This is the Friday night primetime news panel program that began
broadcasting as Washington Week in Review from WETA-TV in Washington. It
was distributed by the old National Educational Television between 1967
and 1970, and then since 1970 by PBS.

In recent years, the hosts haven't lasted very long. Yamiche Alcindor
was host for less than two years till February 2023; she'd been White
House correspondent for NewsHour through the end of 2021 but then became
a correspondent for NBC News, keeping her Wasington Week hosting duties.

While Alcindor was host, WETA transferred production to NewsHour
Productions, the production company created after MacNeil and Lehrer
gave up ownership of NewsHour. I guess that means it uses a studio at
the Virginia suburban studio of NewsHour.

There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
panel will always include one of their writers.

New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 11:25:48 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> This is the Friday night primetime news panel program that began
> broadcasting as Washington Week in Review from WETA-TV in Washington. It
> was distributed by the old National Educational Television between 1967
> and 1970, and then since 1970 by PBS.
>
> In recent years, the hosts haven't lasted very long. Yamiche Alcindor
> was host for less than two years till February 2023; she'd been White
> House correspondent for NewsHour through the end of 2021 but then became
> a correspondent for NBC News, keeping her Wasington Week hosting duties.
>
> While Alcindor was host, WETA transferred production to NewsHour
> Productions, the production company created after MacNeil and Lehrer
> gave up ownership of NewsHour. I guess that means it uses a studio at
> the Virginia suburban studio of NewsHour.
>
> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
> panel will always include one of their writers.
>
> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic

Did you know that the old Washington Week moderator Gwen Ifill died just six days after Trump was elected.

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 11:25:48 AM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> This is the Friday night primetime news panel program that began
> broadcasting as Washington Week in Review from WETA-TV in Washington.

> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
> panel will always include one of their writers.
>
> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic

https://www.google.com/search?q=jeffrey+goldberg+the+atlantic+advocate+Iraq+war

"Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’"{ - London Review of Books

The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby

tags: https://www.google.com/search?q=Jeffrey+Goldberg+Israeli+Army

tags2: your government has been hijacked

> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
> panel will always include one of their writers.
>
> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic

I saw this guy interviewed on one of the sane (non-Fox) news channels a
few days ago, he seems agreeable.

I guess the thing that shocks me the most is they didn't feel obliged
to pick a woman host after a long line of women hosts.

I don't know if The Atlantic is kicking in any money to PBS under this
new branding deal, but the weekly plug and exposure alone across the
wide PBS network of stations is valuable.

The right will probably bitch about it regardless.

On 8/12/2023 10:24 AM, super70s wrote:
>> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey
>> Goldberg,
>> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
>> panel will always include one of their writers.
>>
>> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic
>
> I saw this guy interviewed on one of the sane (non-Fox) news channels a
> few days ago, he seems agreeable.
>
> I guess the thing that shocks me the most is they didn't feel obliged to
> pick a woman host after a long line of women hosts.
>
> I don't know if The Atlantic is kicking in any money to PBS under this
> new branding deal, but the weekly plug and exposure alone across the
> wide PBS network of stations is valuable.
>
> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>
The right don't even watch pbs.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
>> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
>> panel will always include one of their writers.
>>
>> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic
>
> I saw this guy interviewed on one of the sane (non-Fox) news channels a
> few days ago, he seems agreeable.
>
> I guess the thing that shocks me the most is they didn't feel obliged
> to pick a woman host after a long line of women hosts.
>
> I don't know if The Atlantic is kicking in any money to PBS under this
> new branding deal, but the weekly plug and exposure alone across the
> wide PBS network of stations is valuable.
>
> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>
>

Damn straight. PBS shouldn’t even exist. Lots of people there should be
headed for prison instead.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>>There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
>>Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
>>panel will always include one of their writers.

>>New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic

>I saw this guy interviewed on one of the sane (non-Fox) news channels a
>few days ago, he seems agreeable.

>I guess the thing that shocks me the most is they didn't feel obliged
>to pick a woman host after a long line of women hosts.

Huh? Robert Costa of the National Review was host for 4 years after the
brilliant Gwen Ifill, host for more than a decade and a half, had gotten
too ill.

Gwen wasn't there because she ticked boxes. She was given a prominent
position because she was ready for it. I liked Paul Duke, who was there
for two decades, very professional and very neutral. I didn't care for
Ken Bode, but Gwen wasn't yet on tv. Before she became permanent host,
she'd filled in a number of times and I think on Meet the Press as well.

After Gwen died, and Costa left, you got Alcindor who wasn't even there
for two years and went to work for NBC anyway.

The problem with the show is that it became pretty clear during the
Costa era that the panelists were almost always rehearsed and prepared.
The show was no longer extemporaneous discussion. I got bored and
stopped being a regular viewer.

>I don't know if The Atlantic is kicking in any money to PBS under this
>new branding deal, but the weekly plug and exposure alone across the
>wide PBS network of stations is valuable.

They had a similar deal for a few years with National Journal, that one
of their writers would always be a panelist. Maybe there is some sort of
cost sharing but these shows are incredibly cheap to produce and you're
not going to get rich as a panelist.

>The right will probably bitch about it regardless.

I'm sorry but I have NEVER heard anybody make any political comments
about it. The show is beyond innocuous.

On 8/12/23 2:23 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
>>> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
>>> panel will always include one of their writers.
>>>
>>> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic
>>
>> I saw this guy interviewed on one of the sane (non-Fox) news channels a
>> few days ago, he seems agreeable.
>>
>> I guess the thing that shocks me the most is they didn't feel obliged
>> to pick a woman host after a long line of women hosts.
>>
>> I don't know if The Atlantic is kicking in any money to PBS under this
>> new branding deal, but the weekly plug and exposure alone across the
>> wide PBS network of stations is valuable.
>>
>> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>>
>>
>
> Damn straight. PBS shouldn’t even exist. Lots of people there should be
> headed for prison instead.
>

MAGA loves the idea of jailing people who haven't committed any crimes.
And then they refuse to prosecute those who clearly have.

Good old Fascism.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2023-08-12 18:29:36 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg,
>>> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
>>> panel will always include one of their writers.
>
>>> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic
>
>> I saw this guy interviewed on one of the sane (non-Fox) news channels a
>> few days ago, he seems agreeable.
>
>> I guess the thing that shocks me the most is they didn't feel obliged
>> to pick a woman host after a long line of women hosts.
>
> Huh? Robert Costa of the National Review was host for 4 years after the
> brilliant Gwen Ifill, host for more than a decade and a half, had gotten
> too ill.

I had forgotten about him, I remember Ifill pretty well but must not
have watched it often enough during Costa's tenure to remember him.

These days he's at CBS isn't he, I think he fills in for Nora O'Donnell
sometimes when she's off.

If he spent all those years hosting WW I guess he is qualified to
occasionally anchor a network news program, but I think of him now more
as an investigative journalist, guest panelist and author.

> The problem with the show is that it became pretty clear during the
> Costa era that the panelists were almost always rehearsed and prepared.
> The show was no longer extemporaneous discussion. I got bored and
> stopped being a regular viewer.

Yeah I'm not that interested in a rehash of the week's news, I always
thought Chuck Todd just wasted time when he did that at the beginning
of Meet The Press. People who watch that show are already informed
about what happened the previous week.

>> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>
> I'm sorry but I have NEVER heard anybody make any political comments
> about it. The show is beyond innocuous.

I find that hard to believe, they've been bitching about everything on
PBS for many years because -- at some point at least -- it was getting
federal funding for "lib'rul biased shows."

Even if PBS is totally self-supporting now through donations (either
from wealthy philanthropists or average people through their
"beg-a-thons"), the right is still going to do it out of force of habit.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>On 2023-08-12 18:29:36 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>. . .

>>>The right will probably bitch about it regardless.

>>I'm sorry but I have NEVER heard anybody make any political comments
>>about it. The show is beyond innocuous.

>I find that hard to believe, they've been bitching about everything on
>PBS for many years because -- at some point at least -- it was getting
>federal funding for "lib'rul biased shows."

>Even if PBS is totally self-supporting now through donations (either
>from wealthy philanthropists or average people through their
>"beg-a-thons"), the right is still going to do it out of force of habit.

Unless you've actually heard said bitching about this specific show, why
would you make such a false claim in this thread? I'm not having a
discussion with you about shit you've just made up.

On 8/12/23 5:57 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 8/12/23 2:23 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>> There's now a merged editorial format with The Atlantic. Jeffrey
>>>> Goldberg,
>>>> Atlantic's editor, is now the host, appearing on air August 11, and the
>>>> panel will always include one of their writers.
>>>>
>>>> New show title, Washington Week with The Atlantic
>>>
>>> I saw this guy interviewed on one of the sane (non-Fox) news channels a
>>> few days ago, he seems agreeable.
>>>
>>> I guess the thing that shocks me the most is they didn't feel obliged
>>> to pick a woman host after a long line of women hosts.
>>>
>>> I don't know if The Atlantic is kicking in any money to PBS under this
>>> new branding deal, but the weekly plug and exposure alone across the
>>> wide PBS network of stations is valuable.
>>>
>>> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Damn straight. PBS shouldn’t even exist. Lots of people there should be
>> headed for prison instead.
>>
>
> MAGA loves the idea of jailing people who haven't committed any crimes.
>  And then they refuse to prosecute those who clearly have.
>
> Good old Fascism.

Good luck attempting to communicate with a gay dipshit who says "PBS
shouldn't even exist." I think his panties are in two bunches on this one.

On 2023-08-13 13:31:01 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-08-12 18:29:36 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>
>> . . .
>
>>>> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>
>>> I'm sorry but I have NEVER heard anybody make any political comments
>>> about it. The show is beyond innocuous.
>
>> I find that hard to believe, they've been bitching about everything on
>> PBS for many years because -- at some point at least -- it was getting
>> federal funding for "lib'rul biased shows."
>
>> Even if PBS is totally self-supporting now through donations (either
>> from wealthy philanthropists or average people through their
>> "beg-a-thons"), the right is still going to do it out of force of habit.
>
> Unless you've actually heard said bitching about this specific show, why
> would you make such a false claim in this thread? I'm not having a
> discussion with you about shit you've just made up.

Fine with me. And I didn't make the right bitching about PBS up.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>On 2023-08-13 13:31:01 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 2023-08-12 18:29:36 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>>>>The right will probably bitch about it regardless.

>>>>I'm sorry but I have NEVER heard anybody make any political comments
>>>>about it. The show is beyond innocuous.

>>>I find that hard to believe, they've been bitching about everything on
>>>PBS for many years because -- at some point at least -- it was getting
>>>federal funding for "lib'rul biased shows."

>>>Even if PBS is totally self-supporting now through donations (either
>>>from wealthy philanthropists or average people through their
>>>"beg-a-thons"), the right is still going to do it out of force of habit.

>>Unless you've actually heard said bitching about this specific show, why
>>would you make such a false claim in this thread? I'm not having a
>>discussion with you about shit you've just made up.

>Fine with me. And I didn't make the right bitching about PBS up.

We weren't discussion PBS in general. You made shit up about right-wing
political complaints against this show. In reality, they pay it no mind.

On 2023-08-13 18:13:39 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-08-13 13:31:01 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-08-12 18:29:36 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>>>>> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>
>>>>> I'm sorry but I have NEVER heard anybody make any political comments
>>>>> about it. The show is beyond innocuous.
>
>>>> I find that hard to believe, they've been bitching about everything on
>>>> PBS for many years because -- at some point at least -- it was getting
>>>> federal funding for "lib'rul biased shows."
>
>>>> Even if PBS is totally self-supporting now through donations (either
>>>> from wealthy philanthropists or average people through their
>>>> "beg-a-thons"), the right is still going to do it out of force of habit.
>
>>> Unless you've actually heard said bitching about this specific show, why
>>> would you make such a false claim in this thread? I'm not having a
>>> discussion with you about shit you've just made up.
>
>> Fine with me. And I didn't make the right bitching about PBS up.
>
> We weren't discussion PBS in general. You made shit up about right-wing
> political complaints against this show. In reality, they pay it no mind.

You have some emotional attachment to Washington Week, who knew.

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>On 2023-08-13 18:13:39 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>
>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-08-13 13:31:01 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-08-12 18:29:36 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>>>>> The right will probably bitch about it regardless.
>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry but I have NEVER heard anybody make any political comments
>>>>>> about it. The show is beyond innocuous.
>>
>>>>> I find that hard to believe, they've been bitching about everything on
>>>>> PBS for many years because -- at some point at least -- it was getting
>>>>> federal funding for "lib'rul biased shows."
>>
>>>>> Even if PBS is totally self-supporting now through donations (either
>>>>> from wealthy philanthropists or average people through their
>>>>> "beg-a-thons"), the right is still going to do it out of force of habit.
>>
>>>> Unless you've actually heard said bitching about this specific show, why
>>>> would you make such a false claim in this thread? I'm not having a
>>>> discussion with you about shit you've just made up.
>>
>>> Fine with me. And I didn't make the right bitching about PBS up.
>>
>> We weren't discussion PBS in general. You made shit up about right-wing
>> political complaints against this show. In reality, they pay it no mind.
>
>You have some emotional attachment to Washington Week, who knew.

No. I put Washington Week on Subject because I wanted to discuss Washington
Week. If your contribution of lies is ever needed in future for a Usenet
thread, I'll put it on Subject.