The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. A Stone Cold Classic!

In some places, it's on twice an evening (like in NYC) but here (Chicago)it's on at 6 only.

It's the best news on network TV, IMO.

(sorry, X-post, and yeah, I like Ray Suarez too. He's a good interviewer who usually seems to know what he's talking about and doesn't try to drown out his guests.)

Here's a summary of the satire from http://www.paulandrews.com/2001/03/30:

[A recent] analogy of the Jim Lehrer approach to so-called balanced journalism (this is the guy who failed to ask one single penetrating question or followup of the presidential candidates during the debates) reminds me of Alexander Cockburn's riff on Lehrer back in 1982, when MacNeil was still around. Cockburn described a situation where the NewsHour took on cannibalism ("Should one man eat another?"). One expert defended cannibalism as potentially good for the economy and environment, a source of new revenue, less reliance on environmentally detrimental beef, freeing up property that otherwise would go to land-consuming cemeteries, and so on. The other expert criticized cannibalism as unnecessary, just one more area for the government to regulate, a threat to the existing food-distribution system, a potential religious issue, and so on. A third expert was prepared to argue, "Cannibalism is just wrong," but Lehrer broke in saying, "Sorry, we are out of time."

pretty great news program

i read some shit that had actual statistics, claiming that news hour doesn't interview enough people that aren't white make republicans, but i don't think that's the case in the year or so i've been viewing

make male

I watch Jim Lehrer every weekday. I whistle the theme song in the shower, and hold the high note for an obnoxiously long time, before crashing back with the final ba-BA-ba. It's not perfect but it's at least one million times better than any of the big three network shows. I don't have cable.

Where it shines: bringing on an actual expert who understands some arcane area of the world and its local problems, then letting them explain what they know. This only happens because it is an issue no one in the USA cares about.

Where it sucks: any USA issue where money or power is at stake, and Congress is being lobbied by powerful interests. In such cases they just bring on two or more lobbyists to respectfully disagree and make their talking points. Worst of all is when the general public interest is defended by a nerdy college professor who is unused to speaking on television, pitted against a smooth shill from a conservative think tank. This happens for at least 45 minutes of each day's news hour.

Greatest weakness overall: they have almost no resources to do real reporting in the field. Thus, they never get away from the interview format -- and their interviewer rarely has enough familiarity with an issue to force the facts to the forefront.

any USA issue where money or power is at stake, and Congress is being lobbied by powerful interests.
yeah, this has been especially frustrating w/regards to the health care debate

it's kinda surreal watching it on tv now, seeing all the faces that match up with the voices i've been listening to.

after having only listened to it on the radio, i mean

Worst of all is when the general public interest is defended by a nerdy college professor who is unused to speaking on television, pitted against a smooth shill from a conservative think tank. This happens for at least 45 minutes of each day's news hour.

really? it seems like, at most, 30 minutes is dedicated to this format; and roughly half the time, they do have an eloquent someone on the left. nitpicking, though.

lolll at ray suarez as "ray the beard"

I'm sure with Ifill and Woodruff as anchors, the program's wide-ranging coverage of the ideological spectrum from right-wing Democrat to batshit-right Republican will remain intact.

(at least neither of them is as monumentally boring as Ray Snooze Suarez; Robin and Jim must've given him stem cells)

so Aimless tot OTM, i'm sayin