The pros and cons of sending big-name anchors to Egypt

That wasn't exactly a welcome wagon that rolled out in Egypt these last few days for U.S. journalists who rushed there to cover the civil strife.

CNN's Anderson Cooper and his crew were shoved around, a Fox News team ended up in the hospital and CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric also ran into unruly crowds. While the happenings in Egypt are an incredible story and worthy of lots of coverage by the broadcast and cable networks, a debate could be had about how much is gained by dispatching high-profile reporters who usually spend the bulk of their time behind a desk to hot zones. No one questions their courage, of course, but is this the best way for TV news divisions to utilize their resources? By sending Couric and Brian Williams, the anchor of NBC's "Nightly News" who is also in the region, the networks are sending a signal to their viewers that what's happening in Egypt is important. It is their belief that unless a star anchor is there a story won't be noticed. There may be some truth to that, but perhaps the answer is to do more foreign reporting and less fluff rather than shipping a big name overseas every time a major story surfaces. The costs that go into sending an anchor to a trouble spot are not to be taken lightly. While the networks will say that the security of all their staffers is paramount, rest assured a lot more precautions are taken when a $15-million-a-year anchor is there as opposed to a freelance producer or part-time correspondent. Those are resources that might be better spent on beefing up coverage in general with more people with roots in the region or at least a lot of time on the ground there.