Your Feedback

Why won’t Channel 20 reward their staff rather than bring people in from elsewhere. You have several women doing a great job in the field, etc., and you ignore their service. Jaffnie Gray is a great example of bringing someone in and ignoring current staff. Even Brittany Spears who fills in when the morning staff and does a great job (and there were others there longer than her) was ignored. If she’s good enough to fill in why was she ignored. Also, if you choose to ignore current staff to bring others in, the least you could have someone choose her outfits. It’s sad to see her on air in such horrible outfits and it seems someone could help her!

Enjoy many programs on PBS. Today I was watching and again, in between shows you were promoting the Global Weirding series. Now I admit that I have not seen an actual episode, but I imagine many viewers do not watch the series but see the “ads” in between other shows. These ads promote a single, decidedly left leaning view and I would suggest you provide other views that present the fact that there are indeed two sides to the issue.

The MacNeil-Lehrer Report was a shiny city on the hill of the TV news wasteland. They would devote each show to a single topic, with opposing advocates being interviewed together. Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer did not tell us what to think. They trusted the viewers to listen to both sides of the issue and make up their own minds.

When Judy Woodruff took over the show, renamed as the PBS NewsHour, she destroyed the show. On virtually every issue, only one side is presented, the left-wing side. For the Friday weekly roundtable, they hired fake-conservative Jonathan Capehart as the counterpart to liberal David Brooks. Instead of offering conservative rebuttals to Brooks, Capehart seems to always agree with Brooks.

For years I have watched the PBS Newshour, I will no longer donate nor will I support CPB or PBS in any manner whatsoever. Your views are very misleading and one sided. Few people agree with you and your biased opinions. We are both red and blue in the USA and many of us are purple. We do not uphold your one sided values nor the misinformation that "you" are spreading. There are always 2 sides to a coin and 2 views surrounding each subject. This is what is wrong with the media nowadays. It is no longer fact based. Bad reporting. goodbye!

As KQED is the local part of CPB, I am addressing my comments to you as well. Margaret G*** G*****e.

KQED 2601 Mariposa St. San Francisco, CA 94110

January 2, 2023

Hello,

I have supported KQED to the tune of $20 monthly and an extra $200 in donations this past year. This totals $440.00. My income is less than $60,000 annually. I am a renter.

I give what I do to KQED because I watch the PBS NewsHour 4 or 5 times a week and 5 or 6 other shows on channels 9 and 54 each week. That’s less than12 hours maximum KQED time a week, though it is less during your multiple 2 week long periods of fundraising. I mute all your long fundraising spiels if I happen to be tuned into KQED. I mostly avoid KQED apart from the NewsHour when you are fundraising. The filler shows are old, repetitious and of no interest to me and possibly others, .

During regular programming can’t you find a better way to bridge from 50-60 minutes? I wonder why you don’t have more corporate sponsors? The endless replaying of sponsors’ appeals in not encouraging of support. I mute these as well.

If other people are like me, I can understand if you don’t achieve the level of personal donations you wish.

I find it disrespectful to me as a consumer that you never tell us, the public, how much money you are seeking to raise as you beg for money, Likewise, you never tell us how you use your funds. I can’t go out of my way to support an organization so irresponsible to the public it at least somewhat depends on.

With my limited income I support a small number of aid organizations, e.g. Doctors without Borders, UNHCR, Immigrants Rising, for example. They tend to be much more forthcoming regarding the why’s of their appeals , $ goals, and often their progress in reaching those goals. Why aren’t you?

I would be most grateful for and interested in receiving a response.

Two final comments: I’m copying this to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; I rarely listen to KQED radio.

Sincerely,

Margaret (G*** G*****e **** O** S****** Dr. San Anselmo, CA 94960 415-***-**86

The Savannah River is so polluted that most people who live in a large sector in Savannah and around Savannah live on bottled water, water gotten once a month at a person’s favorite spring! No one should swallow one drop of that water!