Your Feedback

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

I have been disappointed to hear the same old boring NPR talk radio on your station on weekdays and weeknights... So happy to hear what I would call the iconic WCMU music on Sunday Evening ... please expand that to all days and hours... E**c H*******z e********z@gmail.com

I have been tracking about six news sources since June when I had a crisis of conscience over the fact that my taxes were going to support the IDF bombings in Gaza which have primarily been women and children. As a result of that two months' research, I believe that Netanyahu is pursuing a slow genocide of the Gazan civilian population. CNN does good investigative journalism, as, of course, Reuters and AP do. Unfortunately I have been disappointed in PBS coverage. I also read the supporters' page as it scrolls and the reason seems obvious. I post regularly on FB the info I find on those three sources, citing their names. Amanpour&Co did an interview with an Israeli peace group leader in which she acknowledged her government's culpability in their repetitive declaration of evacuation zones, then bombing schools and hospitals or so close to the hospitals that the ambulances couldn't get to the entrances. West Bank Israeli settlers and the IDF there have killed over 600 Palestinians. So while the world debates whether Iran might expand the war, Israel is expanding the war into the West Bank. Forty former IDF reservists have stated publicly that they will not return to a war zone where the commanders appear fearful of the aggression of the troops they supervise. 80% of the buildings in Gaza have been destroyed. All the water wells have been bombed. There are no trash, garbage or sewage services anymore. That is what caused the polio virus to flourish in the puddles near the tent cities where children drink dangerous water because they are so dehydrated. Three potatoes cost $41. The majority of the hospitals have ceased to function; there are eight for 2.3 million people. 45 US doctors who volunteered came back to write a letter to Biden which testified that every one of them treated children with TWO sniper wounds to the head or chest. If it was anyone except Israel, this would be called murder. If Putin is a bad actor for annexing Crimea, why is Netanyahu not a bad actor for annexing the Golan Heights? Finally, the tunnels in Gaza are ten feet in diameter; if the IDF only wanted to eliminate Hamas, all they had to do was go into the tunnels. Even Israel admits that one third of the original hostages is likely dead. And today, hostage families tried to enter Gaza to make the point that when the government drags its feet in peace/ceasefire negotiations, it is Israeli hostages which suffer. If Netanyahu was serious about a ceasefire why did he have the primary Hamas negotiator in Iran murdered? His first political murder was in 1993. But the US is content to allow him to holler "terrorists" every time dozens or hundreds of Palestinians are bombed. I believe that the world will have to answer for this slow genocide and then, will the Allies pretend horror as if they never had any hint of the devastation? If they don't, they are not watching the news I'm watching. All that is required for history to repeat itself is that we do not learn the lessons of history. It's not killing camps or machetes, but it is genocide of a people and "Bibi" wants to say the Torah supports his actions. I've had three semesters of Old Testament and I can tell you that the destruction of the Canaanites in the O.T. are not in the Torah. They are in the subsequent books of Joshua and the first half of the book of Judges. Rev. M**y Z****r

I'm trying to share feedback with PBS but cannot get a response. In addition I tried to email executives and those emails were blocked. I don't expect a speedy personal response but they won't even receive the emails? I thought this was a publicly funded organization?

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

Your coverage and support of the extremist and dictators is abhorrent and your undermining position interviews on President Biden are shameful. I guess money talks over values and you could care less that if extremists are elected your job will be controlled by a dictator

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.

The public needs to be made aware of Trump’s Project 2025 plan for our country. Please expose his propaganda and how it will impact all of us.

I've had to stop listening to npr on Sundays because of this woman's terrible voice. Grating, immature, high-pitched, and just awful to hear. Not to mention the terrible grammar and squealing in unscripted sections (i.e., interviews) it just sounds like amater hour. In contrast i do love Audie Cornish's voice (smooth delivery, calm tone) When a voice on radio is soooo unprofessional and distracting, one stops hearing the content and only the voice. It's very dispiriting to have to give up Sunday npr.