A few months ago I wrote a column about the Brooks and Shields segment on PBS NewsHour.
Many of you had written to complain that the segment was getting tired, with Mark Shields and David Brooks agreeing most of the time and thus not really representing a "point counterpoint" if that was to be the goal of the segment.
I pointed to the substitution of Brooks with Reihan Salam as a refreshing example of changing up that segment.
At that time, viewer Brent Johnston from Sebring, Ohio, wrote:
“Good Day! Just wanted to mention how refreshing the Friday segment with Shields and Salam was! I thought Mr Shields was more on his mark than before. He seemed awake and alert. He even appeared rested! Maybe the set lighting was modified but for the better. The Chicken Little view he and Brooks promoted was not missed. Would be nice to rotate Shields with Brooks every other week and probably the same for their counterparts. Kudos and thanks to those who made this change happen. Cheers, Brent”
And in the comments section of the NewsHour some of the audience concurred.
“Reihan Salam was a breath of fresh air. Finally you have an articulate voice representing the voice of people who elected DJT please make him permanent. Brooks fit the Bush administration but is currently out of touch.”
“Some articulate disagreement! That’s where we learn something.”
“I think that Reihan Salam provides an excellent 'on the other hand' perspective – which is the essence of real analysis (as opposed to propaganda)”
I have watched all of Mr. Salam’s appearances in this segment this year, and they have generally been informative, and represent a point of view that definitely tries to explain the "view from Trump" without Mr. Salam always agreeing with that view.
Indeed, here’s a letter we received after Mr. Salam’s appearance on the NewsHour on Friday, July 13:
Mark Landau, Los Angeles, CA
“On the July 13th episode, there was spirited debate between Mark Shields and Reihan Salam. It was great! Shields and Brooks too often agree with each other without real debate. They both certainly both dislike Trump. Here we finally have a debate about Trump's pros and cons. FINALLY a fair and balanced discussion. I love the News Hour but have always felt it tilted left. Keep up the good work and have Mr Salam and others in his political spectrum appear more often. (By the way, I have serious reservations about Trump but I want to hear intelligent discourse from both sides).”
So I was surprised to get a deluge of mail following his appearance on Friday, July 20 (which I didn’t watch in real time).
Here’s a sampling of some of the mail:
Scott Paulsen, Minneapolis, MN
“About last Friday's Shields and Salam, Salam appeared not to be giving thoughtful analysis but prepared spin. It brought down the level of the conversation.”
AJ, Los Angeles, CA
“Newshour tonight: Raihan (sic) was a bully, and rude as heck! Where was Judy to stop/slow him down? He steamrollered over Mark Shields repeatedly, failed to even answer the one question Mark finally managed to ask him...please! I think I'll be happy to see David B return! Also, do you have to continue to ask normal questions about Trump world? I mean, it's so NOT NORMAL. I would love to hear a lie called a lie! while you're at it. Thank you”
Barbara Page, Brunswick, ME
“Poor Judy Woodruff and Mark Shields! Salam was so horrible tonight. He is illogical. He does not follow the conversation. He does not contribute to the discussion in a reasonable way. Left or right, the man is an idiot. You can do better.”
The mail continues in a similar vein, including pledges to never support the show in the future if Mr. Salam appears again.
I watched the segment that people are fuming about.
I will agree that by the end of the segment things got a little raucous on the subject of the Trump-Putin summit.
Mr. Salam stated the following: “President Trump doesn’t have the power to reverse sanctions. That is exactly what Putin wants. And he’s not going to get it.”
It’s true that the Senate voted 98-0 in favor of sanctions on Russia, that’s hard for a president to overturn. Does that count as a defeat for Mr. Putin? Seems like a stretch to me but there seems to be a constituency in this country that believes that.
It clearly irked Mr. Shields who then introduced a non-sequitur about Gerhard Schroeder, former German Chancellor, and 9/11, NATO support and whether Mr. Trump even knew that NATO had come to the aid of the U.S. post 9/11 (the only time NATO’s Article 5 regarding collective defense has ever been invoked).
Mr. Salam countered, by whipping out his own historical inflection point commenting that Mr. Schroeder later ran a campaign that was not supportive of the U.S. and in fact Schroeder refused to provide German support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Yes, dear reader, it was a debate focused on former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder that led to a disintegration of this segment, which up until that point wasn’t too different from previous segments of Shields and Salam.
(For those of you keeping track, Germany did support the attack on Afghanistan as part of a NATO response to the 9/11 attacks and dozens of Germans have lost their lives in Afghanistan.
The Germans (and Turks) did not support the U.S. Invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was supported by "a coalition of the willing" and NOT a NATO mission).
Mr. Shields was irked, Mr. Salam got rattled – it happens sometimes.
Was it a disgraceful display? I’d say it was unfortunate and I wish it hadn’t got to that point.
I’ve actually enjoyed the Shields and Salam segments. We get some disagreement, they frankly make Mr. Shields a little sharper and whatever your personal feelings about the presidency of Donald Trump, he enjoys rock solid support amongst Republicans and occasionally hearing from someone who represents a conservative viewpoint that isn’t necessarily “never Trump” provides some insight into a way of thinking that is alive and well amongst millions of Americans.
Again, in the comments section of the NewsHour there was also a deluge of response, with an overwhelming number of people who did not appreciate Mr. Salam’s tone, which many felt was rude.
“It is not Mr. Salam’s viewpoint that disturbs me and other commenters here, it is his bombastic, rude and arrogant behavior.”
“please know that if you have Mr. Salam on as a commenter I will never watch your program again.”
“Salam is not worthy of time on the NewsHour. He is rude and off-topic”.
But there were still some supportive comments for Mr. Salam:
“As a taxpayer who contributes to the funding of PBS, I want the opposing point of view. If you can’t take the heat, embrace your fellow snowflakes in your favorite safe zone and keep your head in the sand. Only hearing opinions that validate your thinking is not the hallmark of liberal thinking.”
“Salam is getting a lot of criticism for his performance. Many more conservative viewers are happy to see PBS Newshour bring someone on the “right side” seat and challenge Mr. Shields. Shields clearly is not used to push back on this program.”
“Attention Producers! I loved Salam! He was not rude, he agreed with much of what Mark said. He was passionate. Frankly, Shields and Brooks has become so deferential that it is uninteresting. This was a lively, useful discussion, and Mark needs someone to snap him out of dialing it in. I am not making a partisan point – but I found Salam’s perspective interesting!”
“I think Mr. Salam does a far better job of representing the truth about what American conservatism and the Republican party have become than Mr. Brooks does. And in consequence, I think he deserves to be heard on the Newshour.”
I have not seen the audience get riled up about something for a long time, but that July 20th segment clearly got them motivated.
Here’s my assessment. I think that by the end of the segment the temperature rose in a way it doesn’t usually (including in previous Shields/Salam segments).
In all the commentary and analysis and the thousands of words that poured out of our body politic following the Trump-Putin Helsinki meeting last week what was clear to me was that it was an emotional week for many.
Mr. Trump’s performance at that event was unlike any previous president and no matter how strongly you feel about that meeting the fact of the matter is that there are many people in this country who fully support Mr. Trump’s efforts.
I think Mr. Salam did talk about his own problems with Mr. Trump’s performance but also tried to articulate (no matter how convoluted), how this presidency is explained by many.
One only need watch Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s appearance at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this week to understand that there is a lot of "Trump explaining" going on in D.C.
The thrust of my column about the Shields and Brooks segment from a few months back was that it was perhaps a little too comfortable and not conveying the reality of what’s going on in Washington these days.
I, for one, would be happy to see Mr. Salam back on the air on NewsHour (maybe more in tone with his previous appearances this year where the volume was toned down) and for Mr. Shields to spar with him based on the topic at hand, not pulling out a historical non-sequitur to score points.
I reached Sara Just, executive producer of NewsHour, via email. Here is her response to last week's segment:
"NewsHour strives to present a variety of political perspectives on our program, with the aim of capturing and looking more closely at the realities of the debates unfolding in this country. We work to achieve this on a daily basis through civil, insightful conversations and reports.
"Last Friday’s segment was indeed more heated than is typical on our program. We are, nevertheless, open to having Mr. Salam on our program again, as well as others who can shine a light on the pulse of our nation in this moment."
I think she's got it right.
Posted on July 27, 2018 at 8:26 a.m.
