Your Feedback

My tax dollars are paying the salary of one of your PBS correspondents, Judy Woodruff, who abused her platform by lying about former President Trump during a live on-air broadcast on Monday, August 19, 2024. Judy Woodruff has been quoted as saying, “our democracy is as strong as it is because we have a free press, because we have a press that is dedicated to getting answers and getting facts and ultimately the truth” and “When you use the word ‘lie’ you’re saying someone said whatever they said with intention to mislead, to misrepresent.” As managing editor of PBS News Hour, Judy Woodruff either intentionally was not dedicated to doing her job of “getting facts and the truth” and made her statements with intent to mislead, or she is completely incompetent as an editor, anchor, and journalist, or both. Both of the above are highly likely, given her also being quoted as saying “her remarks had not been based on any original reporting on her part.” I am calling out fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement within the programs and operations of public broadcasting if Judy Woodruff is not fired immediately.

you should be defunded you are a joke1

Unbelievable statements about former President Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister...Trump wants War extended....Complete fabrications prior to the Presidential election seeks to create disinformation and lies, one can assume, to tarnish the former Presidents image. If you condone this type of Political bias and character assassination, I for one, will no longer monetarily support you. She should be dismissed !

Woodruff should have conducted special interviews years ago instead of uhing, hemming and hawing, forgetting the name of her guest as she stumbled through the “NewsHour”. I never watched the “NewsHour” because I found her so distracting. I now have watched several of her specials on the News Hour. Did she use a speech coach to change her delivery? Is she still paid $3 million a year? She was never a news anchor worth that amount, and is not worth that amount for her specials.

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

Greetings! I am a long time NPR listener and supporter, having enjoyed the variety in programming and radio personalities for over 30 years. The radio goes on in the morning and remains on throughout the day. Even when away, I leave NPR on to keep my pets company. Although Sunday Morning has been a favorite for years, I cringe when Ayesha Rascoe’s voice hits my ears. I am uncertain which sounds worse the extremely grating tone or the overly casual dialect. I especially struggle with her frequently dropping word endings (such as goin’ or Weeken’ Edition). I enjoy what she has to say, however, her presentation is difficult for me to hear. I value the balanced news that I receive via NPR but my Sunday mornings present a challenge. Thank you for this format and the opportunity to enable me to share my thoughts. Nancy Clinton

It sure was easy to see where all Six of them are politically …Their political views are Democratic.. I tried to watch their coverage…just could not…The HATE is so obvious…. Anxious to see how they cover the DNC.. True journalism is Who What When & Where. That ship sailed long ago….sad Tragic…Shame on Judy

After watching several news type programs on PBS, I can see how biased PBS is. I will NEVER EVER donate another dollar to PBS. I have enjoyed PBS programming for several years. But any news programs or political programs are so biased that it is laughable. Yet another news media outlet trying to persuade Americans how to vote by telling only one side of the story, gross exaggerations or by out and out lying about the side they do not endorse. How do you people sleep at night? You are dividing the country not uniting it. You should not allow biased shows to air on a network that you want your audience to pay for.

My wife and I are long time viewers of PBS News Hour. In fact the News Hour has been our "go to" news program for 35 years. This week for the first time ever we have switched channels while watching Amna interviewing NATO officials. We are weary of reporters constantly asking leading questions which reflect their personal opinion. PBS cannot continue to claim the high road with this kind of journalism. One might suggest you change your name to Fox PBS News Hour. Scab picking sensationalism has been creeping into the program for far too long. For your own survival you should arrest it now.