I watched last Friday’s PBS NewsHour and was pleasantly surprised by something new. The regular Brooks and Shields segment was replaced by at least one substitute. National Review Executive Editor Reihan Salam filled in for the absent David Brooks.
Mr. Salam was respectful to Mark Shields, someone on the opposite side of the political divide, but more importantly he pointed out that there were issues where he disagreed with Mr. Shields.
That’s what stood out for me.
A segment that is ostensibly a point/counterpoint look at the week’s politics by people of opposing political sides has become, of late, Brooks and Shields agreeing far more than disagreeing on their analysis.
The inbox of this office gets a steady stream of complaints about this weekly segment on the NewsHour. Many of the complaints are purely personal, that it is time for new blood.
Ellae Elinwood writes, “Mark Shields is a broken record of Trump concerns. I am old. He is old. He needs to be replaced by someone quicker and less biased.”
Bruce MacEvoy from Sebastopol, Calif., insists: “I intend no disrespect to Mark Shields’ wisdom and admirable career to suggest that it’s time for him to yield his commentator chair to a new talent. If you read a verbatim rather than cleaned up transcript of his comments you may see my point. Good luck.”
Penny Pollard of Bethesda, Md., is no fan of Mr. Shields either. “OMG, Mark Shields (sic) is giving us lectures on bombasity. And doing it with a straight face and with such ernesty (sic). He is the poster boy of bombastic behavior. Nothing could be more laughable.”
Indeed, this pairing has been part of the NewsHour for 17 years.
However, it’s not that longevity that’s the issue. By far the biggest complaint about Mr. Brooks is that he does not represent a conservative point of view.
DeeDee Shields notes: “Brooks is hardly a Republican, as he is employed by the most liberal publication in the country-NYT. His lukewarm, disingenuous 'Republicanism' on PBS is a sham, and PBS viewers deserve an honest and vigorous debate, not a nice chat that usually ends up in agreement with Shields.”
Stephen Middlebrook of Virginia Beach, Va., suggests, “Wouldn’t it make more sense-for a true counter-counterpoint discussion-to replace Mr. Brooks with someone more likely to present points of view more favorable to Mr. Trump than he is ever likely to get under the present format.”
John Blitter from Tucson, Ariz., implores, “Enough already, get rid of the old timers shield and brooks (sic). Love your news, however, when ever these two knucklehead pontificate their views I change the channel. Out of touch with us common folks who live and work out of the new york area.”
Clearly there is concern that Mr. Brooks and Mr. Shields do not disagree enough and that maybe they are too much creatures of the Washington ‘establishment.’
I understand that if, indeed, the segment is supposed to be representative of each “side” then we are not hearing much of that discussion between Brooks and Shields.
There have been substitutes filling in for both Shields and Brooks over the past months including the aforementioned Mr. Salam, Ramesh Ponnuru, Michael Gerson (debuting his own show on PBS today with co-host Amy Holmes), Kathleen Parker, Ruth Marcus and Ezra Klein among them, and maybe there has been a little more “disagreement” when there is a substitute.
Many of you crave balance. You see something on the air and if you don’t like it you claim imbalance, so I can see the appeal of having a sparring contest between two sides.
However, our media is overwhelmed with just such binary analysis of the world of Washington. Turn CNN on any hour of the day and you will see a gallery of talking heads, equally divided between “both sides.”
As much as we love symmetry (which I generally do), our political world is much more messy than that.
PBS NewsHour covers a lot of politics, every single day. As NewsHour Executive Producer Sara Just responded: "Inaddition to Mark Shields and David Brooks on Fridays, we have added Amy Walter and Tamara Keith on Mondays and often Matt Schlapp and Karine Jean-Pierre on Wednesdays. And, of course, we frequently have a range of other political analysts on the program outside of these regular segments to respond to news as it happens."
That’s true, but I’d like to push a more a radical suggestion with regard to that Friday segment. Maybe PBS NewsHour should do away with the point/counterpoint segment altogether?
Here’s the thing: Only 55% of eligible voters voted in the 2016 election.
That means some 100 million or so of eligible voters did not feel strongly enough to declare themselves on one side or the other of this point/counterpoint way of looking at the world.
So shouldn’t our political discussions reflect that state of affairs?
There are divides within the Republican Party.
There are divides within the Democratic Party.
And there are ideas and voices that represent neither.
Ms. Just agrees with me that the world is no longer binary, but, she says, "We don’t expect Shields and Brooks to represent the totality of points of view. But their insights have proven thoughtful and considered, often breaking with the partisan driven talking points one hears so often on other talk shows."
I think the question worth asking is who can enlighten us? Who can give us fresh insight into the politics of the day as it is practiced and lived both in and outside the beltway?
Many of you who oppose President Trump take issue with the idea that Matt Schlapp gets airtime on the NewsHour. Schlapp is chairman of the American Conservative Union, an influential organization in conservative circles. But to me what makes him a useful voice to hear from is that he has a relationship with the president, he has been known to dine at the White House. He can provide an insight that many cannot.
The same can be said of Christopher Ruddy. He is a well-known confidant of the president. Is he spinning? Yes. But we usually learn something from him, too. Chris Buskirk is another voice who represents a vibrant part of the conservative divide of today.
This is the way our politics works. We may not like it, but what can we do to get more insight?
The role of the host or reporter is to push back on factual issues, while eliciting insight, a tough though not impossible thing to do.
There are many times when the biggest news in politics is the divide between Republicans or between Democrats. How refreshing would it be to hear that conversation?
Well we did – this week Buskirk and Charlie Sykes, both self-described conservatives with differing viewpoints, responded to the news that House Speaker Paul Ryan will be retiring from Congress at the end of his term.
For me this was an interesting conversation and one that added value. I’m pretty sure I know what a Democrat’s reaction would have been, so hearing from two conservatives was more useful.
In my mind, the most valuable service a news organization can provide is insight and understanding.
Most weeks I come away from Brooks and Shields with no greater insight or understanding of the week in politics; it’s mostly a rehash.
Ms. Just tells me that the NewsHour is continuing to explore a broader range of political voices to help us understand the times we live in now. I hope that she will pay heed to that 100 million or so who didn’t support either side and we hear voices that represent those viewpoints in the future.
But on Brooks and Shields she does remind me: "Our ratings on broadcast, as well as on podcast for this segment, demonstrate that Shields and Brooks is consistently one of our most popular segments of the week."
Posted on April 13, 2018 at 9:09 a.m.
