Woodruff's prognosis.

There are moderately conflicting accounts about whether and when Bob Woodruff would be able to return to his anchor duties at ABC today. Here's the more somber assessment in a Washington Post piece reporting that Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson will fill in for him alongside Elizabeth Vargas for the forseeable future:

It is not clear how long Sawyer and Gibson would remain part of the evening news, just as it is not clear how long Woodruff will be sidelined by his injuries or whether he can return to an on-air role at all.

Today's New York Times story has a somewhat more optimistic outlook from a military doctor who treated him in Germany.

While the full extent of Mr. Woodruff's injuries is not yet known, and he faces months of recovery, Colonel Tellez said he could imagine him going back to work someday as a broadcast journalist.

"He has a very good chance," he said.

Of course, "someday" is the operative word here. And the evidence suggests Woodruff faces a long and arduous recovery.

In the meantime, I disagree heartily with this David Bianculli column  arguing that anchors are just too valuable to be put in harm's way -- unless you want to think of them strictly as well-coifed, makeup-wearing news readers with multi-million dollar salaries. The big anchors -- Dan Rather comes most notably to mind -- have always signalled a story's overarching importance by showing up on the scene, sometimes putting themselves in danger. I'm not for having them throw caution to the wind, but I believe they need to be in the field when the news is important enough. Otherwise, they end up being a caricature of the Jack Nicholson character in Broadcast News.