Talk:The McLaughlin Group

US sponsorship

I'm from the UK and watch this show on CNBC Europe. I've heard that the broadcasts on US public service stations are sponsered by General Electric (which owns NBC). I'm just curious that this seems to be primarily going out on public broadcasting channels yet is also carried on CNBC Europe and some US NBC stations. Is it simply because GE/NBC are covering some of the production cost? Or is there a more complicated arrangement? -- Matthew Humphreys 10:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on which part of the US you live in, and which television market decides to broadcast it. In Seattle, it's on public television, but on the east coast, it is probably wayy different.

Also, the PBS broadcast, NBC stations, and the video and audio podcast ALL have commercials.

Stacks77 14:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)In Southern New Jersey (where I live), on Cablevision, The McLaughlin Group airs on NBC Saturday mornings, 11:30am, just after Meet The Press.

In the erstwhile Hosiery and/Furniture Capital of the Cosmos, High Point, NC, the program aired on UNC/PBS each Sunday at 12:00 a.m. Item! Alas, it is no more. More's the pity. D the B of C.

Recent Changes

It's been a while since I've seen the show, so I can't speak to whether or not this Monica creature has replaced Tony Blankley - somebody who has more access to watch it than I do (on at a remarkably terrible time on my PBS affiliate) can address that. However, the plagiarism cite and indictment have nothing to do with the show, and if they are to be added to the encyclopedia, I suspect they would be better housed in the article on the subject herself.Cool moe dee 345 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Any one know why Tony left?139.140.178.121 (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Far as I know, his contract was up. They don't do this show for charity, you know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It finally happened. The "Monica creature" finally gave a compliment to President Obama... sort of. I was about to fall on the floor when she said, "I have to give him credit for" ... but my exhuberance was short lived as she continued... "giving credit to President Bush for," putting in place the flu preparedness procedures. I won't comment on why the latter was ridiculous, as it would be political and inappropriate here. But I do think it's valid to continue to say that she simply will never say anything good about the current administration. --Njsustain (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Without going into specifics, I want to note that both Crowley and Buchanan's remarks lately (within the show, but especially elsewhere) have taken away the legitimacy of the group. I have no idea why McLaughlin keeps them on, why Eleanor agrees to stay as the sole voice of moderation, and believe that when McLaughlin can't go on... which, let's face it, can't be that many more years... there will be no interest in continuing this farce. Sorry for giving an opinion, but this is the talk page, and it is a verifiable fact that this voracious watcher of ten years has switched to "Meet the Press." Njsustain (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OR

There are a great deal of unverified claims/OR in this article. Pretty much every section is lacking when it comes to citations (there are only two for the entire article). --Tom (talk - email) 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, the show is the reference. Some statements could use verification, and it would be nice if individual dates could be put up, but the show is the show. Watch it if you need a reference.Njsustain (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservative versus Liberal?

I'm curious, as someone relatively new to the McLaughlin Group

Here, and about the internet, the McLaughlin group is advertised as a balanced format, two conservatives, two liberals, and of course McLaughlin himself.

However, when looking up the actual pundits/guests, McLaughlin is unabashedly conservative, with typically three conservative commentators and Eleanor Clift. I'm watching an episode right now with Monica Crowley, Mort Zuckerman, and Michelle Bernard. Adding in Mclaughlin, this makes an 80% conservative bias to the show. Other shows have been similarly balanced.

Is this a recent phenomenon on the show, a statistical oddity, or what - from what I can see, it doesn't seem to be as 'balanced' as "Hannity and Colmes"?

Thank you - Jonnan

Eleanor can probably stand up better to everyone else than Colmes stands up to Hannity. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how someone would think McLaughlin was a conservative from the most recent show. This was his summary of the Bush/Cheney legacy:

1. GOP house majority gone
2. Tanked the dollar's value
3. Red ink in the federal budget
4. US/Iraq quagmire
5. US recession and inflation
6. Then skedaddled out of town

After Eleanor suggested that he omitted "shredding the constitution," he claimed that he didn't have room to include it.

Mort is clearly an economic conservative, but early in the show he brought up the government's inability to solve America's health and energy problems. He then made a point about how incompetently the bush administration tried to achieve its policies, after John discussed his list. What makes the show unbalanced is that there are two permanent conservative panellists(Buchanan and Crowley) and only one permanent liberal panellist(Eleanor). Clarence Page has been on the show frequently, and at least he seems somewhat on the left (or at least far left from the regular conservative panellists).

Still, it is quite irritating to hear republican talking points echoed on the show. Yesterday, Crowley tried to defend the Bush administration by arguing that they still had a few months left to improve their image/legacy. McLaughlin even joined in, by concluding that the Bush administration should be praised simply because America has not experienced another massive attack since 9/11.

Bernard didn't say much, but she has Fox News written all over her, even though she apparently works for MSNBC.

Yesterday, neither Mort or John defended either party, so I would say that the conservative percentage was only 67%. Rosenbluh (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that Buchanan is his own man, an old-fashioned "America firster". He's had lots of issues with the Bushes, not the least of which has been his opposition to both the 1991 and the 2003 wars with Iraq. He's no Bush kiss-up by any means. Crowley? Well, she's a Bush kiss-up, just as was the previous occupant of her chair, Tony Blankely. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Buchanan may have disagreed with Republican presidents at times (and pointed out W's incompetence), but he is still an ideological conservative. He is totally in line with the three legs of the modern conservative movement:

1. Militarism (generally without regard towards diplomacy, civil rights, international law, human life or cost)
2. Economic conservatism (always argue in favor of privatisation; against unions; ignore externalities esp. environmental)
3. Religious wing (abortion as the only issue; into removing separation of church and state; obsessed with using the government to regulate marriage)

You can argue that Buchanan is a constitutionalist, a true conservative or something more ideological, but just because a card-carrying member of the recent neocon movement, doesn't mean that he's not basically in line with 97% of Republicans/conservatives on 97% of the issues. He may fashion himself as an anti-interventionist, but that doesn't stop him from endorsing torture or excusing the Bush administration from bypassing FISA to spy on Americans or encourage sabre-rattling against Iran even if says that he doesn't think we should send troops there. It's great that he's got his own opinion on some issues, but he's a mouthpiece on all the others. Rosenbluh (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply concerned about the continued theme in the articles of the McLaughlin group being a moderate debate forum, when the actual guests don't seem to measure up to that on any regular basis - That isn't to imply that conservatives are insane - Simply because Mort Zuckerman is conservative isn't to imply he has nothing worth hearing.

However, in my recent period of watching it (Only since February, so this may be a statistical anomaly rather than a long term trend) when you actually look up the politics of the guest, with the exception of Eleanor Clift, it's almost exclusively conservative viewpoints. I also have some opinions about the tendency of McLaughlin to interrupt Eleanor Clift to an extent I haven't seen with other guests, but I haven't the foggiest how to measure that objectively.

That isn't to say the conservatives are fools - I generally like hearing from Mort Zuckerman, and I respect Pat Buchanan despite completely disagreeing with him on 99% of, well, anything. But the fact that conservative are not all of one mind even on things like the Iraq war and the Bush administration doesn't change the fact that three conservatives, a conservative moderator, and a liberal is a rather unbalanced group for a supposedly centrist, balanced format.

Or, at least it is if this is more than an outlier. It may be a statistical bump, which is why I asked other opinions.

Jonnan (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the panelists, in general, are not as easily pigeonholed as they are on Hannity and Colmes, for example, where you can pretty much predict what they're going to say. McLaughlin, in particular, is pretty good at playing devil's advocate when he wants to, in order to evoke responses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You bring up some good points. I wasn't really addressing your real question, "how does the WP article describe the panellists?", but I will now.

Frankly, the first two paragraphs of the article are crap. I may agree with many of the statements describing the tone of the show, but they have no place in an encyclopaedic article, unless specifically linked with reasonable references. The discussion page really shouldn't be used for my ranting about my opinion of the subjects, unless I have something germane to say about the use of sources to form a subjective description of the topic.

To remedy this situation, I was tempted to just start deleting the most heinously subjective and unsubstantiated portions. But I wouldn't mind if others took the initiative.

However, even though my opinions should have no direct bearing bearing on the article, I should respond briefly to your points.

• As a general rule, the panellists aren't as partisan as pundits on Fox and other such networks. However, from what I've seen on the show Mort doesn't seem like a republican groupie. Basically, he comes across as a economic conservative who values business-friendly taxation, a balanced federal budget and against wasteful government spending. He may be a loon or a constitution-shredder, but I couldn't tell from his appearance on TMG.
• The practice of John interrupting Eleanor has been going on for decades, as far as I can tell. I've only been watching it regularly in the last year though. But, I've gotten used to it and Eleanor usually gets her point in. One thing I noticed, however, is that she was able to finish most of her points this weekend with Buchanan gone.
• I agree that it isn't quantitatively balanced from an ideological POV. Still, Eleanor holds her own. And, McLaughlin usually makes a leftist/progressive argument or two when things are more weighted right than usual (as you just noted). I consider the situation tolerable, since its the best weekly round-table that I know of. (An exception would be George Stephanopoulos's (sp?) This Week, but only when he has Robert Reich and Maureen Dowd on as panellists to counteract the super-irritating George Will.)

Rosenbluh (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to try and improve the article. I haven't seen This Week since Brinkley left, but as I recall the most irritating thing about Will was that, due to being a number of IQ points higher than anyone on the panel (with the possible exception of Brinkley), he was usually able to frame an argument in such a way that it was hard to refute. He's also irritating to read in Newsweek (thankfully alternating with a liberal) but I liked his comment that Hillary and Obama are "about as different as the Everly Brothers". Yeh, that's basically it. If nothing else, this should be an interesting race to watch, with both parties having candidates they don't necessarily like very well, and each maybe secretly hoping the other side will win so they'll have someone to blame. Back to McLaughlin - the tricky part gets to be citing authoritative and neutral sources to define the politics of its panelists. Good luck with that. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually think that both parties really do like their candidates. I don't know where you got a different impression. And I don't see anyone on the left secretly hoping for McCain to win. (And I have no idea who the Everly brothers are, but one could easily make the same statement about two mainstream candidates from any party (and any historical pairing).) Back to McLaughlin - sources don't have to be neutral, as long as their bias is taken into consideration. But I agree with your point. Rosenbluh (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

These Everly Brothers, major recording stars before your time, known for singing in perfect harmony, which was the point of George Will's joke. I guess I've been mis-led by self-styled Republican spokesmen such as Rush Limbaugh, who said McCain's nomination would destroy the Republican Party; or what's-her-face, the skinny blonde who makes Bill O'Reilly look like a liberal, who was talking about voting for Hillary if it came to that. Anne Coulter, that's it. I'm being somewhat facetious about rooting for the other side. But I'll tell you this - monolithic government is dangerous. It brought us Vietnam and it brought us the Iraq war. Assuming the Dems clobber the Reps in the Congressional elections, it might be good to have some balance to that, in the White House. In any case, I'm sure the McLaughlin article could stand some improvement, with some broadened sourcing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Monica Crowley is the only current panelist who is a boot-licking, party line towing Bush-lackey. So much so that despite her obvious physical attractiveness she makes me want to puke into the nearest potted plant. She makes me really miss Tony Blankley, whose articulate and intelligent viewpoints earned my respect despite our different ideological positions. Crowley is useless and the sooner she's gone, the better.

As for the ideological positions of the other guests, I would argue that McLaughlin isn't as hardcore a conservative as others have claimed. He often takes liberal and even progressive stands on various topics, although this could simply be an attempt to play devil's advocate. Buchanan can certainly be labeled a conservative, although I respect his well reasoned arguments even if I usually disagree with everything he says. Clift provides the liberal viewpoint, as others have mentioned, as does Clarence Page, another of my favourite panelists. As for Zuckerman, he's not that bad for a billionaire. I really enjoyed the ribbing he took from the other panelists on last week's show in regard to his riches.

Buchanan does not fit the conservative mold so well anymore. When he uses the term "neo-con", I don't hear much affection in his voice. He's really not a libertarian, and he's certainly no liberal. I think the category he best fits is "America-firster". If you keep that label in your head, everything he says fits that description. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty obvious (to me anyway) that John was in the tank for Hillary. He seemed genuinely frustrated about her inability to clinch the nomination. The point of me saying that... well I just don't think your can pigeon hole him as a "conservative". He's really a switch hitter on the show, and tends to pull it in the direction he feels it's lacking that particular week.

I would also agree that Monica Crowleys contract can't end soon enough. My wife and I grow very weary of her towing the line. Even Buchanan gives her that "look" now & then. I used to wish the same for Tony, and that might have had something to do with his departure. At this point... I wish he was back! Ashinn11 (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this show weekly for about 10 years now... very rarely miss an episode, and then watch it or read the transcript online. Personally, I feel that Eleanor has held up the Liberal side virtually on her own, and does quite a good job. Especially so since Larry O'Donnell faded out (he rarely makes an appearance anymore--and was getting a bit insane in his later appearances). Pat is clearly a conservative, sometimes sickeningly so about some issues, but will call a spade a spade even if it is a Repug, and admits when inevitable change is coming even if he doesn't like it. I respect him a lot for that. Pat and Eleanor often agree--on the other hand, for the two ladies to agree is quite a rare thing. Monica usually tows the Repug line and will find virtually any excuse to do so. She childishly refuses to ever recognize anything positive about Democratic leaders. However, I admit she is less a Republican yesman than her predecessor, that being the one-track mind of Tony Blank-ly. I have a feeling he is gone becaue John was tired of his blind and boring bowing to "W". At least Monica (who thankfully toned down the super-glam hair and makeup after her first few weeks) can eloquently spin her viewpoint, as much as I may disagree with it. Clarence is usually worthy of being "stage left," but Mort is so fiscally conservative that he should really be sitting stage-right, possibly switching places with Pat at times, possibly sitting on Monica's lap at other times. As for the big man himself, I think that he is conservative, but does not allow this to interfere with his position as moderator. On some topics he seems oddly out of touch or uninformed. In any case, no one will ever be able to replace him simultaneously in professionalism and personality. Pardom me for using first names, ladies and gentlemen, but I was trying to capture the show's vibe in my discussion.Njsustain (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a good capsule summary. The thing I like about the show is that the panelists are not so easy to predict as with the late-unlamented "Crossfire", although it would be interesting to see what sparks would fly if Stewart visited the show. I consider Buchanan to be kind of heroic for defying the GOP line on the Iraq wars. As it turns out, he was right all along. Another thing to consider is that McLaughlin, Clift and Buchanan have been there so long they're probably drinking buddies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sponsors and Origin

The show which aired August 19, 2016 was introduced (iirc) by the president of a CHICAGO public tv station, claiming that the original show began in CHICAGO. If I've got that right. Inexplicably, the website video is NOT of the show I watched (it also is a show from 1985, but iirc the show I saw was from 1982 but definitely not the same one!) nor does the guy from the TV station introduce it. Anyway, this page claims it has always been out of Washington D.C. so we have a conflict. Also the link used to justify the show's Washington origin is dead (although his Washington Post obituary says the same thing...) Perhaps I've got it wrong...He was on AM Radio in 1980 and was fired from WRC AM (D.C.) "eventually" (according to his wikipedia page) so I may be wrong but I'd swear that the guy said Chicago... plus, that would explain the discrepancy between the show that aired on WVIZ (Cleveland, OH) 8/19/2016 and the show available on the Group's site: a difference in who owns the rights to the show, perhaps.173.191.76.80 (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. On the McLaughlin Group website and the McLaughlin Group YouTube page there is a show posted which originally aired 7/20/1985. On the McLaughlin Group Fan Club Channel on YouTube there is a show posted from Chicago which aired in 1983 and it is introduced by a Public Television spokesman. There are also early CSPAN clips posted on the Fan Club Channel as well as on CSPAN. These postings may help resolve your confusion. I am fairly certain the show originated in Washington, D.C. as most of these types of shows can more easily report the news by being inside the beltway and close to the action. The reporters are on their beat. I believe Morton Kondracke, Jack Germond, Robert Novak, and Fred Barnes were the original lineup and they all would've been working in D.C. and not in Chicago. Dr. McLaughlin himself is from Rhode Island and ran for Senate there and worked for the Nixon Administration in the White House. No one involved in the show has any ties to Chicago except for Clarence Page and I believe he spends most of his time in D.C. working for his Chicago newspaper employer. Ozmaweezer (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC) 09:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Cancelled?

Both the Youtube and Twitter have been deleted. Website stops on the December 25th. What is going on? Tom Rogan also removed reference to the group on his twitter wall. Devilmanozzy (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)