 7:42:15 PM

she looks like many of the women on the upper east side... they must have the same plastic surgeon!

Posted by: Katherine | Mar 17, 2006 8:32:40 PM

I personally find the consumption of two XL fully loaded pizzas to be an excellent appetite suppressant.

Posted by: Flutist | Mar 17, 2006 3:35:19 PM

What? Give up the chocolate, vodka and taco diet? Pizza OK?

Posted by: Riannan | Mar 17, 2006 12:26:54 PM

Servus Joe,

I don't know - it's sort of a mix between Farrah Fawcett and Sheryl Crow. Neither of these are too bad except that Katie is shorter than them both so the look comes off as "sawed-off" as opposed to "cute".


Posted by: Uncle Jake | Mar 17, 2006 6:05:13 AM

She's gone from natural and cute to Stepford.

Posted by: mattp9 | Mar 16, 2006 9:56:09 PM

Yeah, generic pretty girl look. It's gotten hard to tell them apart -- or care.

Posted by: Al Christensen | Mar 16, 2006 5:30:17 PM

I hadn't been paying much attention to Katie either, but she has definitely changed a few things. The first thing I thought looking at the top photo with Elmo was that she looks really pumped up. Look at her arm and shoulder! And in the third pic down with the white spangly dress she looks a little like Sigourney Weaver in "Galaxy Quest." She's still a cutie, but she was before she "changed," too.

I'll tell you another "fun" fact, though (according to me). Women, if they've taken reasonably good care of themselves - the usual stuff, don't gain and lose and gain a bunch of weight, don't smoke, get some exercise, don't eat an all chocolate, taco and vodka diet, etc. - and they got dealt a fair genetic hand, ought to look damn good clean up throughout the forties and into the fifties. Then, when the menopause business blows over, things start to shift around, sometimes with breathtaking disregard for a person's identity. That's when people start to sort out into the ones who can't wait to go to their latest class reunion and the ones who'd have to be disguised, sedated, and snuck in. It's the mid-fifties, I'm telling ya. That's the trial by fire. Get by that, and you're home free. You only have to wear turquoise polyester double-knit pants and set your hair with bobby pins if you look really hot that way. Up to you. That's what I think.

Posted by: Flutist | Mar 16, 2006 4:07:36 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.