Lehrer Says "NewsHour" Money Woes Are Worst Ever

It has been a rough few weeks for "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" on PBS.

In late April, Mr. Lehrer, who turns 74 on Monday, had aortic valve replacement surgery. He said he was recovering nicely and expects to be back on the air toward the end of June. But the nightly newscast's funding situation could take longer to heal.

In its 25 years on the air, "NewsHour" has had fallow budget periods, but none that equal the current one, Mr. Lehrer acknowledged. The financial squeeze was precipitated last summer when Archer Daniels Midland ended its 14-year sponsorship of the program. That sponsorship provided nearly $4 million (and some years as much as $7 million) of the program's yearly budget, which varies from $26 million to $28 million.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[dadw5boys]

$ 28 million to run a 1 hour news show each day?????

Why so high? Is access to the AP, Ruters and other new gathering organizations so expensive?

[irishgawdess]

Here's some reading on Archer Daniels Midland that seems contrary to the entertainment aspects of PBS, as well as the educational and scientific programming.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13646 "Green Energy's Dirty Secret"

A part of ADM's business is making ethanol from corn, using coal in the process. MAJOR polluters. Other PBS sponsors (formerly known as donors or contributors) are involved in the Military Industrial Complex. Federal funding has dropped off for PBS, as well as from educational resources formerly supported by the government. I guess in an economic pinch any sponsor is better than none. This is disgusting. This brand of capitalism SUCKS!

This is how the federal government dismantles our educational system piece by piece to dumb down our kids. If this system continues, all they'll know how to say is Yes Sir! No Sir! and "How high do you want me to jump?"

I don't care for the idea of public television going commercial. As it is, the advertising between programs has gotten longer with less time for programming. It seems as if the same is happening on commercial TV. Have the FCC rules changed lately?

Meanwhile, PBS needs to broaden their hunt for donors and vet them for neutrality. If PBS can hang in until 1-20-2009, less money will be spent on Iraq, and the turnaround of support for PBS will start up again, along with ed funding, etc.

[xargaw]

The News Hour is not what it was when McNeil was part of the program. Years after year, it has gotten weaker with a more corporate message similar to network TV. As the news has been diluted by money influence, younger viewers have fled to the internet and some cable shows. Like much of other news and political shows, the News Hour brings on the same old tired pundits instead of younger brighter journalists and analysts because the old guard never rocks the boat or is too critical of the status quo. Like the corporate press, they fell for the Bush Administrations PR and rush to War, and then parroted all the Bush talking points without skeptism. No wonder viewship is off and even corporate bully sponsors are bailing. It's all about the bottom line. By betraying their calling, they are loosing everything. Few will even know if the News Hour disappears.

[Earl]

The reason why public TV doesn't and can't have a decent national daily news show is because Nixon made sure the organization was a loose affiliation of local stations with very little money at the top of the pyramid.

[Village]

If we want a truly free press, we need to fund public news like never before. We need one honest press outlet, if we have to pay for it with public funds.

[realityisbetter]

I don't understand why so much public broadcasting money would go to this show. Any time I've watched it in the last several years, they've just been parroting the same information and Republican-framed issues that the rest of the for-profit media has. They don't have any fresh or independent views. They don't put any effort into figuring out, let alone pointing out, lies when people tell them. They do the same thing as everybody else by treating lies as a "side" of a story. Lies are not a "side," they are simply lies.

Public television is about seeing things you don't get to see on corporate sponsored TV. It's about in-depth stories and trying to seperate fact from fiction. I think Frontline, Now and Bill Moyers are far better than Lehrer is, was or ever will be.

[VitriolAndAngst]

I predict that public TV will start covering all those ADM corruption stories they failed to do all these years that ADM was picking up the tab.

We SO need to go back to public financing of Public TV and radio. We've got plenty of noise already on commercial TV -- and it is necessary for Democracy, that we have some source of news that doesn't have to bury stories to keep a sponsor happy.

You do notice the list of sponsors on NPR -- right? Apparently, all the bad things that Monsanto, ADM and DuPont used to do, just immediately stopped as soon as they were supporters.

[JScott]

Ok liberal leaning corporations/celebs where RU when you are needed U KnOW hu U r, time to ante up. Virgin Companies, Berkshire Hathaway, Costco, Paul Newman.

[Anastasia]

Good point.

Could it be a chicken and egg thing, though? If the NewsHour is perceived as too easy on the Bush Administration, might that be what's putting them off?

There's a lot to be admired about the NH but it could use a bit more zest, and a tougher stance with those who come on the show and lie, prevaricate and fib their way through an interview and yet emerge without a scratch on them.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

If the interviewer directly skewers the guests you(?) dislike, they will refuse to return and pass on the word that a "News Hour" appearance is merely inquisitional and certainly bad PR! Also, I suppose, from the self-righteous tone of this blog entry, that you've failed to notice that interviewees know how use such confrontations to good advantage and/or "stay on message."

The viewer is responsible to ferretting(sp?) out contradictions, etc. and acting accordingly.... Might require a bit of thought, a process which most "Murkans" want to avoid.....

[Anastasia]

I want to like the News Hour and tune in almost every day. The problem? It puts me to sleep. Not always, but regularly.

There are many aspects of the show that work, but in general, it has such a stodgy quality, it's almost 19th century. More seriously, their inability to challenge the Administration's talking heads in the run up to the Iraq war, was probably their worst failing.

Though he occasionally goes off the rails, on a good day, Charlie Rose does much better political stuff. with a larger variety and more interesting guests and a sharper debate.

[Irons]

I stopped watching ALL TV new a couple of years ago. It's a waste of time. PBS has a smidgen more redibility that the other 'nets, but not all that much. I've always thought Jim Lehrer was a mashed potatoes news reader, don't know if he acutally does any reporting/investigating/studing.

I get all of my news on-line.

[AurigaRa]

my money goes to my local progressive radio station

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

....because......(....to borrow a tiresome, Charlie Rose-trope....)......? The "progressive radio station" tells you what you WANT to hear; it strokes your "weltanschauung"(sp?)......more than it relates current history.....giving a sort of Alice's Restaurant screed to world events.....?

[AurigaRa]

ADM.
Now what does THAT tell you.
I like Lehrer but puleeeez, what kind of unbiased opinions can we possibly get with sponsors
like ADM?

PBS has changed. We can thank Bush for that. But anytime a corporation like ADM is a big sponsor, we ain't getting the whole story.

[longnow]

I notice they reject grants that are "too Narrow".
I wonder what that means? Grover Norquist
would like to know. Bill Moyers wasted how
many years at PBS when he should have
been running for office FCOL.

*That Mr. Brooks is such a nice man
so pleasant and easy on the eyes
just like that nice man from my state Mr. Huggabbaby.
Wrong about the war? What war?*

[disgustedbyitall]

Leaving aside all of the political and corporatist arguments--they're well covered in previous posts--I'll just say I can't stand watching it because it's unbelievably boring. PBS produces some astonishingly good programming. Why do I always feel like "Newshour" is shooting in a 1970s era dentist's office?

[sleepless]

I cannot wait for all TV 'news' to realize that they are now all the same, all corporate sponsors doing content control..

This campaign season, the TV pundits don't get that more and more of us only see the clips of them here on the net, where we are able to converse about how awful they are. PBS and NPR are no longer public. ADM and other 'underwriters' turned them right wing.

Fight to save net neutrality, because $$$ is coming after the net too.

[Earl]

I lost respect for him when he moderated the presidential debates that excluded all third party candidates.

[LittleBrother]

I'll just add my voice to the chorus who used to watch The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour religiously, and stuck with the post-MacNeil era until Lehrer showed his true colors.

I can only assume that beneath his mild-mannered exterior, Robert MacNeil was the visionary of the two. As others have noted, Lehrer proved only too willing to let the show become a genteel form of corporate news stenography.

Even during its heyday, a few critics justly pointed out certain tired formulas the show recycled, e.g. the "Point-Counterpoint" approach of having one person supporting X paired off with someone who opposed X. It's a straightforward, tried-and-true approach, but over time it becomes a stale and predictable ritual.

What's worse is that usually they wind up with someone who supports X and some "opposing" nebbish who kinda-sorta supports X too, except for certain details. The Shields/Brooks shtick is beyond lame; Shields has long since burned off whatever edge he had, and is a typically benighted moderate old school liberal hack. He and the abominable Brooks are more like than unlike.

It's a little surprising that corporate sponsors wouldn't be happy to fund the show, since it's come to be another engine for manufacturing consent, especially among slightly more educated or literate types who still believe that PBS is "different". Has its "upscale" cachet worn off?

[raw915]

I'm also a member of the silent generation, and I used to support the NewsHour and McCain. But I'm also a realist; our days are over. There can be no stopping the more energetic X, Y, and Z generations. Trying to pump life into our sagging bodies is as ludicrous as Indiana Jones. We've had our day in the sun, and now it's time to pass on the torch.

[Paris68]

Here's a few thoughts, PBS. Have Brooks and Shields yell at each other instead of "basically agreeing" all the time--maybe even throw in a speed round at the end their commentary. And perhaps when you transition to a new story have a loud SWOOOOSH sound. And what is it with all that silence at the end of the program when you are reading off the names of fallen soldiers? It's so depressing. Maybe you could play a triumphant march number instead. Finally, for god sake, do you have to spend so much time going into the nuance of a story???? 90 seconds and move on!

You're welcome.

[whoissilvia]

Good suggestions. Studies also show that viewership increases in exponential proportion to the number of American flag graphics displayed on screen during the program.

[Martskers]

The problem with the News Hour is Jim Lehrer. He is a dinosaur whose time has passed, but worse, he is one of the most inept interviewers EVER. It's time for him to go.

Bring on Judy Woodruff or Gwenn Ifill as the anchor. Either of them runs circles around Lehrer as interviewers.

The same goes for that weak sister, Mark Shields, whose lunch David Brooks consistently eats during their commentary segments. It's as though PBS WANTS the liberal commentator to look ineffectual.

Why not get E.J. Dionne, or bring back Tom Oliphant, either of whom would do a better job of standing up to that conservative hack Brooks.

[whoissilvia]

It builds tension and excitement for liberal viewers to watch Shields spend 25 of his 30 seconds rebuttal time stammering and waggling his jowls. Sorry, Mark, your time's up. It sounded like you were about to utter a compelling argument there, but back to David Brooks.

[ajax2]

Just prior to the Iraq war, Jim Lehrer jumped in with all the MSM to propagandize for war (see PIPA media study). Bill Moyers asked Lerher if he had a duty to challenge the administration when they lied on his program. He said, no that was the oppositions responsibility. With that short statement Mr Lehrer shirked his duties as both a journalist and public servant.
The money woes for public television may end when the right wing political hacks are removed from CPB.

[racom]

Comment right on point. I lost interest in the program over the same issue. Lehrer has to go, sooner rather than later. Ray Suarez or Judy Woodruff would do a far better job.

[Earl]

Hey Jim, bring a wrecker over to my house and you can haul away my rusty 63 Dodge Dart!

[Durango]

Bingo

[MissT]

My thoughts exactly.

[RomeyDA]

PBS/NewsHour is now up against Amy Goodman at Democrat NOW
Amy and team provides better insight to the REAL news
Bill Moyers need to have a egment on New Hours
MSM is dumbing down America with RACE AND SEX

[racom]

The 'Democracy Now' show is first rate. When I found Link TV on the satelite stations I changed my support contributions from pbs to link, haven't regretted it at all. PBS has turned into another corporate mouth piece, Lehrer needs to go.

[Horst]

Americans prefer O'Reilly and comedy news shows. In a country that could elect an imbecile like Bush it is no wonder people lack the attention span to watch NewsHour.

[dadw5boys]

When Christopher Reeves was injured all his huge paychecks meant little to him. When his insurance comapny walked away at $ 1 million on hospital bills he was floored.

See that is why higher income individuals need to keep paying into Social Security!!

They get sick and they end up broke and needy too!!!!!

The Republicans tried to starve Social Security and Medicare and now the poor have to suffer not only from that but PAY FOR THE CARE OF THE ONE TIME WEALTHY PEOPLE ALSO!

MILLIONAIRES QUICKLY REALIZE MONEY DOES NOT GO VERY FAR IF YOU SEPERATE YOURSELF FROM THE REST OF SOCIETY! $100,000 GOES VERY FAST WHEN THEY ARE TREATING CANCER!

[eshalom]

I was a regular viewer of the NewsHour for many years unti the Democratic primary race began to heat up. Jim Lehrer's sexist comment regarding the incident when Hillary Clinton teared up prior to the NH primary suggested it revealed weakness on her part.

Brooks and Shields both repeatedly dismissed Clinton every Friday night during their "analysis." Shields, supposedly the liberal of the pair, could barely conceal his smug, good old boy contempt for Clinton.

Recognizing that a program I had long counted on for balanced news coverage was tainted by sexism toward the first viable female presidential candidate in our nation's history was hurtful and disappointing.

TV producers forget the viewer always retains the power to hit the remote button on his or her remote, and I'm one viewer who is unlikely to ever tune in to the NewsHour again.

Note: The several complaints I emailed to the NewsHour were never acknowledged.

[jah2008]

You can be a loyal viewer of PBS, but if you don't pledge any money, it means nothing.

Newshour is still the only thing on TV that resembles news. The fact that Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann are considered news by a lot of people makes me sad. The fact that people watch CNN and MSNBC and think that they're watching real news makes me sad. These so-called news shows carry identical set of headlines night after night. It's as if these news shows work from the same list of headlines. One cannot get alternative news unless one has the time and the energy to browse other online sources to find out what's happening outside the CNN/MSNBC cocoon.

I don't buy into Chomsky's theory on "manufacturing consent". However, it does give me pause.

[longnow]

You are absolutely wrong when it comes to Keith Olbermann.
The fact that don't distinguish between Olbermann and
O'Reilly makes me even sadder than sad. Keith gives
entertainment and real news. News that also tells the
truth w/o pretending balance to a position that is a lie
as in NPR. If you like your news monochrome and
nice to the point of being dead as in 'that Jimmy Lehrer
and Mr. McCain are such nice men and have such
a nice, pleasant way about them. None of that
jarring music like that bad man Olbermann'.
If you read my post please check for sppellingly.
I'll take Amy Goodman anytime.

[whoissilvia]

"Olbermann and O'Reilly are not that different. They're just at the opposite end of the spectrum."

If the spectrum is from a solid grasp of history and current events to pulling random facts out of your bunghole, I agree, they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[jah2008]

I'm usually the one who defends Olbermann and agree with a lot of what Olbermann says. However, if you step back and look at it objectively, Olbermann and O'Reilly are not that different. They're just at the opposite end of the spectrum. They're both clowns nonethless. If I'm going to watch newstainment, I'd rather watch the Daily Show. It's the only honest show on TV.