Your Feedback

Geogia's Raffensperger; Countering Fake News

The mainstream media (including PBS among other CPB programs) condemns the new voting legislation in Georgia as racist and disenfranchising minorities. It is, in fact, just the opposite. Here are the latest thoughts from Georgia Secretary of State, Republican Brad Raffensperger, who stood strong in 2020 and 2021, facing down Donald Trump's insistence that Georgia find him another 11,800 votes from the 2020 election. Raffensperger alienated Trump by explaining the votes were not there.

In response to the push by President Biden and Chuck Schumer to have the Senate force through the over-reaching Democratic-only supported nationally-controlled voting plan, Raffensperger today (Jan.13, 2022), explained in the Washington Examiner:

"People need to understand in Georgia, we have the appropriate, I think, almost the perfect balance of accessibility," he continued. "Because we have photo ID, we allow you to have all three forms of voting: no-excuse absentee voting, you have to request the ballot, [and] we have signature match and photo ID on that; you show up to vote, we have photo ID for that; you show up on Election Day, we also have that. So we give people lots of opportunity, which has led to record turnout and record registration. I think we've really struck the appropriate balance."

Today, Raffensperger also endorsed launching a new bipartisan presidential commission, similar to 2005's bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission, to make new federal recommendations on the issue and even suggested former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice serve as the Republican co-chair. Currently both Democrats & Republicans recognize that Georgia's new law offers more flexibility to all voters than does Delaware's (Biden's home state), New York's (Schumer's one state), and a number of other states.

CPB should present both sides of controversial issues like this.

We are devoted pbs fans but the fundraising goes on forever to the point that we are increasing unhappy and wondering why we keep watching. What’s up? Is this really necessary?

I am a 77yo retiree, actively follow many news sources, a longtime member of PBS (WTVS Detroit. I have become increasingly disenchanted by the Newshour.Briefly, it now reminds me of why so many people no longer have a daily newspaper delivered. With so many events happening worldwide and everything available almost immediately online, the Newshour seems woefully out of touch. Long segments with two talking heads going on and on ad nauseum. You have a Full Hour to cover a very busy news cycle and I feel it is mostly wasted. In a word - Boring! Whoever is responsible for the model you are using is out of touch. I wait for the BBC news segment which follows my local broadcast. In a half hour I get more news, from a European perspective, than most of what the Newshour delivers. I continue to be a member of PBS, but mainly for the Nature shows, Frontline, etc. I offer these comments with a sincere hope that you will consider what I have said. Thank You.

As a leftist, PBS is actually right wing. The only reporters PBS seems to interview are from Washington Post, which is a fascistic propaganda outlet. Why does your organization find it acceptable to I interview people from an organization that wants elites to have EVEN MORE CONTROL???

I normally listen to the BBC on 88.7 on my way home from work (3:15am). The last 2 nights there has been only static, no programming whatsoever. What happened?

capehart has many good points-but his bias is thickly palpable-David Brooks is a national treasure, IMO. Hopefully, Capehart can benefit from his exposure to the wisdom of Brooks…

I know it’s an opinion segment, but having a progressive like Jonathan Capehart as one of the commentators makes it uninteresting. You know what his opinion is going to be on every issue before he even starts talking, whereas Brooks surprises me a lot of the time with his straddling of the political divide. I felt like Shields shared that same consideration for both sides of the fence and would criticize the left just as easily as the right. Please consider a less-polarized personality if you ever decide to replace him.

Regardless of what NPR program that I happen to turn on, other than Marketplace (and, sometimes even it), every subject, interview, and opinion are left-leaning, and sometimes to an extreme.

Although a liberal bias is nothing new at NPR, I have been listening to NPR for almost forty years and I can honestly say that there is essentially no reporting or interview that supports anything that has a conservative point of view, or does it incorporate an objective discussion with anyone who represents a more conservative position on a subject.

NPMSNBC or CNNPR would be more befitting than NPR, because NPR only takes the side of a portion of the "public".

After the Juan Williams debacle, you would think that NPR would have changed its ways, but sadly, nothing has improved in giving its listeners a truly objective source of information.