Democratic National Convention

The PBS coverage of the Democratic National Convention was a disservice to American voters. Instead of broadcasting the entire convention live, PBS viewers were subjected to endless by the same old political analysts giving their personal views. Live coverage of the convention was dominated by these comments and the live coverage was only of the speakers, etc., that PBS decided was important for viewers. This coverage shows how completely out of touch PBS is with reality and a prime reason why PBS is ignored by the majority of Americans. What PBS fails to grasp is that the DNC is the ONLY time viewers like myself can hear and see rising stars, long time members of Congress, future presidential candidates, Democratic supporters from all walks of life and conventioneers speak. It is also one of the only opportunities we have to see more of these people than we do on regular news broadcasts, or, for the few of us who still read newspapers, as names in op ed columns or the few news articles that manage to creep into newspapers and other news sources these days. Having to look at Amwa Navaz's expressionless face and hear her pose her "difficult" questions is cruel and unusual punishment. I have no doubts about her intelligence or diligence, but her TV personality is so very dull. She should not be in front of the camera, but carrying out her news analysis behind the scenes. Her TV persona makes her seem entirely without any personality or empathy and it is incredibly boring. Having her and Geoff Bennett and as many as six other commentators opine about what they think is important is detrimental of democracy because it doesn't give viewers an opportunity to form their own opinions. Instead we have opinions force fed to us by commentators. My husband and I switched to ABC and found their coverage more comprehensive. They did not have the constant panel discussions, but had much more live footage showing us what what was happening at the convention. Somehow I think their coverage methodology was cheaper than yours to broadcast. You may think the roll call of delegates too boring for PBS viewers, but it is a rare chance to see and hear Americans from each and every state. All the presenters at the DNC were important and I felt cheated because I was only allowed to see the ones PBS, in its infinite lack of wisdom, deemed important. ABC's coverage was so superior to PBS's! Somehow I think it would be cheaper for PBS to use fewer commentators and just let us see the convention as it unfolds. My husband and I don't watch network television or cable for that matter, preferring to stream. We watch the PBS News Hour on Fridays. We depend on our online subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York Times and other online news sources. I can remember the last DNC convention covered by Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill with just the two of them, for the most part, providing viewers with their comments. Their coverage was so far superior to your inane and boring panel treatment. I realize Judy and Gwen were impossible to replace, but surely their are newscasters who are more personable who are willing to work for PBS. While my husband and I have been contributors to PBS for a long time, we are beginning to think we are wasting our money. Sincerely, J*******n P***e