The Robert MacNeil Report

The show is the PBS nightly news hour, with a venerable heritage begun by MacNeil and Lehrer, but has "progressed" through a series of successor hosts that have left it worse for wear.

Whereas it is award-winning, that doesn't equate to fair and balanced. The format features daily hot spots followed by lengthy analysis and interviews, but from a narrow perspective of New York and Washington DC pundits. Guests invariably represent the usual suspects from the Washington Post, New York Times, NPR, and PBS itself. Unsurprisingly, the gathered often marvel at what the rest of the country is thinking or doing politically, socially, or culturally.

The show's earlier incarnation was well-balanced and diverse. The current (2021) version is a bit heavy on feminism with men treated a bit like some relic of the past. Needs diversity.

Spends too much time preening about its fair and balanced reporting while missing the glaring truth that it isn't either.

Currently called The Newshour with Jim Lehrer (which may change when Lehrer steps down), this is by far the most-informative and least-biased news report on American television. Five days a week, the Newshour is the true heir to the CBS Evening News with the Walter Cronkite. The reporting is first-rate, the issues are the most important, and the hour steers clear of opinionated commentary, except on Fridays. Briefly, for about 20 minutes every Friday, Mark Shields and David Brooks provide observations regarding the past week's political movements.

The format was changed recently. Originally, a news summary began the hour and was followed by anywhere between three and five in-depth stories, some of which were summarized at the beginning. The financial crisis of late 2008 forced the Newshour to revise its format. Now the top stories may include in-depth analysis immediately following before moving to the other stories not necessarily included in the summary. The Newshour ends with its recap of major stories.

Unlike the other major networks which might give blow-by-blow accounts when a celebrity or politician is involved with scandal or unexpected death, the Newshour remains with those stories that can impact the lives of everyday citizens, both in the United States and worldwide. CNN, one of the better cable news organizations, along with MSNBC and Fox devoted enormous airtime to the death of Michael Jackson in late June of 2009. Not that his death was not newsworthy, but the media coverage of Jackson was quite excessive. Many other events relevant to the state of the nation and the world deserved to trump the expounding upon every nuance regarding Jackson's passing. Did we really need to see continual interviews with Jackson's family and closest associates for weeks after his death? And as someone devoted to social causes, Jackson may have disapproved of the television news over-coverage of his death. Only the Newshour kept up with other stories, such as the Sotomayer appointment to the US Supreme Court and the Health Care Bill.

On Fridays, the Newshour includes political analysis by journalists Mark Shields and David Brooks, two of the best commentators on the airwaves, their only rivals David Gergen (who may be the absolute best political commentator in the business) and Jeffrey Toobin, both of whom work for CNN. Instead of the ranting and ravings of people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly (who are really entertainers and not journalists), the format is a discussion with Jim Lehrer (or another Newshour regular) asking questions of the commentators to guide the conversation. David Brooks is a Republican and leans slightly to the right and Mark Shields is a feisty Democrat who leans to the left. Since Brooks joined Shields in the early 2000's (not to be confused with Brooke Shields), replacing Republican spokesperson Paul Gigot, the Friday analysis has improved by leaps and bounds, bringing the quality back to where it was with David Gergen and Mark Shields in the early 1990's. (Gergen left the show in the mid-1990's when then-president Bill Clinton asked him to join his team at the White House.) Shields and Brooks appear to respect and like one another despite their political disagreements; they rarely jump over each other when the other is speaking and always maintain an air of mutual esteem, unlike other political debates where the participants would probably wield baseball bats if given the chance. Shields and Brooks recognize that they will disagree at times but their job is to present both sides of the political debate in the most civilized manner possible. They have honed their commentary to where they feel comfortable criticizing their respective parties and members rather than simply paying lip-service to party ideals.

For example, Brooks became interested in Barack Obama long before he made a run for the White House. Shields has great respect for the republican John McCain. The two contribute immensely to the public's need to better understand the current political underpinnings of the climate of Washington DC. Few do it better. One of the most interesting observations in recent memory was Shields' criticism of John Kerry's lack of message in his 2004 US presidential campaign. Both acknowledge and respect the other's opinions, which is the kind of political discourse we need more of in the United States.

The only advice I can give: switch from Fox, CNN and MSNBC once in awhile and try the Newshour. And try to catch the Friday commentary with Shields and Brooks. You can always switch it back to Larry King if things get too intellectual for you.

.... since all TV news shows followed the same basic format - Impartially speak in detail about the news stories of the day, with maybe a human interest story at the end. Then came the 80s, and newsrooms across the country were commercialized so that network and cable news alike resemble the National Inquirer. Everybody has staked out a demographic that they want and simply tells that demographic what they want to hear.

Thus, PBS NewsHour is a relic of a bygone era, and I'm glad it's still here. The show informs rather than pontificates, and employs actual journalists doing actual journalism. I dread the day it may no longer be available.

I am tired of hearing the same people who are the purported experts on this show. they provide little new views or perspectives and i do not know why the news for PBS Newshour should have so many contracted regulars when there are so many experts out there that have more insight to provide. Especially the Friday night editorializing which is really stupid as the two regulars that present simply provide there bias over and over. Judy Woodruff is boring and always saying "more to think about" and her interviews are shallow and lacking in direct challenges to those who lie on the program. She is really a weak interviewer and has little strength. Amanpour is so very much more well educated about the issues and direct in her speech and not as timid and weak as Woodruff, who i believe has passed her usefulness. I actually get angry when I listen to these regulars on PBS Newshour that are so redundant and lacking in depth. It is more of a small high school social group of people than real intellectual content and challenging ideas and good interview skills.

Overall, this is my favorite news program, although that doesn't mean I don't have my complaints. I DVR the show every night, and watch parts of it to get intelligent and insightful coverage and analysis of the days events.

The first 15-20 minutes is usually very informative and provides a well rounded summary of the days news. Unlike CNN and other networks they don't spend 99% of the time talking about Donald Trump or other meaningless news in order to grab people's viewership for shallow reasons. On Fridays they have Brooks and Shields which is my favorite part of the program. Two political pundits who have a genuine, intelligent, non- partisan discussion about political topics, it's one of the few places on television you can find that. Shields and Brooks is definitely the most important part of the show.

Unfortunately, after the first half of the program it usually goes down hill and I rarely would watch an entire episode. They go into depth on special topics and social issues which don't ordinarily get covered on news shows. While these special topics are certainly valuable and informative, it's not something I feel is appropriate for a "news" program because these special programs are not really news. I have a limited time in the evening to watch the news, and I don't usually have time to spend it exploring topics that don't particularly interest me on a daily basis. It would be better if there was a different program on PBS that covered these social issue segments and focus the news hour on actual news.

I thought that the show was better when Jim Lehrer in charge. Nowadays most of the main news cast are women. In my opinion, this gives the show a point of view which is a bit too feminist for my taste. They oftentimes express attitudes about issues which they think is objectively correct but to me seems biased (e.g. see the interview of the author of the discredited Rolling Stone rape story).