The Robert MacNeil Report

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.

Gwen Ifill's absence is very apparent. Poor journalism, extreme bias, and lacking professional demeanor. It can't get better when you bring the same ignorant pundits on every week.

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.

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).

The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) program, PBS NewsHour, is arguably one of America's leading television news programs. Circumstances dictate, though, that few are aware of this. NewsHour does not warrant the intense spotlight as would a counterpart on a commercial station with greater resources.

It was named the "Robert MacNeil Report" upon its inception with founding co-anchors, Robert Breckenridge Ware MacNeil and James Charles Lehrer. Months later it became the "MacNeil/Lehrer Report". It would adopt its enduring moniker, "NewsHour", in 1983 when it became the "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour", and extended from 30 minutes to a full hour. After Robert MacNeil's retirement in 1995, it was titled the "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" for fourteen subsequent years. Its current name was established in late 2009, as it underwent a considerable format alteration.

The "PBS NewsHour" encourages greater attention than conventional abrupt news reports. It is outstanding for its in-depth coverage of issues, including its presentation of opinions. The program encourages greater attention to stories beyond the rapidness of conventional TV journalism. The greater allotted time enables "NewsHour" correspondents room to give greater context to an issue or a news-maker. This approach of the "NewsHour" has earned complements by the political likes of John McCain, Al Gore, Richard Lugar and Tom Daschle. It is one of the reasons Jim Lehrer has been selected to moderate many Presidential Debates.

If the popular conclusion holds true, the harbinger of some of the early pressures on American public television—and the conception of the "NewsHour"—may have originated in the lead up to the 1960 Presidential Election. That conclusion being that it was the television debate which resulted in Richard Nixon's loss to John Kennedy; a setback which motivated Dwight Eisenhower's former Vice President to develop an interest in the still emerging television medium, and its role in politics. This interest was nurtured later when Nixon returned to public life on his way to winning the American Presidency in 1968.

There is another somewhat similar area of contention: contrary to the Carnegie Commission's intent that public television was to be independent of political influence, President Lyndon Johnson had other ideas that the system would serve as a limited political tool for his agendas. Whatever his plans might have been, however, Johnson's time as president was near its end after the system was established.

By the time President Nixon arrived in the White House, Robert MacNeil, previously a correspondent for NBC, had already soured on the American press because of the way he felt it covered the Vietnam War. It was a reportage he determined was too accepting of the optimistic assessments from officials within President Lyndon Johnson's administration. The war in Vietnam he came to oppose, and conveyed as such in an upstart subjective radio journalism format, which allowed analysis and editorials.

In the early 1970s, MacNeil temporarily left the British Broadcasting Corporation to work with American public television, hired by NPACT—National Public Affairs Center for Television. MacNeil was placed on-air with former NBC colleague, Sander Vanocur, to cover politics. When Vanocur left amidst political pressure fueled by the perception that he was a Kennedy supporter in a public television system viewed by some as anti-Nixon. Jim Lehrer was tasked to replace him. Choosing Lehrer was perceived as less contentious, due to his past with a top Republican and PBS executive that supported President Nixon.

Lehrer had begun work at PBS as an off-air program coordinator before joining MacNeil on air. After leaving newspaper reporting behind, his first forays into television was being in charge of public affairs at a local Dallas member supported station. His on-air work with MacNeil continued throughout the Watergate Hearings. It was their award-winning coverage of the hearings, accompanied by expert analysis, which brought MacNeil and Lehrer to prominence as a journalistic team. The manner in which they covered those proceedings would inspire the latter implementation of the NewsHour.

Possessing only a fraction of the budget as programs on the commercial station, MacNeil and Lehrer found ways around the financial limitations by heavily using interviews in studio and by remote. In their initial half-hour format, they had focused each program on one issue. Furthermore, they aimed for an audience who wanted further exploration of a news story without the usual high-pace which the public were accustomed. They had in mind that viewers longed for detailed back-stories. It was an approach similar to BBC's "Panaroma", on which MacNeil was an anchor, and the American series "Public Broadcasting Laboratory" (PBL), which MacNeil admired. Through the Ford Foundation, "PBL" was founded by Fred Friendly, whom had left his position as leader of CBS News.

It was more than happenstance that the "NewsHour" was scheduled after the network evening broadcasts at a time when CBS, NBC, and ABC had commanded most of the viewing audience. Appreciating the "NewsHour" results in an inevitable comparison with the offerings on the Big Three: the "Evening News", "Nightly News" and "World News Tonight". If these programs, at minimum, were a hour, the pressures to compress stories and obfuscate information would be decreased.

In an era of the Internet, multiple channels through cable and satellite technologies, wireless communication, the "NewsHour" is a television anachronism. It is distinctive in a media landscape of instantaneous information and all-news channels. It functions like a slow-moving entity in an attention deficit world, with an emphasis on depth. The entire program is segmented between the underwriters mentioned at the start and finish. No commercial breaks.

MacNeil and Lehrer would note their shared original goal to work as a complement to their network counterparts in 1975. Since the program's one hour expansion in 1983, they have conveyed the "NewsHour" as an alternate. Accurately referred to as low-key and even-handed, the program is without flamboyance and fanfare. In terms of news, the results of the "NewsHour" means more information triumphs over less. An outcome resulting in the public interest being served.